Andy Robertson

[ceudmilefailte]

5 minutes ago, Texas Pete said:

I’m not sure trophies won is the best indicator. If Liverpool had lost the CL final they won or if they hadn’t won the league Robertson would still be the same player. 

The question you need to consider is whether Robertson is one of the best full backs in the world. If the answer to that is yes then he’s world class.  

I do think to be world class you have to show your ability over a long period of time, maybe  less if you have the ability  at a younger age.

Robertson was a very late developer if we want to call him world class.

Anyway chuffed to bits with how well he is doing for the team and he is 100% international class.

[aaid]

The other thing about McGrain, while he won most of his caps as left back, he was actually a right back and was so good there you’d never guess he was playing out of position.

He was a better right back than Sandy Jardine - although not much in it -and a better left back than anyone else available.

Robertson is an excellent player, don’t get me wrong, but there’s a load of Sky TV, football started in 1992 about this thread.

Edited November 21, 2021 by aaid

[mccaughey85]

2 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Football has leapt forward in leaps and bounds since the 1970s. Football has expanded across the globe. In the 1970s African teams were whipping boys at the World Cups but not anymore. Likewise the teams outwith Europe and South America. There were only 33 teams in Europe now there are 55. Other teams have developed their sides and are better than us. Is that Andy Robertson's fault? Of course not. My point being if you dropped Robertson into the 1974 and 1982 squads he'd have been a World Cup qualifier. Drop McGrain into today's game and would he have remained at Celtic? Would he he failed to have reached World Cups. I'd say yes to both.

If mcgrain was at celtic these days he would be bought by an epl club like all other good players celtic have these days. If he was dropped into today's scotlands team he would probably fail to reach the world cup because scotland don't have the overall squad strength to get to a world cup. Not sure how that is a relevant point. Scotland were a decent team in the 70s and 80s and didn't need to rely on mcgrain to get them to tournaments. It's obvious Robertson would get to world cups if he was dropped into the 70s and 80s scotland teams. 

It's clear that football standards are higher these days but that happens in every sport. You can only judge players on the era they played in, otherwise guys like dalglish or souness wouldnt get any credit if you compare them to the top players these days. 

I don't understand the point of there being more European teams, surely teams like yugoslavia and soviet union would of been tough teams back in the 70s and 80s. Yugoslavia would have had the best of croatia, Serbia, Bosnia pick from. Soviet Union had countless countries to pick their players from. The break up of the soviet Union has meant there is loads of poor teams like Estonia, latvia etc. Also you could arguably say it's easier to qualify for the euros or world cup these days due to the increased amount of teams allowed. 

 

[mccaughey85]

4 hours ago, daviebee said:

74/78 saw the Czechs either side of winning the European Championship.  Denmark were a bit of a joke back then and didn't really start to come good until the early 80's.  Wales had a strong side with good players like James, Yorath, Flynn  and Toshack.  It was always a battle with them but we expected to be too good for them and were.  While a 3-team group looks easy, it doesn't leave hellish much margin for error!

82 - Portugal were stuffy at that time.  We drew 0-0 at Hampden and lost 2-1 away although we'd already qualified by that time.  The key result was winning 1-0 in our opener in Sweden which got us off to a flier.

I was born in the mid 80s so I don't really have much knowledge on who was decent sides back then.

Sounds like the Czechs were a good side plus Wales were strong so qualifying out of a three team group was quite a good achievement. 

Same goes for the Denmark and Czech group. Denmark might have been poor but to beat a Czech team who won the euros is a good achievement. 

Qualifying out of the 82 group seems to me like a really good achievement. To top a group with those countries in it is surely a great achievement for us.

[daviebee]

31 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

I was born in the mid 80s so I don't really have much knowledge on who was decent sides back then.

Sounds like the Czechs were a good side plus Wales were strong so qualifying out of a three team group was quite a good achievement. 

Same goes for the Denmark and Czech group. Denmark might have been poor but to beat a Czech team who won the euros is a good achievement. 

