Wins Against ‘Big’ Teams

[Whelky75]

I have been following Scotland for just over 30 years, since 1992.

For the first seven years, from 1992 to well into 1999, I don’t remember any competitive victories over ‘big’ teams, although we were often quite highly-seeded ourselves at that time, so most of our games against big teams came at major finals, rather than in qualifying.

Then for the next eight years, from 1999 to 2007, we were relatively spoiled, with four such victories over big teams - England away, Netherlands at home, France at home, and France away. Remarkably, and sadly, none of these four victories ultimately ended in a successful qualification and have all gone down as great one-off moments, rather than as a part of some greater success. A lot of that was down to us being drawn in the hardest group there has ever been, hardest group possible, and hardest group there will be for a long, long time, in qualifying for Euro 2008, hence why we could beat the same big team home and away and still fail to qualify.

Then, there was a dry spell of over 15-and-a-half years until last night provided the next competitive victory over a big team. That’s a pretty long wait and probably shows how far we have fallen as a footballing force, in recent years, although equally, these games aren’t exactly very regularly occurring and are by definition very difficult to win. We have had plenty of draws against big teams in the past 30 years as well, so it hasn’t all been doom and gloom.

(Apologies if I have forgotten any competitive wins against big teams, but from my own definition, I think these would be the only five victories which fall into that category, since 1992.)

 

I think the average of one win against a big team every 5-10 years is what makes these moments so special - the fact that they are so rare for us means that we do really appreciate them when they happen and don’t take them for granted in any way. I just hope that last night’s result can buck the trend of the previous four I mentioned and actually lead to a successful qualification at the end of the campaign.

Edited March 29, 2023 by Whelky75

[Orraloon]

I would class Croatia as a "Big team".

[mccaughey85]

16 minutes ago, Whelky75 said:

I have been following Scotland for just over 30 years, since 1992.

For the first seven years, from 1992 to well into 1999, I don’t remember any competitive victories over ‘big’ teams, although we were often quite highly-seeded ourselves at that time, so most of our games against big teams came at major finals, rather than in qualifying.

Then for the next eight years, from 1999 to 2007, we were relatively spoiled, with four such victories over big teams - England away, Netherlands at home, France at home, and France away. Remarkably, and sadly, none of these four victories ultimately ended in a successful qualification and have all gone down as great one-off moments, rather than as a part of some greater success. A lot of that was down to us being drawn in the hardest group there has ever been, hardest group possible, and hardest group there will be for a long, long time, in qualifying for Euro 2008, hence why we could beat the same big team home and away and still fail to qualify.

Then, there was a dry spell of over 15-and-a-half years until last night provided the next competitive victory over a big team. That’s a pretty long wait and probably shows how far we have fallen as a footballing force, in recent years, although equally, these games aren’t exactly very regularly occurring and are by definition very difficult to win. We have had plenty of draws against big teams in the past 30 years as well, so it hasn’t all been doom and gloom.

(Apologies if I have forgotten any competitive wins against big teams, but from my own definition, I think these would be the only five victories which fall into that category, since 1992.)

 

I think the average of one win against a big team every 5-10 years is what makes these moments so special - the fact that they are so rare for us means that we do really appreciate them when they happen and don’t take them for granted in any way. I just hope that last night’s result can buck the trend of the previous four I mentioned and actually lead to a successful qualification at the end of the campaign.

We were probably due a win against a proper elite team although arguably denmark could be considered elite at the time we beat them. Beating denmark and even croatia twice doesnt have quite the same feeling as beating a proper heavyweight like spain. 

I think the best victories in terms of oppenents we have had in the last 20 years would be spain, france x 2, Netherlands, croatia x 2, denmark.

Last nights victory should do wonders for the team and nations belief as i usually expect us to lose or struggle against genuine heavyweight nations like spain which is/was understandable considering how seldom we beat one.

Interestingly enough i dont remember alot of victories over heavyweight nations back in the 90s and we were a pretty decent side back then. 

I remember the england win at wembley in 99. We did beat sweden who were a top side in the 90s but wether they could be considered a proper heavyweight is something i cant remember. Maybe someone who remembers the 90s better could tell us if we had any other big victories over top nations during the 90s. 

