England VS Scotland Discussion

First topic message reminder :

Quite looking forward to this game, anyone know what sort of attendance is expected? I reckon could be closer than people think. A few of my English mates reckon 4-0 or 5-0 wins but just don't think that'll happen tbh, hopefully I'm not wrong! Wish game culd have been at Hampden so there would have been cracking atmosphere but I'm hoping Wembley surprises me although I'm not expecting it. I hope to see Bridcutt play, not seen too much of him but impressed by limited amount I've seen. And I hope Rooney plays too.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Your point?

So England have got to more finals but still not achieved what Holland have. Not sure that is something to boast about.

caledonianCraig wrote:Italy, Holland, Spain, Germany and Brazil have proven records for winning or going very close in majors for many years now whereas England don't

I was just ponting ut that over the last decade england have been far more consistent than holland in tournaments. Also Spain have only had success/going far in the last 5 years. Before 2008 Spain's tournament results were worse than Englands.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I just feel England have had a better squad/team than this and still not come close to winning a trophy. That is not me being bitter in any way - more just what I honestly feel. Your Italia 90 squad and Euro 98 squad was better for me and you still missed out. I honestly don't think it helps you one iota when the media start up the hype and brainwash people into believing the World Cup is in the bag. It just puts greater pressure on the players that they can well do without.

I think our world cup 2006 squad was the best england team. Lost to an amazing portugal team who finished 4th.

From people old enough (looking at you Freek ) they all say Italia 90 was our best team/shot post 66.

In my lifetime I think it was Euro 2004.

Olly wrote:From people old enough (looking at you Freek ) they all say Italia 90 was our best team/shot post 66.

In my lifetime I think it was Euro 2004.

We were, bar the Germany Semi, very workmanlike in 1990 Olly.

The Euro 96 team was better as was the set up and philosophy of Glen Hoddle's 1998 team.

Yeah the Euro 2004 team had some outstanding players. Wrong coach perhaps?

Olly wrote:From people old enough (looking at you Freek ) they all say Italia 90 was our best team/shot post 66.

In my lifetime I think it was Euro 2004.

It would be between italia 90 and wc 2006

i just remember from wc 2006 we had so many top players

paul robinson
gary neville sol campbell rio ferdinand ashley cole


beckham lampard, gerrard hargreaves

Rooney, owen

England have the tools to win the world cup, with a bit of luck, and a couple of players hitting a purple patch, they may just pull off the greatest of great escapes. Last 4 has to be the minimum aim.

And CC, remember what I said about Italy in 06. They barely qualified, but still won the world cup.

I was 12 when we played in the 1990 World Cup and remember my (Scottish) mum buying me a T-Shirt with Gazza crying on it from a local market. I never understood her cruel sense of humour at the time.

I wore that for days!!

Yes Euro 96 is what I meant (not 98). In that 1990 squad remember you had players of the quality of Peter Shilton (widely regarded as the best keeper in the world unlike Hart), Lineker whose goalscoring prowess spoke for itself and played for Barcelona for a spell unlike any of today's squad, Waddle was similar playing for Marseille who were big in European football at that time, plus of course Gazza who had played in Europe in Italy.

Duty281 wrote:England have the tools to win the world cup, with a bit of luck, and a couple of players hitting a purple patch, they may just pull off the greatest of great escapes. Last 4 has to be the minimum aim.

And CC, remember what I said about Italy in 06. They barely qualified, but still won the world cup.

Sorry I come from the old school. By that I mean we have heard all this kind of talk before and seen England squads (better ones at that) come home with their tails between their legs and I saw nothing tonight that says the footballing super-powers have anything to fear.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:England have the tools to win the world cup, with a bit of luck, and a couple of players hitting a purple patch, they may just pull off the greatest of great escapes. Last 4 has to be the minimum aim.

And CC, remember what I said about Italy in 06. They barely qualified, but still won the world cup.

Sorry I come from the old school. By that I mean we have heard all this kind of talk before and seen England squads (better ones at that) come home with their tails between their legs and I saw nothing tonight that says the footballing super-powers have anything to fear.

Brazil lost 1-0 to switzerland so are you goiing to judge their possible wc performances by a loss tonight in a friendly?

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:England have the tools to win the world cup, with a bit of luck, and a couple of players hitting a purple patch, they may just pull off the greatest of great escapes. Last 4 has to be the minimum aim.

