The bananas splits
[FOOTBALL KLAXON.]
Okay, this has gone on long enough. We’ve been trying for quite a few months now to get anyone to explain something to us, and nobody ever has an answer. We’ve sat and watched with our heads in our hands as the SPL and SFL have competed to come up with the most bonkers, convoluted proposals for the reconstruction of Scottish football.
The SPL want two leagues of 12 splitting into three leagues of eight then merging back into two leagues of 12 again at the end, plus a league of 18 that just bumbles along feeling a bit left out of all the splitting fun. The SFL counters with a bizarre 16-10-16 (or possibly 16-10-18) system that has nowhere near enough fixtures in it, but proposes to fill the gaps with playoffs and by padding out the least popular competition in the Scottish game – the League Cup.
And all the while everyone pointedly ignores the most successful league system ever created in Scotland, which by coincidence was also the least embarrassingly stupid one, and which never ended with the team in 8th place in the final table having more points than the team in 5th place while all the other leagues laughed at us.
Please, for the love of God, someone tell us why.
The most-read post in the history of Wings Over Scotland, with well over 50,000 views, is this one. Among other things, it details why the era built around the old Scottish Premier Division, from 1975 to 1998, was the greatest in the history of the Scottish game. The top division was the most competitive in Scotland’s history, with 50% of the teams in the league mounting credible challenges for the title and the rest running a 40% chance of being relegated.
Over the 22 seasons of the SPD, the Scottish game was strong in Europe, with one trophy secured and another final reached (both by teams almost entirely comprised of Scots), and a host of other creditable runs. The Old Firm secured the top two spots on just a handful of occasions. And the national side enjoyed its most successful period of all time, reaching five out of six World Cup finals and a couple of European Championships for good measure.
At this point, the bright sparks in charge of the game decided that everything needed to be changed and introduced the SPL, designed primarily to turn Rangers and Celtic into European powerhouses and buy everyone else off with TV money. It was – and it’s fair to say that agreement on this is almost total – an absolute catastrophe. Untold hundreds of millions of pounds flowed out of the country in the wallets of foreign players. Overnight the league became a two-horse race every single season, as smaller clubs bankrupted themselves trying to keep up with runaway Old Firm spending. The national team qualified for ONE tournament out of seven.
Any remotely sensible person, you might think, would say “Hey, why don’t we go back to the old system that worked really really well? Those were good times.” Instead, the Scottish football authorities and punters alike wail and gnash their teeth and pretend that there’s simply no solution, and that we must create ever more tortured structures filled with scores and scores of utterly meaningless matches, and that the fans will miraculously return in their thousands.
So we’re going to come right out and ask, yet again, in the hope that someone will answer this time: What on Earth is wrong with four leagues of 10?
Four leagues of 10 (okay, now it’d have to be three 10s and a 12) is a system absolutely bursting with advantages. For the top three divisions, 36 fixtures is the Goldilocks number – not too many, not too few, with room for cup runs or European competition and the odd winter postponement. For the bottom division, 44 is quite a high number, but the teams in the lowest league are the least likely to have a packed schedule due to success in the cups or Europe, so they’ve got plenty room to fit them in, and the extra cash from another eight games a year won’t hurt a bit.
With ten teams, there are almost no meaningless games in the entire season. You’re always either in contention for the title or a promotion spot or a European spot, or dangerously close to the relegation zone. If some complain that two out of 10 is too much churn, it’s easily fixed with a single automatic spot and a money-spinning 9th-vs-2nd play-off.
(We despise the dreadful idea practiced in the lower English divisions of “play-offs” solely between teams within one division. A league already IS one big play-off. You don’t need extra play-offs to determine who’s the best out of the team who came 3rd and the team who came 6th. It’s the team who came 3rd. The clue’s in the number.)
With four divisions of 10, the league is dynamic. Clubs can rise or fall through the divisions rapidly, creating all manner of exciting stories that draw people to games. Over-familiarity brought about by playing the same teams too often will be easily countered by the fact that in the middle two tables almost half of your division (40%) may well be made up of brand-new teams every year, and in the top one you’ll be too busy chasing a European spot (with a 50-50 chance) to care.
That “over-familiarity” complaint, incidentally, is the only reason anyone’s ever tried to offer up for what’s wrong with four leagues of 10 when we’ve asked – “Oh, you get bored playing the same team four or five or six times in one year”. The main flaw with that argument, of course, is that it’s complete and utter bollocks from top to bottom.
