Strachan remains

[Bino's]

3 hours ago, Grim Jim said:

Joe Baker

wow

Years	Team	Apps	(Gls)
1957–1961	Hibernian	117	(102)
1961–1962	Torino	19	(7)
1962–1966	Arsenal	144	(93)

[TartanTon]

2 hours ago, Bino's said:

is round my way

anyone can go and join stirling counties mini rugby

assume will be much the same at club sides throughout the land

Try the west coast., We have one Rugby club (exclusive and not at all welcoming to riff raff) and one public rugby park, which is usually covered in dug sh*t for a population of nearly 100k

When i was a lad every school in the area had a Rugby team and a fair few had a rugby pitch to play on. Not one has  either of them now. (yes, the local club has a mini rugby team but the players nearly all come from the same area and attend the same school)

Where as when i was in school we had 20 lads playing Rugby weekly now we have virtually none. I have family abroad who have ran Rugby teams for youths for 40 years (at a high level, some of them have made it all the way into the national team) but they are taken aback by the sheer lack of interest in promoting rugby around the west. They took a team a tour over here years ago and i'm afraid to say many clubs snubbed them out of sheer snobbery. (I know not all clubs are like that and up to a couple of years ago i went to spectate at Rugby)

Each to their own. My opinion is the SRU are an aloof organisation.

[Bino's]

6 hours ago, TartanTon said:

Try the west coast., We have one Rugby club (exclusive and not at all welcoming to riff raff) and one public rugby park, which is usually covered in dug sh*t for a population of nearly 100k

When i was a lad every school in the area had a Rugby team and a fair few had a rugby pitch to play on. Not one has  either of them now. (yes, the local club has a mini rugby team but the players nearly all come from the same area and attend the same school)

Where as when i was in school we had 20 lads playing Rugby weekly now we have virtually none. I have family abroad who have ran Rugby teams for youths for 40 years (at a high level, some of them have made it all the way into the national team) but they are taken aback by the sheer lack of interest in promoting rugby around the west. They took a team a tour over here years ago and i'm afraid to say many clubs snubbed them out of sheer snobbery. (I know not all clubs are like that and up to a couple of years ago i went to spectate at Rugby)

Each to their own. My opinion is the SRU are an aloof organisation.

what about Ayr, do they not have a decent set up

lad in the office plays for helensburgh as well

[TartanTon]

10 hours ago, Bino's said:

what about Ayr, do they not have a decent set up

lad in the office plays for helensburgh as well

You have made my case. Helensburgh and Ayr. Both have areas of higher affluence than around most parts of the west.

[Marky]

19 hours ago, TartanTon said:

Try the west coast., We have one Rugby club (exclusive and not at all welcoming to riff raff) and one public rugby park, which is usually covered in dug sh*t for a population of nearly 100k

 

Your board name suggests you come from Greenock.

 

Isn't everything there covered in dug$hite?

 

[TartanTon]

13 minutes ago, Marky said:

Your board name suggests you come from Greenock.

 

Isn't everything there covered in dug$hite?

 

Just about aye.

[Marky]

20 minutes ago, TartanTon said:

Just about aye.

Don't worry mate it's not all bad.

 

At least you got to beat us this season for the first time in 300 years or whatever it was.

 

[Orraloon]

On 24/11/2016 at 8:08 AM, Parklife said:

I'm not. Most folk don't give a shite about rugby. The folk that do come from Edinburgh, Aberdeen or the Borders. Areas which massively voted No. 

They play rugby in Dundee and Glasgow as well you know.

[BraveheartGordon]

6 hours ago, TartanTon said:

You have made my case. Helensburgh and Ayr. Both have areas of higher affluence than around most parts of the west.

Clydebank, Kilmarnock and many others from less affluent backgrounds have rugby clubs and decent junior set ups.

Considering there are west of Scotland regional leagues, your ''west coast one club'' assertion is absolute nonsense.

[TartanTon]

3 hours ago, Marky said:

Don't worry mate it's not all bad.

 

At least you got to beat us this season for the first time in 300 years or whatever it was.

 

Ah, so i deduce a skunk.

[TartanTon]

27 minutes ago, BraveheartGordon said:

Clydebank, Kilmarnock and many others from less affluent backgrounds have rugby clubs and decent junior set ups.