And CC, remember what I said about Italy in 06. They barely qualified, but still won the world cup.

Sorry I come from the old school. By that I mean we have heard all this kind of talk before and seen England squads (better ones at that) come home with their tails between their legs and I saw nothing tonight that says the footballing super-powers have anything to fear.

Brazil lost 1-0 to switzerland so are you goiing to judge their possible wc performances by a loss tonight in a friendly?

No because from my old school eyes I know Brazil are perrenial challengers besides Switzerland are romping away with their qualifying group whereas we (Scotland) are already out and will be hard pressed to finish third in our group. In short a chasm of difference between the quality of Switzerland and Scotland it would seem at the moment.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:England have the tools to win the world cup, with a bit of luck, and a couple of players hitting a purple patch, they may just pull off the greatest of great escapes. Last 4 has to be the minimum aim.

And CC, remember what I said about Italy in 06. They barely qualified, but still won the world cup.

Sorry I come from the old school. By that I mean we have heard all this kind of talk before and seen England squads (better ones at that) come home with their tails between their legs and I saw nothing tonight that says the footballing super-powers have anything to fear.

Brazil lost 1-0 to switzerland so are you goiing to judge their possible wc performances by a loss tonight in a friendly?

You are missing the point Champers. He's drawing on history which righty states that we go into tournaments full of hope and never succeed.

England do not, by any stretch of the imagination Duty, have the tools.

FreekShow wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:England have the tools to win the world cup, with a bit of luck, and a couple of players hitting a purple patch, they may just pull off the greatest of great escapes. Last 4 has to be the minimum aim.

And CC, remember what I said about Italy in 06. They barely qualified, but still won the world cup.

Sorry I come from the old school. By that I mean we have heard all this kind of talk before and seen England squads (better ones at that) come home with their tails between their legs and I saw nothing tonight that says the footballing super-powers have anything to fear.

Brazil lost 1-0 to switzerland so are you goiing to judge their possible wc performances by a loss tonight in a friendly?

You are missing the point Champers. He's drawing on history which righty states that we go into tournaments full of hope and never succeed.

England do not, by any stretch of the imagination Duty, have the tools.

To be fair to England the  4 of the last 5 tournaments england have played in they have lost 3 of them on penalties to top quality teams and lost one to a great brazil team 2-1 that contained ronaldo, roberto carlos, ronaldinho, cafu and rivaldo in 2002.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

FreekShow wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:England have the tools to win the world cup, with a bit of luck, and a couple of players hitting a purple patch, they may just pull off the greatest of great escapes. Last 4 has to be the minimum aim.

And CC, remember what I said about Italy in 06. They barely qualified, but still won the world cup.

Sorry I come from the old school. By that I mean we have heard all this kind of talk before and seen England squads (better ones at that) come home with their tails between their legs and I saw nothing tonight that says the footballing super-powers have anything to fear.

Brazil lost 1-0 to switzerland so are you goiing to judge their possible wc performances by a loss tonight in a friendly?

You are missing the point Champers. He's drawing on history which righty states that we go into tournaments full of hope and never succeed.

England do not, by any stretch of the imagination Duty, have the tools.

To be fair to England the  4 of the last 5 tournaments england have played in they have lost 3 of them on penalties to top quality teams and lost one to a great brazil 2-1 in 2002.

You could argue that top teams put their penalties to bed Champers.

And England should have at least earned a draw against a 10 men Brazil with half an hour to go in 2002.

That wasn't a great Brazil side. In fact I'd argue that was the weakest World Cup I'd seen in my 35 years of existence.

I cant say I feel England have done badly as such at major tournaments since my brain switched on fully to international football (Euro 96) other than the failed qualification under Schteve. Really, we're a top 8 side who could or could not surprise a few teams. Its not been our placement in said tournaments that has disappointed, its the fact we havent made that breakthrough and gone maybe a little farther than we maybe should have due to being better on the day. 

I see people getting overexcited about today's Belgian team and feel they will suffer much the same fate as our "golden generation". Its all great until you meet one of the real top sides who knows how to combine quality with a nous of winning in big tournaments. 

On tonight, its hard to judge the scale of opposition as Scotland would be more up for this game than if we played someone else around your ranking. Combined with what I believe was a rustiness in many players, the fact we approached the right way as a learning situation for our tactics and players and that Scotland had little to lose and were probably more result driven than England, as well as probably capitalising on both their chances and England controlling the majority of the game, then I'm not worried. I am happy they came through and pushed the result under pressure, still playing the system we set out with, against a team that really fought and worked hard in defence. 

