As bad as the US loss was, Turkey (pop. 76 million) getting totally bossed at home to Iceland, a country with less than a quarter the population of Trinidad, is much more embarrassing.

Quote: (10-11-2017 09:57 AM)rottenapple Wrote:  

As far as I know, football is also the nr.1 sport in Russia. They just have bad youth policy and teams buy too many foreigners. The same with Turkey for instance, one of the most football crazy countries in the world, but they have shitty policies.

Although the case of the US is different, I disagree that the main reason for them not to reach the WC or to achieve at a moderate level is culture. With the resources and population, they should easily compete with smaller countries, even though soccer is not even close to being the most popular sport. I imagine the problem is at the youth level and the formation of players. A guy like Pulisic is coming through well, why? Because Bayern Munchen is training him and not some US team.

You can only play soccer 6-7 months/yr in Russia, that's one big impediment. I would guess that Sweden and Finland have better indoor failities, though they're minor players and more geared towards hockey.

But Icrus is 100% right, the main problem for American soccer is American soccer culture. US soccer will never catch up with the European elite, for the same reason European basketball will never catch up with American hoops, which is driven by an intense gymrat/playground culture. Soccer mom and clueless suburban parents won't produce the kind of playground prodigies that countries like Argentina or France churn out by the dozen every year. Playdates, participation trophies, 6yr old in uniforms, 12yos who spend hours being driven in vans to games at the other side of town instead of spending every afternoon dribbling against older players in their neighborhood. That's not going to change anytime soon.

The elite countries in world football (Brazil, Germany, Argentina, France, Italy, Portugal,...) are those that combine that playground culture with a thriving youth system, you need both to build a football power.

Quote: (10-11-2017 10:36 AM)Brother Abdul Majeed Wrote:  

Today is a national holiday in Panama. The kids showed up for school and were told that they could go home. I had to give my workers the day off too, which was just as well, as I'm a bit hungover myself.
It was a very unexpected result, but Panama qualifies for the world cup for the first time ever.

A lot of people take it for granted that their team will be in the world cup, but for a lot of the smaller nations it's truly something special.

Panama

https://streamable.com/tvk5y

Quote: (10-11-2017 10:18 AM)Rossi Wrote:  

Quote: (10-11-2017 09:57 AM)rottenapple Wrote:  

As far as I know, football is also the nr.1 sport in Russia. They just have bad youth policy and teams buy too many foreigners. The same with Turkey for instance, one of the most football crazy countries in the world, but they have shitty policies.

Hockey is number 1 sport in Russia.

As for Turkey, Turkish league is the most expensive 6th league in the world but they can't grow any players because their youth system sucks so bad. 2nd division Turkish teams have brand new stadiums that are much better than Roma, Napoli, Fiorentina's stadiums.

Nope, soccer is definitely most popular sport in Russia. Based on the fact that everyone can play it at any time. Hockey is very popular, mostly for watching, but ask any Russian and they will say overall soccer is more important, most watched and most played. However, Russia is not so good in soccer so they will say that their national sport is hockey or whatever.

Agreed with the above analysis of culture and youth education. That is however, for the US to become a major power in soccer. What I meant is more directed to the fact that culture is not an excuse to not qualify for the World Cup in the already weak CONCACAF. With just a better youth setup, for a country as the US, qualifying should never be a problem.

To get to the level of the top countries, yes that will take a lot more.

Quote: (10-11-2017 11:54 AM)rottenapple Wrote:  

Nope, soccer is definitely most popular sport in Russia. Based on the fact that everyone can play it at any time. Hockey is very popular, mostly for watching, but ask any Russian and they will say overall soccer is more important, most watched and most played. However, Russia is not so good in soccer so they will say that their national sport is hockey or whatever.

How do you measure what's more popular? If not by tv ratings? Clearly, Russian people follow hockey more than soccer. My ex was Russian, so I know enough Russians.

Russians like hockey more than soccer. They watch hockey more, they go to hockey games more and they're more successful at hockey too.

If you watch Russian league, you'll know what I'm talking about. Rubin Kazan, Cska, Spartak Moscow, Krasnodar always play in front of empty stadium. I'll be going to World Cup in Russia too, we'll see what happens.