Considering there are west of Scotland regional leagues, your ''west coast one club'' assertion is absolute nonsense.

And how many people are involved in rugby. How many facilities do they have? Its minimal. As i detailed when i was in school every school had a team, many schools had pitches. now thats been reduced to bit part rugby set ups.

Even my dung heap of a town has an affluent area and its virtually only that area that anyone who plays rugby now comes from. The club itself is of that ilk also.

It has built itself to be a selective sport. I neither wtach it now nor do i even support the so called national team.

[thplinth]

I used to enjoy watching Scotland play rugby but not really since it went pro. Been total shit since then IMHO.

What also pisses me off in rugby which is the total opposite of football is the endless rule tinkering to make the game 'better'. But it is not. Two things I fhucking hate are non contested scrums and lifting at line outs. What is the point then just makes them into mostly meaningless rituals. Might as well go down the road of league rugby and just make it a much quicker recycle.

 

[Super_Scotlandfan]

On 11/23/2016 at 1:13 PM, Parklife said:

Indeed. It's only hard to understand if you're hard of thinking. 

 

Either would I. He's not Scottish. That's the point of international football. 

Btw, I'm quoting you but not having a go. Just feel it's relevant to my post...it's more of a response to stuff I've read on the thread and the board elsewhere.  

I understand the thinking that the 'Scottishness' of the squad might be slightly diluted but no country on earth has a 100% born and bred squad with family lineage going back generations. It would be nice to have a team of James McFaddens but we'd never field a full strength team without utilizing the fact that hundreds of thousands of Scots have moved to another country. The world is becoming more international, there's millions of families living outside their country of birth - far more than say 50 years ago. I'd say that the granny rule and 5 year residency is pretty fair considering this. 

Scots are spreading their seed everywhere. It just happens that the majority of ex-pats do this in England (over 600 000 live there)...and because it's England our fans get excessive reservations about their sons/grandsons playing for us. I'm also not worried that potential players have played for another country at youth levels - I don't feel that it's fair to ask someone (who may have dual or even triple+ nationality in footballing terms) make a life decision at this age. It feels right that the decision is made at competitive senior level. 

Also, these eligible players have the right to turn us down. If these players don't feel that they have enough of a connection to us they say no. 

And the 'oh, but Scotland wouldn't have been his first choice' thing annoys me too. I don't see why the player in question can't play at his full ability and passion for us too - and if he doesn't don't call him up again. 

I like to use the analogy that if you were told/or you knew that your grandfather was say Faroese (realise they are about 10 places below us in the world rankings now!!) or Eritrian or whatever  you'd feel a connection to that country. You're still born and bred Scottish but that family link is still there. If you weren't being looked at to be called up for Scotland i'd say you'd take the opportunity to play for a country that you've got a strong connection to and passionately represent them. I don't see how these English born players aren't doing the same for us. 

[Orraloon]

26 minutes ago, TartanTon said:

And how many people are involved in rugby. How many facilities do they have? Its minimal. As i detailed when i was in school every school had a team, many schools had pitches. now thats been reduced to bit part rugby set ups.

Even my dung heap of a town has an affluent area and its virtually only that area that anyone who plays rugby now comes from. The club itself is of that ilk also.

It has built itself to be a selective sport. I neither wtach it now nor do i even support the so called national team.

You could say the same sort of stuff about football. OK, more folk play football than rugby, but that's always been the case. The proportions playing each sport are probably still about the same. The big problem nowadays is that far too many of the younger generations are too bone idle to play any sport at all. Which is one of the reasons we are becoming a nation of unfit, obese sugar junkies.

[TartanTon]

14 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

You could say the same sort of stuff about football. OK, more folk play football than rugby, but that's always been the case. The proportions playing each sport are probably still about the same. The big problem nowadays is that far too many of the younger generations are too bone idle to play any sport at all. Which is one of the reasons we are becoming a nation of unfit, obese sugar junkies.

if one sport is more popular and accessible than the other how can they be proportionally the same?