What do I think of Scottish football? Their problem isnt games against England, and even the likes of France, its getting better performances against teams of their level and below. I was surprised Miller played, it highlighted to me that they were more concerned with one game than their progression as a side. Rhodes should be playing. They are unlucky that Fletcher is so troubled by illness, I'd have loved to have seen him playing today. 

England clearly lack in central defence, Jagielka and Cahill as a pair are not good enough, and Hart needs to sort himself out, but really encouraged by the younger players; Welbeck, Cleverley, Wilshere all looked good, Walcott, Walker and the Ox (who is in danger of being good at many things but great at none) all were solid too.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes I'd say (if you look at rankings) it certainly is. Switzerland are ranked way above us and look certain to qualify for Brazil whereas we are already out and our goal is to try to scramble up to finish third in our group. Now do you follow?

This Scotland side as well has been at its lowest ebb of late (though we may be turning the corner) so surely you'd expect more from England considering how bolshe many England fans were about how easy this was going to be?

As I said last night. As good as Scotland might have looked the vast majority of the Scottish squad have been back playing competitive football for a couple of weeks now and Kenny Miller since March. The England team are still in pre season mode. They aren't gonna give 110% because in the end they didn't have to and no one wants to get injured before opening weekend.

No actually Snodgrass, Martin, Whittaker, Morrison and McGregor for starters were equally as 'rusty' in that case. And sorry but don't buy the BS that English players weren't so much up for the game.

Not saying they weren't up for it. Just not as match fit as Scotland.

And I have just named half of the Scotland side who could be argued weren't match fit so that holds no water especially when it was clear how our players tired late on. My point is that England are painted as one of the big boys of international football akin to a Man United and they would be criticised if they only beat a struggling Championship side in an FA Cup tie 3-2 at home. We wouldn't be enthusing over that would we?

CaledonianCraig wrote:And I have just named half of the Scotland side who could be argued weren't match fit so that holds no water especially when it was clear how our players tired late on. My point is that England are painted as one of the big boys of international football akin to a Man United and they would be criticised if they only beat a struggling Championship side in an FA Cup tie 3-2 at home. We wouldn't be enthusing over that would we?

No we aren't. Stop reading Duty's posts. We're 14th in the world. We've got the slimmest chance to be a top seed in the World Cup. This England team is weak.

FreekShow wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

FreekShow wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:England have the tools to win the world cup, with a bit of luck, and a couple of players hitting a purple patch, they may just pull off the greatest of great escapes. Last 4 has to be the minimum aim.

And CC, remember what I said about Italy in 06. They barely qualified, but still won the world cup.

Sorry I come from the old school. By that I mean we have heard all this kind of talk before and seen England squads (better ones at that) come home with their tails between their legs and I saw nothing tonight that says the footballing super-powers have anything to fear.

Brazil lost 1-0 to switzerland so are you goiing to judge their possible wc performances by a loss tonight in a friendly?

You are missing the point Champers. He's drawing on history which righty states that we go into tournaments full of hope and never succeed.

England do not, by any stretch of the imagination Duty, have the tools.

To be fair to England the  4 of the last 5 tournaments england have played in they have lost 3 of them on penalties to top quality teams and lost one to a great brazil 2-1 in 2002.

You could argue that top teams put their penalties to bed Champers.

And England should have at least earned a draw against a 10 men Brazil with half an hour to go in 2002.

That wasn't a great Brazil side. In fact I'd argue that was the weakest World Cup I'd seen in my 35 years of existence.

Beat me too it mate, while Brazil had some fantastic players it wasn't a great team and I can't recall a more predictable World Cup before or after, I remember being 19 and betting £20 on Brazil to win and Ronaldo to be top goalscorer at 16/1, at the time it felt like buying money.

No-one seemed to be a threat to Brazil after France were eliminated, I'm not sure if the tournament was that bad or because the games here were at 7:30/9:30/11:30am that it didn't feel as important as I was at work for most of them so didnt get caught up as much as usual

Onto England, I dont think they're that bad, I cant see them winning anything anytime soon but they are what they are, a very decent quarter final side.

