Scottish football woes

If you are a fan of Scottish football then the past few years (about twenty) have been most depressing (apart from the woman's team who have done well). I'm talking here about the international side (although that is tied to how domestic football has progressed, or not, over this period).
But it's not all bad news. I figure we have an acceptable bunch of midfielders and forwards. They are not good enough to win a major tournament but most of them are good enough not to cause embarrassment. The problem is that, over recent years, we have lacked good defenders, and I would argue that any success must stem from having a good, solid defence - one that can at least stand up to teams ranked below us or about the same ranking (holding out against the likes of Belgium will take really good defenders and that, at the moment, is not on the horizon).
Andy Robertson at left back is fine. I don't see him as being outstanding, defensively, as he's sometimes rated - but he is good enough to face most teams. He can be very good going forward and his crosses can cause any defence a problem. It's easy to look good in the current Liverpool side - and any time he bombs forward another Liverpool player drops back to cover for him. This switch of positions must be coming from Klopp who wants to make use of Robertson's attacking abilities but who, at the same time, understands that he can't leave his left side open to attack. It was clear from the first goal Belgium scored against us that Clarke had not organised the Scottish defence to provide proper cover for when Robertson was missing in attack (or the players ignored his instructions). One answer would be to work on other players filling in for Robertson and the other answer would be for Robertson not to bomb forward - but the latter would remove a good attacking option that Scotland has.
The rest of the defensive line is simply not good enough for international duty. Some of them may develop to be better defenders but they are not good enough at the moment. Scott McKenna might develop in such a way but I feel he'd first have to move to an English club and gain experience of playing at a higher level, week in week out. Tierney is also good enough for international duty and it has to be hoped that, once he is fit again, he'll get into the Arsenal side on a weekly basis. With Robertson at left back, Tierney would have to take the right back position - but he's done that before and performed well. But that still leaves us lacking a couple of good centre backs (and cover for both Robertson and Tierney should either or both not be available) and without those positions filled then it's going to be very difficult to beat carpets never mind even the likes of San Marino (although, as said, the likes of McKenna may develop and improve to the standard required - but only if playing to a higher level than he does in Scotland).
It was actually positive that Scotland tried to attack in their recent matches against Russia and Belgium but that was never going to work with a defence as weak as was fielded. I think the midfield probably dropped deeper and deeper as they realised how open our defence was (to provide extra cover) - and that in turn meant the forwards had to drop back, too - and that meant that our lone striker (whoever that was ) was left isolated. That meant our attacks increasingly failed and our opponents were able to get the ball more often and attack more often - and this exposed the lack of ability of our defenders. The problem, here, is that we don't have defenders of the required ability - and there seems very little sign of anyone coming through who can fill those positions at the standard needed.
Some blame Celtic and Rangers for this, their argument being that if both those sides didn't sign foreigners then more Scottish players would come through. I don't accept this (and I'm a Morton supporter, not an Old Firm supporter). Both Celtic and Rangers are happy to play Scottish players (either bringing them through their own development programmes or signing them, usually at knock down cost, from other Scottish teams) and it strikes me that they resort to foreign players when they can't get Scottish players that are good enough. That, for me, is the problem: Scotland is simply no longer producing players of the standard we once did. Or, more likely, we are still producing players of that standard while other countries have improved while Scotland has stagnated! I used to think that Scottish football had got worse but having recently seen footage of some Scottish league games from the seventies and eighties I've changed my mind about that - the standard today is much the same as it was while it's the other countries which have improved while Scottish football seems to have stagnated.
Why should that be the case? I don't know - but I wish someone did. But I do think there are several reasons for this, not just one single problem.

Between about 2001 and 2007 I was driving a taxi, on evening shift, in the Inverclyde area. One thing I noticed was that all the fields and play areas that, in my day, were filled with boys of various ages kicking balls around, were sitting empty with only a couple of lads kicking a ball around on the streets near their homes - but hardly any in comparison to the fifties and sixties. If we didn't have anyone to play with then we found a wall and kicked a ball against that. This helped develop, at a young age, the skills needed to bring a ball under control quickly (to save having to run after it all the time). This in turn helped develop accuracy in passing and shooting as hitting the wall in the correct spot was needed to achieve this. If there were two boys then they found somewhere to play 'shooty in'. If there were three then they played 'crossy in' - and if there four or more then it was a full blown match of attrition! In school, 1st to 3rd year found their spot in the playground - usually with a small ball or a puck sized piece of wood if there was nothing else available - while 4th to 6th year pupils, especially if in the school team, played on the school football pitch.
Although no longer living in Inverclyde I do watch Scottish football on TV - and that includes the Scottish Championship games shown on BBC Alba and the new BBC Scotland channel. One thing that's struck me is that far too many Scottish players, at that level, are simply unable to control the ball quickly or pass it with reasonable accuracy - even when not under pressure. If those skills are not being learned from a young age, when enjoying a kickabout, then they need to be developed in more organised set-ups (schools, for example) but this would seem not to be happening.