Qualifying out of the 82 group seems to me like a really good achievement. To top a group with those countries in it is surely a great achievement for us.

We beat the Danes home and away, but the Czechs got held to a draw in Copenhagen which meant we just had to beat them at Hampden and they couldn't match our points total ( 2 for a win back then).

78 was harder as we lost our first game in Prague.  However, beating Wales twice and the Czechs at Hampden gave us an unassailable 6 points since the Czechs lost in Wales.  As I said, very little margin for error back then.

[Orraloon]

14 hours ago, aaid said:

The other thing about McGrain, while he won most of his caps as left back, he was actually a right back and was so good there you’d never guess he was playing out of position.

He was a better right back than Sandy Jardine - although not much in it -and a better left back than anyone else available.

Robertson is an excellent player, don’t get me wrong, but there’s a load of Sky TV, football started in 1992 about this thread.

I haven't had the Jardine v McGrain discussion for years. 

My view was that there was very little in it between them but they were quite different players. McGrain IMO was the better defender and because he could play equally well at right or left back I would say he was the better full back, but not by much. 

On the other hand I think Jardine was a better all round footballer. McGrain hardly ever played any other position than right or left back and he became the master in those positions. Jardine played quite a few games in midfield for Rangers and scored a lot more goals than McGrain. He also showed his versatility as he got older by getting his second POTY award whist playing sweeper for the Jambos. 

In an era when it was quite common for defenders to get away with trying to boot annoying wee wingers into the stands, neither McGrain nor Jardine resorted to those tactics. They relied mainly on their skill and pace both defending and going forward. 

Both were fantastic players and if they were around today, playing at their peak, they would undoubtedly be the best two players in our squad. I would have McGrain at right back, Jardine in midfield or central defence. Robbo and Tierney would be fighting it out for the left back position. 

[aaid]

5 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

I haven't had the Jardine v McGrain discussion for years. 

My view was that there was very little in it between them but they were quite different players. McGrain IMO was the better defender and because he could play equally well at right or left back I would say he was the better full back, but not by much. 

On the other hand I think Jardine was a better all round footballer. McGrain hardly ever played any other position than right or left back and he became the master in those positions. Jardine played quite a few games in midfield for Rangers and scored a lot more goals than McGrain. He also showed his versatility as he got older by getting his second POTY award whist playing sweeper for the Jambos. 

In an era when it was quite common for defenders to get away with trying to boot annoying wee wingers into the stands, neither McGrain nor Jardine resorted to those tactics. They relied mainly on their skill and pace both defending and going forward. 

Both were fantastic players and if they were around today, playing at their peak, they would undoubtedly be the best two players in our squad. I would have McGrain at right back, Jardine in midfield or central defence. Robbo and Tierney would be fighting it out for the left back position. 

Sandy Jardine was my first footballing hero as I was a right back myself for the local boys club.  That's why I have a Toffs 1974 replica with 2 on the back.

I think at Hearts, he'd lost a yard of pace which meant he couldn't cut it at at right back but his experience and reading of the game meant he could play easily at sweeper.   I can remember suggestions that he should be recalled for Scotland around the time that Hearts blew the double, which when you consider the calibre of centre halves we had at that time was some compliment.

Just having a look at his career stats and they are seriously impressive.

Made his debut at 18 for Rangers and retired 20 years later with Hearts, all bar one season - his first at Tynecastle - in the top division.  From 1970/71 to 1986/87 he only made fewer than 30 appearances in one season - when he made 25 in a 36 game season, presumably with an injury.

Danny McGrain's are only slightly less impressive with an 18 year career, 17 of which were in the top division.

Similarly, pretty much an ever-present, with the exception of the injury in 1977/78 that kept him out of the World Cup.

McGrain of course played for the early part of his career with undiagnosed diabetes.