If you look throughout Englands history they've only on one occassion made it past the Quarter Final stages of a major tournament outside of their own Country

Decent game. Thought England deserved to win in the end, but Scotland put in plenty of effort and no little quality.

The two teams have something of the opposite problems in selection - Scotland have to find good players that are playing their league football at lower levels, while England are (and have been for some time) dominated by not very good players from the big name clubs (the likes of Welbeck, Zaha, Cleverley).

First goal was a shocker from Hart - it did come through a crowd and dipped a bit, but a keeper of his class should be getting more behind it than half a hand.
Miller's goal was good play - made Cahill look a bit of a mug and then pinged a lovely shot into the corner.

England's goals - First goal Scotland paid for defending high against Walcott's pace. Good through pass and then he just about managed to finish (looked like he might balls it up when he came inside, but he got the left foot shot in just in time).
Second goal - lovely delivery on the free kick, but the Scots will be disappointed to not deal with it. It's not as though Welbeck is noted as a great threat in the air.
Third goal - nice movement from Lambert and a really good header. Again maybe some questions over the marking: surely one of your centre backs should be marking the centre forward, especially one like Lambert who is a decent header of the ball.

We were a touch unlucky not to get a 4th, either from Rooney's (not) offside in the first half or in the last 5 minutes (Lambert had a couple of good chances, Welbeck and Baines also getting half chances in the 6 yard box). A 2 goal margin would probably have been a fairer reflection on the game (at least given the number of chances created).

Welbeck did some good things, but I do wish he was a bit more careful when he passes the ball (same applies for a few of the team). Too many of the little 5 - 10 yard passes and layoffs are simply not accurate enough and mean the recieving player is forced to take a touch or wait for the ball rather than maintaining the momentum of the move.

Oh, and I think we'll be lucky this coming WC to even reach the quarter finals - we have good quality in the middle of midfield, although there is an issue with selecting the right balance of players, right wing (I think Ox will end up the best of those options) and at full back (two good options on either side), but Hart isn't as good a keeper as some try to paint him, the central defensive positions are still entirely up for grabs and we are missing a top class centre forward and left side attacker.

I quite like the 4-3-3 / 4-5-1 system, but see too many weaknesses in the players available for us to really challenge to top nations.

dummy_half wrote:Oh, and I think we'll be lucky this coming WC to even reach the quarter finals - we have good quality in the middle of midfield, although there is an issue with selecting the right balance of players, right wing (I think Ox will end up the best of those options) and at full back (two good options on either side), but Hart isn't as good a keeper as some try to paint him, the central defensive positions are still entirely up for grabs and we are missing a top class centre forward and left side attacker.

I quite like the 4-3-3 / 4-5-1 system, but see too many weaknesses in the players available for us to really challenge to top nations.

Ah refreshing. A touch of realism.

John wrote:Wonder how many games it will take Roy to realise how dreadful Cleverley is. If Cleverley can't even make an impact tonight, against this dire opposition, and then still gets picked for the qualifiers, then there's really no hope.

Will take him a while if Clev keeps playing through balls like the one he set up Walcott with. Absolute beauty.

Colan (niner) wrote:and that wasn't a scotland free kick? ref just doesn't want us to score 2nd. Sorry but England fans are awful in terms of noise, never impressed by them considering the big attendence

It's an irrelevant friendly against a team nobody cares about anymore.

Saw everyone coming down on the train, it's middle aged men taking their kids to the 'England at Wembley'. It's the old 'this is your Cup final' addage.

That said, I did enjoy last night's game, just because I could chuckle about how Duty would try dress this up as another masterful performance (like all the draws we had last season against dross sides in actual competitive matches) and proclaim as the next WC winners!!

CaledonianCraig wrote:No actually Snodgrass, Martin, Whittaker, Morrison and McGregor for starters were equally as 'rusty' in that case. And sorry but don't buy the BS that English players weren't so much up for the game.

PS Add Alan Hutton to that 'rusty' list as well and more than half our starting line-up could be deemed rusty. Also lets not forget we have a quarter of a side that is inexperienced internationally (less than ten caps) and yet England still spluttered over the line with far more experience there.

Why do you care so much? It's an irrelevant friendly, a mere kick-about 3 days before the start of the season. This game will be difficult to recall at the end of the weekend.

Colan (niner) wrote:and that wasn't a scotland free kick? ref just doesn't want us to score 2nd. Sorry but England fans are awful in terms of noise, never impressed by them considering the big attendence

At home yes, mainly because of how commercial and modern this stadium is.

