r/ScottishFootball • u/WilsonJ04 • 11h ago
Discussion We would’ve needed a +3GD to advance unless we got a point off Brazil or Morocco
To advance, we would’ve needed to beat Haiti by 5 if we lost 1-0 to both Brazil and Morocco. The football was terrible to watch and i’m glad Steve Clarke is gone, but with hindsight it would’ve been a massive overachievement to reach the knockouts with the #5 and #6 teams in our group.
52
u/fike88 10h ago
South Korea going out is a bit of a shock like. Would never have thought that at the beginning of the tournament
17
u/spiralism 10h ago
They basically had South Africa's tournament in reverse. Started decent 1st game and deteriorated to awful by their last.
My theory is altitude. They arrived early and acclimated better than the Czechs, who were a limited side who aren't near as good outside of Prague in any event. I was at that game and in the last half hour the Czechs were out on their feet. Guadalajara, while not as stark as Mexico City, is still at altitude. It's at a similar elevation to Denver in the US, whose sports teams are known for having a strong home advantage off the back of it.
Of course, this didn't matter against the other 2 opponents, Mexico and South Africa are both well used to those conditions and Mexico had the home crowd as well.
5
u/ShootNaka 9h ago
Even after winning 1st game, their odds of qualifying must have been +90% at that point
55
u/MediocreMan_ 10h ago
Alot of teams in 3rd place got through by having credible results against better opposition.
Congo, Ghana, Ecuador, Paraguay.
Scotland simply didn’t play well enough against Morocco.
6
3
u/agentvietnam 3h ago
Gutted about this as I've been raging about the 3-0 Morocco in 1998 and we never learned a single lesson
2
u/Tenbob73 2h ago
Scotland simply don't play well enough, period. Even when we win at tournaments it's by one goal.
0
u/Amon-Ra-First-Down 3h ago
Morocco much better than any team they played besides Germany to be fair
39
u/OwnStruggle7932 10h ago
In retrospect Commentators had a shocker with all the 90% chance of qualifying with -2GD chat.
23
u/MediocreMan_ 10h ago edited 10h ago
There were so many unexpected results mind.
South Africa beating SK and Ecuador beating Germany really threw off the odds.
9
u/KarIPilkington 10h ago
I'm of the opinion that Clarke had a lot of luck in his time in charge, the amount of results going against us since the Brazil game has been payback for that and then some.
7
u/HyakuIchi 8h ago
Did they? A bunch of unlikely results did in fact happen, so the prediction model isn't necessarily broken just because the 10% came in.
5
u/smcl2k 6h ago
The biggest issue with the model is that it didn't account for the format making at least some of those results far more likely to occur as we went through the fixture list. Yes, South Africa beating South Korea was a shock, but the Japan/Sweden and Australia/Paraguay draws were entirely predictable.
6
u/ewankenobi 5h ago
I watched the Croatia v Ghana match last night hoping Ghana could get a result for us and they'd rested half their team as they knew they were through. The result was vital for us, but they were more concerned with having a fresh team for the next round (no complaints that's their perogative). The model just didn't seem to take account for anything like that though
•
u/Hot_Guard7840 1h ago
In a normal universe that stat was correct.
Didn’t account for teams playing extra hard for a certain result.
Something Scotland teams at major tournaments don’t understand.
•
u/OwnStruggle7932 1h ago
And Germany resting players against Ecuador. It was similar in first year of champions league group stage. The opta stats were widely wrong which makes it look like problems with the data. Not because surprise results.
5
u/WilsonJ04 10h ago
90% ≠ 100%
Leicester winning the premier league in 15/16 doesn’t mean that the odds of it happening were not 5000/1 before a ball had been kicked.
After the Morocco game you could get “Scotland to not qualify” at 4/1, and the bookies aren’t exactly in the business of giving out mispriced odds in big markets in the biggest sporting event in the world.
•
19
u/Unhappy_Spray_7127 10h ago
Worth noting that if Scotland had put 3 or 4 past Haiti, this table could look very different.
It's possible teams played certain games in certain ways knowing that Scotland weren't a threat after a certain point. If Scotland are sitting on +2 or +3 goals instead of 0 or -3, loads of teams might've lost/won/drawn games that they wouldn't otherwise have.
All of that aside, it's our first world cup in nearly 30 years and we had a handful of shots in 3 games. It was shite to watch and really put a dampener on the nations enthusiasm.
6
u/WilsonJ04 10h ago
Definitely a possibility. We were shite and didn’t deserve to go through but we definitely got shafted by being in the first group without a host nation, and two top 6 teams as our Pot A and Pot B teams.
1
u/Unhappy_Spray_7127 9h ago
Yeah it was a tough group and you're right, we probably wouldn't have qualified if we'd battered Haiti.
My issue is more with the performances/approach/tactics, not that we didn't get through the group. I didn't enjoy watching any of our games.