I think the differential in goals is that Jardine would often cut inside and shoot, whereas McGrain was probably a bit more orthodox in that he'd be more likely to go for the bye-line and put a cross in, which McGrain mentions here - a good montage on Jardine.
 

 

[Caledonian Craig]

13 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:

 

I don't understand the point of there being more European teams, surely teams like yugoslavia and soviet union would of been tough teams back in the 70s and 80s. Yugoslavia would have had the best of croatia, Serbia, Bosnia pick from. Soviet Union had countless countries to pick their players from. The break up of the soviet Union has meant there is loads of poor teams like Estonia, latvia etc. Also you could arguably say it's easier to qualify for the euros or world cup these days due to the increased amount of teams allowed. 

 

The point is there is far greater strength in depth with the increased number of nations. There are more banana skin opponents to slip teams up. If you look back to the 70s Greece were seen as whipping boys but have since improved to the point of becoming European Champions. Iceland were also dross now they have qualified for major tournaments beating the likes of England at them. Teams not even formed in the 1970s are now top notch international sides such as Croatia, Serbia and others are on the rise such as North Macedonia. And no it is tougher to qualify especially for the World Cup whereas back in the 1980s and 90s the top two in a five team group were guaranteed qualification from a section containing far less teams today only group winners (in groups of six) are guaranteed qualification with the rest having the added task of play-offs to reach the World Cup.

[er yir macaroon]

35 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Both were fantastic players and if they were around today, playing at their peak, they would undoubtedly be the best two players in our squad.

They were both great players. In terms of the whole squad, I think McGinn has probably eclipsed them at international level and Gilmour will in future. So I would argue that you should replace “undoubtedly “ with “possibly”. 

[daviebee]

4 hours ago, er yir macaroon said:

They were both great players. In terms of the whole squad, I think McGinn has probably eclipsed them at international level and Gilmour will in future. So I would argue that you should replace “undoubtedly “ with “possibly”. 

I'd argue that you wouldn't.  If you were picking your all-time Scotland 11 then Jardine and McGrain would be the full-backs.  It's highly debatable whether John McGinn would get into the all-time 11 midfield much as I like the guy.  (McGrain in fact probably can be considered as our best ever right-back AND left-back!)

[er yir macaroon]

1 hour ago, daviebee said:

I'd argue that you wouldn't.  If you were picking your all-time Scotland 11 then Jardine and McGrain would be the full-backs.  It's highly debatable whether John McGinn would get into the all-time 11 midfield much as I like the guy.  (McGrain in fact probably can be considered as our best ever right-back AND left-back!)

I guess it depends on how it’s defined. For me it should be about Scotland performances, not what was done at their clubs. Not many Scotland players have done better than McGinn, or McFadden for that matter, even if many other have had better club careers. 

[Third Lanark]

I can go back to the 74 world Cup as an adult so I'm in a good position to judge. Both Jardine and McGrain were footballers first and foremost - they played like inside forwards at full back. Although - Patterson and Robertson are more athletic in terms of covering ground, but that's just the way the game has changed. I also recall a guy called John Brownlie who was sensational against Eng. at Wembley at right back; whatever happened to him? 

[aaid]

15 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:

I guess it depends on how it’s defined. For me it should be about Scotland performances, not what was done at their clubs. Not many Scotland players have done better than McGinn, or McFadden for that matter, even if many other have had better club careers. 

If we’re only talking about Scotland performances then Dalglish and Souness were both in three World Cup squads although Dalglish had to withdraw from the 1982 squad through injury, he should probably have been in the 1986 squad as well.  Souness was captain in 86.  

John McGinn and McFadden have each appeared in zero World Cups.

[Orraloon]

 

 

19 minutes ago, aaid said:

If we’re only talking about Scotland performances then Dalglish and Souness were both in three World Cup squads although Dalglish had to withdraw from the 1982 squad through injury, he should probably have been in the 1986 squad as well.  Souness was captain in 86.  

John McGinn and McFadden have each appeared in zero World Cups.

