Wins Against ‘Big’ Teams

[Whelky75]

4 minutes ago, Texas Pete said:

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.

I’d say the Sweden win was more important, for sure, for several reasons.

More impressive, no.

Also, I wouldn’t consider the Sweden team that had failed to qualify for Euro ‘96 as a big team any more. They also finished below us and Austria in qualifying for World Cup ‘98, although obviously that one is not an independent event to us beating them!

Edited March 29, 2023 by Whelky75

[Whelky75]

1 hour ago, mccaughey85 said:

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.

Yeah, I was talking wins against ‘big’ teams, in matches where both teams still had qualification to play for.

By big teams, I meant a team who I thought could win the tournament in question, or perhaps more importantly, the tournament just finished.

A top-seeded team is not necessarily a big team. A big team doesn’t necessarily have to be top-seeded - see Euro 2008, when somehow the World Cup winners and the runners-up both ended up in our qualifying group.

It’s easy to have short memories in football, but Croatia of 2012-2014 were not the team they are now. They were a decent team, but not what I’d call a big team.

Denmark, although having reached the Euro 2020 semis, did so having scraped through with one win in three group matches and also didn’t face any big teams themselves, on their route to the semis. They also only took one point in their World Cup Finals group in 2022. Yes, they were on an incredible winning run in the qualifying group when we beat them, but again I don’t consider them as potential tournament winners, so not a big team.

Still only the five matches I mentioned, for me.

[mccaughey85]

4 minutes ago, Texas Pete said:

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.

They had 75 percent possesion and created a fair few chances, we obviously took our chances. I would agree that our win against sweden was just as important but sweden are not a spain when it comes to player strength and depth. Sweden had also failed to qualify for euro 96. They were in decline when we played them. 

Spain might have been poor against us last night but they are still a top nation who tend to beat nations around our level. They have a full squad of top class players and they are a nation who have a much better pedigree than sweden in terms of history. 

I would say beating this spain side 2 nil is a greater achievement than beating a sweden side who were unable to qualify for euro 96. 

[Texas Pete]

4 minutes ago, Whelky75 said:

I’d say the Sweden win was more important, for sure, for several reasons.

More impressive, no.

Also, I wouldn’t consider the Sweden team that had failed to qualify for Euro ‘96 as a big team any more. They also finished below us and Austria in qualifying for World Cup ‘98, although obviously that one is obviously not an independent event to us beating them!

Our victory last night was brilliant but let’s not kid ourselves on about how good that Spain starting 11 was. 

Sweden were a very good team in 1996 even if they failed to qualify for Euro 96. Would you have been unimpressed If we had beaten Italy last night because they didn’t qualify for the last world cup?

Any victory against the top seeds in our group is fantastic.

[Texas Pete]

1 minute ago, mccaughey85 said:

They had 75 percent possesion and created a fair few chances, we obviously took our chances. I would agree that our win against sweden was just as important but sweden are not a spain when it comes to player strength and depth. Sweden had also failed to qualify for euro 96. They were in decline when we played them. 

Spain might have been poor against us last night but they are still a top nation who tend to beat nations around our level. They have a full squad of top class players and they are a nation who have a much better pedigree than sweden in terms of history. 

I would say beating this spain side 2 nil is a greater achievement than beating a sweden side who were unable to qualify for euro 96. 

If it was Spain from 13 years ago I’d 100% agree but it wasn’t.

Spain made 8 changes from their game against Norway and completely underestimated us last night. 

I was at both games (I’m not suggesting you weren’t) and I can honestly say Sweden were a better team than that Spanish team last night. Only my opinion of course. 

[mccaughey85]

1 minute ago, Texas Pete said:

If it was Spain from 13 years ago I’d 100% agree but it wasn’t.

Spain made 8 changes from their game against Norway and completely underestimated us last night. 

I was at both games (I’m not suggesting you weren’t) and I can honestly say Sweden were a better team than that Spanish team last night. Only my opinion of course. 

Well obviously. 2010 spain is probably one of the greatest international teams ever. That doesnt mean that this spain side isnt a strong team with top players. 

I would say there isnt much difference between the two sides but spain are historically a greater nation and seen as a proper heavyweight. Sweden are not. 

Also spains current squad strength on paper was probably much greater than swedens in 96. 

Its a case of looking at the player resources that each nation had or has. Spain has man city and barca stars. Sweden had a few top players but it was full of hard working journeymen who were well managed and punching above their weight as the wc94 proved. For us to beat a country like spain with the strength in depth they have is more impressive and probably shows that spain should be doing better.

