England v Scotland

[Capt. Pants 4,233]

48 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

Anyway, it's all set up for Scotland's usual glorious failure which is what they truly excel in. Croatia score with a defection in the last minute of injury time to take a 1-0 win after Scotland miss two penalties (one because the ball moved, the other because a rabbit popped up and nibbled at the penalty takers sock just as he started his penalty taking routine), having had 86% possession, 28 shots on target and 2 men unluckily red carded for breaking both Modric's legs. Heroes, all of them.

It's a fantatic opportunity for Scotland against the worst Croatia side for about 15 years or more. Effectively it's a knockout game. Home advantage, sky high confidence; there should only be one winner.

Waiting.....

[chicken 2,624]

1 hour ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Nope it’s definitely a weird take.

I’m not a huge fan of Mings but he gets in to the England side over Coady, White, Godfrey and Dunk, but is behind Stones and Maguire. Do you really think Hanley is close to any of these players?

You’re comparing the best Scottish CB with our 3rd choice CB (who many would rank as far lower than third) and saying ‘there isn’t that big a gap’. So kinda reads like you are admitting there is a big gulf in quality?

Personally I would say Hanley is some way off being mentioned in the same breath as all of those CBs mentioned above.

That's an actual weird take.

Mings isn't even third choice. Gomez is out... Keane is also out injured.

And the question posed to me was not "what players not in the squad Vs Scotland would Scottish players not be able to get past" - it was which players would I take in our squad. I made that abundantly clear.

Sadly idiocy ensues again, because people can't possibly have their opinions questioned or challenged.

Robertson is hands down better than Shaw at LB. He gets in ahead of him every time. And the point I made was that there isn't as big a gap between the squads as people were making out before the game. And I stand by that, mainly because all of the evidence on the pitch displayed and evidenced that.

Yes, England were not at their best, but they weren't allowed to be. But to put this into perspective, for around 25+ years the ongoing joke was that a Great Britain team would be 10 Englishmen and a Welshman. That started with Giggs and then became Bale. There were a few close contenders but generally not many others that came close. Even when Bellamy was in his prime England had better forwards (Shearer, Owen etc).

These days Bale, Robertson and a couple of really good shouts in McGinn and Ramsay. Even with Henderson I think McGinn would give you something different in terms of chance creation.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

34 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

So just to settle this. Let’s look at how the best Scottish players rank if they were eligible for England in just some of the main positions on the field (from 1st ish on the team sheet to last).

These are just rough rankings of a few players to illustrate my point - that Scotland on paper, player for player, are nowhere near us.

And this is just looking at Scotland’s BEST players, I’m not even factoring in the clear drop off in quality of the Scottish players when you get past the first 5-6 players.

Ive been as kind to Scotland as I can be-

Strikers

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Kane

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 DCL

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Watkins 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Bamford 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Ings

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Wilson

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Adams

How far down would Dykes be?

Attacking midfielders 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Foden

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Grealish

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Mount  

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Sterling 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Sancho

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Rashford 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Saka 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Smith-Rowe

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Greenwood

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lingaard 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Maddison 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 McGinn

 

Central / defensive midfielders 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Henderson

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Rice 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 McTominay

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Phillips 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Bellingham 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Ward-Prowse 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Gilmour 

 

Left back 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Robertson

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Shaw

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Chillwell 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Tierney 

 

Right back  

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Walker 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 TAA

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Trippier 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 James 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Wan-Bassakka 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Justin

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lamptey

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Aarons 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 O’Donnell

 

Centre back 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Maguire

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Stones

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Mings

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Coady

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 White

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Godfrey

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Dunk

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Keane 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Konsa 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Tawkowski

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Holgate

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Smalling 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Mee

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Hanley (probably still a generous ranking) 

Can you see what I’ve been trying to say now?

Say what you like about England underperforming in major tournaments as a whole but clearly even the best of the Scottish team (Robertson, Tierney, and McTominay aside) are some level below their English counterparts in a domestic sense.

To talk about the teams like they are player for player similar in quality is total crackers. 

 

@chicken here is my very rough ranking from the prior page - I must admit I forgot Gomez. Yes you can name a couple of positions where Scotland are competitive (Defensive midfield and left back), but everywhere else there is an absolute gulf in quality. 