Dalglish played (and scored) in 1982. 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Orraloon

[aaid]

5 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

 

 

Dalglish played (and scored) in 1982. 

You are correct, I was getting mixed up with 1986 when he had to withdraw before the finals, something to do with falling through a glass table IIRC.  Still, James McFadden.

[Orraloon]

39 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

I can go back to the 74 world Cup as an adult so I'm in a good position to judge. Both Jardine and McGrain were footballers first and foremost - they played like inside forwards at full back. Although - Patterson and Robertson are more athletic in terms of covering ground, but that's just the way the game has changed. I also recall a guy called John Brownlie who was sensational against Eng. at Wembley at right back; whatever happened to him? 

He might have gone to the 74 WC (in fact I'm pretty sure he would have) If he hadn't had a really bad leg break about a year before hand. He was out for almost a year and just starting to get back at the time to WC came around. 74 was where Jardine and McGrain made a name for themselves on the world stage and it was always going to be hard for him to get back in the team after that.

[Auchinyell Sox Change]

7 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

The point is there is far greater strength in depth with the increased number of nations. There are more banana skin opponents to slip teams up. If you look back to the 70s Greece were seen as whipping boys but have since improved to the point of becoming European Champions. Iceland were also dross now they have qualified for major tournaments beating the likes of England at them. Teams not even formed in the 1970s are now top notch international sides such as Croatia, Serbia and others are on the rise such as North Macedonia. And no it is tougher to qualify especially for the World Cup whereas back in the 1980s and 90s the top two in a five team group were guaranteed qualification from a section containing far less teams today only group winners (in groups of six) are guaranteed qualification with the rest having the added task of play-offs to reach the World Cup.

Add Turkey to that list

eng hammered them 8-0 ( away ..) the night we beat spain 3-1 ; it stands out in my mind as i got a daily record as we walked over a bridge over the clyde on way back to queen st station - read it in the queue / as we waited ages for the ‘paper train ‘ back in abz 2ish i think 

also most of the scandanavian countires were very poor in the 70s

 

[er yir macaroon]

5 hours ago, aaid said:

If we’re only talking about Scotland performances then Dalglish and Souness were both in three World Cup squads although Dalglish had to withdraw from the 1982 squad through injury, he should probably have been in the 1986 squad as well.  Souness was captain in 86.  

John McGinn and McFadden have each appeared in zero World Cups.

I’m well aware of Dalglish and Souness and watched them many times. 

[Malcolm]

6 hours ago, Orraloon said:

He might have gone to the 74 WC (in fact I'm pretty sure he would have) If he hadn't had a really bad leg break about a year before hand. He was out for almost a year and just starting to get back at the time to WC came around. 74 was where Jardine and McGrain made a name for themselves on the world stage and it was always going to be hard for him to get back in the team after that.

I think Brownlie played against Zaire but maybe at centre half?

[mccaughey85]

22 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

The point is there is far greater strength in depth with the increased number of nations. There are more banana skin opponents to slip teams up. If you look back to the 70s Greece were seen as whipping boys but have since improved to the point of becoming European Champions. Iceland were also dross now they have qualified for major tournaments beating the likes of England at them. Teams not even formed in the 1970s are now top notch international sides such as Croatia, Serbia and others are on the rise such as North Macedonia. And no it is tougher to qualify especially for the World Cup whereas back in the 1980s and 90s the top two in a five team group were guaranteed qualification from a section containing far less teams today only group winners (in groups of six) are guaranteed qualification with the rest having the added task of play-offs to reach the World Cup.

There is greater strength in depth these days but also less teams qualified for the world cup in the 70s and 80s. The 74 and 78 world cups had only 16 teams and the 82 world cup was 24 teams. 

Qualifying in 78 from a group that had a strong Wales and the Czechs as European champions is a great achievement. Would we manage that today? 

Qualifying for the 82 world cup with a strong northern Ireland and teams like Portugal, Sweden and Israel is pretty good going as well. Only 1st qualified from that group. Again would we manage that today? 