Away, not so much.

Well it matters when ones side is labelled 'a pub team' whilst their opponents are referred to (by some) as potential World Cup winners. That being said then a 3-2 scoreline suggests that:-

A. Scotland are not as bad as some England fans paint them.

OR

B. England are not as good as some England fans think.

OR

C. A mixture of both.

Sorry but you can't have it all ways. If you wish to believe you are amongst the best sides in the world then surely you should be beating a 'pub team' far more comprehensively especially if it is a 'rusty' pub team laced with inexperience.

Craig - please don't tarnish us all with Duty's brush!!

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well it matters when ones side is labelled 'a pub team' whilst their opponents are referred to (by some) as potential World Cup winners. That being said then a 3-2 scoreline suggests that:-

A. Scotland are not as bad as some England fans paint them.

OR

B. England are not as good as some England fans think.

OR

C. A mixture of both.

Sorry but you can't have it all ways. If you wish to believe you are amongst the best sides in the world then surely you should be beating a 'pub team' far more comprehensively especially if it is a 'rusty' pub team laced with inexperience.

Italy beat the Faroe Islands, a team far, far worse than Scotland, by the slim margins of 1-0 and 2-1 during qualification for Euro 2012. Italy are one of the best in the world aren't they? They certainly proved that by beating Germany a year later. Did the result against the Faroes matter? Not a jot.

And it's the same here.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well it matters when ones side is labelled 'a pub team' whilst their opponents are referred to (by some) as potential World Cup winners. That being said then a 3-2 scoreline suggests that:-

A. Scotland are not as bad as some England fans paint them.

OR

B. England are not as good as some England fans think.

OR

C. A mixture of both.

Sorry but you can't have it all ways. If you wish to believe you are amongst the best sides in the world then surely you should be beating a 'pub team' far more comprehensively especially if it is a 'rusty' pub team laced with inexperience.

So your whole point is based one guy jokingly saying pub team and Duty saying we're World beaters. If I was you I wouldn't of wasted my time. It's a forum. Not the eternal shrine of truth and fact.

Yes CFC Nick but be honest here and it isn't just a 'pub team' remark. Look at other such forums, the media and how the press paints Scottish and English football. Scottish football is labelled as terrible largely whilst English football is painted as the Messiah. Watching last night only tells me something is vastly wrong with those forming opions like that.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes CFC Nick but be honest here and it isn't just a 'pub team' remark. Look at other such forums, the media and how the press paints Scottish and English football. Scottish football is labelled as terrible largely whilst English football is painted as the Messiah. Watching last night only tells me something is vastly wrong with those forming opions like that.

I think that they're largely referring to club football.

IF we're being honest, Scottish football is pretty rubbish.

Never achieve anything in Europe, success stories in Scotland fail when they step up to the EPL of similar (Henrik being the exception that proves the rule), similarly average EPL players have success in Scotland. Darren Fletcher is about the only Scottish player in recent years capable of getting into a top side.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well it matters when ones side is labelled 'a pub team' whilst their opponents are referred to (by some) as potential World Cup winners. That being said then a 3-2 scoreline suggests that:-

A. Scotland are not as bad as some England fans paint them.

OR

B. England are not as good as some England fans think.

OR

C. A mixture of both.

Sorry but you can't have it all ways. If you wish to believe you are amongst the best sides in the world then surely you should be beating a 'pub team' far more comprehensively especially if it is a 'rusty' pub team laced with inexperience.

Craig

I'll take option C. I got the impression there is the nucleus of a good Scottish team there (at least relative to where they have been over the last decade or so) and that Strachan has them playing to a system that suits them. I also think they were a little more motivated than England (not by a huge amount, but in the way a Championship side would be when given a chance agaisnt a Premiership side in the cup). There certainly wasn't a gulf in quality, but England had a bit more pace and a couple of players with better passing and dead ball ability, which ultimately made the difference.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes CFC Nick but be honest here and it isn't just a 'pub team' remark. Look at other such forums, the media and how the press paints Scottish and English football. Scottish football is labelled as terrible largely whilst English football is painted as the Messiah. Watching last night only tells me something is vastly wrong with those forming opions like that.

Scottish football is terrible. The best players in the national team all play outside of Scotland so that says it all.