As I said previously, I make that 2 players who get into our 26, Tierney would be on the fringes. 

McGinn is good but he doesn't get past that lot, likewise Adams. And the likes of O'Donnell, Hanley, McLean, Dykes wouldn't even be close to the above players listed. 

Edited June 19, 2021 by Hank shoots Skyler

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

8 minutes ago, chicken said:

These days Bale, Robertson and a couple of really good shouts in McGinn and Ramsay. Even with Henderson I think McGinn would give you something different in terms of chance creation.

I like Ramsey but I'm not convinced Bale would be a shoe-in in our first 11. He just had a very mixed season. Bale in his prime would've absolutely been first name on our team sheet though as well as Wales'.

[chicken 2,624]

10 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

 

@chicken here is my very rough ranking from the prior page - I must admit I forgot Gomez. Yes you can name a couple of positions where Scotland are competitive (Defensive midfield and left back), but everywhere else there is an absolute gulf in quality. 

I'd just like to point out that you have assigned an AM to CM and an STR to AM.

Rashford and Greening are strikers. They are often deployed wide of a central striker at Man Utd and for England but they are definitely not AM.

McGinn is more of a CM than an AM.

Adams and Watkins are fairly level pegging and I'd put both ahead of Bamford and not far off Ings. Lingaard is a winger, and as we have seen, his stock is not on the rise.

And I reiterate AGAIN - my point has never been that Scotland are better than England. My point remains to be, and continues to be, that they are not as far behind England as they were not so long ago. There just isn't the quality throughout this England squad, even with absent players, that we have had in the past. And I said that I felt that people buy too much into the hype that makes these England players to be better than they are - I have seen nothing that challenges that view either.

Beckham, Gerrard, Lampard, Scholes... we had them all in midfield at one point. None of our midfield really come close. Sterling at times possibly. Even Henderson couldn't dislodge those players.

You can attempt to try and make a different point, but it doesn't challenge the one I have and keep clarifying due to your insistence to make a different one. 

Edited June 19, 2021 by chicken

[chicken 2,624]

6 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

I like Ramsey but I'm not convinced Bale would be a shoe-in in our first 11. He just had a very mixed season. Bale in his prime would've absolutely been first name on our team sheet though as well as Wales'.

Mixed season? Since returning to Spurs in Jan he's been brilliant for them. He was a bit rusty to start off with owing to having played hardly any football but he's looked good recently and in games in this tournament. Why do we need to keep changing the goalposts?

Go back a couple of posts and Henderson was being used to argue Scottish players couldn't get past him, yet he's actually had a "very mixed season" - suddenly that's an argument to say a player wouldn't make it... and all of this after making statements about players on paper.

Either decide a consistent rule for comparison or just don't bother.

I am only considering players that are fit and playable right now as we are reflecting on the England and Scotland matchday squads available yesterday evening. Pretty sure none of the players gave a rats **** who wasn't there...

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

6 minutes ago, chicken said:

I'd just like to point out that you have assigned an AM to CM and an STR to AM.

Rashford and Greening are strikers. They are often deployed wide of a central striker at Man Utd and for England but they are definitely not AM.

McGinn is more of a CM than an AM.

Adams and Watkins are fairly level pegging and I'd put both ahead of Bamford and not far off Ings. Lingaard is a winger, and as we have seen, his stock is not on the rise.

And I reiterate AGAIN - my point has never been that Scotland are better than England. My point remains to be, and continues to be, that they are not as far behind England as they were not so long ago. There just isn't the quality throughout this England squad, even with absent players, that we have had in the past. And I said that I felt that people buy too much into the hype that makes these England players to be better than they are - I have seen nothing that challenges that view either.

Beckham, Gerrard, Lampard, Scholes... we had them all in midfield at one point. None of our midfield really come close. Sterling at times possibly. Even Henderson couldn't dislodge those players.

You can attempt to try and make a different point, but it doesn't challenge the one I have and keep clarifying due to your insistence to make a different one. 

Very attentive for you to point those discrepancies out. However what you appear to have missed - despite your commendable attention to detail - is the fact I made clear in both my initial posting and my follow up reply to you, that it was a VERY ROUGH ranking.