I think your dismissing the fact that less teams went to the world cup by making out most teams were rubbish back then. Its true that alot of the scandanaivian countries were poor and there was alot less countries in Europe but the tournaments were only 16/24 teams. 

Also not sure how you could say it was easier during the 90s either, in 94 we were up against Italy, Switzerland, Portugal, Malta and Estonia. Winners and runners up went through to the world cup. Imagine trying to get 2nd in that group today. 

In 98 we had a group of austria, Sweden, latvia, Estonia and Belarus. I think Sweden had been in the 94 semi finals and austria were a good side. Amazingly we qualified as best runner up whereas the rest of the runners up went into a play off. Not sure how you could regard that as a much easier than todays task. 

Personally I think its always been tough to qualify for a world cup especially for a country our size, difference with the 70s and 80s was we had great squads full of guys who played for top English sides winning titles and European cups. 

 

[Orraloon]

10 hours ago, Malcolm said:

I think Brownlie played against Zaire but maybe at centre half?

That was hid buddy John Blackley

[Caledonian Craig]

17 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

There is greater strength in depth these days but also less teams qualified for the world cup in the 70s and 80s. The 74 and 78 world cups had only 16 teams and the 82 world cup was 24 teams. 

Qualifying in 78 from a group that had a strong Wales and the Czechs as European champions is a great achievement. Would we manage that today? 

Qualifying for the 82 world cup with a strong northern Ireland and teams like Portugal, Sweden and Israel is pretty good going as well. Only 1st qualified from that group. Again would we manage that today? 

I think your dismissing the fact that less teams went to the world cup by making out most teams were rubbish back then. Its true that alot of the scandanaivian countries were poor and there was alot less countries in Europe but the tournaments were only 16/24 teams. 

Also not sure how you could say it was easier during the 90s either, in 94 we were up against Italy, Switzerland, Portugal, Malta and Estonia. Winners and runners up went through to the world cup. Imagine trying to get 2nd in that group today. 

In 98 we had a group of austria, Sweden, latvia, Estonia and Belarus. I think Sweden had been in the 94 semi finals and austria were a good side. Amazingly we qualified as best runner up whereas the rest of the runners up went into a play off. Not sure how you could regard that as a much easier than todays task. 

Personally I think its always been tough to qualify for a world cup especially for a country our size, difference with the 70s and 80s was we had great squads full of guys who played for top English sides winning titles and European cups. 

 

In 1974 there were 16 qualifiers for the World Cup from 99 countries that tried so a fraction over 16% of the competing countries qualified.

In 2022 there are to be double the amount of qualifiers (32) but that is from 210 entrants that tried so a fraction over 15% of the competing countries qualify.

From Europe in 1974 nine countries qualified which was more than 50% of the total qualifiers (not counting qualifying hosts and holders) In 2022 13 teams from 32 qualifiers are from Europe which is just over 40%.

[Malcolm]

52 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

That was hid buddy John Blackley

Ah ok, new it was a hibby of some sort 😂

[mccaughey85]

42 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

In 1974 there were 16 qualifiers for the World Cup from 99 countries that tried so a fraction over 16% of the competing countries qualified.

In 2022 there are to be double the amount of qualifiers (32) but that is from 210 entrants that tried so a fraction over 15% of the competing countries qualify.

From Europe in 1974 nine countries qualified which was more than 50% of the total qualifiers (not counting qualifying hosts and holders) In 2022 13 teams from 32 qualifiers are from Europe which is just over 40%.

Thats irrelevant stats, most of the top sides in Europe were around in 74, the only top sides that weren't around were Croatia who were under the banner of yugoslavia who were a very good side back then(they had the best of Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia to choose from) and the likes of the baltic States plus Ukraine who were under the soviet Union who were also a good side. Its all very well saying there are more European countries but the vast majority of these new countries are pish. Only decent countries to come out of the break up of the soviet Union and yugoslavia are Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Ukraine russia. But by the same rule we lost the soviet Union and yugoslavia who were very strong sides back then. So there are arguably four extra teams in Europe who are good sides compared to the 70s. 

