BBC Documentary about Argentina 1978 - Page 11 - TA specific - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

BBC Documentary about Argentina 1978


TVjohn

Recommended Posts

On ‎6‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 8:20 PM, Ally Bongo said:

Ironically the majority of the Scotland supporters in those days followed Rangers

which is still the case today after the most recent SFA/SSC survey of almost 4,000 members.

top 5 are:
5% - Hearts
5% - Hibs
12% - Celtic
14% - Aberdeen
18% - Rangers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2018 at 8:52 PM, tartanmartin said:

which is still the case today after the most recent SFA/SSC survey of almost 4,000 members.

top 5 are:
5% - Hearts
5% - Hibs
12% - Celtic
14% - Aberdeen
18% - Rangers

Do you have a link to the survey results?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'm (not really) outraged that the BBC is spending some of my licence fee money making a documentary about what a foreign nation's football team did 40 years ago.

Love that Tommy Gemmell Phoenix. Hadn't seen that for a few years. I remember reading fairly recently about Tommy's sad passing. He seemed like a cool guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 6/7/2018 at 4:49 PM, joecraigfanclub said:

Not if you read Archie McPherson's book. The hotel in Mexico in 86 for the games in Neza was like a prison according to the players interviewed. They claimed it was all they could get as we were last to qualify

 

 

 

 

Just finished reading Archie McPherson's book. Really good read and, as Craig Brown's endorsement states, very 'insightful'. Adventures in the Golden Age. I suggest must read, certainly for Scotland fans who, like me, experienced a lot of it, but really for any Scotland fan. It exposes SFA who have let the players and therefore the fans down in at least 3 tournaments. Jimmy Hill disnae come out of it smelling of roses either, you will be pleased to know. Really enjoyed it, great read but confirms SFA hierarchical attitude, their disregard for welfare of squad and also Ally McLeod's overconfidence in not preparing by watching opposition. Puts some of our abject performances into perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Very, very good documentary, do, first of all congratulations to TV John and his team for making it so well..

I enjoyed it, but was also saddened by it, for various reasons:

1) I lived through that amazing period when we we contenders going in to the World Cups of the 70s, and suspect I'll never see anything like it again. In fact, I fear I'll never see us in a World Cup again.

2) I felt sorry for the McLeod family: Ally was a bright and very lovable man, and you wish they'd not have to go through his only being remembered for this.

3) Despite 2) The feeling that Ally, the players and the SFA let us down.

If you enjoyed this programme, you absolutely must read Graham McColl's book "78: How a Nation Lost the World Cup," which is even better and more in depth than Mike Wilson's "Don't Cry for me Argentina" and you should also read Archie MacPherson's very recent book about Scotland in the World Cups, which is also revealing about Argentina. McColl is the most sympathetic to McLeod and MacPherson the most critical, with this documentary and Mike Wilson's book being most in the middle.

I have to say I was shocked in the documentary - brilliant bit of archive research! - when they showed McLeod happily admitting he would not watch our opposition in preparation. 

I think Lou Macari, Bud Johnson and possibly Bruce Rioch were all a bit self-serving in the interviews. Macari was seen by other players as a bit of a snake in the grass who was bad for squad morale, and we know he was selling stories to the press, and did sod all when played against Iran. Bud's as thick as mince, but the hayfever defence of his Reactivan taking smells like bullshit. Rioch was one of the people on record when the draw was made at the time saying it was a dream draw and we'd definitely qualify, etc, so our captain was as complacent as our manager.

What only McColl's book makes clear is that the team went into the Peru game with a defence no-one actually wanted: not only was McGrain missing from the squad altogether, and McQueen there but never going to be fit to play (and the squad doctors and physios had told McLeod this before the squad was announced and told him not to take McQueen so that was a poor decision totally down to Ally him) but Sandy Jardine was injured for the first game and Willie Donnachie was suspended, with no other left back in the squad. Martin Buchan, experienced star of the 74 World Cup and our superb first choice sweeper, was due to mark Cubillas but was forced, instead, to play at leftback for only the second time in his career, Stuart Kennedy was thrown in at right back and Kenny Burns and Tam Forsyth - not a natural partnership due to certain similarities and barely ever having played together - became the central defenders. All of them had a torrid time against the Peru players no-one had researched.