For a start, it almost never happens. The chances of meeting the same team from your own division in both cup competitions in one season are astronomically small. Secondly, between 80% and 90% of any given club’s supporters generally don’t attend away matches, so for the vast majority the reality is two games a year against any one side. And thirdly, who actually cares? Is it REALLY so dull to watch your team beat Kilmarnock for a third time rather than grinding out a 0-0 draw against Dundee just for the sake of a change?
Football supporters don’t crave novelty (if they did, they wouldn’t do the same bloody thing every Saturday for most of their adult lives), they crave success. And a league where you have to play St Mirren four times but every game is a vital six-pointer with a European place or relegation play-off at stake surely has to be more attractive in just about every conceivable way than one where the last three months of the season are a tedious succession of utterly pointless matches deciding who fills the places between 7th and 14th – as if it mattered – even if every one was against a different team?
(And finally, as previously touched on, you need to look at the bigger picture. In a league of 16 or 18 you might only play a team two or three times, but you’ll be playing the vast majority of the same ones year after year after year. In a 10-10-10-12 setup, chances are that one way or another you’ll actually encounter more different clubs in league games across, say, a decade.)
So let’s stop dicking around. Let’s amalgamate the SPL, SFL and SFA into a single governing body, instantly reducing by 67% the amount of complete numpties in charge of the game and saving enough money to pay off our next useless Scotland manager. Let’s have three leagues of 10 and one of 12, with no idiotic “splits”, no meaningless games, tons of movement and excitement and lots of opportunity for the whole country to realise how badly we need to dual the A9.
If you can explain why it’s a bad idea, make your case below. But history is against you in the most comprehensive manner possible, so it’s going to have to be a LOT better than just whining about it being “boring” to play the same team four times. The alternative is to have Neil Doncaster and Stewart Regan decide what’s best for the Scottish game, using their awesome track record in that field. Is that what you want? Speak up now, or forever shut your face.
Only a boycott of their games changes anything for the better unfortunately. Although it’s a good article to get debate going and I’d go for the 10 team leagues as well.
If we hadn’t threatened to withhold our money earlier in the year then The Rangers would be playing in SFL Div1 looking for promotion into the SPL in a few months time. Such is the SFA’s contempt for us. That would have killed off any attempt at reconstruction for another couple of decades.
A clear out of the suits is the only answer. With one management team in charge. Their suitability for the job put to a vote of registered season ticket holders at the end of each season. 5 season ticket holders from each club would be nominated to prevent one team deciding who is in charge each season. No more numpties from the BBC swanning in and out of the SFA as well.
£25 to watch a rubbish game in freezing conditions , washed down with a cup of cold tea and a greaseball pie for £5, is ridiculous. Add in the overzealous ground staff and it’s a dead duck. I heard they removed a banner that said 5 – 1 the other day in the Hearts v Hibs game. Terribly sad attitude and kills any banter between fans.
One league of 20, one league of 22. Shrug. I prefer Scottish junior football anyway.
I’m pretty sure there were only three divisions for the vast majority of the golden age you site. The league only split into 4 divisions of 10 in 94, just 4 years before the SPL breakaway, which is hardly long enough to judge it either way.
Personally, I don’t really understand why the arithmetic always has to assume a closed shop. Set up a proper pyramid structure with automatic promotion and relegation into and out of the football league, and find a way to entice the Junior teams into the new setup, and you could choose to subdivide the league any way you liked, without having to make it fit the cosmic number 42. Three divisions of 18 would be my preference.
I’ll go for it, if only to get the A9 dualled! Can only be the travelling holding the Staggies back!
it could be argued that the 18 team league was a time of scottsih football’s golden era
“I’m pretty sure there were only three divisions for the vast majority of the golden age”
True. But it doesn’t change any of the core points. The top division was 10 for the whole time, and that’s where our European and national performance comes from. And the other arguments apply equally to any division.
“it could be argued that the 18 team league was a time of scottsih football’s golden era”
It could, but not very convincingly. The national team did bugger-all during the period, and only the Old Firm made any impact in Europe.
Ban football and alcohol. The quality of conversation and social behaviour will improve dramatically.
“It could, but not very convincingly. The national team did bugger-all during the period, and only the Old Firm made any impact in Europe.”
sorry, stu, but the 1974 Scotland Team was up there with our best.
but granted, as a st mirren supporter i thoroughly immersed myself and bathed in the glory enjoyed by Utd’s and Dons supporters in the early 80’s seeing as it broke the old firm dominance.
The 74 team was a good one indeed, but where were we in 70, 66, 62…?
I’m fairly sure the Premier Division had 12 teams for a period in the late 80s and then again in the early 90s.
