Hankey Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Scotland is a nation of 5m people and barely 20 full-time clubs, its not some sprawling land mass. What are people expecting? You'll get more meaningless games, a diluted top tier, a second tier full of part-time village clubs, which people will divert their moaning about whilst continuing to mump about summer football and other assorted shite like back in the glory days of when 50,000 turned up every week to watch Clyde v Albion Rovers and weans never had playstations. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) Scotland is a nation of 5m people and barely 20 full-time clubs, its not some sprawling land mass. What are people expecting? You'll get more meaningless games, a diluted top tier, a second tier full of part-time village clubs, which people will divert their moaning about whilst continuing to mump about summer football and other assorted shite like back in the glory days of when 50,000 turned up every week to watch Clyde v Albion Rovers and weans never had playstations. My point is that there has been a concerted effort to increase the meaningless games. The top teir intentionally dilutes it's variety of competition. The, dillusion persists, that only Aberdeen, D.U. Hibs Hearts have a chance of challenging the old firm dominance. There is a fawning to the old firm, the english premirship and others, a follow them atitude that this is how it is done. What works for them clearly doesn't work here. As you rightly point out our circumstancs are different. We should embrace them and make the most of all that we have. Not ignore them and put all our eggs in the one basket trying to emulate others. Football is about competition. The Scottish football "establishment" seems to have a nasty habit of saying " It's oor ba' and your no' playin" .... cuz yer grounds too shabby or you've had yer chance and we've moved on...... It's a sneering , you're below us and know your place mindset that quells aspiration and denies competition. I doubt we will return to 50,000 turning up for a clyde v the wee rovers again.... but that's not to say either club couldn't beat top flight clubs on their day... Given more of a chance than a once every decade scottish cup tie, maybe more would turn up to cheer them on. Edited July 8, 2015 by ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Scotland is a nation of 5m people and barely 20 full-time clubs, And soon to be less if crowds keep dropping. And one of the principal causes crowds are drifting away is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter of '63 Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 From 1890 until 1975 Scottish football had a top division of either 18 or 16 clubs. Over this period we had the largest crowds attending games ever seen, including achieving huge world record one-off gates for some individual games, notable successes for Scottish teams in Europe and, arguably, we produced the best Scottish players to have graced the game. I accept that the size of the top division wasn't the defining factor in all of this, but it does seem to me to have made a significant contribution. I've never understood the idea of ' meaningless matches'. If Thistle are playing, and it doesn't matter who or where, it certainly means something to me and most other Thistle fans. (It's a bit like the whole 'matchday experience' thing - the only question I have about my matchday experience is, 'Did we win?') The introduction of the original Premier League was sold to that fans on the basis that it would provide genuine competition with the stranglehold of Rangers and Celtic on the game in Scotland being broken. How did that work out? Initially it worked out very well. Aberdeen and Dundee United were nearly relegated in the first Premier League and realised that they had to step up their game as they could no longer cruise through a season with no real threat of relegation. They both won the League breaking the Old Firm stranglehold and reached European Finals. Their players filled the Scotland squad which qualified for successive World Cup Finals Likewise Thistle had a strong team which survived in the Top League for about seven years and we brought through youngsters of the calibre of Alan Hansen, Jim Melrose & Mo Johnston - far better players than we brought through in the wilderness years when we weren't even in the top League. Times have changed though and winning sides are now determined by their financial muscle. I'm happy enough with the present League Format as there has been a genuine competitive edge to nearly every game we have played in the last two seasons - it's why I like going to games. I really wouldn't welcome a return to an 18 club League - I take the point about playing the same teams so often but I am not particularly enthused about watching not very great players with Raith Rovers or Queen of the South rather than seeing top class players twice with Aberdeen or Dundee Utd(before they transferred them). We have played Raith & Queens far more often than the Dons & United over the last 20 years anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian_mac Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 The "meaningless games" argument is ridiculous. You could have a 6-8 team league and there would still be meaningless games. Even in the champions league group stages which is a 4 team league, there are still meaningless games every season - it's completely unavoidable no matter how small the league is. Crowds are dwindling at the moment because of the mundane system of playing the teams 4 times a season. The over-familiarity is also very bad for the entertainment value as the teams all know each others style of play too well and tend to cancel each other out. All the top leagues in Europe (Germany England, Spain, Italy, France) have 18/20 teams in their top leagues. The performances of QOS and Falkirk last year show that teams from the league below could easily step up and compete. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veejag Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 One league. 42 teams. Done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 One league. 42 teams. Done. Two leagues One of 40 teams and one of 2. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jag Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Yeah I was heading slightly towards hyperbole with the "team full of teens" line. To play devil's advocate back at you do you think that although we'd almost certainly be playing a larger number of younger players if McNamara was still the manager we'd also be playing them in a Thistle team that was still in the second tier of Scottish football due to McNamara's inability to show any tactical flexibility if plan A wasn't working or put out a team that could consistently win a decent amount of away games at that level. I'm inclined to think that the additional element of pragmatism that Archie brings to the manager's job is partially responsible for less opportunities for players straight out of our youth development setup but that this is also combined with the factors described in my previous message about our youth development still being a work in progress and, also, with the higher quality threshold required for a player to be suitable for the first team associated with being in the top division rather than the one below it. No dispute that the current league set up is a hindrance rather than a help to giving youth a chance. We'll never know where we would have been had McNamara stayed. Could have been in Europe after a cup win, could have never got out the 1st Division. I personally think we would still have won the league with him in charge but obviously opinions vary on that one. With the way things are set up at the moment, I don't think it would be too fair criticising Archie for not giving youngsters a regular run in the team. However, it has crossed my mind a few times that, although our newly restructured youth set up is still in it's infancy, we have a number of highly rated youngsters who haven't managed to make the break through. I thought this season may have been the one for a few of them but, with Archie quoting the other day that he still hopes to bring in four or five new faces, that their chances will be limited again. Time will tell. Of course it could be the case that they are not good enough to step up to the level required but that goes back to my point of we won't know unless they get a run of games. I think a 16 team league would give them more of an opportunity to prove themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bunny Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Obviously a club like ours would prefer a bigger league - although you can never be sure you'd be safe - but I don't think it would work unless you did something about the middle range of teams. In the present situation it's possible that all the bottom half of the split could be involved in the relegation fight. In a bigger league you're likely more often to have a bunch of clubs with nothing to play for. Could you have a three-way split? Then maybe the middle clubs could have a mini-competition with extra points say for scoring goals. Maybe some kind of prize for being top goal scoring club in the middle group: that would give something to play for, and an interest for fans, attacking football ensuing would interest fans and as the clubs would be safe from relegation they could risk playing more youngsters - again more interest for fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.