But if you want to nitpick - Rashford has been on record to say he sees himself as more a wide player and NOT a striker - so you're wrong there. And I know it was a generalisation of their positions but I put John McGinn in the same ranking as Mount - I'd say they both player pretty similar roles. I see them as more attacking midfielders than central / defensive midfielders but its swings and roundabouts either way and completely irrelevant.

And fair enough if you think Adams is on par with Watkins, and both of whom are better than Bamford. But I think Bamford and Watkins are definitely better and their goalscoring (17 and 14 goals) record last season would indicate so (Adams got 9). Adams was great yesterday though to be fair. 

I haven't misunderstood what you specifically are saying at all; you concede that England are better, but you don't think there is a huge gulf in class. I still disagree with you, its a stark difference. I agree that the teams are closer than in yesteryear, but its still a huge gulf in player-for-player quality - and an even greater gulf when you consider the strength in depth that England has. 

My original posting and ranking was actually aimed at people like @Graham Paddons Beard and @lake district canary, the former who believes the supposed difference between quality of the sides is 'nonsense', and the latter who believed that Hanley would get into the England team. 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

31 minutes ago, chicken said:

Mixed season? Since returning to Spurs in Jan he's been brilliant for them. He was a bit rusty to start off with owing to having played hardly any football but he's looked good recently and in games in this tournament. Why do we need to keep changing the goalposts?

Go back a couple of posts and Henderson was being used to argue Scottish players couldn't get past him, yet he's actually had a "very mixed season" - suddenly that's an argument to say a player wouldn't make it... and all of this after making statements about players on paper.

Either decide a consistent rule for comparison or just don't bother.

I am only considering players that are fit and playable right now as we are reflecting on the England and Scotland matchday squads available yesterday evening. Pretty sure none of the players gave a rats **** who wasn't there...

Where have I changed the goalposts? You mentioned Bale, I agreed that prime Bale would be class for England but that he probably wouldn't be a shoe-in to the first 11 based on his most recent season. How am I changing the goalposts?

And yes I think its fair to say Bale had a mixed season (for Bale's standards), he had a few games where he looked like his old self - and plenty of performances where he did nothing. He did not live up to the expectations of the pre-season hype for sure. 

And why are you using arguments against other posters against me? I haven't once mentioned Henderson? 

When I talk about this England team 'on paper' I don't mean that I'm not taking into account their recent domestic form, I mean 'on paper' how those individuals look right now - and not how they look in this England side based on England's performances.

When I talk about Bale on paper why would I be talking about prime Bale of a few seasons ago? I clearly mean after the recent season just gone. Otherwise we'd be throwing players like Rooney into the rankings...

The sole and only reason I say 'on paper' is because I completely agree that England as a team overall are not anywhere near the sum of their parts. So on this basis there is an argument that Scotland are close to England. But that's not what I have been debating at all. 

The only point I have been making on this thread is against people who think the player for player quality of the Scottish team is close to the English team. 

England underperformed and Scotland overperformed (or played to the sum of their parts).

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by Hank shoots Skyler

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

35 minutes ago, chicken said:

Rashford and Greening are strikers. They are often deployed wide of a central striker at Man Utd and for England but they are definitely not AM.

Also - its Greenwood not Greening. HA! 

(see how annoying irrelevant nitpicking is?)

[lake district canary 4,531]

1 hour ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

My original posting and ranking was actually aimed at people like @Graham Paddons Beard and @lake district canary, the former who believes the supposed difference between quality of the sides is 'nonsense', and the latter who believed that Hanley would get into the England team. 

Huh?  The question I think was which player would you put in "our" team.  No mention of England.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

6 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Huh?  The question I think was which player would you put in "our" team.  No mention of England.

I thought it was pretty obvious, seeing as the debate was about England versus Scotland - not Norwich versus Scotland - that ‘our’ side would be referring to England. But fair enough I take it back - I’m glad your yellow and green specs aren’t THAT strong. 😆

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

I see I’ve been tagged by someone ? Afraid I’ve been out - there is life outside you know folks . I assume it’s still some sort of argument about whether Pele would get in the Scottish side ? I’ve lost interest. 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

41 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

I see I’ve been tagged by someone ? Afraid I’ve been out - there is life outside you know folks . I assume it’s still some sort of argument about whether Pele would get in the Scottish side ? I’ve lost interest. 