Personally I’d go back to a 16 or 18 team top division.
sorry rev, got to disagree with you on this. we need change but it has to be innovative. the game has evolved at an incredible rate over the last 10-15years and we simply have not adjusted at the same pace. i would suggest something completely radical like start the season in easter, have a break in july for international tournaments (clubs can do the pre-season tours, friendlies for the national side if we have not qualified etc) and finish the league off with the new years day games. 3 leagues of 18, 2 up/down, super cup between the cup and league winners to kick off the season, under 12s get in for free to all scottish grounds. Sky would be moist for a summer league and although its probably a main part of the problem we need to accept the game has changed and change accordingly. hopefully the better weather would also bring out more fans. Also need to sort out a pyramid structure lower down the leagues and sort out youth football in scotland – the kids should be playing 5 and 7-a-side only when younger to develop better technical skills. league reconstruction is just the tip of the iceberg i’m afraid.
My gripe about a small league, is that young. flair players don’t get a chance. When every game is important, the manager tends to play safe and try not to lose. His job is on the line.
The ‘meaningless’ games give young talent a chance to shine.
I favour 2 leagues in Scotland.
I read an article recently that put forward the view that currently the SPL teams are better motivated and presenting a stronger challenge to the one remaining SPL Old Firm team since they have only to face one team that odds on will beat them.
So, with Glasgow Rangers recently judged “innocence” and a pending relieved and welcoming return of their supporter income to the SPL, why not two top leagues? One with Celtic the other with Glasgow Rangers, playoffs at the end of the season.
A name for these leagues is problematic. Leagues One and two, or A and B implies a pecking order.Green and blue seems to support continuance of the divisions (like it?) in our society. Black and white a bit drab. Noting dadsarmy’s preference for Junior football, maybe black and blue?
Q1 Whilst watching Scottish football on TV,why do I say “Aw nae” each time a player boots the ball halfway up the park rather than pass it?
Q2 How long before that young 17 year old playing so skillfully on the left wing for Rangers gets clugged?
“I’m fairly sure the Premier Division had 12 teams for a period in the late 80s and then again in the early 90s.”
You’re right, though very short periods: two seasons in the 80s, three in the 90s, not consecutive.
“i would suggest something completely radical like start the season in easter…”
Radical is all well and good, but you need to nail it down. Three leagues of 18? A dozen new clubs? Who, and from where? Only two up and down from an 18-team middle division, leaving 14 dead spots? Recipe for stagnation. Summer league? I’m all for it but why hasn’t it been done already?
“My gripe about a small league, is that young. flair players don’t get a chance. When every game is important, the manager tends to play safe and try not to lose. His job is on the line.
The ‘meaningless’ games give young talent a chance to shine.”
Don’t really buy that one. Meaningless games are basically friendlies, and only a fool learns anything from friendlies. Ryan Fraser seems to be coming along okay at Aberdeen in the heat of battle.
rev, sorry early maths error, 3 x 18 doesnae = 44!! d’oh!!
I would gladly see professional Scottish football wither and die if more people were actively playing sports, any sports, and thus increasing the overall health of the country. Of course, playing sports leads to watching it, so the opposite would likely happen (provided the sports people were playing was football). Perhaps though, given the choice, people would rather do shinty, or cycle racing – or bobsleigh – there are so many other more interesting things to do of a weekend than watch football!
Okay, chucking my tuppence worth in …
A pyramid system of six levels as follows.
Three senior leagues of 16.
Scottish Professional Football League A: Aberdeen, Celtic, Dunfermline, Dundee, Dundee United, Falkirk, Hamilton Academical, Heart of Midlothian, Hibernian, Inverness CT, Kilmarnock, Motherwell, Raith Rovers, Ross County, St Mirren, St Johnstone.
Scottish Professional Football League B: Albion Rovers, Alloa Athletic, Airdrie United, Arbroath, Ayr United, Brechin City, Cowdenbeath, Dumbarton, East Fife, Forfar Athletic, Greenock Morton, Livingstone, Partick Thistle, Queen of the South, Stirling Albion, The Rangers FC.
Scottish Professional Football League C: Annan Athletic, Berwick Rangers, Clyde, Cove Rangers*, Dumbarton, East Stirlingshire, Edinburgh City*, Elgin City, Gala Fairydean*, Irvine Meadow*, Montrose, Queen’s Park, Peterhead, Spartans*, Stenhousemuir, Stranraer.
* hypothetical invites from other leagues.
Three junior leagues (Region South) of 16/16/22.
Scottish National Football League (South Premier): Ardrossan Winton Rovers, Arthurlie, Ashfield, Auchinleck Talbot, Beith Juniors, Clydebank, Cumnock Juniors, Dalry Thistle, Girvan, Glenafton Athletic, Kilbirnie Ladeside, Kirkintilloch Rob Roy, Largs Thistle, Petershill, Pollok, Whitletts Victoria.