Quote: (10-11-2017 10:40 AM)911 Wrote:  

But Icrus is 100% right, the main problem for American soccer is American soccer culture. US soccer will never catch up with the European elite, for the same reason European basketball will never catch up with American hoops, which is driven by an intense gymrat/playground culture. Soccer mom and clueless suburban parents won't produce the kind of playground prodigies that countries like Argentina or France churn out by the dozen every year. Playdates, participation trophies, 6yr old in uniforms, 12yos who spend hours being driven in vans to games at the other side of town instead of spending every afternoon dribbling against older players in their neighborhood. That's not going to change anytime soon.

The elite countries in world football (Brazil, Germany, Argentina, France, Italy, Portugal,...) are those that combine that playground culture with a thriving youth system, you need both to build a football power.

You nailed it regarding the playground culture of soccer around the world.

Yeah people also tend to forget that soccer leagues are quite expensive for kids in the US. I remember buddies of mines growing up with parents who'd shell out big bucks for select soccer. Prices were on par if not more expensive than the tennis training I had.

I'm actually happy about the US missing out on the WC bc that means less thirsty American tourists going to Russia Summer 2018.

Quote: (10-11-2017 11:59 AM)Rossi Wrote:  

Quote: (10-11-2017 11:54 AM)rottenapple Wrote:  

Nope, soccer is definitely most popular sport in Russia. Based on the fact that everyone can play it at any time. Hockey is very popular, mostly for watching, but ask any Russian and they will say overall soccer is more important, most watched and most played. However, Russia is not so good in soccer so they will say that their national sport is hockey or whatever.

How do you measure what's more popular? If not by tv ratings? Clearly, Russian people follow hockey more than soccer. My ex was Russian, so I know enough Russians.

Russians like hockey more than soccer. They watch hockey more, they go to hockey games more and they're more successful at hockey too.

If you watch Russian league, you'll know what I'm talking about. Rubin Kazan, Cska, Spartak Moscow, Krasnodar always play in front of empty stadium. I'll be going to World Cup in Russia too, we'll see what happens.

Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_in_Russia

Now back on topic.

Quote: (10-10-2017 11:09 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Quote: (10-10-2017 04:12 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  

Australia made it through as well after a thriller, now vs. Panama or Honduras, do-able, but in all honesty these are 3 weak teams unworthy of the World Cup.

Fuck thrillers, 2-1 after extra time against Syria is an embarrassment for Australia, though probably not quite as big an embarrassment as going to playoffs on goal difference after scoring a goal or so against fucking Thailand.

Ange Postecoglou coaching Australia has finally given a raised middle finger to his critics: whether Australia qualifies or not, he's not taking them into the World Cup. Probably off to coach somewhere in Europe. He drew a lot of heat for changing the Australian formation which was used in the past few matches, might've contributed to the shit run we've had, but who knows.

Australia was insipid, boring shit.Counter attack was so bad the Syrians jogged back.Fucking passing game to nowhere,no cunt can score besides old Cahill.They played so unAustralian I wanted to hang myself.Ange can fuck off.The Syrians were missing 5 of their top players ffs.
Worst generation of Socceroos I've seen since 1979 so fucking uninspiring.
Syria deserved the win.And we are a waste of time in the WC.
If I hear Caltex one more time I'm going postal.What national team has corporate branding in front of it's name??

Quote: (10-11-2017 10:18 AM)Rossi Wrote:  

Quote: (10-11-2017 09:57 AM)rottenapple Wrote:  

As far as I know, football is also the nr.1 sport in Russia. They just have bad youth policy and teams buy too many foreigners. The same with Turkey for instance, one of the most football crazy countries in the world, but they have shitty policies.

Hockey is number 1 sport in Russia.

As for Turkey, Turkish league is the most expensive 6th league in the world but they can't grow any players because their youth system sucks so bad. 2nd division Turkish teams have brand new stadiums that are much better than Roma, Napoli, Fiorentina's stadiums.

Russia has two national sports--soccer in the summer, and hockey in the winter.
Now, Russian winters are a lot longer than summers... And this summer it snowed twice.

Quote: (10-11-2017 10:40 AM)911 Wrote:  

As bad as the US loss was, Turkey (pop. 76 million) getting totally bossed at home to Iceland, a country with less than a quarter the population of Trinidad, is much more embarrassing.

Embarrassing?