In world cup 74 Europe had 8.5 spots(it was 9.5 but Germany were hosts). In 2022 Europe has 13 spots, that to me isn't alot of difference in difficulty when you consider that only 4 of the new formed European sides are any good. Also in 74 you still had all the proper big guns like Italy, Germany etc. Trying to be one of only 8.5 nations to qualify when all the big guns are present is a hard task. 

Lets remove croatia, Serbia, Ukraine from today's qualifying and see if we could still be one of 8.5 European nations to qualify. I highly doubt it. 

Now fair enough the scandanaivian countries are decent sides these days but the point still stands that all of proper big guns were around in Europe back in the 70s.

In 74 and 78 we had to get out of a group that contained the European champions of 76 and a very good Wales team in 78. Would we achieve that today? We might but its unlikely imo. 

Also the vast amount of the 210 countries that entered in 2022 are pish, the 99 countries in 74 had all the top guns plus most of the decent second tier nations. Just because an extra 111 nations have entered doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of them are rubbish. 

 

 

[Caledonian Craig]

3 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Thats irrelevant stats, most of the top sides in Europe were around in 74, the only top sides that weren't around were Croatia who were under the banner of yugoslavia who were a very good side back then(they had the best of Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia to choose from) and the likes of the baltic States plus Ukraine who were under the soviet Union who were also a good side. Its all very well saying there are more European countries but the vast majority of these new countries are pish. Only decent countries to come out of the break up of the soviet Union and yugoslavia are Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Ukraine russia. But by the same rule we lost the soviet Union and yugoslavia who were very strong sides back then. So there are arguably four extra teams in Europe who are good sides compared to the 70s. 

In world cup 74 Europe had 8.5 spots(it was 9.5 but Germany were hosts). In 2022 Europe has 13 spots, that to me isn't alot of difference in difficulty when you consider that only 4 of the new formed European sides are any good. Also in 74 you still had all the proper big guns like Italy, Germany etc. Trying to be one of only 8.5 nations to qualify when all the big guns are present is a hard task. 

Lets remove croatia, Serbia, Ukraine from today's qualifying and see if we could still be one of 8.5 European nations to qualify. I highly doubt it. 

Now fair enough the scandanaivian countries are decent sides these days but the point still stands that all of proper big guns were around in Europe back in the 70s.

In 74 and 78 we had to get out of a group that contained the European champions of 76 and a very good Wales team in 78. Would we achieve that today? We might but its unlikely imo. 

Also the vast amount of the 210 countries that entered in 2022 are pish, the 99 countries in 74 had all the top guns plus most of the decent second tier nations. Just because an extra 111 nations have entered doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of them are rubbish. 

 

 

There is so much wrong in that post I am not sure how to go about it.

Teams playing in Europe in 1974 that were strong are generally still strong now but been joined by many more such as Croatia (World Cup runners-up and perrenial qualifiers), Ukraine, Slovakia, Serbia, Bosnia and North Macedonia. The countries that you belittle such as Latvia, Estonia and Belarus are in a place that the likes of Greece, Turkey, Finland and Iceland were back in the 1970s all of which are markedly improved teams. We just need to look back to the last World Cup and Italy not qualifying to see how much harder it has become. This time around Portugal and Italy could not even qualify as group winners and Italy are the European Champions. Back in the 70s African Nations were the whipping boys at the World Cups - not any more. Countries from Asia are far more capable of causing upsets too in greater number rather than just the freak showings of North Korea in the 66 World Cup.

If you ask Scotland fans of today how good our current side is many will tell you we have the best side we have had since we last qualified for the World Cup and yet we still can't qualify directly. Another indication of how global standards have risen in quantity and quality. Anyway I don't think we are going to agree on this so I will leave it there.