Scottish National Football League (South League One): Annbank United, Benburb, Cumbernauld United, East Kilbride Thistle, Greenock Juniors, Hurlford United, Kilsyth Rangers, Kilwinning Rangers, Lanark United, Larkhall Thistle, Maybole, Renfrew, Rutherglen Glencairn, Shotts Bon Accord, Thorniewood United, Troon.
Scottish National Football League (South League Two): Ardeer Thistle, Bathgate Thistle, Bonnyrigg Rose, Cambuslang Rangers, Bellshill Athletic, Carluke Rovers, Darvel, Dundee Violet, Dunipace Juniors, Glenrothes, East Kilbride Thistle, Johnstone Burgh, Lanark United, Linlithgow Rose, Lesmahagow, Muirkirk, Musselburgh Athletic, Neilston Juniors, Penicuik Athletic, Port Glasgow, Saltcoats Victoria, Vale of Leven.
Three Highland leagues (Region North) of 16/16/22.
Scottish National Football League (North Premier): Brora Rangers, Buckie Thistle, Clachnacuddin, Deveronvale, Formartine United, Forres Mechanics, Fraserburgh, Huntly, Inverurie Loco Works, Keith, Lossiemouth, Nairn County, Rothes, Strathspey Thistle, Turriff United, Wick Academy.
Scottish National Football League (North League One): Banchory St Ternan, Banks O’ Dee, Culter, Dyce Juniors, Ellon United, Forres Thistle, Fort William, Hall Russell United, Hermes, Inverness City, Lewis United, Longside, Maud, Stonehaven FC, Stoneywood, Sunnybank.
Scottish National Football League (North League Two): Bishopmill United, Bridge of Don Thistle, Buchanhaven Hearts, Cutler, Buckie Rovers, Burghead Thistle, Colony Park, Cruden Bay, Deveronside, Dufftown, Fochabers, East End, Fraserburgh United, Glentanar, Islavale, Lossiemouth United, Nairn St Ninian, New Elgin, Newmachar United, Parkvale, Portgordon, Victoria, RAF Lossiemouth, Whitehills.
This pyramid system is an amalgamation of several current leagues. In all leagues the teams play each other twice. Promotion/relegation will be three up and three down for leagues A and B, with four relegated from league C into set up North and South. Two teams from North and two from South replacing relegated teams from league C respectively. Third place promotion spot in B and C leagues to be contended by a play off system from teams placed third to sixth in each league (similar to the English system). Promotion and relegation of two teams in leagues North and South.
Scottish Cup games open to all members of the SFA as it is now. League Cup competition within leagues A B and C only. North Leagues can compete for the current Highland Cup and League trophy while the South Leagues competes for the current Junior Cup and League trophy. Ambitious clubs can work their way up six leagues while the apathetic can fall down six leagues.
Thirty league games will allow room for Cup and European games to be slotted in seamlessly. OR a split in the top six/eight (play twice) of league A if more games are desired. Possibility of summer football with seasons beginning late March to November. Advantages of summer are: Longer daylight hours and favourable weather conditions will mean clubs shelling out less ££££s on ground maintenance and energy (heating, lights). Players arguably have less of a chance getting injured and remain skillful in more games. Less likely of game call offs. Players not tired for summer international games. More fans will attend games in fair weather. Possible selling advantage for Sky Television deal in barren summer break in England.
I’m a big fan of the blog, and I agree that Scottish football is not run by persons who inspire confidence, and I agree that the reconstruction proposals disappoint. But I disagree with some of the key arguments in the article:
(1) Just because the most successful period in Scottish football history coincided with a ten team league structure that doesn’t entail that structure played a positive role in that success. The general form of the argument seems to be this: “league structure x is correlated with consistent sporting success, therefore league structure x is the league structure Scotland should adopt”. But if that’s a good argument, then we should adopt the league structure of the English, Spanish, or Italian leagues.
(2) There are far more plausible explanations for Scotland’s sporting success during that time, and lack of it afterward, including: (a) Scotland was consistently producing world class footballers during the time in question, and a good few Scottish clubs could afford to have those players. The teams with the best players generally win things; (b) the Bosman ruling played a major role in discouraging clubs from committing significant resources to producing their own players (including first-team playing time for promising youngsters) – they might lose those players for free, and there were suddenly a load of experienced foreign players that were easy to get anyway (Bosman is mentioned in a linked article, to be fair, but only in passing, I think its significance is understated); (c) the increasing commercialisation of football, including the influx of ever greater amounts of tv money, massively widened the divide between the haves and the have-nots, leading to greater pressure on all to buy, rather than more slowly produce, success. (Again, tv money is mentioned in passing in a linked article, but, again, its significance is understated: the focus is given to how important tv money is for smaller clubs – not as much as one might imagine, it seems – but the really devastating effect was the ability of larger clubs, who get loads of tv money, to buy anyone they fancy even if only to warm the bench).