Did you ever watch Iceland in recent years? I was in Euro 2016 and went to Iceland 1-1 Portugal match in Etienne.

Iceland knocked England out of Euro 2016 as well. This is not coincidence, Iceland are very organized team and very effective. These are the recent scores that I remember so far.

Iceland 1-1 Portugal
England 1-2 Iceland
Iceland 2-0 Turkey
Iceland 2-0 Ukraine
Iceland 1-0 Croatia

This team is no joke.

My point was that Iceland punches way above its weight, while Turkey is the biggest underperformer in the UEFA, based on the fact that their 18-30yo cohort is the largest in Europe by far, only Russia's is bigger. Twice as many young adults in Turkey as in say, Italy. Back when they reached the semifinals, I thought they would become a perennial power with demography on their side, but they've receded instead.

USA losing is way worse than Turkey.

Team USA has been putting a lot of money behind soccer over the last decade. They also won the Gold Cup tournament recently, defeating Jamaica in the final.

Iceland is a very athletic nation, they take sports seriously.

There are only 25,000 young adults in Iceland. There's that many young men on an Istanbul bus at rush hour!

The Turkish league is better than the MLS, their average player salary is nearly 3 times higher, top Turkish teams like Galatasaray often make it to the Europa final rounds.

This chart is from 2014:

USA has a population of over 300 million people. A pretty big pool to choose from to find soccer players wouldn't you say?

Other than Mexico, they should be able to handle the other teams.

They got beat by Trinidad, can you even name a player that plays for Trinidad?

Costa Rica, Panama and Honduras finished above them.

Earlier on this thread some people were saying America is going to win the World Cup soon, well not if they cant make the tournament.

Iceland already proved themselves in the European Championships, so their performance isn't a shock to me.

Not sure why you are picking on Turkey, my England is crap and even Italy has to go to a playoff system to qualify.

Turkey's soccer team has never really been good. Their club teams are also full of foreign players which is why theyre able to compete in europe. Istanbul after all is the largest city in Europe so they should be able to compete and buy players.

When talking about US soccer, our population isnt really inportant. The game is mostly played rich and upper middle class white kids. In almost every other country to the world, the game is largely played by the working class kids, sort of like basketball in the usa. Klinsmanm has pointed this out before. When the kids in inner cities and down south start playing soccer then you know well compete with the rest of the world

^ Yes, at best it's the 4th sport, that's just being honest.

Also, Mexico was 2 late goals by the USA away from not qualifying for the last World Cup. While this is a shame and should never happen, all you have to do is consider that Mexico (a team with huge fandom and supposedly storied history) could just as easily been out of the last World Cup, yet somehow this is a bigger deal.

The US is typically underrated in Soccer because people also don't want to believe they're good, since they don't care about the game. I find most analysis of US soccer to be histrionic.

Oh yeah, and Tim Howard playing as well as playing like that was embarrassment 1 and 2, the final straw. Good riddance, maybe they'll learn something from a tear down.

Quote: (10-11-2017 12:43 PM)Green-On-GO Wrote:  

Quote: (10-10-2017 11:09 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Quote: (10-10-2017 04:12 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  

Australia made it through as well after a thriller, now vs. Panama or Honduras, do-able, but in all honesty these are 3 weak teams unworthy of the World Cup.

Fuck thrillers, 2-1 after extra time against Syria is an embarrassment for Australia, though probably not quite as big an embarrassment as going to playoffs on goal difference after scoring a goal or so against fucking Thailand.

Ange Postecoglou coaching Australia has finally given a raised middle finger to his critics: whether Australia qualifies or not, he's not taking them into the World Cup. Probably off to coach somewhere in Europe. He drew a lot of heat for changing the Australian formation which was used in the past few matches, might've contributed to the shit run we've had, but who knows.

Australia was insipid, boring shit.Counter attack was so bad the Syrians jogged back.Fucking passing game to nowhere,no cunt can score besides old Cahill.They played so unAustralian I wanted to hang myself.Ange can fuck off.The Syrians were missing 5 of their top players ffs.
Worst generation of Socceroos I've seen since 1979 so fucking uninspiring.
Syria deserved the win.And we are a waste of time in the WC.
If I hear Caltex one more time I'm going postal.What national team has corporate branding in front of it's name??

Pretty bad when a 38 yr old almost retired player has to come on to change the game. It's not just that game. The FFA arent run by football minded people.