No World Cup genuine contenders wanted to have such a makeshift defence, and it was beyond even Ally's control.

I really don't blame McLeod for playing Rioch and Masson in the first game. His massive, stupid midfield mistake was not playing Souness against Iran. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2018 at 6:11 PM, Orraloon said:

If we had had a full squad with no injuries, I am fairly confident that Tom Forsyth would have partnered McQueen in central defence. Buchan would have been more likely to get a game at full back as cover for Jardine who, I think, wasn't fully fit.

I'm not sure that Robertson even had a cap before going to Argentina? Willie Johnston was always going to start, barring drug convictions.

Souness only had a handful of caps at that time as well. You hear lots of folk saying that Rioch or Masson should have been dropped in favour of Souness but I don't think folk were saying that until after the event. The debate was usually about which three would play from the four of Rioch, Masson, Gemmill or Hartford. Souness was just starting his international career.

I think Malcolm's hypothetical first choice defence with everyone fit would have been right, Orraloon: Jardine, McGrain, McQueen and Buchan, rather than your suggested Jardine, McGrain, McQueen and Forsyth. Buchan was the captain of Manchester United and McQueen's central defensive partner there. Buchan, along with McGrain and Jardine, had all been star defenders for us in the undefeated 74 World Cup and McLeod really thought the World of Buchan. I'd also argue that Tam Forsyth was a bit too similar in style to McQueen for the thinking of the time for them to make an ideal partnership. Most of all, McLeod thought the world of Martin Buchan.

McLeod's single biggest footballing problem, long forgotten now except by Graham McColl in his excellent book, is that not only could he not field that first choice defence in the opening game because McGrain and McQueen were injured, but he could not field his second choice defence, which would still have been a top class unit used to playing with each other for Scotland and complementing each other well  - Jardine, Donnachie, Forsyth and Buchan, - because Jardine was injured and Donnachie was suspended.

This was where Ally's poor planning now became apparent. He had taken Gordon McQueen to the World Cup despite the team's doctors and physios saying McQueen would never be fit, and not taken another left back. Frank Gray, Leeds United's excellent leftback, had been in the initial squad of 40 McLeod named but did not make the final 22. So Buchan was asked to play at left back, a position he had only played in once in his lfe, Stuart Kennedy, a good player, but lacking experience at such a high pressure level, was brought in at right back, and Kenny Burns was brought in to partner Tam Forsyth as centre backs. Again, Burns barely knew the rest of the team. I don't think any European team would have wanted to face the champions of South America in South America with such a makeshift defence.

I totally agree with you that the idea everyone thought McLeod should play Souness in the first game is a retrospective myth. Where McLeod really blew it was against Iran, when absolutely everybody at the time thought Souness should have come in as a straight playmaker replacement for Masson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mcnpauls said:

I think Malcolm's hypothetical first choice defence with everyone fit would have been right, Orraloon: Jardine, McGrain, McQueen and Buchan, rather than your suggested Jardine, McGrain, McQueen and Forsyth. Buchan was the captain of Manchester United and McQueen's central defensive partner there. Buchan, along with McGrain and Jardine, had all been star defenders for us in the undefeated 74 World Cup and McLeod really thought the World of Buchan. I'd also argue that Tam Forsyth was a bit too similar in style to McQueen for the thinking of the time for them to make an ideal partnership. Most of all, McLeod thought the world of Martin Buchan.

McLeod's single biggest footballing problem, long forgotten now except by Graham McColl in his excellent book, is that not only could he not field that first choice defence in the opening game because McGrain and McQueen were injured, but he could not field his second choice defence, which would still have been a top class unit used to playing with each other for Scotland and complementing each other well  - Jardine, Donnachie, Forsyth and Buchan, - because Jardine was injured and Donnachie was suspended.

This was where Ally's poor planning now became apparent. He had taken Gordon McQueen to the World Cup despite the team's doctors and physios saying McQueen would never be fit, and not taken another left back. Frank Gray, Leeds United's excellent leftback, had been in the initial squad of 40 McLeod named but did not make the final 22. So Buchan was asked to play at left back, a position he had only played in once in his lfe, Stuart Kennedy, a good player, but lacking experience at such a high pressure level, was brought in at right back, and Kenny Burns was brought in to partner Tam Forsyth as centre backs. Again, Burns barely knew the rest of the team. I don't think any European team would have wanted to face the champions of South America in South America with such a makeshift defence.

