Will Scotland, North Ireland or Wales win Euro before England?

[alko]

One magic run ala Denmark in 92 and one of this 3 football nations could do it before England.

Click to read more...

 

[Eisen]

One magic run ala Denmark in 92 and one of this 3 football nations could do it before England.

Denmark 92 was a lot better than any of these teams. A lot. Dare I say a lot better than any team those 3 ever had? In my memory, certainly.

 

[ScottishCanuck]

Probably not, unless a Belgium-like golden generation miraculously emerges. That would take a total overhaul of Scottish football, which won't happen because it's an old boys club in which the same people steal a wage year after year.

I think Scotland have a core of young players that can qualify for tournaments more regularly, but winning it is a massive, near impossible ask. I'd like to see a more positive mentality and technical improvement, rather than an emphasis on physicality and hoofball.

 

[Chimaera]

None of the other three have the depth to do it. All of them are scraping the barrel for their squad (in N. Ireland and Wales case, even before that)

 

[TJBrocker]

Combine those three nations and they'll still have less of a chance

 

[Havre]

Denmark 92 was a lot better than any of these teams. A lot. Dare I say a lot better than any team those 3 ever had? In my memory, certainly.

I don't think that is true. That Danish team wouldn't even have played in the tournament if it wasn't for the war in Yugoslavia. Obviously, it was much more difficult to get in back then, but still. Schmeichel was a star. I guess Laudrup to some extent, but clearly the wrong brother. There might be some player I forgot, but Denmark had a much stronger team some years before 1992 with the better Laudrup, Elkjær, Olsen etc.

As for the poll. To make it interesting, you would at least have to group Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland together. Could one of them go on a fairytale run like Denmark, Greece etc. at one point? Maybe. Wales have recently reached the semi-finals. Scotland used to be good. Got traditions, interest and population to match countries like Denmark and Croatia.

I would still take England, but against all 3 it is far from certain. Even if I think Wales' golden generation is basically over and there is little to suggest Scotland has anything special going for them for some years. Still, you don't need that much more than a "Bale" and a generally decent team to be in contention for something. Scotland are bound to get an upswing at some point - even if it is unlikely that it will lead to any trophies of course.

 

[East Coast Bias]

No. No chance. This is a silly question.

 

[robertmac43]

Wales is moving away from their best generation so it won't be them. The other 2 would need some kind of miracle to make it to the finals let alone winning one.

 

[Rob]

This is kind of silly.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

The last time Scotland had a team able to even think about something like a run in a tournament was over 30 years ago. And of course even those teams couldn't actually make it out of the group stage in practice.

 

[Eisen]

I don't think that is true. That Danish team wouldn't even have played in the tournament if it wasn't for the war in Yugoslavia. Obviously, it was much more difficult to get in back then, but still. Schmeichel was a star. I guess Laudrup to some extent, but clearly the wrong brother. There might be some player I forgot, but Denmark had a much stronger team some years before 1992 with the better Laudrup, Elkjær, Olsen etc.

As for the poll. To make it interesting, you would at least have to group Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland together. Could one of them go on a fairytale run like Denmark, Greece etc. at one point? Maybe. Wales have recently reached the semi-finals. Scotland used to be good. Got traditions, interest and population to match countries like Denmark and Croatia.

I would still take England, but against all 3 it is far from certain. Even if I think Wales' golden generation is basically over and there is little to suggest Scotland has anything special going for them for some years. Still, you don't need that much more than a "Bale" and a generally decent team to be in contention for something. Scotland are bound to get an upswing at some point - even if it is unlikely that it will lead to any trophies of course.

I know. There where better Danish teams, just before in the 80s (always liked Søren Lerby as well). And I don't think you are forgetting a superstar. They had some nice pieces with Store Larsen and John Jensen. But did the other three ever field a team like that? Not that I remember.

 

[HajdukSplit]

Slightly OT but 11 years ago Ray Hudson predicted France and Italy would win a tournament before England

 

[Havre]

I know. There where better Danish teams, just before in the 80s (always liked Søren Lerby as well). And I don't think you are forgetting a superstar. They had some nice pieces with Store Larsen and John Jensen. But did the other three ever field a team like that? Not that I remember.

First I'll admit I read it wrongly - I thought you included England.

Then I still think my comment is correct though as Scotland have had some fantastic players back in the day. It was before my time so I can't say from first hand experience, but a team built around Souness and Dalglish wouldn't need much to be better than Denmark on paper in my opinion. Not sure if Law ever played for Scotland at the same time as Souness and Dalglish - might just have missed each other. Joe Jordan certainly played with the two mentioned. Alan Hansen I guess would also fit the time period late 70s somewhere. The fall of Scotland is actually a bit odd. The same way we speak of Croatia as a team that always punches above its weight, Scotland used to be such a team as well. My father still thinks of Scotland as a good team based on how he remembered them from the old World Cups

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

First I'll admit I read it wrongly - I thought you included England.