Once they scrapped the NSL and kicked out most of the ethnic clubs who produced good players, it started to go downhill. Not to mention the corporate a-league where there is no youth development and the standard is worse than english championship.

Quote: (10-12-2017 03:13 AM)Romance_Diagonal Wrote:  

Quote: (10-11-2017 12:43 PM)Green-On-GO Wrote:  

Quote: (10-10-2017 11:09 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Quote: (10-10-2017 04:12 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  

Australia made it through as well after a thriller, now vs. Panama or Honduras, do-able, but in all honesty these are 3 weak teams unworthy of the World Cup.

Fuck thrillers, 2-1 after extra time against Syria is an embarrassment for Australia, though probably not quite as big an embarrassment as going to playoffs on goal difference after scoring a goal or so against fucking Thailand.

Ange Postecoglou coaching Australia has finally given a raised middle finger to his critics: whether Australia qualifies or not, he's not taking them into the World Cup. Probably off to coach somewhere in Europe. He drew a lot of heat for changing the Australian formation which was used in the past few matches, might've contributed to the shit run we've had, but who knows.

Australia was insipid, boring shit.Counter attack was so bad the Syrians jogged back.Fucking passing game to nowhere,no cunt can score besides old Cahill.They played so unAustralian I wanted to hang myself.Ange can fuck off.The Syrians were missing 5 of their top players ffs.
Worst generation of Socceroos I've seen since 1979 so fucking uninspiring.
Syria deserved the win.And we are a waste of time in the WC.
If I hear Caltex one more time I'm going postal.What national team has corporate branding in front of it's name??

Pretty bad when a 38 yr old almost retired player has to come on to change the game. It's not just that game. The FFA arent run by football minded people.

Once they scrapped the NSL and kicked out most of the ethnic clubs who produced good players, it started to go downhill. Not to mention the corporate a-league where there is no youth development and the standard is worse than english championship.

At this rate the Fucked Football Australia's going to have Cahill rolling round pitches in a wheelchair.

In other news, Australia beat Italy 2-1.

... okay, I was playing FIFA South Africa and a 7 year old was controlling Italy.

FFA is fucked

Re the USA.Yanks can't hack smaller dudes being athletes or the idea that their sports are nowhere on the world stage besides NBA which is World wide.The one thing Yank sports have in common is that you have to be huge.This doesn't play out in World football where dudes run 15 km ,20 km a game.Messi or Ronaldo couldn't play in any US sport due to size.Soccer players get scouted at 8 to 12 years old its that skillful.How many NBA players are 5' 9" regardless of skill?If he ain't tall his not playing.Soccer is not a big man game so there will always be resistance to it cause the big men rule in the US.For me NFL is the most boring overated football in the World.Its laughable they call themselves world champions in a sport no one else plays.Super Bowl is a yawn fest that I still can't find anyone watching when I lived in Europe and here in Oz.

Quote: (10-11-2017 04:10 PM)911 Wrote:  

My point was that Iceland punches way above its weight, while Turkey is the biggest underperformer in the UEFA, based on the fact that their 18-30yo cohort is the largest in Europe by far, only Russia's is bigger. Twice as many young adults in Turkey as in say, Italy. Back when they reached the semifinals, I thought they would become a perennial power with demography on their side, but they've receded instead.

Iceland is another great example, serious handball nation as well. Turkey is another strong underachiever, they have the culture but lack the organization. Which is funny considering how good other Southern European nations are at football and basketball.

As someone said, until kids in the US start kicking a ball instead of throwing an egg, footy isn't going anywhere meaningful. That and the difference that football makes on a country's collective identity in comparison to US sports. Just re-watch that Panama goal to see what I mean. Funny to see how a country like the US, which prides itself so much on being THE best, can't make a concentrated effort to get behind its team in the one truly global sport.

Quote: (10-12-2017 07:05 AM)icrus Wrote:  

Quote: (10-11-2017 04:10 PM)911 Wrote:  

My point was that Iceland punches way above its weight, while Turkey is the biggest underperformer in the UEFA, based on the fact that their 18-30yo cohort is the largest in Europe by far, only Russia's is bigger. Twice as many young adults in Turkey as in say, Italy. Back when they reached the semifinals, I thought they would become a perennial power with demography on their side, but they've receded instead.