 

[Whelky75]

28 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

I would class Croatia as a "Big team".

As in, when we beat them in qualifying for World Cup 2014?

I don’t see them as a big team at that point, and also I think we were already out by the time we played them.

[Whelky75]

24 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

We were probably due a win against a proper elite team although arguably denmark could be considered elite at the time we beat them. Beating denmark and even croatia twice doesnt have quite the same feeling as beating a proper heavyweight like spain. 

I think the best victories in terms of oppenents we have had in the last 20 years would be spain, france x 2, Netherlands, croatia x 2, denmark.

Last nights victory should do wonders for the team and nations belief as i usually expect us to lose or struggle against genuine heavyweight nations like spain which is/was understandable considering how seldom we beat one.

Interestingly enough i dont remember alot of victories over heavyweight nations back in the 90s and we were a pretty decent side back then. 

I remember the england win at wembley in 99. We did beat sweden who were a top side in the 90s but wether they could be considered a proper heavyweight is something i cant remember. Maybe someone who remembers the 90s better could tell us if we had any other big victories over top nations during the 90s. 

 

I considered the Sweden, Croatia (twice) and Denmark matches you mentioned, however I wouldn’t count any of those as big teams at the times we beat them and also, I only counted the Sweden match as a competitive match out of those four, due to teams being already qualified or eliminated. 
 

What a win that was over Sweden, at Ibrox and mainly thanks to a rather old Jim Leighton if I remember correctly, but it doesn’t quite fit the criteria for me, as Sweden were relatively-speaking in a bit of a lull at that point and had declined from the team which reached the semis of major tournaments in both 1992 and 1994, failing to qualify for Euro 1996 as well as failing to finish in the top two for the group in question here, in qualifying for the 1998 World Cup.

[mccaughey85]

3 minutes ago, Whelky75 said:

As in, when we beat them in qualifying for World Cup 2014?

I don’t see them as a big team at that point, and also I think we were already out by the time we played them.

I think they could be considered a big team at the point. Pretty sure they were ranked pretty high in the fifa rankings and had been getting good results up until we played them. I think if you consider what they went onto do then they could be considered an elite team.

Saying that it didnt feel like a huge scalp/s at the time.

Looking back at that group it was probably the worst group ever for us. Belgium were elite, croatia were about to become elite. Serbia had a really strong team on paper and wales were about to begin their successful period with ramsay and bale. Macedonia were no mugs either in terms of being considered the weakest team. 

Trying to get second place out of that group was near on impossible. I wouldnt expect this scotland team under clarke to get 2nd in that group. 

[mccaughey85]

2 minutes ago, Whelky75 said:

I considered the Sweden, Croatia (twice) and Denmark matches you mentioned, however I wouldn’t count any of those as big teams at the times we beat them and also, I only counted the Sweden match as a competitive match out of those four, due to teams being already qualified or eliminated. 
 

What a win that was over Sweden, at Ibrox and mainly thanks to a rather old Jim Leighton if I remember correctly, but it doesn’t quite fit the criteria for me, as Sweden were relatively-speaking in a bit of a lull at that point and had declined from the team which reached the semis of major tournaments in both 1992 and 1994, failing to qualify for Euro 1996 as well as failing to finish in the top two for the group in question here, in qualifying for the 1998 World Cup.

Yeh perhaps sweden wasnt quite an elite team at that point although i think you are being unfair in terms of our win over denmark and croatia x2. I would consider them to be elite teams at the time we played them and just because they had qualified doesnt take the shine off a good victory over top opposition.

Looking at the 90s on google and wiki it seems like our only victories over elite sides were a friendly win over germany in 99 and our win over england in 99. Not that impressive considering we were a decent side. Maybe theres ones i am missing.

[Whelky75]

Just now, mccaughey85 said:

I think they could be considered a big team at the point. Pretty sure they were ranked pretty high in the fifa rankings and had been getting good results up until we played them. I think if you consider what they went onto do then they could be considered an elite team.

Saying that it didnt feel like a huge scalp/s at the time.