No worries Graham-one-thousand-more-posts-than-me 👍

[Ken Hairy 3,772]

1 hour ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

I see I’ve been tagged by someone ? Afraid I’ve been out - there is life outside you know folks . I assume it’s still some sort of argument about whether Pele would get in the Scottish side ? I’ve lost interest. 

Quoting you for no reason at all barring you receiving a notification which it appears may slightly irritate you 😉

Edited June 19, 2021 by Ken Hairy

[king canary 7,605]

6 hours ago, chicken said:

Not really a weird take.

Until his first season with Villa, a couple of seasons ago now - Mings had struggled to establish himself. In fact, it arguably took his injury and moving from full back to CB that has seen him be a regular for Villa.

And the gap isn't demonstrated by number of games played in the premier league. If Hanley can repeat performances of this last season and the likes of last night in the premier league, we could be left wondering "what if" in regards to our last premier league campaign. I don't think there is that big a gulf in quality between the two, I really don't.

As for Gilmour, I was pretty clear: "Gilmour was a bit of an unknown but if he repeats performances like that, well, arguably he could push those as well." 

I wasn't saying he is as good as them, but if he puts in more performances like last night, he will be. He's also younger, so it isn't surprising Mount has been given more preference at this point.

As for Henderson... he's no Gerrard. Good player, but you can't include him on comparative terms because he wasn't playing.

So it's all ifs and maybes. If Hanley can step up then he'd be as good as Mings. Sure but...he hasn't.

Right now I reckon if you offered 100 neutral fans the option of having Hanley or Mings on their team, most of them are taking Mings. 

[chicken 2,624]

17 hours ago, king canary said:

So it's all ifs and maybes. If Hanley can step up then he'd be as good as Mings. Sure but...he hasn't.

Right now I reckon if you offered 100 neutral fans the option of having Hanley or Mings on their team, most of them are taking Mings. 

You are still angling for a fight that isn't there.

" I don't think there is that big a gulf in quality between the two"

Paying attention is key. I've not said that Hanley is better than Mings. You can try an make that be what I have said - but it isn't. Hence me quoting the important bit for you as you don't seem to be grasping it.

[chicken 2,624]

21 hours ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Also - its Greenwood not Greening. HA! 

(see how annoying irrelevant nitpicking is?)

Yup, an easy slip... compared to trying to make a list of players in different positions and assigning them the wrong ones... when trying to demonstrate your superior understanding and knowledge of football.

That is precisely the same as getting a players name wrong - though you knew who I meant.

Sure... nitpicking.

In that case Mings is a striker.

Don't nitpick.

[king canary 7,605]

11 minutes ago, chicken said:

You are still angling for a fight that isn't there.

" I don't think there is that big a gulf in quality between the two"

Paying attention is key. I've not said that Hanley is better than Mings. You can try an make that be what I have said - but it isn't. Hence me quoting the important bit for you as you don't seem to be grasping it.

If you're going to **** and moan about paying attention you might want to do the same youself.

I never said you said Hanley is better than Mings- the exact phrase in the post you quoted was 'as good as.'

Practice what you preach yeah?

[chicken 2,624]

21 hours ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Where have I changed the goalposts? You mentioned Bale, I agreed that prime Bale would be class for England but that he probably wouldn't be a shoe-in to the first 11 based on his most recent season. How am I changing the goalposts?

And yes I think its fair to say Bale had a mixed season (for Bale's standards), he had a few games where he looked like his old self - and plenty of performances where he did nothing. He did not live up to the expectations of the pre-season hype for sure. 

And why are you using arguments against other posters against me? I haven't once mentioned Henderson? 

When I talk about this England team 'on paper' I don't mean that I'm not taking into account their recent domestic form, I mean 'on paper' how those individuals look right now - and not how they look in this England side based on England's performances.

When I talk about Bale on paper why would I be talking about prime Bale of a few seasons ago? I clearly mean after the recent season just gone. Otherwise we'd be throwing players like Rooney into the rankings...

The sole and only reason I say 'on paper' is because I completely agree that England as a team overall are not anywhere near the sum of their parts. So on this basis there is an argument that Scotland are close to England. But that's not what I have been debating at all. 