It's been claimed that the kids, these days, are staying in playing video games - and also avoiding bullies. As for the latter, there were always bullies but in my day they'd not do much more than kick your butt and chase you away so they could play. That didn't happen often as there were so many places a ball could be kicked about that the most they'd do was to chase you from a 'good' spot to one that was less good. Over the years, places kids could play were gradually built over and the choices of spots to play became fewer and fewer. In addition to that the level of violence that bullies were happy to inflict seemed to increase as well. Perhaps that's why, in addition to video games, fewer and fewer kids came out to play football? In addition to that it's come to light that too many coaches, at a more organised level, were preying on boys to satisfy perverted sexual desires. A small minority, perhaps, but the reporting of those incidents has maybe reduced the number of boys looking to play football at a higher level and has, maybe, also reduced the number of coaches willing dedicate their time to coaching as they feared being accused of activity of this sort - not to mention that, perhaps, fewer parents are now willing to let their children join clubs where they fear they might be abused. Although unlikely, it is not difficult to imagine a situation where just one boy, dropped from the team, decides to accuse the coach of improper sexual behaviour towards him (such misbehaviour having been reported all too often in the press that it seems a good way to get revenge for being dropped). That, sadly, is the type of society and culture that has developed. Unlikely as this is, I can understand why some with the ability to coach might decide that doing so is just not worth it.
I don't know if kids no longer play football during school breaks (I don't hang about school gates so I can't say!) but it does look like we have fewer kids (than in my day) playing football of any sort and maybe not a sufficient number of coaches willing to coach on a more serious level. At the same time it's been pointed out that other 'developed' countries have similar problems but have still managed to produce better footballers, or at least better teams, than Scotland currently does. I'm thinking here of the likes of Iceland, Denmark, Belgium and Portugal.
Then there are the issues of how Scottish football is organised and financed.
First, how Scottish football is organised. My understanding is that once upon a time there were not very many levels below the top level - with, say, under 15, under 18, under 21 and reserve sides but there's now an under age side for just about every age. The argument is that the old way, for example, had 15 year olds playing against 18 year olds - and that this helped the younger players develop their skills more quickly, and become harder, as they fought to match the older players they were up against. I cannot say if this is a valid point or not - but I think it's worth looking into (if someone is not already doing so).
Secondly, how Scottish football is financed. Once upon a time (again) gate receipts were shared between the home side and the visiting side but this, for league games anyway, was changed such that the home side kept all the income. Now, I can understand why the big clubs (especially Rangers and Celtic) wanted such a change - it was, after all, their supporters who were providing the bulk of the gate receipts, so why should they have to share it when the visiting team's supporters provided very little in the way of income? It was bad enough that the big teams often took more fans to away games than came to watch the home side but still got very little financial return for doing so - while not sharing meant they got nothing (a very small loss) for away games but a lot more for their home games: a small loss compared to a far greater gain overall. A fair enough point - but this, I would argue, has led to the smaller teams being starved of the income required to keep their first team in business never mind run a reserve team. All clubs having a reserve team would keep more players playing in competitive matches and this will only help players to continually improve - but running a reserve team requires the money to do so. The end result of this 'fairer' split has only helped impoverish Scottish football in general so that the already bigger, wealthier teams can become even bigger and more wealthy. This has not helped keep Scottish football competitive but has, instead, been a factor in making it less so.

But what about the 'Old Firm' in general? Are Rangers and Celtic a force for good or bad in Scottish football? I, as a non-Old Firm supporter, would have to say a bad influence. Sure, they are the two teams which mainly represent Scotland in European competition (and I cheer them on when they do) - fly the flag, as it were - but the extent to which they now do so is a shadow of what was once the case. It's rare, for example, for either of them to be in the running for getting far in even the Europa League never mind the Champions League. The beginnings of both of them as the Protestant team and the Catholic team have only allowed the sectarian divide in Scotland to continue, year after year, despite both clubs having, themselves, moved away from the original, sectarian positions they once held. However, too many of their supporters have not made that journey. One of the outcomes of that sectarian starting position has been the gathering of support from towns and cities outside Glasgow. Supporters of either Celtic or Rangers travel every match day to watch one of those two sides simply because of the religious denomination they were born into - and the terraces of their local teams remain pretty empty. - as, therefore, do the coffers of their local team. In addition to the sectarian supporters, the other main reason for support of Rangers and Celtic comes from the Glory Hunters - those wanting to support a side which is likely to win just about every game they play (in Scotland, anyway). This is because Celtic and Rangers are the wealthiest clubs in Scotland - but that is because of their sectarian beginnings, which attracted Catholic and Protestant fans from all over the country in the first place. Without that sectarian beginning fans would not have come from all over Scotland, neither side would have become as rich as they did and that would have reduced their success and that would have reduced the numbers of Glory Hunters abandoning their local side in the reasonable belief of their chosen side (Celtic or Rangers) getting a victory. Being a Greenock Morton fan, I can well understand the joy of your team winning on a Saturday afternoon (or whenever) but if the Glory Hunters had instead supported their