The issue of bone idle children has nothing to do with this as that affects every sport in just about every country. Rugby is simply not as accessible to many in Scotland as it should and could be and that is down to years of having no interest in doing anything about it. Yes, now they have mini rugby dotted around. too little too late. Rugby in Scotland is viewed by many in other countries as verging on an upper class exclusive sport (i don't fully agree but i cannot deny its packed full of people from certain sections of our society).

[Orraloon]

8 minutes ago, TartanTon said:

if one sport is more popular and accessible than the other how can they be proportionally the same?

 

The proportions of folk playing each sport one, two or three decades ago will be roughly the same as it is now.

There are just less youngsters taking part in all sports.

[BraveheartGordon]

1 hour ago, TartanTon said:

And how many people are involved in rugby. How many facilities do they have? Its minimal. As i detailed when i was in school every school had a team, many schools had pitches. now thats been reduced to bit part rugby set ups.

Even my dung heap of a town has an affluent area and its virtually only that area that anyone who plays rugby now comes from. The club itself is of that ilk also.

It has built itself to be a selective sport. I neither wtach it now nor do i even support the so called national team.

Exact numbers are difficult to come across as they aren't often published ''club by club'' but I have knowledge of both clubs and they have thriving mini sections with qualified coaches.

Clydebank just secured a grant to build an outstanding new facility, complete with facilities for other sports attached.

Clydebank is anything but an affluent area, the club is situated in Whitecrook which is certainly not an ''affluent'' area.

I feel your own personal experiences in Greenock have blighted your opinion of the sport nationally.

[Barney Rubble]

1 hour ago, Super_Scotlandfan said:

Btw, I'm quoting you but not having a go. Just feel it's relevant to my post...it's more of a response to stuff I've read on the thread and the board elsewhere.  

I understand the thinking that the 'Scottishness' of the squad might be slightly diluted but no country on earth has a 100% born and bred squad with family lineage going back generations. It would be nice to have a team of James McFaddens but we'd never field a full strength team without utilizing the fact that hundreds of thousands of Scots have moved to another country. The world is becoming more international, there's millions of families living outside their country of birth - far more than say 50 years ago. I'd say that the granny rule and 5 year residency is pretty fair considering this. 

Scots are spreading their seed everywhere. It just happens that the majority of ex-pats do this in England (over 600 000 live there)...and because it's England our fans get excessive reservations about their sons/grandsons playing for us. I'm also not worried that potential players have played for another country at youth levels - I don't feel that it's fair to ask someone (who may have dual or even triple+ nationality in footballing terms) make a life decision at this age. It feels right that the decision is made at competitive senior level. 

Also, these eligible players have the right to turn us down. If these players don't feel that they have enough of a connection to us they say no. 

And the 'oh, but Scotland wouldn't have been his first choice' thing annoys me too. I don't see why the player in question can't play at his full ability and passion for us too - and if he doesn't don't call him up again. 

I like to use the analogy that if you were told/or you knew that your grandfather was say Faroese (realise they are about 10 places below us in the world rankings now!!) or Eritrian or whatever  you'd feel a connection to that country. You're still born and bred Scottish but that family link is still there. If you weren't being looked at to be called up for Scotland i'd say you'd take the opportunity to play for a country that you've got a strong connection to and passionately represent them. I don't see how these English born players aren't doing the same for us. 

Thanks for the considered analysis - it's a realistic snapshot of reality that's bound to go against the grain with a few very good posters on here.

However, it's a fair reflection of the context that impacts selection policy in international football across the globe.

[Orraloon]

7 minutes ago, Barney Rubble said:

Thanks for the considered analysis - it's a realistic snapshot of reality that's bound to go against the grain with a few very good posters on here.

However, it's a fair reflection of the context that impacts selection policy in international football across the globe.

It is indeed a very good post and sums up the situation very well. It's not that difficult to understand really but some folk will continue to deliberately not understand it. 

As global travel has become easier, more and more folk travel the planet to sow their oats. More and more of the offspring from these encounters will be eligible to play for 2,  3,  4 or even more different countries. These people will have a choice of which country that they want to play for. Let them make the choice and then just let them get on with it, is my opinion.

Of course there will be some folk who think these "mixed nationality" kids shouldn't be allowed to play for any international team because their bloodline isn't pure enough.