The only point I have been making on this thread is against people who think the player for player quality of the Scottish team is close to the English team. 

England underperformed and Scotland overperformed (or played to the sum of their parts).

 

If you are going on form and purely form. You asked which one player would we take from the Scotland team.

Andy Robertson every day of the week. Better than Shaw. Hands down.

If that's your point you need to pay better attention as you have jumped on me for simply saying the gap between the two isn't as big as it once was. Yet you haven't provided any relevant arguments to really back that up - the main one being "pick one player" - which has been done and you've tried to argue against it, badly.

Robertson gets in every day of the week. If Chilwell isn't as good as Shaw then Robertson sure as hell pushes them both out. If you are going on form of the last season there is much evidence for this.

Robertson is joint 13th on assists for the 2020-21 PL season. Shaw and Chilwell are nowhere to be seen on that list. He is 11th on the list for big chances created - again, none of the others are on the list.

https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/players/goal_assist?se=210
https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/players/big_chance_created
https://www.footballcritic.com/premier-league/season-2020-2021/player-stats/all/creation/big-chances-created/2/41756

[chicken 2,624]

Just now, king canary said:

If you're going to **** and moan about paying attention you might want to do the same youself.

I never said you said Hanley is better than Mings- the exact phrase in the post you quoted was 'as good as.'

Practice what you preach yeah?

Where in the following:
"And the gap isn't demonstrated by number of games played in the premier league. If Hanley can repeat performances of this last season and the likes of last night in the premier league, we could be left wondering "what if" in regards to our last premier league campaign. I don't think there is that big a gulf in quality between the two, I really don't."

That was what you responded to. So now your response is to a different comment to the one you quoted? Tbh very typical of you when you disagree with someone.

And I stand by what I said. I don't think there is a huge difference between the two and if Hanley can have a season that progresses on the last, he could prove to be at least as good as Mings.

[king canary 7,605]

1 minute ago, chicken said:

Where in the following:
"And the gap isn't demonstrated by number of games played in the premier league. If Hanley can repeat performances of this last season and the likes of last night in the premier league, we could be left wondering "what if" in regards to our last premier league campaign. I don't think there is that big a gulf in quality between the two, I really don't."

That was what you responded to. So now your response is to a different comment to the one you quoted? Tbh very typical of you when you disagree with someone.

And I stand by what I said. I don't think there is a huge difference between the two and if Hanley can have a season that progresses on the last, he could prove to be at least as good as Mings.

Clearly me and you have a different view of how big the gulf is.

In my opinion Hanley is proven to be a good to great Championship player, jury is out on his Premier League ability. Mings has proven himself to be a more than solid Premier League player. To me that's a pretty big gap.

[hogesar 9,665]

15 minutes ago, king canary said:

Clearly me and you have a different view of how big the gulf is.

In my opinion Hanley is proven to be a good to great Championship player, jury is out on his Premier League ability. Mings has proven himself to be a more than solid Premier League player. To me that's a pretty big gap.

Also silly to focus on one player. To say there isn't a big gulf between the Scotland and England sides is pure nonsense and several on here have proven that. Scotland have a decent left back but thats about it. The rest of their team ply their trade either in midtable or lower prem sides,  often as bit part players, or even lower than that.

[curious yellow 184]

On 18/06/2021 at 21:48, king canary said:

Also Jack Grealish, who everyone was talking about as if he was ****ing Leo Messi all game, came on and did jack ****.

Not strictly true, I thought his pass to one of the substitutes warming up was the highlight of the tournament so far. 

We need that creative, outside the box thinking, shame it was outside the pitch. 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

Yup, an easy slip... compared to trying to make a list of players in different positions and assigning them the wrong ones... when trying to demonstrate your superior understanding and knowledge of football.

That is precisely the same as getting a players name wrong - though you knew who I meant.

Sure... nitpicking.

In that case Mings is a striker.

Don't nitpick.

Me pointing out your spelling mistake was totally tongue in cheek but really it is the exact same level of pettiness that you went to to try and point score. 

I’ll say it again-  

Rashford - on record saying he’s a wide player not a striker. So you’re wrong. 

McGinn - look at Scotland’s line up from Friday you will see McGinn is their number 10. An attacking midfielder. 

