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

[Incubajerks]

Hmmmm soccer no, rugby yes!

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

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.

Of course none of the Scottish players you mention played on past 1986 (and Law was a much earlier generation even). That 1992 Scotland team with McAllister, Durie, McCoist, McClair, Nevin, Gallacher, a young Duncan Ferguson was however pretty good and full of players who had either been stalwarts in Scotland or good players in England. On paper I probably would have taken them over the Danes. But that brings me back to the underachiever point. Denmark put together good tournaments, Scotland never did.

 

[QuietContrarian]

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.

That wasn’t the point tho.

You wrote they didn’t even qualify, and then my point was, but it was closer than people think, against one of Europes best teams at that time.

Also think you are underselling Brian here.
Afaik, he is part of Peles’ best 100 - and of the Names you mentioned there, only Dalglish was mentioned on that list.

 

[QuietContrarian]

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



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.

For sure quite true.

Had Denmark not drawn NI, they would have finished 1st.

They still managed to score 18 goals, 6 less than Yugo yes, but that was also down to the coach Richard moller Nielsen, who had a defense first attitude - This was the reason Laudrup among others refuses to play under him again.

Initially both Laudrups refused, aswell as Mølby.

 

[Havre]

That wasn’t the point tho.

You wrote they didn’t even qualify, and then my point was, but it was closer than people think, against one of Europes best teams at that time.

Also think you are underselling Brian here.
Afaik, he is part of Peles’ best 100 - and of the Names you mentioned there, only Dalglish was mentioned.

Says more about Pele doesn't it if he has Brian Laudrup over a Ballon d´Or winner?

I already pointed out it was more difficult to qualify back then. And that what I guess few Scots would consider their best team did qualify.

 

[QuietContrarian]

Says more about Pele doesn't it if he has Brian Laudrup over a Ballon d´Or winner?

I already pointed out it was more difficult to qualify back then. And that what I guess few Scots would consider their best team did qualify.

Not really, Allan Simonsen also won what was then that Award.
He is also not on the list.

I think it is also about pure talent, and skill, of which id argue Brian had in spades.

Also, the Scotts barely got out of one of the weaker” groups.

But all that said, I still say you are underselling both Denmarks qualification, and Brians status among footballers, no matter if Law did win a Ballon.

Id say Michael Laudrup is better than any player we both have mentioned, and he never won the Ballon - So what does that say about that award?

 

[Havre]

I´m not saying that Scotland in 1992 was better than Denmark. So completely irrelevant. I´m saying Scotland had teams earlier that were better than the Danish team in 1992 - which is what we are discussing.

I loved Brian Laudrup, but I doubt many other than Pele would rate him higher than the all time best Scottish players (except Dalglish). I honestly find that absurd that anyone would do. A list by the way that included El Hadij Diouf and not Souness. Tells me everything I need to know about that list.

 

[QuietContrarian]

I´m not saying that Scotland in 1992 was better than Denmark. So completely irrelevant. I´m saying Scotland had teams earlier that were better than the Danish team in 1992 - which is what we are discussing.

I loved Brian Laudrup, but I doubt many other than Pele would rate him higher than the all time best Scottish players (except Dalglish). I honestly find that absurd that anyone would do. A list by the way that included El Hadij Diouf and not Souness. Tells me everything I need to know about that list.

No, we weren’t arguing that, you were.

My gripe was with the emphasis on Denmark not qualifying, as if they were faaar off - This is often mentioned when talking about their fairytale win, when infact they were a good team, and the fairytale was them coming off holiday totally unprepared and without their best player, not so much the missed quali.

And then my gripe was with the underrating of Brian.

Yeah, for sure the list had mistakes - But you are mentioning a player that was put in as a recensy bias choice(the 25 xtra players he had on)

Just after he had played brilliantly.

However, you have no gripes with using the ballon, an award that has it’s own faults, not ever having Michael in a top 3 among others - There are more tho.

I never even said Brian Laudrup was as good as those players, I wrote you were underselling him, aswell as the fact that Denmark did not qualify - Too much emphasis is being put on that when talking about the Denmark 92 team, and not that they were a good team, only 1pt of from qualifying from a tough group - And that they beat Yugo in Belgrade to boot.

I wont argue if Denmarks 92 team is better than anything the Scotts have ever fielded, as I have too little knowledge of pre 90s Scotland teams.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

I don't think that Denmark team was on paper as good as Scotland or Yugoslavia or really any of the teams at the tournament. Brian Laudrup was great, so was Peter Schmeichel, but most of the other guys were at best 'competent professionals'. If you look at the star power Yugoslavia had, Prosinecki, Boban, Savicevic, Mihailovic, Suker (who wasn't even starting), Pancev (goal machine with R.S. Belgrade)...the miracle was that Denmark played the qualification so close rather than that they lost out.

Denmark winning Euro 92 was a true triumph of the underdog, make no mistake.

 

[Havre]

No, we weren’t arguing that, you were.

My gripe was with the emphasis on Denmark not qualifying, as if they were faaar off - This is often mentioned when talking about their fairytale win, when infact they were a good team, and the fairytale was them coming off holiday totally unprepared and without their best player, not so much the missed quali.

And then my gripe was with the underrating of Brian.

Yeah, for sure the list had mistakes - But you are mentioning a player that was put in as a recensy bias choice(the 25 xtra players he had on)

Just after he had played brilliantly.

However, you have no gripes with using the ballon, an award that has it’s own faults, not ever having Michael in a top 3 among others - There are more tho.

I never even said Brian Laudrup was as good as those players, I wrote you were underselling him, aswell as the fact that Denmark did not qualify - Too much emphasis is being put on that when talking about the Denmark 92 team, and not that they were a good team, only 1pt of from qualifying from a tough group - And that they beat Yugo in Belgrade to boot.

I wont argue if Denmarks 92 team is better than anything the Scotts have ever fielded, as I have too little knowledge of pre 90s Scotland teams.

I were? Please enlighten me.

And what do you know about how I rate B. Laudrup? By mentioning that Scotland had several top 3s in the Ballon d'Or and one of the best midfield players ever in England?

Seems like you are inventing things in your head before replying?

 

[MaxV]

There should be a 'none of the above' option.

 

[sr edler]

Had Denmark not drawn NI, they would have finished 1st.

It was 2 points for a win then, not 3, so had Denmark won against Northern Ireland they would have tied Yugoslavia who had way better goal differential.

 

[QuietContrarian]

It was 2 points for a win then, not 3, so had Denmark won against Northern Ireland they would have tied Yugoslavia who had way better goal differential.

Aha, I failed to take that into consideration.
Still - My point was that they were not far off.

But you are ofc correct.

 

[QuietContrarian]

I were? Please enlighten me.

And what do you know about how I rate B. Laudrup? By mentioning that Scotland had several top 3s in the Ballon d'Or and one of the best midfield players ever in England?

Seems like you are inventing things in your head before replying?

You litterally just wrote “which is what we are discussing” and that is what I answered I wasn’t.

 

[Havre]

Right. Not sure why you are quoting me then - if you are discussing something else. Seems a bit pointless?

 

[QuietContrarian]

Right. Not sure why you are quoting me then - if you are discussing something else. Seems a bit pointless?

Because I had a small gripe with what you wrote.

Pretty common in most threads.

Anywho, let’s not OT this any further.

 

[John Price]

No.

England is close to glory.