 

 

[TartanTon]

1 hour ago, Orraloon said:

The proportions of folk playing each sport one, two or three decades ago will be roughly the same as it is now.

There are just less youngsters taking part in all sports.

I disagree. If every school had a rugby team and only 10% now have rugby teams then the logical conclusion is that less kids play rugby now than they did three decades ago.

44 minutes ago, BraveheartGordon said:

Exact numbers are difficult to come across as they aren't often published ''club by club'' but I have knowledge of both clubs and they have thriving mini sections with qualified coaches.

Clydebank just secured a grant to build an outstanding new facility, complete with facilities for other sports attached.

Clydebank is anything but an affluent area, the club is situated in Whitecrook which is certainly not an ''affluent'' area.

I feel your own personal experiences in Greenock have blighted your opinion of the sport nationally.

Excellent news. tbh, i am not an advocate of the game in this country so whether a bundle of kids in a population of thousands is playing the game or not it still a selective sport. How much does it costs kids to attend? How many of the kids who have hee haw are involved? (and i will give plaudits if they allow disadvantaged kids free access to the game)

As for my own personal experiences is that not relevant? Out of around 20 of us who played the game in school, none of us continued to participate. Yes, we may even have been the worst team in the world, but the point is valid, every one of us was lost to the game because after the school ceased its rugby team the alternative was simply not open to us. (and yes, thats from personal experience).

Since then the game has died on its erse around these parts. I think even the academy may have stopped playing the game.

It is whether people like it or not seen as a middle to upper class sport in large swathes of Scotland. (it should not be, sport should have no social barriers)

I'll admit over the years i've went from an avid rugby fan to one who is completely disinterested in the sport to the point i really could not care less about it or the national team. 

[Paulo2576]

2 hours ago, Super_Scotlandfan said:

Btw, I'm quoting you but not having a go. Just feel it's relevant to my post...it's more of a response to stuff I've read on the thread and the board elsewhere.  

I understand the thinking that the 'Scottishness' of the squad might be slightly diluted but no country on earth has a 100% born and bred squad with family lineage going back generations. It would be nice to have a team of James McFaddens but we'd never field a full strength team without utilizing the fact that hundreds of thousands of Scots have moved to another country. The world is becoming more international, there's millions of families living outside their country of birth - far more than say 50 years ago. I'd say that the granny rule and 5 year residency is pretty fair considering this. 

Scots are spreading their seed everywhere. It just happens that the majority of ex-pats do this in England (over 600 000 live there)...and because it's England our fans get excessive reservations about their sons/grandsons playing for us. I'm also not worried that potential players have played for another country at youth levels - I don't feel that it's fair to ask someone (who may have dual or even triple+ nationality in footballing terms) make a life decision at this age. It feels right that the decision is made at competitive senior level. 

Also, these eligible players have the right to turn us down. If these players don't feel that they have enough of a connection to us they say no. 

And the 'oh, but Scotland wouldn't have been his first choice' thing annoys me too. I don't see why the player in question can't play at his full ability and passion for us too - and if he doesn't don't call him up again. 

I like to use the analogy that if you were told/or you knew that your grandfather was say Faroese (realise they are about 10 places below us in the world rankings now!!) or Eritrian or whatever  you'd feel a connection to that country. You're still born and bred Scottish but that family link is still there. If you weren't being looked at to be called up for Scotland i'd say you'd take the opportunity to play for a country that you've got a strong connection to and passionately represent them. I don't see how these English born players aren't doing the same for us. 

You've made a very articulate argument of your point, but personally I disagree with ever single point you have made. No offence meant.

It's not slightly diluted, it's massively diluted , with all the signs it will get worse a' la rugby. I detest the granny rule and abhor the residency rule especially when it's exploited.  Someone who's never been to Scotland until he's 23, plays for Celtic for 5 years is suddenly Scottish? Bullshit. That is depriving a lad like johnny Russell fulfilling a boyhood dream to play for his country. 

Most of your points also centre around people being able to 'keep their options ' open with selecting a country to represent. I'm sorry but I just think the very essence of that is absolutely wrong and that anyone can advocate being able to switch between countries is mystifying to me.

 

[fringo]

1 hour ago, Orraloon said:

It is indeed a very good post and sums up the situation very well. It's not that difficult to understand really but some folk will continue to deliberately not understand it. 