Mount - usually sits infront of the two defensive midfielders in a 3 man midfield, or plays as a 10 or wide midfielder himself. Again just watch the positions he takes up on the pitch - he’s clearly much closer to being an attacking midfielder than a defensive one. Mount and McGinn play a similar role so I categorised them the same. 

Greenwood - played far more on the right wing for United than he has upfront

So I don’t really think any of my selections were actually wrong, but I will admit there is some subjectivity in my VERY ROUGH rankings - which I did state very clearly - but you chose to try to nitpick rather than discuss the point at hand.

Does any of those choices amount to choosing Mings up front? No they are not…

And were any of your ‘points’ worth either your or my time? Absolutely not!

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

@chicken

 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

57 minutes ago, king canary said:

Clearly me and you have a different view of how big the gulf is.

In my opinion Hanley is proven to be a good to great Championship player, jury is out on his Premier League ability. Mings has proven himself to be a more than solid Premier League player. To me that's a pretty big gap.

To be fair to Mings he has been much better than I was expecting so far this tournament. Against Croatia I thought he and Phillips were our best two players - both of which was surprising.

Hes still an absolute thug for what he did to Oliveira and Ibra mind.

But it’s pretty funny how on one hand according to this thread, the English fans massively overrate the English players, and on the other hand, our own Hanley is apparently not far off the current centre backs playing for the English first team…

Sure there’s some hypocrisy in there somewhere!

[yellowrider120 762]

50 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Also silly to focus on one player. To say there isn't a big gulf between the Scotland and England sides is pure nonsense and several on here have proven that. Scotland have a decent left back but thats about it. The rest of their team ply their trade either in midtable or lower prem sides,  often as bit part players, or even lower than that.

How on earth then did England play so sullen against the Jocks if 'man for man' we're so much better?

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

If you are going on form and purely form. You asked which one player would we take from the Scotland team.

Andy Robertson every day of the week. Better than Shaw. Hands down.

If that's your point you need to pay better attention as you have jumped on me for simply saying the gap between the two isn't as big as it once was. Yet you haven't provided any relevant arguments to really back that up - the main one being "pick one player" - which has been done and you've tried to argue against it, badly.

Robertson gets in every day of the week. If Chilwell isn't as good as Shaw then Robertson sure as hell pushes them both out. If you are going on form of the last season there is much evidence for this.

Robertson is joint 13th on assists for the 2020-21 PL season. Shaw and Chilwell are nowhere to be seen on that list. He is 11th on the list for big chances created - again, none of the others are on the list.

https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/players/goal_assist?se=210
https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/players/big_chance_created
https://www.footballcritic.com/premier-league/season-2020-2021/player-stats/all/creation/big-chances-created/2/41756

Are you actually reading my posts? I can’t believe you nitpicked a few of my position choices in my ranking (wrongly might I add) yet seem totally incapable of reading anything I’ve written. 

I’ve said repeatedly all through this thread that Robertson easily gets in to our first 11. I totally agree Robertson is the best, he’s probably the best LB in the world, of course he gets in.

My question was not ‘name one Scotland player’ who gets in England team, it was ‘how many Scotland players’ get in.

And yes I already addressed your comments in my precious posts- you don’t think the gap between the two sides is that big- but you concede England are better.

I reiterate that a disagree and used my VERY ROUGH (please don’t nitpick them any more) rankings to illustrate the gulf in quality. Just look at the centre back options, the attacking midfield options, the centre back, right back and goalkeeper options and you see a HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Scotland offer competition at left back and defensive centre mid with Robertson, Tierney and McTominay but nowhere else on the pitch! 

 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

1 minute ago, yellowrider120 said:

How on earth then did England play so sullen against the Jocks if 'man for man' we're so much better?

Because we played **** as an overall team whereas Scotland played much better with much more cohesion? We played a 4/10 and Scotland played a 8/10. And we still drew the game. 

Didn't we out play Man City when we beat them 3-2? Are we man for man better than Man City too then? Or would you agree that a single match probably isn’t that conclusive a sample size for which team has the better individual players? 

[hogesar 9,665]

7 minutes ago, yellowrider120 said:

How on earth then did England play so sullen against the Jocks if 'man for man' we're so much better?

The same way we beat Man City in the prem and still finished rock bottom.

It happens in football.