Then I still think my comment is correct though as Scotland have had some fantastic players back in the day. It was before my time so I can't say from first hand experience, but a team built around Souness and Dalglish wouldn't need much to be better than Denmark on paper in my opinion. Not sure if Law ever played for Scotland at the same time as Souness and Dalglish - might just have missed each other. Joe Jordan certainly played with the two mentioned. Alan Hansen I guess would also fit the time period late 70s somewhere. The fall of Scotland is actually a bit odd. The same way we speak of Croatia as a team that always punches above its weight, Scotland used to be such a team as well. My father still thinks of Scotland as a good team based on how he remembered them from the old World Cups

That's a bit odd given that they've literally never played in a K.O. match at a major tournament. They're kind of infamous for underachievement if anything.

 

[Havre]

That's a bit odd given that they've literally never played in a K.O. match at a major tournament. They're kind of infamous for underachievement if anything.

You might argue that I guess. Northern Ireland have.

They did qualify for 5 World Cups in a row and 6 out of 7 there for a fairly long spell. Without having checked outside of Germany and Italy I'm not sure if any other European country managed to go better than 6 out of 7 from 74 to 98? Even if they never managed to do anything special in the tournaments.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

You might argue that I guess. Northern Ireland have.

They did qualify for 5 World Cups in a row and 6 out of 7 there for a fairly long spell. Without having checked outside of Germany and Italy I'm not sure if any other European country managed to go better than 6 out of 7 from 74 to 98? Even if they never managed to do anything special in the tournaments.

Well that's the World Cup, they've only been in 3 Euros total and often did comically bad in Euro qualifying even with teams that made the World Cup. But this was a time when the Scottish league was still held in fairly high regard and teams like Rangers and Celtic actually went into European competitions with realistic hopes of winning them (that's not a joke either). So with Scotland teams that usually had your Rangers/Celtic stars *plus* a number of guys looking good in England, they certainly looked like teams that could do some damage. But never did...

 

[cgf]

I don't think that is true. That Danish team wouldn't even have played in the tournament if it wasn't for the war in Yugoslavia. Obviously, it was much more difficult to get in back then, but still. Schmeichel was a star. I guess Laudrup to some extent, but clearly the wrong brother. There might be some player I forgot, but Denmark had a much stronger team some years before 1992 with the better Laudrup, Elkjær, Olsen etc.

As for the poll. To make it interesting, you would at least have to group Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland together. Could one of them go on a fairytale run like Denmark, Greece etc. at one point? Maybe. Wales have recently reached the semi-finals. Scotland used to be good. Got traditions, interest and population to match countries like Denmark and Croatia.

I would still take England, but against all 3 it is far from certain. Even if I think Wales' golden generation is basically over and there is little to suggest Scotland has anything special going for them for some years. Still, you don't need that much more than a "Bale" and a generally decent team to be in contention for something. Scotland are bound to get an upswing at some point - even if it is unlikely that it will lead to any trophies of course.

That was still before the tournament expansion though. Back when qualifying for the tournament proper was like qualifying for the knockout stages of the tournament now and the qualifying cycle was like the group stages of the modern euros. Plus after 8 games, Denmark were just a pt behind Yugoslavia in that qualifying group.

 

[Havre]

Well that's the World Cup, they've only been in 3 Euros total and often did comically bad in Euro qualifying even with teams that made the World Cup. But this was a time when the Scottish league was still held in fairly high regard and teams like Rangers and Celtic actually went into European competitions with realistic hopes of winning them (that's not a joke either). So with Scotland teams that usually had your Rangers/Celtic stars *plus* a number of guys looking good in England, they certainly looked like teams that could do some damage. But never did...

Euros were tougher to get in to of course. Even so they did better than most European teams getting to the World Cup - hard to deny.

And they had some absolute superstars. Law won the Ballon d'or. Dalglish ended up 2nd. Johnstone 3rd. Souness being an absolute force and recognized as one of the best CMs to have played in England etc. What happened to Scotland since then I don't know. One thing is to not have superstars like that, but to go from that to being one of the weaker teams in Europe is a bit odd.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Euros were tougher to get in to of course. Even so they did better than most European teams getting to the World Cup - hard to deny.

And they had some absolute superstars. Law won the Ballon d'or. Dalglish ended up 2nd. Johnstone 3rd. Souness being an absolute force and recognized as one of the best CMs to have played in England etc. What happened to Scotland since then I don't know. One thing is to not have superstars like that, but to go from that to being one of the weaker teams in Europe is a bit odd.