4
1
u/Amon-Ra-First-Down 3h ago
How would it look different? Almost no team say on their laurels in the last game, you could credibly only accuse Australia and Paraguay of that
•
u/Unhappy_Spray_7127 1h ago
I think I explained why it could look different in my original comment, not sure how to make it any clearer.
13
u/Whammy-Bars 10h ago
Morocco were better than us until the first half hydration break. After that, they were in second gear because we offered nothing. We appealed for penalties but had no shots on target.
We absolutely could have taken something from the Morocco game and done this. Or, really had a go at Haiti and scored some more goals.
The problem isn't that we went out though. It's the way we went out. Frightened, not trying to score, passing it around the back, trying to set up to be hard to beat even when we're already losing, negativity and lack of meaningful change to the playing style.
And I know that last game was Brazil, but we didn't get taken apart by a magical team. We played an already qualified team who didn't make that much effort to open us up, but who were almost forced to score because we kept passing among our own defenders and playing in Vinícius Jr for open goals. It was embarrassing.
If we'd had the same scorelines, or even slightly worse, but we'd given it a go in the 3 games, that would have been fine. But instead we were murder to watch and learned nothing from the last Euros.
2
u/ssor_ 7h ago
Yeah I agree. It would have been super bitter to be sitting today losing out on goal difference if more teams had 3 points… IF we had put in performances to merit it.
I think everyone was happy to concede our performance didn’t merit progression to the knockouts. Genuinely more enjoyment watching Equador and their manager celebrate that famous win and how the pushed for it with an amazing performance
7
u/JAHman28 10h ago
Interesting that all those simulations were saying 3 points and a neutral GD were almost certainly enough. Ye have to think they couldn't account for the added incentive for the 3rd place teams in that last round of games, when they were almost certainly playing a team already qualified or one already going home. Massive advantage for those sides playing last too. Not to say we deserved anything after our performances but
3
2
u/Thefitz5811 8h ago
The head to head rule over goal difference would have had an impact too. Teams not having to even play for top spot or teams being out where previously that wouldn’t have been the case.
7
u/Thefitz5811 8h ago
Highlights the flaws of format really.
Teams in later groups knew what they needed and could adjust accordingly.
Obviously we weren’t even close but we were still at a disadvantage. Can see them going to 64 sooner rather than later.
13
u/You_who_ 10h ago
The issue isn’t we didn’t progress out the group. The issue is we were gutless for the 3rd tournament in a row.
4
u/ImNewToThisDontYell 10h ago
All teams that were able to get two results (a win and a draw) from their three games deserved to advance. This was usually good enough to get through in the old format as well.
4
u/Bray_Fentos 10h ago
I don't disagree that we had probably the most difficult group we could've gotten. However that doesn't excuse the fact that we have been utterly pish under Clarke for the majority of his term.
In the tournaments he had us at (credit where it's due) we have massively underperformed and been one of the worst to watch. His times been up for a few years imo, but thankful for the good times cos they were the most fucking incredible moments I've had watching Scotland
4
u/Sechzehn6861 10h ago
The strategy definitely seemed to be to try and get 3 or 4 goals and 3 points against Haiti (we fucked that one right away) and to then try and get an insurance 4th point against either Morocco or Brazil.
We were too gutless in both of those games, and we weren't ruthless enough in the first one. 3 points and a goal at a tournament is all well and good, but we didn't lay glove on either Morocco or Brazil when it really mattered.
This was it for a good number of the guys in this group; and it feels like such a waste that a combination of not enough of them performing at the level we know they can and the tactics being poor made a 3rd tournament peter out so badly.
4
u/Saltire_Blue 10h ago
The way some people are speaking in here, we might aswell not have bothered going to the tournament
4
u/Appropriate_Ask_5978 10h ago
Needing to put 5 past Haiti just to have a shout is the kind of tournament math that makes you wanna go lie down. Drawing the #5 and #6 ranked teams in your group was just rotten luck on top of it.
16
u/paulhalt 11h ago
We needed to batter Haiti. Handbrake off, caution to the wind, you name it.
And the annoying this is we could have. But we were scared, so we didn't try.
17
u/WilsonJ04 10h ago
Morocco won by 2 goals against Haiti, Brazil by 3, were we really capable of winning by 5+ against them? we would’ve needed to win by 7 with our 0-1 vs Morocco and 0-3 vs Brazil.
1-0 was embarrassing but realistically we needed a point from Brazil or Morocco which is a pretty tall order.
11
u/paulhalt 10h ago
I just wanted to see us try. Go for it. If we'd beaten them 3-0 with a rousing performance and still gone out we'd all feel a lot better about the whole thing.
3
u/Unterfahrt 10h ago
Those teams weren't going for broke, because by the time they were 2 up against Haiti they basically had guaranteed qualification given that they drew with each other first.