Iceland is another great example, serious handball nation as well. Turkey is another strong underachiever, they have the culture but lack the organization. Which is funny considering how good other Southern European nations are at football and basketball.

As someone said, until kids in the US start kicking a ball instead of throwing an egg, footy isn't going anywhere meaningful. That and the difference that football makes on a country's collective identity in comparison to US sports. Just re-watch that Panama goal to see what I mean. Funny to see how a country like the US, which prides itself so much on being THE best, can't make a concentrated effort to get behind its team in the one truly global sport.

When it comes to these global competitions. Americans not only root for USA but also their country of ancestry. So there is often a lack of national pride in soccer. I myself often root for France during the world cup. I know everyone who lives here probably has a friend who busts out his euro soccer gear every 4 years. We also have 40 million mexicans who usually root for Mexico. When we play Mexico in so cal. Its often a home game for Mexico.

The only people who truly identify as american are from the South. And the only thing they give a shot about is american football

Countries that have achieved a nationally established style of play will almost always be at the top:
Brazil
Germany
Netherlands
Argentina
Italy
Spain (most recently)

Reason being that no matter how many talents any of the above countries produce, no matter what clubs those talents play for, when it comes time to play for the national team, players are able to easily default back into the style of play they grew up with and cohesion with teammates is no problem.

The Premier League is great and all, as are English players, but it's also the reason why their national team fails. They have no established national style because their nation's league is so diverse not only with players but coaches as well.

Quote: (10-11-2017 04:10 PM)911 Wrote:  

My point was that Iceland punches way above its weight, while Turkey is the biggest underperformer in the UEFA, based on the fact that their 18-30yo cohort is the largest in Europe by far, only Russia's is bigger. Twice as many young adults in Turkey as in say, Italy. Back when they reached the semifinals, I thought they would become a perennial power with demography on their side, but they've receded instead.

Forget about Turkey, man. Iceland also beat Croatia who have world-class players like Modric, Manzdukic, Perisic, Rakitic, Pjaca, Kalinic etc.

Iceland did finish the group above Croatia after all. I went to 2 Iceland games in Euro 2016. They tied 1-1 against Portugal in Etienne, I went to another match in Paris, I think it was Iceland against Austria and Iceland won 3-2 with 92nd minute goal if I remember correctly.

Iceland are very solid team. Iceland, beating Turkey in 2 games is a normal result. I would be shocked if Turkey were to beat them. As I said, forget about Turkey, they also beat Croatia too.

For example, Italy will play play-off against Ireland, Sweden, Greece or Northern Ireland. I think Iceland is much better than all those 4 teams. I would hate for us to play against Iceland in a play-off.

They're seriously very good team. I have no idea how they got that generation from tiny island.

You still don't get my point, I guess I wasn't clear enough.

Iceland: overachievers, in relation to their population base
Turkey: badly underachieving

Turkey was a WC semifinalist in 2002, they had a very good team. It's kind of a "mid-major" player, average country that rises and falls depending on generational talent, like Bulgaria or Romania, which had world-class teams built around Stoichkov and Hagi back in the late 90s.

The problem with Turkey is that it has a huge structural advantage of demographics, and it failed to build on that.

Quote: (10-12-2017 09:49 AM)NomadofEU Wrote:  

Countries that have achieved a nationally established style of play will almost always be at the top:
Brazil
Germany
Netherlands
Argentina
Italy
Spain (most recently)

Reason being that no matter how many talents any of the above countries produce, no matter what clubs those talents play for, when it comes time to play for the national team, players are able to easily default back into the style of play they grew up with and cohesion with teammates is no problem.

The Premier League is great and all, as are English players, but it's also the reason why their national team fails. They have no established national style because their nation's league is so diverse not only with players but coaches as well.

Actually, England has a strong established national style, based on physical play, and "direct" football (long balls/crosses forward headed in, as opposed to short passes and dribbling). Manchester United dominated Europe with this approach back in the 1990s with Giggs, Beckham (one of the best crosser/long ball passer of all time) and Yorke/Cole, clinical finishers up front. This style is shared across the British Isles/Ireland.

Before Man. U. clubs like Liverpool dominated Europe with the British style, which fared well against the defensive-oriented approaches like Italy's.

Problem is, that style's ceiling has been reached, modern football has raised that ceiling considerably.

