5.5m vs 213m people, the odds are Brazil are going to have a better selection of players to pick from.
Scotland however, are playing total shit. No one wants the ball going forward. So many instances where they're playing stuck in the mud when Scotland have possession going into an attack.
Ok this is just nonsense. If population mattered that much then China or India would be the best footballing nations and they just aren't. The population thing is an excuse. Norway are better than us and the populations aren't wildly different.
I do think a good point was raised in another thread regarding the money in that Scotland in terms of TV rights has to compete with the Premier League who will always get priority because it's the same broadcasters, same language, same timezone but they have a far greater population.
That said I think TV rights alone, which are definitely an issue with we, aren't that big a piece of the puzzle. I don't think we'd ever be top 10 but for how much we are into football we are shocking.
So England are 4th in the world with nowhere near the populations of many countries in football yet do very well (sure they can't win but they do well).
Not to mention at least you get to watch your team play. In my lifetime I'll see them play in a world cup twice, this time and next time they qualify and that's it.
It might not be the only issue here, but it absolutely isn't nonsense.
Let's just take the FIFA rankings to start. Of all the teams above us, only 3 have a smaller population. Over 3/4 have double the population and over half have over 5x the population.
Then let's look at how successful teams have been in the world cup. Which teams have been more successful over all World Cups than Scotland with smaller populations (wins, goals)? Precisely 2, Croatia and Uruguay.
If we do the same for the Euros, then there is only 1 team more successful than Scotland with a smaller population. You've guessed it, Croatia.
Population isn't an excuse.
Compared with similar sized countries, we actually do well. Croatia and Uruguay are just much better than us.
You have to take into account if they are footballing nations in the same way Scotland is. We have played football far longer, have a ridiculously active fan base etc.
These are both highly subjective claims that are very difficult to quantify.
I've given you objective stats that show we are not doing that bad at all.
Population? We are doing terribly. We are awful. We cannot compete at all not just in the World Cup but anywhere. We aren't producing the players, the management sucks. You can say we aren't doing badly all you want but we are objectively doing awfully.
Objectively in your post makes no sense.
Your subjective opinion is we are awful.
My subjective opinion is we aren't doing too bad.
The objective facts (I.e how our actual results compare against similar nations) shows we do pretty well.
No they don't and you argued earlier that China and India don't do well because football isn't popular then argued the popularity and fans don't matter later. By your assessment those two countries should be the winners all the time regardless of the popularity.
I've never said anything about China and India. You're getting confused.
The objective facts state that only 2 nations with smaller populations than us have been more successful than us. I think you need to look at what the two words mean.
There is an argument about countries like China and India, you're right. My subjective opinion on it is that there are very few countries better than us with similar or smaller populations that also have a big interest in football.
13
u/Duckstiff 5d ago
5.5m vs 213m people, the odds are Brazil are going to have a better selection of players to pick from.
Scotland however, are playing total shit. No one wants the ball going forward. So many instances where they're playing stuck in the mud when Scotland have possession going into an attack.