If that is the case then it must be remembered that all of our team last night stemmed from Scottish club football whilst the England side from their perceived Messiah of football so surely we should have seen a far more comprehensive win...no? Not long ago Scotland played Brazil in a 'friendly' and Brazil won 2-0 and were not at home either. Think on...

CFCNick wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes CFC Nick but be honest here and it isn't just a 'pub team' remark. Look at other such forums, the media and how the press paints Scottish and English football. Scottish football is labelled as terrible largely whilst English football is painted as the Messiah. Watching last night only tells me something is vastly wrong with those forming opions like that.

Scottish football is terrible. The best players in the national team all play outside of Scotland so that says it all.

The best players for Brazil and France also play outside their home country, how does this mean anything?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

CFCNick wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes CFC Nick but be honest here and it isn't just a 'pub team' remark. Look at other such forums, the media and how the press paints Scottish and English football. Scottish football is labelled as terrible largely whilst English football is painted as the Messiah. Watching last night only tells me something is vastly wrong with those forming opions like that.

Scottish football is terrible. The best players in the national team all play outside of Scotland so that says it all.

The best players for Brazil and France also play outside their home country, how does this mean anything?

What I mean is just because the media and fans say the Scottish football league is terrible it doesn't mean people are on about the national team.

When most people talk about "English" or "Scottish" football they mean club football.

What did we learn from last night?
Well we confirmed what we already know that Scotland are not very good and that England are only marginally better.

Nothing ever changes.

Bottom line is our national side has been at its lowest ebb ever though we may just be turning the corner now but time will tell. That being the case then surely England (whose media will have them as World Cup winners elect come next summer and some fans will hold the same lofty dreams) should have won by a far bigger scoreline. Think on that this was the first time a Scotland side has scored two goals in a game against England at Wembley since 1977 when we had a far far better side out (the comparison of those two sides - night and day). That says more about how good this England side than anything else.

CaledonianCraig wrote:If that is the case then it must be remembered that all of our team last night stemmed from Scottish club football whilst the England side from their perceived Messiah of football so surely we should have seen a far more comprehensive win...no? Not long ago Scotland played Brazil in a 'friendly' and Brazil won 2-0 and were not at home either. Think on...

Probably would have done if this game had any meaning, instead it was a pointless friendly, set on a rubbish date.

Just like Germany drawing 3-3 at home to Paraguay. Paraguay, by the way, aren't going to qualify for the world cup like you said, they're bottom of their group below Bolivia and Peru.

CaledonianCraig wrote:If that is the case then it must be remembered that all of our team last night stemmed from Scottish club football whilst the England side from their perceived Messiah of football so surely we should have seen a far more comprehensive win...no? Not long ago Scotland played Brazil in a 'friendly' and Brazil won 2-0 and were not at home either. Think on...

Not really. Your best players play in the English "messiah of football".

Boy oh boy Duty I think you are in for a major disappointment next summer if you are predicting England to go beyond the Quarter-Finals at very best. Heck you have still to qualify yet and that is still not clear cut. Shouldn't it be if you are oozing world class players? Look at the other perrenial challengers:-

Italy top of their table by 4 points and look home and hosed.

Germany top of their table and five points clear - similarly home and hosed.

Holland top of their table and seven points clear - must be close to qualification.

Spain a point clear of France at the top of their table.

And where are England? Top of their table? No. They are second and granted you have a game in hand but you also have Ukraine and Poland breathing down your necks. Not the hallmarks of a potential World Cup challenging team is it?

Duty is the only person that thinks we have a chance at next year's WC.

CFCNick wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:If that is the case then it must be remembered that all of our team last night stemmed from Scottish club football whilst the England side from their perceived Messiah of football so surely we should have seen a far more comprehensive win...no? Not long ago Scotland played Brazil in a 'friendly' and Brazil won 2-0 and were not at home either. Think on...

Not really. Your best players play in the English "messiah of football".

The point is that they didn't automatically become class players by joining English clubs. Class is permanent. As for slating our players - I seem to recall Steven Fletcher being top scorer in the EPL (of British-born players) at an unfashionable club in Sunderland. Basically, in any case I see the EPL going down the same lines of the SPL. For years it has been Celtic or Rangers whereas the EPL now is a closed shop of either United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Manchester City being guaranteed winners. The other worrying trend you should all worry about is the foreigners flooding the top teams leaving English players frozen out. That happened in the SPL a few years ago as well and it definitely hinders.