Trophyless major football nations

[N est à?]

Trophyless major football nations

Too bad they turned down the chance to go to Brazil in 1950, as there weren't any knock out rounds there.

[Satchmo Distel]

Trophyless major football nations

They lost 7 nil in a 1954 game so I doubt they would have enjoyed 1950. Squad selection was based on parochial factors not merit.

No knock out rounds in 1974 and 1978 either.

[blameless]

Trophyless major football nations

Scotland have never even qualified out of their group at a tournament.

Sadly, crashing out at the group stage of a WC/Euros with 1 point from 9 would be seen as a stunning success by today's standards.

[stefan]

Trophyless major football nations

Satchmo Distel wrote: Yugoslavia before 1992, Poland, Belgium. All have semi final pedigrees the Scots lack. USSR won in 1960 but there are caveats such as Spain pulling out. Croatia lost narrowly to 1998 & 2016 winners.

So you recognize Sweden's Olympic title in 1948 as a major then? (winky thing).

Actually that team was amazing and contained players who dominated Serie A for the next decade, Gren, Liedholm and Nordahl. They would certainly have been contenders in 1950 had they not been barred from participating since we didn't allow professional players in the team until 1958. Especially considering that we finished 3rd with basically a new team.

[Wouter D]

Trophyless major football nations

I think Sweden have a much better case than Scotland. Second at the World Cup in 1958, third in 1950 and 1994, fourth in 1938, and semi-finalist at Euro 1992. That's five major tournament semi finals.

[Cesar Rodriguez]

Trophyless major football nations

Wouter D wrote: I think Sweden have a much better case than Scotland. Second at the World Cup in 1958, third in 1950 and 1994, fourth in 1938, and semi-finalist at Euro 1992. That's five major tournament semi finals.

Indeed.

[Borracho]

Trophyless major football nations

Sweden has twice the population of Scotland though, and the 1958 and 1992 successes came at home. Also, Scottish clubs have made much more of an impact in Europe than Swedish clubs have (nine finals to three).

I don't think you can really say they have played anything like the kind of role in the sport, historically, that Scotland have, even if they've had a better national team for the last 25 years or so.

[Reed John]

Trophyless major football nations

Maybe off-topic, but this all makes me wonder how the history of international football would be different if Britain had competed as one team in all competitions from early on instead of the home nations set-up and if there was ever a chance of that happening.

A similar question has arisen in hockey. What if Quebec had its own team?

[blameless]

Trophyless major football nations

Given that the first 30 years of international football consisted of Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland playing against each other, pretty much no chance of that happening - it's why people still get ticked off when idiots like Coe try to force the idea of a single UK team on us.

[Geoffrey de Ste. Croix]

Trophyless major football nations

Sweden is a great shout. As for Scotland, I may be wrong but I'm sure I read somewhere that Pele tipped Scotland for the 1978 World Cup. Yes, I know- Pele and his tips- but it does show that as relatively recently as 1978, Scotland were considered an outstanding side.

[Reed John]

Trophyless major football nations

blameless wrote: Given that the first 30 years of international football consisted of Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland playing against each other, pretty much no chance of that happening - it's why people still get ticked off when idiots like Coe try to force the idea of a single UK team on us.

That just begs the question, kinda. Why did they feel the need to have international competitions like that at all rather than just club competitions or maybe "state of origin" competitions.

It seems that Europeans take international competitions as a given - although I'm sensing less enthusiasm for the format lately - and Britons don't seem to understand why the home nations thing is seen as unusual.

[Diable Rouge]

Trophyless major football nations

Reed John wrote:

Given that the first 30 years of international football consisted of Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland playing against each other, pretty much no chance of that happening - it's why people still get ticked off when idiots like Coe try to force the idea of a single UK team on us.

That just begs the question, kinda. Why did they feel the need to have international competitions like that at all rather than just club competitions or maybe "state of origin" competitions.

It seems that Europeans take international competitions as a given - although I'm sensing less enthusiasm for the format lately - and Britons don't seem to understand why the home nations thing is seen as unusual.

Bar Notts County, Chesterfield and Stoke, very few clubs had actually been founded yet.

[Patrick Thistle]

Trophyless major football nations

.

[Reed John]

Trophyless major football nations

Ciarraíoch wrote:

Given that the first 30 years of international football consisted of Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland playing against each other, pretty much no chance of that happening - it's why people still get ticked off when idiots like Coe try to force the idea of a single UK team on us.

That just begs the question, kinda. Why did they feel the need to have international competitions like that at all rather than just club competitions or maybe "state of origin" competitions.