Looking back at that group it was probably the worst group ever for us. Belgium were elite, croatia were about to become elite. Serbia had a really strong team on paper and wales were about to begin their successful period with ramsay and bale. Macedonia were no mugs either in terms of being considered the weakest team. 

Trying to get second place out of that group was near on impossible. I wouldnt expect this scotland team under clarke to get 2nd in that group. 

Yeah, that was another horrible ‘Group of Death’ type group, it perhaps didn’t look so right from the start, as none of the ‘big five’ were in there, but considering how Belgium, Croatia and Wales turned out over the next 6 years, that was a really tough group.  We’ve had our fair share - Euro 2008 being the worst, obviously, but also Euro 2016 too, along with others to a lesser extent.

I don’t consider the Croatia we faced from 2012 to 2014 as a big team, and even if I did, I don’t count either of our matches against them as competitive matches, so it doesn’t fit the criteria for me. Those results certainly didn’t have the feel of the other five I mentioned, mainly because of the reasons I’ve given!

[Whelky75]

1 minute ago, mccaughey85 said:

Yeh perhaps sweden wasnt quite an elite team at that point although i think you are being unfair in terms of our win over denmark and croatia x2. I would consider them to be elite teams at the time we played them and just because they had qualified doesnt take the shine off a good victory over top opposition.

Looking at the 90s on google and wiki it seems like our only victories over elite sides were a friendly win over germany in 99 and our win over england in 99. Not that impressive considering we were a decent side. Maybe theres ones i am missing.

The fact they had already qualified very much does take the shine off. Coupled with the fact that we had nothing to play for either.

Denmark came closer to being considered a ‘big’ team than Croatia, but even they didn’t quite fall into that category. I think a big team by my own definition would probably be one in contention to win the whole tournament. Denmark were their strongest in years but still not quite a potential tournament-winner for me.

[daviebee]

The pleasing thing about last night was the total lack of inferiority our players showed.  The Dykes chance right on HT was a case in point.  I think it was Christie the ball fell to in our box and I wanted it blootered into Row Z to try and relieve the pressure and see the half out.  Instead he screened it perfectly while waiting for an option in Robertson who played a brilliant ball over their defence.  It would've been some goal.  Then you had Calmac carrying the ball way up the park at the end and squaring it to try and get a 3rd instead of running time down.

This is a different Scotland now.  Someone on here said when Clarke took over that they hoped he'd turn us into a sexier Kilmarnock.  I think he's well on his way.  Been a long time since I felt this optimistic.

[mccaughey85]

7 minutes ago, Whelky75 said:

Yeah, that was another horrible ‘Group of Death’ type group, it perhaps didn’t look so right from the start, as none of the ‘big five’ were in there, but considering how Belgium, Croatia and Wales turned out over the next 6 years, that was a really tough group.  We’ve had our fair share - Euro 2008 being the worst, obviously, but also Euro 2016 too, along with others to a lesser extent.

I don’t consider the Croatia we faced from 2012 to 2014 as a big team, and even if I did, I don’t count either of our matches against them as competitive matches, so it doesn’t fit the criteria for me. Those results certainly didn’t have the feel of the other five I mentioned, mainly because of the reasons I’ve given!

Surely the first croatia game would have been competitive or had they qualified by that point.

If you are being quite strict about criteria then yes theres probably only the 5 you have mentioned. France x2, netherlands, spain. What was the other one, england 99?

 

[Whelky75]

2 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Surely the first croatia game would have been competitive or had they qualified by that point.

If you are being quite strict about criteria then yes theres probably only the 5 you have mentioned. France x2, netherlands, spain. What was the other one, england 99?

 

Unless I’ve got my dates mixed up, I think we may have already been out by the first time we played them?

[Orraloon]

2 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Surely the first croatia game would have been competitive or had they qualified by that point.

If you are being quite strict about criteria then yes theres probably only the 5 you have mentioned. France x2, netherlands, spain. What was the other one, england 99?

 

They hadn't qualified for definite at that point but they only took one point from their last four games and still managed to finish 3 points ahead of Serbia.  

[Orraloon]

4 minutes ago, Whelky75 said:

Unless I’ve got my dates mixed up, I think we may have already been out by the first time we played them?