Spain is always going to be a bigger scalp in ppls minds than sweden. 

 

 

[vanderark14]

I see chripper is back

[Texas Pete]

Just now, mccaughey85 said:

Well obviously. 2010 spain is probably one of the greatest international teams ever. That doesnt mean that this spain side isnt a strong team with top players. 

I would say there isnt much difference between the two sides but spain are historically a greater nation and seen as a proper heavyweight. Sweden are not. 

Also spains current squad strength on paper was probably much greater than swedens in 96. 

Its a case of looking at the player resources that each nation had or has. Spain has man city and barca stars. Sweden had a few top players but it was full of hard working journeymen who were well managed and punching above their weight as the wc94 proved. For us to beat a country like spain with the strength in depth they have is more impressive and probably shows that spain should be doing better.

Spain is always going to be a bigger scalp in ppls minds than sweden. 

 

 

Well aye that’s pretty much my point. Football isn’t played in peoples minds through. 

If Spain/France/Italy were to be some a poor pot 3 team at some point and we beat them then a lot of people would rank that a better victory than Sweden, Croatia or Denmark. 

I personally think the Spanish manager made a colossal arse of it last night. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t one of our best victories ever though. 

[Texas Pete]

2 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

I see chripper is back

100%. 

Can’t wait for the “who is this Chripper, it’s definitely not me”? patter for the 20th time. 

[0Neils40yarder]

Beating Croatia or Sweden when they were good is obviously a good achievement but neither are 'big' footballing nations...England, Spain, France, Italy, Germany and Netherlands...beat any of them and you've beat a big European team

[mccaughey85]

1 minute ago, Texas Pete said:

Well aye that’s pretty much my point. Football isn’t played in peoples minds through. 

If Spain/France/Italy were to be some a poor pot 3 team at some point and we beat them then a lot of people would rank that a better victory than Sweden, Croatia or Denmark. 

I personally think the Spanish manager made a colossal arse of it last night. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t one of our best victories ever though. 

Well if we are discussing whats more impressive then ppl will always see beating a team like spain or france as more impressive. 

Thing is spain arent a pot 3 team. They are a pot 1 team and a strong one. Just because they aint the team of 2010/12 doesnt mean they are not a top side. 

If spain were a pot 3 team and had a squad full of guys who played for celta vigo or bournemouth then i wouldnt consider beating them a bigger deal than our win against sweden or denmark. But thats not the case. They are a top 10 ranked team who are top seeds and they have a squad full of top players. Us beating them even if they re being mismanaged will always be seen as a bigger result than beating a relatively strong well managed sweden team.

[Orraloon]

39 minutes ago, Whelky75 said:

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.

You said Croatia had already qualified. I just pointed out that they hadn't. They still had plenty to play for. For a start, they hadn't secured second place. Even if they had (which they hadn't) they wouldn't have "already qualified". Second place only got them a playoff spot. And it wouldn't even have guaranteed them a playoff spot. Only the best 8 out of 9 second place teams got a playoff place. Croatia finished 8th out of 9. If Denmark had beaten Italy in their second last game then Croatia wouldn't have even got a playoff place.

On top of that, Croatia still had a chance of winning the group before we beat them. If they had taken 10 points from their last 4 games, instead of only one, they would have won the group. That was an entirely feasible scenario at that point. We stopped them having a chance of doing that.

They had plenty to play for.

Anyway let's start another argument. I think Scotland are much more entertaining to watch when we play 4 at the back. 

 

[Texas Pete]

5 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Well if we are discussing whats more impressive then ppl will always see beating a team like spain or france as more impressive. 

Thing is spain arent a pot 3 team. They are a pot 1 team and a strong one. Just because they aint the team of 2010/12 doesnt mean they are not a top side. 

If spain were a pot 3 team and had a squad full of guys who played for celta vigo or bournemouth then i wouldnt consider beating them a bigger deal than our win against sweden or denmark. But thats not the case. They are a top 10 ranked team who are top seeds and they have a squad full of top players. Us beating them even if they re being mismanaged will always be seen as a bigger result than beating a relatively strong well managed sweden team.

I know Spain aren’t a pot 3 team. That team last night were not great though and the team that ensured they were in pot 1 bears very little resemblance to their current squad. 

[Texas Pete]

21 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Well if we are discussing whats more impressive then ppl will always see beating a team like spain or france as more impressive. 