(3) The boredom issue is broader than has been recognised. It isn’t just about the novelty of a different team – it’s the novelty of different tactics, football styles, players, fan cultures, and so on. Also, it’s not just fans that can get bored, it’s players – I have read a number of interviews over the years of players citing playing the same teams four times a season as a factor in their leaving Scottish football, and it’s not too hard to see why. Modern football is very information intensive, opposition teams are studied intensely; for example, the left-back of Team A will be expected to be an expert on the right winger of Team B, to study his strengths and weaknesses, etc. If you’re up against a smaller variety of players every season, that is not only more boring, it’s less good for player development. How often do we hear managers trot out the cliche of the great benefit of European football (apart from the cash) – coming up against different styles, and different players?
That’s the negative case. My positive proposal? I’m a fan of a 16 team league structure, all the way down. Playoffs from 3rd to 6th and from 14th to 12th (the losers of the relegation playoff have to play the winner of the promotion playoff). If the top league gets more European places, then the playoffs get moved from 4th to 7th. This is a good structure because:
(i) Less games are good: (a) the shorter the league, the higher the chance smaller clubs with thinner squads can last the pace; (b) Less injuries for players – modern footballers face far greater strains on their bodies – as is quite well-known, the amount of ground covered by modern footballers compared to those of 30 or 40 years ago has increased dramatically; (c) Space for a proper winter break; (d) more fixture room for those clubs challenging in Europe (particularly beneficial for smaller clubs with smaller squads).
(ii) More variety is good: (a) More clubs can dine at the top-table, with all the benefits that brings; (b) less boredom (see above).
(iii) A bit of breathing space in the league can be good: if every game’s a six pointer, that makes it harder for managers (although not impossible, of course) to build young teams who often exhibit inconsistent form.
(iv) Straightforward structure is good: no splits, no anachronistic final league placings.
(v) It has been shown to work elsewhere in Europe already.
The two main objections to this structure seem to be: less money for clubs (due to less games) and a boring middle of the league.
Some breathing space in the middle of the league is not such a bad thing over the long-term, but given the structure I have outlined, that breathing space is not so big: there are five places (from 12th to 7th) not in a relegation, automatic European, or play-off place. Of those five, two (12th and 7th) are adjacent to playoff places – that leaves a pretty small middle.
Less money due to less games is a short-term problem more than a long-term one, and short-term financial thinking has had an adverse impact on Scottish football, so such thinking ought to be treated with caution. What matters most when deciding on league structure is its sporting fairness, competitiveness and entertainment value. Get those things right, and the fans will come, with their wallets. Less, better games, is much more valuable than more, worse games. If the last few years have taught us anything, it should have taught us that.
Much more could be said, of course, and league structure on its own is no panacea, but 10 (or 12, or 14) is not the way to go…
“it could be argued that the 18 team league was a time of scottsih football’s golden era”
>It could, but not very convincingly. The national team did bugger-all during the period, and only the Old Firm made any impact in Europe.
The Hibs made a massive impact in that time, as did Dundee, and Killie had a go. Scotland should have qualified in 66 and stuffed the world champions in 67 – it was the fault of the SFA committee system that we underperformed. I’m also thinking the SPD was the slippery slope to the SPL.
Stu are you advocating the financial set up pre-SPL (eg split gate money)? Cause I’m all in favour of that, I cannot see a 2012 version of the SPD working any better than the SPL.
Cheers
Charlie
Interesting argument. I have always been intuitively in favour of bigger leagues, but when you put it that way I would bite your hand off for a return to the kind of football league we had in the 80s.
It still comes down to a lot more than just the number of teams in each league though. In my opinion THE most important thing is to have a fair distribution of wealth between the clubs. On top of that, I would say we need to get rid of live TV coverage for all but the biggest games. TV coverage – and the associated 12 noon kick-offs on Boxing Day when no trains are running – is DESTROYING our attendances, which not only directly costs money at the gate but also makes our games seem less important, because it looks like nobody cares enough to turn up. And as for the impractical kick-off times, it is my belief that the TV companies choose those times deliberately: if it’s infeasible for fans to travel, they’ll just watch on telly instead and the TV companies win.
I think the key thing is, as John Donaldson says, to get rid of this crazy format where sides play each other FOUR times in a season. It’s not just boring, it skews the tables because that’s 12 points if team A beats team B – something harder for others to make up. Twice makes it 6 points, that’s makeable.