I totally agree with you that the idea everyone thought McLeod should play Souness in the first game is a retrospective myth. Where McLeod really blew it was against Iran, when absolutely everybody at the time thought Souness should have come in as a straight playmaker replacement for Masson.

I'm not saying you are wrong here, but I'm going to need some more convincing of that. In the 12 games prior to Argentina, Forsyth played in 10 of them and Buchan played in only 5. Was he injured during that period? But more importantly, to me, Forsyth played alongside McQueen in the two crucial qualifiers. At Hampden against Czechoslovakia and at Anfield. At Anfield Buchan only came on as a sub because Jardine got injured. I don't remember McLeod having any particular favoritism for Buchan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orraloon said:

I'm not saying you are wrong here, but I'm going to need some more convincing of that. In the 12 games prior to Argentina, Forsyth played in 10 of them and Buchan played in only 5. Was he injured during that period? But more importantly, to me, Forsyth played alongside McQueen in the two crucial qualifiers. At Hampden against Czechoslovakia and at Anfield. At Anfield Buchan only came on as a sub because Jardine got injured. I don't remember McLeod having any particular favoritism for Buchan.

Good points, Orrapool, and I'd need to dig into this because I'm working from memory of those great days, but I do recall Buchan was injured for some months that season.

I rated Tom Forsyth, too, though, a player who now seems forgotten, but the thinking in those days was that you would have one centre back who attacked the ball in the air and was a hard tackler and another who swept up on the ground and was maybe better ant building up from the back. McQueen and Forsyth played the former role normally for their teams and Scotland whereas Buchan was the cool footballing brain. To be honest all three could tackle hard and were good to great in the air, and Forsyth and McQueen often charged forward.

Buchan was really fast, too, as well as experienced composed and skilled. If an actual left back had been available for the Peru game, I'm sure McLeod wanted to use Buchan at right back and Stuart Kennedy would not have been thrown in at the deep end, but there was no left back available.

 

It's forty years ago now, though, and I'm sure I might be merging and mixing memories a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did a quick search and I think McLeod's World Cup squad numbers prove Buchan was first team pick:

1 GK Alan Rough      
2 DF Sandy Jardine      
3 DF Willie Donachie      
4 DF Martin Buchan      
5 DF Gordon McQueen      
6 MF Bruce Rioch (c)      
7 MF Don Masson      
8 FW Kenny Dalglish      
9 FW Joe Jordan      
10 MF Asa Hartford      
11 MF Willie Johnston      
12 GK Jim Blyth      
13 DF Stuart Kennedy      
14 DF Tom Forsyth      
15 MF Archie Gemmill      
16 FW Lou Macari      
17 FW Derek Johnstone      
18 MF Graeme Souness      
19 FW John Robertson      
20 GK Bobby Clark      
21 FW Joe Harper      

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ally MacLeod was in charge for 17 games. Tom Forsyth played in 14 of those games. He partnered McQueen in 6 of them. The only games Forsyth didn't play in were two friendlies against East Germany and Bulgaria, and Ally's final game in Austria which was after Forsyth had retired from international football. When it came to competitive games Forsyth was ahead of Martin Buchan for that central defence place,IMO. Buchan was a much more skillful player than Forsyth. He was one of those silky defenders who could play a bit. He was the versatile player who could play a lot of positions at the top level. Under MacLeod he tended to be the player who came in to replace others who weren't available. 

Martin Buchan played 10 times under MacLeod. He played at left back and at right back when McGrain, Jardine or Donachie weren't available. When he played in central defence he was also often replacing someone else (usually McQueen). He only partnered McQueen twice under MacLeod. One of those games was one of those friendlies that Forsyth didn't play in, and the other was that game in Austria after Forsyth had retired. Most of the games that Buchan played in central defence he was actually partnering Forsyth. 