local team then their local team might have ended up better than it is and been in a position to really challenge both Rangers and Celtic. Maybe less chance of winning week in week out - but I'd argue that there'd be more joy in winning, in that situation, instead of the boredom of winning just about every week. Another thing both Rangers and Celtic do which, in my opinion, has a negative effect on Scottish football, is that they try to sign (usually for a cheap fee) any Scottish player (from another Scottish team) who looks promising. The player wants to join either Rangers or Celtic because; 1) they'll get more money and, 2) they see an opportunity to become a star player and maybe get called up for international duty. The reality is that most of those players end up not breaking into the Celtic or Rangers first team but, instead, end up languishing as simply a basic squad player. This means they lose confidence and don't get to develop the potential that first brought them to notice. Some may eventually go out on loan which might get them into playing competitively again and their confidence might recover - but not always. Another outcome of this, however, is that the team they have been signed from loses the regular benefit of such a player - and this, in turn, reduces the ability of that team to challenge the Old Firm and the other, less wealthy, sides around them. So, we have Celtic and Rangers getting richer and richer, due to their large support base (much of this from sectarian fans and Glory Hunters) while at the same time robbing the smaller teams of both wealth and talent and holding back the development of potentially good players who need regular competitive games to progress. The end result of this is a Scottish league which, at best, is third rate - and that means that both Celtic and Rangers do not have the weekly competition needed for them to challenge at the European level. Signing a few foreign 'stars' does not help. Most of those players will only come to Scotland because, 1) they are nearing the end of their playing days and want a challenge to fill their twilight playing years, 2) are not good enough to get signed by a team in a good league or 3) are young (Virgil Van Dyke, for example) and hoping to be spotted by a top English side (given Scotland's proximity to England). Getting someone like Van Dyke might be good - but such a player is not going to stay long enough to build a team around and several players of such talent would be needed to challenge in Europe, anyway. If not for the Old Firm, Scotland would probably not have teams going beyond the preliminary stages of European competition but we might have a more competitive league set-up with several clubs having a real chance of winning our premier league each year - and that might help develop better players over the long run. Don't Celtic and Rangers realise that, if taken to the extreme, all the other Scottish teams might go out of business and we'd then we'd be left with just Celtic and Rangers playing each other every week? OK, that is not going to happen but what could happen, and has been happening over recent years, is that all the other teams are so lacking in funds that they are simply unable to give Rangers and Celtic a real challenge of any sort and that will result in both Rangers and Celtic not being sharp enough to challenge on the European stage due to them lacking the required level of competition week in week out. This is the way things have been developing over recent decades. Over recent years, both Celtic and Rangers have indicated a desire to transfer to the English league in order to improve competition, attract better players and do better in Europe. But do they not see the irony and hypocrisy in this? It is their own greed which has impoverished other Scottish teams which, in turn, has reduced the ability of the other Scottish teams to be competitive. In order to produce better player, and actually be able to challenge the Old Firm, the other Scottish sides need money to pay scouts, get and keep players, pay players and pay coaches good enough to develop those players to the standards of the players of other countries. Reduced income means none of the above can be done - or, at least, not to the extent that allows those clubs to properly challenge Celtic and Rangers. I, for one, would be quite happy if both Rangers and Celtic did move to playing in England as some of their supporters might turn out to support their local team (including, maybe, Partick Thistle) when their Old Firm team was playing far to the south. This is unlikely to happen, however, as the English league is doing quite well without them and most English teams (apart, maybe, from northern ones) don't want the extra expense of travelling north to Scotland on a regular basis. Another factor both Celtic and Rangers seem not to have considered is: Would either of them qualify for Europe when playing in the English league? Would they even manage to stay in the English Premier League?

What can be done about all of this? Well, we cannot force kids (and young men) to be out playing football (in the way they were many years ago) if they have no desire to do so - and neither Celtic nor Rangers are going to vanish (so their hovering up of the bulk of Scottish football money is not going to vanish) - and, sadly, the sectarian supporters are not going to vanish, either. It's also impossible to tell people which team to support - if they live in Aberdeen and want to support, say, Rangers then you can't stop them doing so. But, at the same time, Scotland needs to produce players of a higher quality that can, once again, shine at the very top table. I figure the SFA need to send investigative teams to the likes of Iceland, Denmark and Belgium to see how their football, from about five year olds onwards, is organised and their players developed. Those investigative teams also need to try and get interviews with the star players from those countries to see if they can discover how those players got into football and were coached to reach the level they have. That way, maybe, Scottish football could reorganise every aspect of the Scottish game - and, in about fifteen years after that, we could maybe start producing decent footballers again. Keep in mind that those countries are probably also facing reduced interest in the game, due to the likes of video games becoming more important to youngsters, but that they have somehow overcome that to produce better players than Scotland has. We need to find out why that's the case. It would also help if the money in Scottish football could be shared out a bit differently such that the smaller clubs had less of a struggle to survive. This might also help both Celtic and Rangers if that resulted in stronger competition for them.