Thing is spain arent a pot 3 team. They are a pot 1 team and a strong one. Just because they aint the team of 2010/12 doesnt mean they are not a top side. 

If spain were a pot 3 team and had a squad full of guys who played for celta vigo or bournemouth then i wouldnt consider beating them a bigger deal than our win against sweden or denmark. But thats not the case. They are a top 10 ranked team who are top seeds and they have a squad full of top players. Us beating them even if they re being mismanaged will always be seen as a bigger result than beating a relatively strong well managed sweden team.

I don’t want to take anything away from the result last night though. We were brilliant last night and would have given anyone a game. I think we got Spain at the best time though as I suspect they will get better as the group progresses. 

Hopefully they will beat Norway again which will be good for our chances. 

[Whelky75]

4 hours ago, Orraloon said:

You said Croatia had already qualified. I just pointed out that they hadn't. They still had plenty to play for. For a start, they hadn't secured second place. Even if they had (which they hadn't) they wouldn't have "already qualified". Second place only got them a playoff spot. And it wouldn't even have guaranteed them a playoff spot. Only the best 8 out of 9 second place teams got a playoff place. Croatia finished 8th out of 9. If Denmark had beaten Italy in their second last game then Croatia wouldn't have even got a playoff place.

On top of that, Croatia still had a chance of winning the group before we beat them. If they had taken 10 points from their last 4 games, instead of only one, they would have won the group. That was an entirely feasible scenario at that point. We stopped them having a chance of doing that.

They had plenty to play for.

Anyway let's start another argument. I think Scotland are much more entertaining to watch when we play 4 at the back. 

 

Sorry, I’ve got rather mixed up there, thinking/assuming the top two qualified, when it was top team only and second team potentially into a playoff.

Your claim that Serbia had a good chance of finishing ahead of Croatia in second place, with four games to go, is still outrageous and inaccurate though. Please can you correct that, or if you stand by it, please can you clarify what constitutes a ‘good chance’ to you? I’m getting a percentage chance of less than 1% of Serbia finishing ahead of Croatia, at that point, which surely doesn’t count as a good chance in anybody’s books?!!

[Whelky75]

4 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:

Well if we are discussing whats more impressive then ppl will always see beating a team like spain or france as more impressive. 

Thing is spain arent a pot 3 team. They are a pot 1 team and a strong one. Just because they aint the team of 2010/12 doesnt mean they are not a top side. 

If spain were a pot 3 team and had a squad full of guys who played for celta vigo or bournemouth then i wouldnt consider beating them a bigger deal than our win against sweden or denmark. But thats not the case. They are a top 10 ranked team who are top seeds and they have a squad full of top players. Us beating them even if they re being mismanaged will always be seen as a bigger result than beating a relatively strong well managed sweden team.

Are you inside my brain? Everything you have typed is exactly what I would have said! Thank you.

The Spain team last night, still had quality in abundance - players from Real Madrid and Man City, off the top of my head, without checking each player individually to see which clubs they played for.

England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain will always be big teams. Other teams can join and leave that group. Currently Belgium, Netherlands and Portugal are at that level, with Croatia hanging on by less and less fingertips every day, as Luka Modric moves ever closer to the end of his career!

The Sweden side that failed to qualify for Euro ‘96 and World Cup ‘98 would not be considered a big team, by any measure I could think of. Top seeds, yes, (I assume?!) Big team, no.

[killiefaetheferry]

Valencia, Sociedad...comparable to our Brentford and Bournemouth boys. Went through the teams last night and our players are playing (admittedly sporadically for some 😜) for teams of similar stature to the teams of the Spanish players. 

[mccaughey85]

7 minutes ago, killiefaetheferry said:

Valencia, Sociedad...comparable to our Brentford and Bournemouth boys. Went through the teams last night and our players are playing (admittedly sporadically for some 😜) for teams of similar stature to the teams of the Spanish players. 

Sociedad are pretty decent, 4th in la liga.

Spain have definitely dropped in player standards but overall they still have a squad full of players playing for top teams or very good sides in europe. 

[Whelky75]

22 minutes ago, killiefaetheferry said:

Valencia, Sociedad...comparable to our Brentford and Bournemouth boys. Went through the teams last night and our players are playing (admittedly sporadically for some 😜) for teams of similar stature to the teams of the Spanish players. 

Eh??

What team lists were you looking at? We had four English Championship players in our team. I didn’t see anyone playing at that level in the Spain team - let alone four players.