I guess the numbers in any league follow on from there, whether 14, 15 or 16 for three leagues, or 20 or so for two.
The other thing is do we really want 4 “senior” leagues in Scotland, with one-twelfth the population of the rest of the UK? And another thing is too many “foreigners”. I like to see more local players, more home-grown. Maybe a limit of two “foreigners” on the park at any one time, per team, with a number allowed from other parts or Scottish teams, but a number also gone through the Club as youngsters.
It might not help in Europe – but not much difference then then, eh, apart from the odd Russian adventure?
So…………………… shinty.
Howzaboot that Kyles Athletic result in the Camanachd Cup? 😉
Some good posts, particularly Dcanmore.
16 team leagues and summer football for me.
So, What about this independence vote yes thingy? You folks get on with your bread and circuses and the ins and oots and ups and doons of football and when you’ve done start on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I’d prefer to play teams less often, just from an entertainment viewpoint. You could actually play a team 6 times or more if you get a replay….
I think a limit on foreigners(EU Nationals) might be illegal but a requirement on a specific number of youngsters might be as good an approach.
Death of National team coincided with my team plundering English leagues for their ‘stars’ since they were banned from Europe. I think this meant a lot of Scottish players didn’t make it past the big names and breakthrough. Maybe forcing the reverse might resolve this.
Having 2 non Scots in charge of the SFA and SPL also seems the wrong thing.
another reason for the death of our national game is the English top flight now buying players from around the world. In the 70’s and 80’s we would see top flight clubs like Leeds, Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal etc with one or two top Scottish players in their teams.
These players would get to play at the highest levels domestically and at European level. Nowadays, there are very few playing at the highest levels of the game.
Add to that the emergence of the game in many developing areas, Africa, the break up of the Soviet block, North America and Asia and is common sense to see that competition is going to be tougher.
This has little to do with our league structure. It has to do with the way we play football.
There isn’t much point in rearranging the deck chairs whilst the ‘SFA Titanic’ sails inexorably towards a looming iceberg.
The core of football is rotten in Scotland with far too many professional coaches putting teams on the field that play kick and rush football and clug anyone that shows a bit of skill.
The Referees preside over the downward spiral in standards eschewing any protection for the skilled artisan. Big is beautiful among football athletes where a good big one is better than a good wee one and our budding ‘Messis’ slip through the net.
Talking about the shape of Leagues is nibbling at the edges of the problem and is pointless unless what’s wrong is addressed.
…………and that’s before we even consider what’s wrong with the grass roots of the game. More of the same I fear.
“I’d prefer to play teams less often, just from an entertainment viewpoint.”
Be fair, you’re not having much of an over-familiarity problem THIS season 😉
I have to admit Stu, you’ve certainly made me question just how relevant the “boredom” argument is in relation to the league structure. But I think your argument about the 1975-1998 being the golden era ignores a few facts:
a) As already mentioned, there wasn’t a set structure over this period, with the SPD fluctuating between 10 and 12 teams a couple of times (suggesting people felt a need to find a solution to something), and a fourth division being added. Although we can perhaps ignore that last bit since you can hardly expect the 1994 restructure having an immediate impact on the national team.
b) this would imply 14 team lower divisions, which personally I think is the worst number as it’s too few to play each team twice, but playing four times leads to 44 fixtures, which is surely too many.
I think the over-riding problem here is that everyone is offering solutions without looking at what exactly the problem is (which is kind of what you’re saying I think Stu). As a result, some basic questions are being ignored:
– Why does the restructure have to include 42 clubs minimum? Aren’t half the Div 3 clubs part-time anyway? Could some teams even merge?
– Why do we need to have more than two divisions? The norm in Europe is two linear leagues and then into a pyramid structure. The idea that we need four (or even three) linear leagues is a typical case of looking over the border and assuming England does things the “right” way
– Is this for the benefit of the top clubs, the bottom clubs, the league as a whole or the national team? Is it more important to keep Kilmarnock in business than Elgin City? Do we want to push the league up the UEFA rankings or do we want Scotland to progress in the world cup?
– When did the bragging rights associated to beating a team in a game of football stop being reason enough to play them, and to watch a game? Why does every game have to “mean” something? Why not just have a league of 6 where every place is either Europe or relegation if we’re so concerned about meaningless games?
– How do other nations of similar size structure their leagues? Are we trying to fit too many professional teams in for a country of 5 million?
– How do the most successful nations structure their leagues, and is there an overlap that would suit Scotland? (Again, this leads to the question of how you define “success” – one club doing well in European football every season, or the national team doing well in tournaments?)