It could be argued that Forsyth was actually MacLeod's stalwart in central defence, but we all know that McQueen was the main man, and was a real world class defender (possibly the best in the world?) when he was fit. McQueen also played 10 of Ally's internationals. He missed 4 games due to the injury that ruled him out of WC78. The other 3 games he missed was the 77 tour to South America which was when Buchan got 3 of his games in central defence. Alongside Forsyth.

Kenny Burns was also pushing for a place around this time but IMO he wasn't in the same league as the other three.

There is no doubt in my mind that if everybody in the squad was fit the starting defence would have been Jardine, McGrain, McQueen and Forsyth with Martin Buchan on the bench ready to replace any one of them if required. 

But I guess we will never know for sure, it's all about opinions. Ally, himself probably didn't know who he would have picked if they had all been fit?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Ally MacLeod was in charge for 17 games. Tom Forsyth played in 14 of those games. He partnered McQueen in 6 of them. The only games Forsyth didn't play in were two friendlies against East Germany and Bulgaria, and Ally's final game in Austria which was after Forsyth had retired from international football. When it came to competitive games Forsyth was ahead of Martin Buchan for that central defence place,IMO. Buchan was a much more skillful player than Forsyth. He was one of those silky defenders who could play a bit. He was the versatile player who could play a lot of positions at the top level. Under MacLeod he tended to be the player who came in to replace others who weren't available. 

Martin Buchan played 10 times under MacLeod. He played at left back and at right back when McGrain, Jardine or Donachie weren't available. When he played in central defence he was also often replacing someone else (usually McQueen). He only partnered McQueen twice under MacLeod. One of those games was one of those friendlies that Forsyth didn't play in, and the other was that game in Austria after Forsyth had retired. Most of the games that Buchan played in central defence he was actually partnering Forsyth. 

It could be argued that Forsyth was actually MacLeod's stalwart in central defence, but we all know that McQueen was the main man, and was a real world class defender (possibly the best in the world?) when he was fit. McQueen also played 10 of Ally's internationals. He missed 4 games due to the injury that ruled him out of WC78. The other 3 games he missed was the 77 tour to South America which was when Buchan got 3 of his games in central defence. Alongside Forsyth.

Kenny Burns was also pushing for a place around this time but IMO he wasn't in the same league as the other three.

There is no doubt in my mind that if everybody in the squad was fit the starting defence would have been Jardine, McGrain, McQueen and Forsyth with Martin Buchan on the bench ready to replace any one of them if required. 

But I guess we will never know for sure, it's all about opinions. Ally, himself probably didn't know who he would have picked if they had all been fit?

 

Your research is genuienly awesome! I'm going more by memories of the period and I'm now inclining towards your way of thinking here, but with a couple of caveats, though: I do think the squad jersey numbers 1-11 in McLeod's reign were a genuine reflection of the intended first team, all going well. If you look at them, every other person from 1-11 was undoubtedly McLeod's preferred option in each position, so why should Buchan get Forsyth's number?

Buchan had also been out injured for some months in the pre-World Cup period, ISTR, which must have influenced his caps in that time. 

Finally, and by all accounts, Buchan was considered by many the most intelligent player in the squad and he tended to let managers know what he thought, which led to initial conflict with McLeod until they became friendlier.

What we are both in agreement about, though was that Ally's five key defenders were Jardine, McGrain, McQueen, Forsyth and Buchan. With McGrain and McQueen unavailable, he would definitely have wanted to field a back four of Jardine, Donnachie, Forsyth and Buchan, which would have been a very strong line up, too, but injury and suspension deprived him of both Jardine and Donnachie. As it was, only Forsyth actually played in the position intended for him against Peru: no manager would want to start a World Cup against strong opposition with his third choice right back, fourth choice central defender and no recognised leftback.

I rewatched the whole match about 8 years ago and saw that Tam Forsyth was the only one of the back four who played well. I feel sorry for McLeod for not having a stronger defence available, although the complete lack of a deputy leftback in the squad was his own fault.

McLeod's team selection against Peru made sense, even though all the hindsight brigade have falsely claimed since that game that it was "obvious" to everyone that Souness should play.

McLeod's fault against Peru was utter, shambolic disregard for the opposition and his dreadful mistakes in terms of selection actually came in the Iran game. (By pretty much every account, the senior players picked the team to play Holland.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...