As global travel has become easier, more and more folk travel the planet to sow their oats. More and more of the offspring from these encounters will be eligible to play for 2,  3,  4 or even more different countries. These people will have a choice of which country that they want to play for. Let them make the choice and then just let them get on with it, is my opinion.

Of course there will be some folk who think these "mixed nationality" kids shouldn't be allowed to play for any international team because their bloodline isn't pure enough.

 

 

It's not so much about increased travel and "sowing their oats" but changed eligibility rules.

Players moving to any country in the world and becoming eligible due to X years residency,as well as the grandparent rule.

[Barney Rubble]

A genuine question.

What adjustments have been made to the eligibility rule since we last qualified for a tournament in 1998?

[fringo]

11 minutes ago, Barney Rubble said:

A genuine question.

What adjustments have been made to the eligibility rule since we last qualified for a tournament in 1998?

Good question but I'd guess one is the residency rule e.g. Brazilian and Chelsea striker now playing for Spain.

Rugby did this years earlier and it seems to have crept into football.

I don't actually know the exact rules but that's just my perception with Costa being a recent example.

[Tartacus]

6 hours ago, Super_Scotlandfan said:

Btw, I'm quoting you but not having a go. Just feel it's relevant to my post...it's more of a response to stuff I've read on the thread and the board elsewhere.  

I understand the thinking that the 'Scottishness' of the squad might be slightly diluted but no country on earth has a 100% born and bred squad with family lineage going back generations. It would be nice to have a team of James McFaddens but we'd never field a full strength team without utilizing the fact that hundreds of thousands of Scots have moved to another country. The world is becoming more international, there's millions of families living outside their country of birth - far more than say 50 years ago. I'd say that the granny rule and 5 year residency is pretty fair considering this. 

Scots are spreading their seed everywhere. It just happens that the majority of ex-pats do this in England (over 600 000 live there)...and because it's England our fans get excessive reservations about their sons/grandsons playing for us. I'm also not worried that potential players have played for another country at youth levels - I don't feel that it's fair to ask someone (who may have dual or even triple+ nationality in footballing terms) make a life decision at this age. It feels right that the decision is made at competitive senior level. 

Also, these eligible players have the right to turn us down. If these players don't feel that they have enough of a connection to us they say no. 

And the 'oh, but Scotland wouldn't have been his first choice' thing annoys me too. I don't see why the player in question can't play at his full ability and passion for us too - and if he doesn't don't call him up again. 

I like to use the analogy that if you were told/or you knew that your grandfather was say Faroese (realise they are about 10 places below us in the world rankings now!!) or Eritrian or whatever  you'd feel a connection to that country. You're still born and bred Scottish but that family link is still there. If you weren't being looked at to be called up for Scotland i'd say you'd take the opportunity to play for a country that you've got a strong connection to and passionately represent them. I don't see how these English born players aren't doing the same for us. 

I think this is a very good post. I'm born and lived in England all my life (save a few weeks in the mid 70's) to an English Mum (who had Scottish grandparents) and a Scottish Dad. I also had a German Grandad. I've passionately supported Scotland all my life. It's hard for me to try and make a claim but I really feel had I been a professional player I would have run my heart out for Scotland. I would have turned England and Germany down and waited for the call from Scotland. I couldn't have represented any other team as my heart wouldn't have been in it. I had the Scotland strip as a kid and proudly wore it. My lad Ewan is 12 and supported Scotland in the recent game. I don't push him but he is well aware of my passion for Scotland and his links to Scotland. He wears a Scotland keeper top to his local team training. Some real Scottish folk probably laugh at this or get annoyed but I don't care. And as FIFA and the SFA don't have a problem with my eligibility I have made myself available for Strachan's next squad. OK, I'm 47 with a glass knee but I never give up hope. Nationality isn't as clear cut as some would assert. Terry Butcher was born in Singapore but was an archetypal England lion as a player. Denis Law said he became 'more' Scottish after moving abroad. Duncan Ferguson is more Scottish than Jordan Rhodes but Rhodes has a better attitude towards the national team. I think if someone is eligible through family or living in Scotland and they really want to play for Scotland it shouldn't be a problem.