Euros were tough to get in, of course, but they wouldn't have gotten into any of the 80s ones even with a larger tournament. Hard to explain why but they did just pretty poorly in the qualifiers. Even the good old DDR beat them in 83 and finished ahead of them in the group.

And they did have a good number of stars, even the ones who didn't play in England like a Davie Cooper for instance were pretty talented. But that's precisely why it was underachievement. The tournaments were smaller and tougher, of course, but let's not pretend they only ever lost out to the Brazils, Spains and West Germany's of the world. In 78 they could have advanced if they'd beaten a poor Iran team. In 86 they were beaten out by aforementioned Denmark and a middling Uruguay team (no golden generation there, Francescoli being their best player easily). In 82 it was the Soviets (admittedly a solid Soviet team), in 1990 it was Costa Rica.

 

[garbageteam]

England were literally a pen away from winning it. Scotland, NI and might as well include RoI there, are so brutally far away it's laughable. Wales had a golden generation last time around, they were like Croatia-light for the Euros and dummied the Belgians, but no one thought they had a chance to actually win it.

Better question is would any of the players from all of the other home nations make the England squad today.

 

[Dr Pepper]

If ****ing Greece can win one, anyone can.

 

[JJ68]

Hopefully Scotland can break from the yolk of the UK and win something before the English. Would be great.

 

[QuietContrarian]

I don't think that is true. That Danish team wouldn't even have played in the tournament if it wasn't for the war in Yugoslavia. Obviously, it was much more difficult to get in back then, but still. Schmeichel was a star. I guess Laudrup to some extent, but clearly the wrong brother. There might be some player I forgot, but Denmark had a much stronger team some years before 1992 with the better Laudrup, Elkjær, Olsen etc.

As for the poll. To make it interesting, you would at least have to group Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland together. Could one of them go on a fairytale run like Denmark, Greece etc. at one point? Maybe. Wales have recently reached the semi-finals. Scotland used to be good. Got traditions, interest and population to match countries like Denmark and Croatia.

I would still take England, but against all 3 it is far from certain. Even if I think Wales' golden generation is basically over and there is little to suggest Scotland has anything special going for them for some years. Still, you don't need that much more than a "Bale" and a generally decent team to be in contention for something. Scotland are bound to get an upswing at some point - even if it is unlikely that it will lead to any trophies of course.

Laudrup and Flemming Poulsen were very good players.

Also, people put waaaay too much emphasis on not qualifying.

As you said, it was much harder back then.

Yugoslavia had a really strong team aswell.

Denmark was 1pt of Yugo in that group, which was down to a dumb draw.

Denmark beat Yugo in Belgrade and lost at home.

 

[sr edler]

Snooker is too big in Scotland and Wales, taking away all the talent from football.

Yugoslavia had a really strong team aswell.

Yeah, and that's an understatement too. It was their golden generation, which had won the 1987 FIFA World Cup Youth Championship, et cetera.

On club level Red Star Belgrade had just won the 1991 European Cup against Marseille with guys like Sinisa Mihajlovic, Vladimir Jugovic, Robert Prosinecki, Dejan Savicevic & Darko Pancev. And on Marseille Dragan Stojkovic. Add to this group Srecko Katanec, Robert Jarni, Slaven Bilic, Zvonimir Boban, Davor Suker, Predrag Mijatovic, et cetera. They had tons of depth.

Denmark were just unlucky to be drawn against Yugoslavia in the qualifying group stage, losing out 1 point behind. Had they played in either of Scotland's, England's or Germany's qualifying groups (instead of said teams) they would have qualified easily. While Michael Laudrup didn't play in the 1992 Euro tournament in Sweden, he did play in the qualifying round. Denmark and Yugoslavia stole one game from each other in the qualifying group stage, both teams winning away (0-2 in Copenhagen, 1-2 in Belgrade). If you can win away in Belgrade against 1990 Yugoslavia, you're not a bad team. But Denmark also lost a point away against Northern Ireland (1-1). Yugoslavia had a crushing goal differential though (best of all qualifying teams).

Had the war not happened Yugoslavia would have been a very strong contender for the championship. They had an amazing group of players.

 

[Havre]

Laudrup and Flemming Poulsen were very good players.

Also, people put waaaay too much emphasis on not qualifying.

As you said, it was much harder back then.

Yugoslavia had a really strong team aswell.

Denmark was 1pt of Yugo in that group, which was down to a dumb draw.

Denmark beat Yugo in Beograd and lost at home.

Not saying Denmark were a crap team or anything - but neither Laudrup or Flemming Poulsen were exactly Dalglish, Law, Souness etc.

Interestingly, Scotland actually did qualify in 1992.