Quote: (10-12-2017 11:10 AM)911 Wrote:  

You still don't get my point, I guess I wasn't clear enough.

Iceland: overachievers, in relation to their population base
Turkey: badly underachieving

Turkey was a WC semifinalist in 2002, they had a very good team. It's kind of a "mid-major" player, average country that rises and falls depending on generational talent, like Bulgaria or Romania, which had world-class teams built around Stoichkov and Hagi back in the late 90s.

The problem with Turkey is that it has a huge structural advantage of demographics, and it failed to build on that.

I know your point, I agree with it too.

Turkey were semi-finalist in World Cup 2002, the same way how Bulgaria were semi-finalist in World Cup 1994. It's little bit luck, Brazil helped Turkey to be 2nd in group stage in 2002.

I do agree that Turkey have to do little better. For example, Galatasaray who have €150 mil team value got knocked out by Ostersund (value €8m) in Europa League. Fenerbahce who value €140m got knocked out by Vardar (Macedonian team, value €5m) I mean they're terrible. Thats why, I didn't expect much from them.

As I said, I lived in Turkey because headquarters of my company is in Istanbul. For a country that invested so much in football, they only get little back in return.

Do you know youth coaches in Turkey make €1000 per month? Most of them have second-day jobs. How would you expect them to produce footballers? All coaches are busy thinking how they could pay the bills at the end of the month.

Meanwhile, Van Persie gets €7m per year from Fenerbahce.

Quote: (10-12-2017 11:10 AM)911 Wrote:  

You still don't get my point, I guess I wasn't clear enough.

Iceland: overachievers, in relation to their population base
Turkey: badly underachieving

Turkey was a WC semifinalist in 2002, they had a very good team. It's kind of a "mid-major" player, average country that rises and falls depending on generational talent, like Bulgaria or Romania, which had world-class teams built around Stoichkov and Hagi back in the late 90s.

The problem with Turkey is that it has a huge structural advantage of demographics, and it failed to build on that.

Quote: (10-12-2017 09:49 AM)NomadofEU Wrote:  

Countries that have achieved a nationally established style of play will almost always be at the top:
Brazil
Germany
Netherlands
Argentina
Italy
Spain (most recently)

Reason being that no matter how many talents any of the above countries produce, no matter what clubs those talents play for, when it comes time to play for the national team, players are able to easily default back into the style of play they grew up with and cohesion with teammates is no problem.

The Premier League is great and all, as are English players, but it's also the reason why their national team fails. They have no established national style because their nation's league is so diverse not only with players but coaches as well.

Actually, England has a strong established national style, based on physical play, and "direct" football (long balls/crosses forward headed in, as opposed to short passes and dribbling). Manchester United dominated Europe with this approach back in the 1990s with Giggs, Beckham (one of the best crosser/long ball passer of all time) and Yorke/Cole, clinical finishers up front. This style is shared across the British Isles/Ireland.

Before Man. U. clubs like Liverpool dominated Europe with the British style, which fared well against the defensive-oriented approaches like Italy's.

Problem is, that style's ceiling has been reached, modern football has raised that ceiling considerably.

Absolutely 911, any club who won the League went on to win the European Cup for the best part of 10 years, before they were kicked out.

1977 Rome Liverpool 3 B Moenchengladbach 1
1978 London Liverpool 1 Club Bruges 0
1979 Munich Nottingham Forest 1 Malmo FF 0
1980 Madrid Nottingham Forest 1 Hamburg SV 0
1981 Paris Liverpool 1 Real Madrid 0
1982 Rotterdam Aston Villa 1 Bayern Munich 0
1983 Athens Hamburg SV 1 Juventus 0
1984 Rome Liverpool 1 AS Roma 1
(Liverpool won 4-2 on penalties)

The English teams of the era I grew up in all had the same style

Target men, wingers, solid core, strong defence and great keepers.

English clubs were set to dominate European football, UEFA had to act...

I wonder why they picked Heysel for the 85 final!



The five year ban on all English clubs set them back decades in football terms.

Ultimately leading to the influx of foreign talent.

It was like someone had planned it.



-----------------------------------



In World Cup news:


Poor wee Strachan has left the job by mutual consent.

Shame really, only lost 4 out of last 19 matches.

Two failed qualifications = media meltdown.

Next.