Looking at the top divisions of the 30 top-ranked UEFA leagues, it’s clear that there is no “magic number” of teams that leads to success:
Spain – 20
England – 20
Germany – 18
Italy – 20
France – 20
Portugal – 16
Ukraine – 16
Netherlands – 18
Russia – 16
Belgium – 16
Greece – 16
Turkey – 16
Cyprus – 14
Switzerland – 10
Denmark – 12
Austria – 10
Israel – 14
Romania – 18
Czech Republic – 16
Poland – 16
Belarus – 12
Croatia – 12
Sweden – 16
Serbia – 16
Slovakia – 12
Scotland – 12
Norway – 16
Bulgaria – 16
Hungary – 16
Slovenia – 10
The Spanish, English, German, Italian and French leagues are at the top through historical success, and their national teams are successful because they’re big countries that have always done well. But from there, it’s unclear what the rankings really tell us, and there’s no clear picture of X number of teams in a division making success for the league more likely. What we CAN say is that UEFA league rankings have no bearing on the success of the national team, because Cyprus are absolutely pish, yet they’re above countries that have been multiple international tournaments in recent years.
I suppose the main thing is to ask, what’s actually wrong now that was right before? We have the same number of top division teams as we had throughout 1975-1998, so whatever is wrong has either always been wrong, or is nothing to do with the number of teams.
“this would imply 14 team lower divisions, which personally I think is the worst number as it’s too few to play each team twice, but playing four times leads to 44 fixtures, which is surely too many.”
14 teams playing 4 times would in fact be 52 fixtures.
“Why does every game have to “mean” something?”
Because if it doesn’t it’s basically a friendly, and who gives a crap about friendlies? More to the point, who pays £25 to go along and give a crap about a friendly?
“how relevant the “boredom” argument is”
Someone on P&B made an excellent point last night. To stop “boredom”, it seems we’re being asked to believe that Hibs fans, say, rather than have two extra games a season against Celtic, Hearts, Aberdeen and Dundee United actually want two games against Morton, Raith Rovers, Falkirk and Cowdenbeath. Are we SURE that’s the case?
Footbal, Great eh?
About the number of teams argument though – it’s obviously something that just doesn’t bother you Stu, but I think a lot of fans just feel like “urgh, these guys AGAIN?” when it’s the third game against a team in a season.
It also helps the teams at the top. Put it this way – it doesn’t matter if Celtic lose one game to a team, because they’ll beat them the other three times and still be 6 points ahead over the course of the season. But if you just play each other twice, a loss becomes significant. Just like how cup games with home and away legs are shite, because it gives the bigger team a chance to make up for a poor game, and makes it harder for the smaller team to get through on the basis of one good game.
“14 teams playing 4 times would in fact be 52 fixtures.”
Argh!!! That’ll be me remembering the SPD used to be 44 games and extrapolating that to the bottom division then…
“More to the point, who pays £25 to go along and give a crap about a friendly?”
In this instance, I would say the problem is the £25, rather than the meaningless of the game. And to be fair, if tickets were £10, fans would probably moan less about playing the same teams all the time! Do the mid-table teams in the EPL experience massive drops in attendance towards the end of the season? (I dunno, maybe they do.)
“To stop “boredom”, it seems we’re being asked to believe that Hibs fans, say, rather than have two extra games a season against Celtic, Hearts, Aberdeen and Dundee United actually want two games against Morton, Raith Rovers, Falkirk and Cowdenbeath. Are we SURE that’s the case?”
But then the logical extension of that is surely “why not just have a 6 team league of Celtic, The Rangers, Hearts, Hibs, Aberdeen and Dundee United so we can play each other 8 times a season?”
Only if the logical extension of “I like Fruit Pastilles” is “I will eat nothing but Fruit Pastilles”. What you’ve done there is mix up “logical extension” and “reductio ad absurdum”… 😉
A summer league would be great. But no matter what size and shape of league system, it’s always going to be similar to another nations. I think this is the opportunity for Scotland to start a new worldwide craze. Just like when the chairman of WWF (now WWE) came out in the early 80s and admitted that wrestling was entertainment, I think the Scottish football authorities should restructure football into a pre-determined sport.
Think about it. Referees getting knocked down and missing a legit goal. Goalkeepers using steel chairs. Players scoring an own goal at the death before removing their shirt to reveal the oppositions’ colours underneath. Derbies taking place on a pitch surrounded by a STEEL CAGE. Matches on a triangle field with three goals and three teams (picture it!)
Females playing against males! Mid-match transfers! Excitement right up to the final day of the season! Anything goes in the Scottish Football Federation.