It seems that Europeans take international competitions as a given - although I'm sensing less enthusiasm for the format lately - and Britons don't seem to understand why the home nations thing is seen as unusual.

Bar Notts County, Chesterfield and Stoke, very few clubs had actually been founded yet.

That's interesting.

Does international football predate international cricket?

[GCostanza]

Trophyless major football nations

You should Google the first ever international for each, the cricket one might just surprise you?

[ursus arctos]

Trophyless major football nations

Cricket: 1877

Football: 1872

[Reed John]

Trophyless major football nations

GCostanza wrote: You should Google the first ever international for each, the cricket one might just surprise you?

I knew that the US was in the first one.

It's just interesting that they immediately struck on the idea of teams representing the whole country. Like that was the obvious thing to do.

[GCostanza]

Trophyless major football nations

ursus arctos wrote: Cricket: 1877

Football: 1872

1844 for cricket apparently.

[Satchmo Distel]

Trophyless major football nations

The English FA challenged Scottish players to form a team for a challenge contest. It was a case of FA bragging to raise its profile.

In cricket, England was the MCC when abroad.

It might be anachronistic to see early FA & MCC teams as truly national, rather than elite clubs.

[Cesar Rodriguez]

Trophyless major football nations

The Scotland v Sweden thing is easily settled in the Swedes favour. Not only do they have the superior record of getting to semi finals, they have qualified for more tournaments (17:10) and have qualified for 7 since the last time Scotland did in 1998. They hold the edge in the head to head (6-5-1) and the best player to play in Scotland in the modern era came from yes, you know where.

If we were having this conversation in 1988 then yes, an argument could be made in favour of Scotland but not in 2016.

[Borracho]

Trophyless major football nations

There is no way that the historical contribution made by Sweden to the sport of football comes anywhere near that made by Scotland, unless we just pretend that most of the last 125 years didn't happen.

Three of Sweden's extra qualifications are there simply because Scotland didn't enter for the first few World Cups. And another is because Scotland withdrew in 1950 after having qualified.

As for the Euro 92 semi-final, well, essentially it boiled down to Sweden managing to get out of a group on home soil, up against a France team who were an astonishing disappointment, a badly prepared Denmark side who were existing on burgers and beer and hadn't got going yet, and Graham Taylor's England (who were without most of the good players for one reason or another).

They weren't a bad side but they'd never have got out of the other group that year. Germany overwhelmed them in the semi-final without too much effort.

[Sam]

Trophyless major football nations

Reed John wrote:

Their claim rests on their role in growing the game, and being the best team in the world during a period when only a handful of countries played it.

But they have never emerged from the group stages of a major tournament and have only qualified for 8/20 World Cups and 2/15 Euros.

Right. But it's been a while since they were a legitimate contender.

You could say the same of England, but no-one's going to dispute it's a major football nation. Scotland played an enormous part in shaping how the game has been played for the last 150 years, and many of the Brits who exported football to the world were Scottish (the father of Brazilian football, Charles William Miller, was born in Brazil to Scottish parents, albeit he learnt the game in England at boarding school; the father of Argentine football, Alexander Watson Hutton, was a Scot born in Scotland who introduced the game to the country via a stint working at St. Andrew's High School in Buenos Aires, albeit he was unpatriotic enough to later found his own school called English High School). Of course it's a major football nation.

Yeah, except England won that one time. Same with Holland. And maybe USSR?

That's why no-one's nominated those countries as trophyless major football nations.

[stefan]

Trophyless major football nations

Borracho wrote: There is no way that the historical contribution made by Sweden to the sport of football comes anywhere near that made by Scotland, unless we just pretend that most of the last 125 years didn't happen.

Three of Sweden's extra qualifications are there simply because Scotland didn't enter for the first few World Cups. And another is because Scotland withdrew in 1950 after having qualified.

As for the Euro 92 semi-final, well, essentially it boiled down to Sweden managing to get out of a group on home soil, up against a France team who were an astonishing disappointment, a badly prepared Denmark side who were existing on burgers and beer and hadn't got going yet, and Graham Taylor's England (who were without most of the good players for one reason or another).

They weren't a bad side but they'd never have got out of the other group that year. Germany overwhelmed them in the semi-final without too much effort.

Here's some help for you, Borracho.

[Borracho]

Trophyless major football nations

The best thing I can say about that rather odd link is that at least it didn't crash my computer.

[blameless]

Trophyless major football nations

Not only do they have the superior record of getting to semi finals, they have qualified for more tournaments (17:10)

15:10 - Sweden didn't qualify for the tournaments in 1958 or 1992, they hosted them.

Even Scotland would manage to show up to a tournament they were awarded without having to play a single game.