Aye, we were out, but they still had something to play for in our first meeting. When we beat them the second time they had already qualified for a playoff spot.

Edited March 29, 2023 by Orraloon

[Whelky75]

2 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

They hadn't qualified for definite at that point but they only took one point from their last four games and still managed to finish 3 points ahead of Serbia.  

Croatia and Belgium had effectively but not mathematically qualified.

We were already mathematically knocked out, which takes some doing, after 6 games out of 10! Possibly even after 5 matches, I’d need to do some more complicated maths for that one though!

[Orraloon]

3 minutes ago, Whelky75 said:

Croatia and Belgium had effectively but not mathematically qualified.

We were already mathematically knocked out, which takes some doing, after 6 games out of 10! Possibly even after 5 matches, I’d need to do some more complicated maths for that one though!

Serbia still had a good chance of second place above Croatia at the time we beat Croatia in the first game.

[Whelky75]

6 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Serbia still had a good chance of second place above Croatia at the time we beat Croatia in the first game.

That’s not correct.

Serbia had 7 points, having lost in Macedonia, Croatia had 16 points. There were only four matches to go. Croatia were at home to Scotland and Serbia were away to Belgium. Serbia had little to no chance of finishing in the top two by that point.

[Orraloon]

7 minutes ago, Whelky75 said:

That’s not correct.

Serbia had 7 points, having lost in Macedonia, Croatia had 16 points. There were only four matches to go. Croatia were at home to Scotland and Serbia were away to Belgium. Serbia had little to no chance of finishing in the top two by that point.

In their last 4 games the only point that Croatia picked up was in the away game to Serbia. If Serbia had managed to win that game, by 2 goals, both teams would have finished on 16 points and Serbia were ahead on head to head and had better GD. Of course, if that had happened then Croatia might have picked up the point that they needed at Hampden. We'll never know. But Croatia hadn't secured second place until they got that point in Serbia which was after we beat them first time round. 

[mccaughey85]

I think we are being too harsh in terms of criteria. A win over an elite side wether it means nothing is still a win. Fair enough last night was extra special as it helps us big time in terms of qualifying and spain are a bonafide heavyweight but wins v croatia x2 and denmark should still be considered wins v elite sides imo. 

Either way the spain victory must be up there with our greatest victories in the past 30 years. Its possibly our greatest in the last 30 years. France x2 and netherlands probably run it close but i doubt we lose 6 nil to spain like we did against netherlands in the away game.

[Whelky75]

6 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

In their last 4 games the only point that Croatia picked up was in the away game to Serbia. If Serbia had managed to win that game, by 2 goals, both teams would have finished on 16 points and Serbia were ahead on head to head and had better GD. Of course, if that had happened then Croatia might have picked up the point that they needed at Hampden. We'll never know. But Croatia hadn't secured second place until they got that point in Serbia which was after we beat them first time round. 

Yes, that’s what I said. Croatia hadn’t mathematically qualified.

However, you said Serbia still had a good chance of second place at the time we beat Croatia. They didn’t.
 

Croatia and Belgium both had five wins, and a draw against each other, from their opening six matches, and were sat on 16 points. Serbia had two wins, a draw, and three defeats, including a defeat to Macedonia, so were sat on 7 points. Croatia were about to play at home to the bottom team, Scotland. Serbia were playing away to the top team, Belgium, on the same day. Barring an incredible turnaround - both in terms of football and in terms of probability - Serbia were all but out. They certainly didn’t have the ‘good chance’ which you claim.

The way the group panned out from there, Serbia ended up closing the gap significantly to Croatia. However, at the time we are talking about, to say Serbia had a good chance of overhauling Croatia is simply untrue. The fact the gap was closed can surely be mainly put down to Croatia easing off after having qualified with several games to spare.

 

[Texas Pete]

1 hour ago, Whelky75 said:

I considered the Sweden, Croatia (twice) and Denmark matches you mentioned, however I wouldn’t count any of those as big teams at the times we beat them and also, I only counted the Sweden match as a competitive match out of those four, due to teams being already qualified or eliminated. 
 

