Chripper

I said it with tongue-in-cheek.

I think it's debateable. You mention "Robertson, McGregor, Armstrong, Forrest and Fraser", but I think all 5 would be fine playing with three behind them. Forrest and Fraser would be 2 of the front three. Personally I'd play McGregor and Robertson as the midfield central two, especially Robertson as he would give brilliant defensive cover. True about Wilson and Hanley, especially Wilson. I quite like inverted wingers, but inverted full backs can be a hazard.

To be fair, it's not just the English commentators that piss us off. It's the pundits, the reporters and the English media in general. I bet more Scots know which year England won the world cup than what year the battle of Bannockburn was or when world war 2 ended, etc. Why? Because it's been rammed down our throats It's no, it's not an education thing. Most people aren't interested in history, and yet we know which year England won the bloody world cup as it's imprinted on our brains.

1. Celtic 2. Rangers 3. Kilmarnock

I honestly think that 4 at the back has been done to death, it's time to try something new. Plus with the emergence of Souttar, McKenna and Bates, it might be time to try 3 at the back. Those 3 might end up in the EPL. Plus we have no right back. Most people want 4 at the back, and I completely respect that, but what I don't respect is people justifying it by saying that "most of our defenders play 4 at the back". This holds no weight, as when we did use 3 at the back and were successful with it none of the defenders played it at club level. Also, in midweek at least 3 SPL teams started with a variant of 3 at the back, so it's not like it's a formation that's been resigned to the 1900s We should go with either 3-5-2 or 3-4-3. Sadly, though, I think McLeish has tried 3 at the back enough (one or two matches) and he'll go back to the 4. Personally I don't care what formation we play as long as we win, but I think we'll do better with a 3 if we persevere with it.

Yes he was. Apparently a draw against the team ranked 5th isn't enough to convince people that a back three works. Only a 5:0 win would've won people over, and maybe not even that.... because "our players are used to playing with a flat back four"... which is obvious, as we're so good at it. </sarcasm>

There's a general contempt in English football for Scottish football. The chances of an EPL buying Scott McKenna are slim, so it'll be a Championship club for £5m.

Mmmm… calm down a wee bit, mate. Sheesh.

Bigotry and hate. Most of the teams in Scotland sing deplorable songs. Have you ever sung "We are the Killie boys"? Nothing loving about that wee ditty. Yikes. "Pie in the sky"? That's the problem with Scottish people; they're too pessimistic and too afraid of change. "Nah. Change is pie in the sky, so why even try?" Who cares if it's pie in the sky? 20 odds years if someone told you that Manchester City would be the dominant force in England, would you call it "pie in the sky"? Oh, you'd be surprised how many fans would come out of the woodwork if success was on the horizon. Well, I'd say get rid of all the songs about being up to the knees in blood of other human beings, that might be a start. Utter tripe is better than utter hatred.

That's a question right there, why do the third best team in Scotland only attract 6k ? Ayrshire has a population of what? 400k? Are you telling me if (Let's play devil's advocate) the Ayrshire teams combine and bring in major investments, build a top stadium, build proper state-of-the-art training and youth facilities, begin bringing through top young players along with buying good players, are you trying to tell me that this team wouldn't attract more than Livingston? I know that it's stretching the imagination slightly, but still.

I agree with all of that. But it's not just about targeting the existing fans, it's about capturing the imagination of the people who either don't attend matches or they're completely lost interest as they're sick of the anti-competitive nature of the top flight of Scottish football. And by the way, I can certainly understand how fans in Scotland would lost interest in football. (Personally, I'm sick of the back teeth of Celtic and wish they'd play in the Irish league.) With the right amount of investment, etc, there could be a model set in place that would be able to rock the establishment. Why does it need amalgamation? Because towns and cities in Scotland are tiny, the more teams they have in them the more chances of the fan-bases being splintered. It's just a thought.

How awfully grown up. Good day.

Hamilton, and I'd say semi-regularly. Have done since I was 15. Would I welcome a merger with Motherwell and Airdrie if it meant that there would be a 1% chance of toppling the Old Firm? Damn right I would.

Of course. World peace will break out, too. Global warming will vanish and there'll also be rain in Africa.

So, it would appear that everyone is happy with the state of Scottish football, in general. Yeahhhh…. 👌

I know. But for one thing, it would free up money for both clubs to do as they please. Surely that's worthy of even considering it? I mean, look at both Dundee teams, the proximity of the stadiums is cringe-worthy.

Inverness Caledonian Thistle have had relative success. If it were both Dundee teams then who knows how well they'd do, or Ayr and Kilmarnock. Honestly, though, I think there are way too many teams in Scotland and the leagues are far too large.

Typical Scottish attitude right there. Next.

Why are Scottish domestic fans so terrified of ground sharing and/or mergers? Both Milan teams groundshare, but apparently Scottish clubs are too proud for that kind of thing. And as far as mergers go, if done properly, with the right investment, it could be a good thing. Wouldn't people rather support a club who is able to compete against the Old Firm rather than indulge in petty city rivalry? Apparently not.

The English are such a bunch of spoiled brats. "Oh, the politicians have lied to us, so we want another vote." Yeah, well, en mass, we all know what being lied to by the English is like: "McCrone was saying that an independent Scotland would be Europe's Switzerland. The Labour party were saying that it would be like Bangladesh."

Couldn't disagree with any of that. 1+

I disagree.

Agreed. For the record, though, I'd much rather our players play in La Liga, Serie A, etc, than the EPL. The EPL is for generally for foreign players who have learned in their homeland, it's not really a place where players grow and develop.

How anyone can question Leighton's ability is beyond me. Purely in a Scotland shirt, Leighton was better than Goram. Plus Goram ditched us prior to the 98 World Cup because he wasn't going to be No 1, so that gives Leighton the extra edge, for me.

He would've done if he stayed with Dortmund. At the time the Dortmund fans were virtually begging for him to stay. Shows you how much they rated him. Dortmund didn't want him to leave, why would after he was instrumental in winning the biggest trophy in their history.