It would work for me, anyway.
I was reading an article about the German league at the weekend. Tickets for the Bundesliga can cost as little as just under £10. Obviously there are more expensive tickets, but I thought that was interesting, given the quality of the league. Ticket prices are a major problem in the Scottish game. Also, I think there should be a break in December and January.
I see your point Stu, but what I’m trying to get at is this idea of “meaningless” games reduces football to nothing more than the points tallied at the end of the season, which in turn leads to a “avoid losing at all costs, even if it means killing the game” attitude which makes football boring. The idea that every game must mean something is what leads to the SPL and SLF offering such loopy league structures.
I’m more likely to go to a game that will have no impact on league placing but will be enjoyable, than one which might bring my team a step closer to Europe but will be utterly, utterly dull. If all I care about is the result, then I can just watch the results show on Saturday afternoon.
It’s the same as music, films or games made to tried & tested formulas purely because the record company/film studio/games publisher is only concerned about maximising the units sold, rather than about creating something glorious.
But anyway, as I was trying to say in my first comment, while I am inclined towards a bigger league, it’s of a secondary concern to me in relation to the real issue, which is that people are trying to find an answer to the wrong question without questioning whether we need 42 teams, whether the current financing models are correct, whether it’s the national team or the UEFA league ranking we’re concerned about, whether we actually NEED every game to be “meaningful” etc.
If football was banned, a lot of men would be speechless. 🙂
When it comes to the summer football/winter break argument, I would say the best thing to do (if we don’t want to be as radical as to go for full-on summer football) is to schedule no fixtures at all in February, and then if there’s a cold snap at any point before that, you can then reschedule the fixtures for February and then you would be really unlucky to have a backlog of more than a couple of games.
As for the playing-teams-four-times-a-season thing, I think the really bad part about it is that it means derbies are much less meaningful. If you play your rivals four times a season, you can afford to lose to them once and it’s not such a big deal – for me that’s a problem. Meaningless games at the end of the season – nowadays I wouldn’t bother going to them, but when I used to be a season-ticket holder I used to always look forward to the football on Saturday, regardless of whether there was anything still to play for. Fortunately the meaningless games tend to come in March/April/May when the weather isn’t quite so miserable.
This football stuff is so boring. Satis Superque!
“Be fair, you’re not having much of an over-familiarity problem THIS season ”
In many ways its been more entertaining, certainly better than last season. A revolutionary and somewhat mad approach in search of entertainment of course.
My initial reaction to the possibility of 3rd Division football was it should be a bit of an adventure trying to get back up again. That view hasn’t changed and my memory of handing out hidings to all comers in the 9 in a row years is still dulled into my brain like Saturday double French periods. It might just be me but I enjoy a change of scene and pressures.
It’s too early to tell but this could be the best thing that could have happened, if we’d clung to the SPL we’d have been living a zombie existence , much like the banks….If nothing else its make the back pages easier to print.
ray:
I think you are commenting on the wrong article as what you are proposing reads like politics to me! Interesting ideas though.
To take up on the point you make about entertainment. £25 to watch a game of football does seem very expensive when the sport/entertainment can be ruined at the whim of a referee.
Consider Partick Thistle’s game at the weekend. Their defender challenges for the ball, the opposing forward “cleverly stumbles” according to Billy Dodds on TV and so the defender having won the ball with some skill is sent off. Something to do with the last man.
Rugby suffers from ever more obscure technical rules and consequently refereeing decisions determining the results.
At least in boxing you are able to bring your own referee – a knockout punch.
What do you reckon to this load of spiteful nonsense, Rev?
Rangers taking revenge…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20595802
Also, I agree with Velofello about this ‘cleverly stumbles’ nonsense.
Jim Jefferies praised it too.
There were a couple of examples of it in the Ross County v ICT game at the weekend and Ross County got their third goal from a free kick following a ‘clever stumble’.
If this is what constitutes sportsmanship then it doesn’t matter how many teams you put it your league – it just becomes a crock of worthless s***e.
I think it’s bizarre that Rangers fans want to punish Dundee United by helping them to beat Rangers.
I think that it’s dangerous to attribute the success of Aberdeen and Dundee United in the 1980s to the existence of the ten-team Premier Division. The bottom line is that both clubs had talented squads and excellent managers, and would probably have enjoyed success regardless of what size our top division was. They also had spending power (before the arrival of Souness at Rangers) that was comparable to the Old Firm, so could compete in broadly level terms.
Having said all of that, we MUST get rid of the split, which completely destroys the most basic requirement of a league, ie, that all teams should be asked to play the exact same fixtures, because only then can a fair comparison be made.