What a win that was over Sweden, at Ibrox and mainly thanks to a rather old Jim Leighton if I remember correctly, but it doesn’t quite fit the criteria for me, as Sweden were relatively-speaking in a bit of a lull at that point and had declined from the team which reached the semis of major tournaments in both 1992 and 1994, failing to qualify for Euro 1996 as well as failing to finish in the top two for the group in question here, in qualifying for the 1998 World Cup.

Sweden finished 3rd at the 1994 World Cup which would have been less than 2 years before the draw for France 98 qualifying and they were the pot 1 team in our group. 

Sweden were probably a much better team when we beat them at Ibrox in 1996 than the Spain team we beat last night. 

[mccaughey85]

5 minutes ago, Texas Pete said:

Sweden finished 3rd at the 1994 World Cup which would have been less than 2 years before the draw for France 98 qualifying and they were the pot 1 team in our group. 

Sweden were probably a much better team when we beat them at Ibrox in 1996 than the Spain team we beat last night. 

Not sure they could be considered a better team than spain. Spain have top players in every position and have been relatively consistent in getting results at qualifying level. Sweden didnt qualify for euro 96 and on paper i doubt they had the squad strength that spain have right now.

Spain might have looked relatively poor v us but they are still a strong side and easily demolished our rivals for second 3 nil. 

 

[Orraloon]

37 minutes ago, Whelky75 said:

Yes, that’s what I said. Croatia hadn’t mathematically qualified.

However, you said Serbia still had a good chance of second place at the time we beat Croatia. They didn’t.
 

Croatia and Belgium both had five wins, and a draw against each other, from their opening six matches, and were sat on 16 points. Serbia had two wins, a draw, and three defeats, including a defeat to Macedonia, so were sat on 7 points. Croatia were about to play at home to the bottom team, Scotland. Serbia were playing away to the top team, Belgium, on the same day. Barring an incredible turnaround - both in terms of football and in terms of probability - Serbia were all but out. They certainly didn’t have the ‘good chance’ which you claim.

The way the group panned out from there, Serbia ended up closing the gap significantly to Croatia. However, at the time we are talking about, to say Serbia had a good chance of overhauling Croatia is simply untrue. The fact the gap was closed can surely be mainly put down to Croatia easing off after having qualified with several games to spare.

 

Of course they still had a good chance of second place. They only needed to beat Croatia by two goals at home. Even we managed that, and we were pure shyte at that time.

[Texas Pete]

39 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Not sure they could be considered a better team than spain. Spain have top players in every position and have been relatively consistent in getting results at qualifying level. Sweden didnt qualify for euro 96 and on paper i doubt they had the squad strength that spain have right now.

Spain might have looked relatively poor v us but they are still a strong side and easily demolished our rivals for second 3 nil. 

 

Swedem absolutely battered us at Ibrox without scoring. Spain barely laid a glove on us last night. 

I’m not saying Spain have a weak squad but the team they put out last night was nowhere near their strongest 11.

In my humble opinion our victory against Sweden in 1996 was every bit as impressive and important as our win last night.

[Whelky75]

28 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Of course they still had a good chance of second place. They only needed to beat Croatia by two goals at home. Even we managed that, and we were pure shyte at that time.

Again, what you’re saying is simply incorrect. They were 9 points behind Croatia, with four games to play.

So, first and foremost, they had to beat Croatia by 2 goals. That alone meant they didn’t have a ‘good chance’ to qualify, probably less than a 20% chance of that happening, on its own.

Secondly, they had to go away to Belgium and match/better whatever Croatia did at home to Belgium.

Finally, they had to take significantly more points from their other two matches - against Wales and Macedonia - than Croatia did from their two matches against Scotland.

I can work out a more accurate percentage chance when I have time, but I think we’ve dipped down to the realms of a ‘less than 1% chance.’ 

I’d be interested to know what you define as a ‘good’ chance? You must have a very different definition to me.

(Remember, your statement was based on what the chances were at the time when Croatia first played Scotland - not looking back on the group with hindsight, and not with the benefit of results from when Croatia had already guaranteed a top-two spot.)

I think you’d struggle to find any scenario in world football where a team who are nine points behind, with four games each to play, are considered to have a ‘good chance’ of overhauling the gap.