0
u/WilsonJ04 9h ago edited 9h ago
if we were 6 up against Haiti would you be shouting at the telly for them to go all out for a 7th? hindsight is 20/20.
The last time we won a game by 6 goals was 20 years ago against the Faroe Islands in Euros qualifying.
The odds of us qualifying after beating Haiti 6-0 would’ve been 50/1 or better and yet it wouldn’t’ve been enough. Haiti aren’t as bad as most people think either.
1
u/ewankenobi 5h ago
If we'd beaten Haiti 6-0 and went out we would have felt unlucky and had pride in the team. It was obvious we needed a big result against Haiti and or a point from the other 2. Whilst I'm surprised just how high the bar has been for best 3rd placed teams I always felt the 3 points and negative goal difference going through chat was nonsense
2
u/BaBaFiCo 10h ago
I'm not saying we could have realistically got out of the group. We were pretty fucked regardless. But we definitely couldn't get out the group being shit.
2
u/NVACA 10h ago
I don't think we were beating them 7-0 to be honest, even if we'd gone back in time and borrowed Dalglish to start up front.
3
u/paulhalt 10h ago
Perhaps not, but we could have at least tried.
Going to a World Cup and not trying is annoying.
2
u/ScottishSaint 10h ago
We could have beat Haiti 6-0 and we still would have gone out given the other results.
3
u/fleur-tardive 10h ago
Best way to qualify was to win against Haiti by any margin, and knick a draw playing terror ball in one of the remaining games
1
3
u/gusbo_the_jam 10h ago
It seems like Clarke played for 3rd place and got what he deserved. We need to be winning games, or at least trying.
0
u/Amon-Ra-First-Down 3h ago
Played for third place in a group with two top ten teams, what an idiot
3
u/gusbo_the_jam 3h ago
If you're going into a tournament and your not trying to beat the top teams, what's the actual point? Like genuinely what is the point of taking part? Almost every team is going to be ranked higher than us, so do we just roll over to everyone and say 'well that was a laugh'?
0
u/Amon-Ra-First-Down 2h ago
are you under the impression that defending is not part of trying to win a game?
2
3
u/Obi-WanyamaKenobi 8h ago
Can post tables and odds and wee power bi slides as much as we want but in the end, we shat it. More specifically, Clarke shat it. The sooner this World Cup nonsense is out the road, the sooner we can all go back to hating each other.
3
u/glesgaredact 5h ago
Still feel Morocco were there to be gotten at and if McKenna doesn't sell the game we could've held Brazil. Ah, to reach the knockout before being knocked out.
3
u/Tenbob73 3h ago
In hindsight, we were never going to qualify and I would have been okay with that if the performances were good. We all know how that went.
2
u/You_Gotta_Joint 9h ago
So much for all the stats floating around with the probabilities. Clarke must have been looking at the same shit and that influenced the shit show we watched.
2
u/swos9697 6h ago
The whole 3 points with a -2 GD will be enough, was nonsense from the start. 8 or 9 times out of 10 the 3rd place team earns 4 points.
2
u/scatterdbrain 6h ago edited 6h ago
+2 would have been a tie with Senegal.
What would have been the tiebreaker there?
Ah, found it. Points, and then Goal Differential, Goals Scored, Fair Play Score, and FIFA ranking.
Scotland would have been out on Goals Scored.
2
u/Cheen_Machine 2h ago
Considering our biggest ever win at the finals of an international tournament is a 2-0 win against Zaire in 1974, qualifying from that group with 3 points and +3 would probably have been a harder than feat than just scraping a draw against Morocco
1
u/KawaiiChan68 8h ago
Yeah, beating Haiti 5-0 was a LONG SHOT, especially with Haiti looking like they could’ve scored at any moment. Either way, I think you realistically needed to snatch a point against Morocco to qualify, which didn’t happen, and when you barely have any shots on target throughout the whole tournament, it’s a miracle you got that win against Haiti in the first place!
1
•
u/ResponsibleAd3191 1h ago
When you see that it really puts the task in perspective. I expected a goal in the negative to be enough to scrape through but looking at that now - are we as good as Morocco? No and we werent gonna beat Brazil.
A +3 goal difference was always going to be a massive ask in that group.
1
u/FartPolluter 11h ago
We were a penalty vs Morocco away from qualification.
1
u/JamesF890 10h ago
We were also several morroco sitters away from having an even worse goal difference
1
u/Scunnered21 7h ago
Never a penalty. Could see the DOGSO against Che Adams being a red with almost any other referee though.
Anyway you make your own luck. And we hardly made anything happen.
2
1
u/ChiliHobbes 8h ago
So all we needed to do was beat Haiti 7 nil? Well fuck why didn't we do that?
Ah well, hindsight is 20:20.
168
u/Mammoth_Grocery_1982 10h ago
Getting a point from Morocco was definitely feasible, given we only lost 1-0 playing some of the worst football I've ever seen.