Maybe you'd watch because it's a football game, and you're interested in the sport, just a thought.
As I have stated previously, I don't watch national teams. Your remark about my interest in the sport shows clearly that you are not paying attention.
If my interest would somehow go beyond that, I certainly would not choose to watch Scotland vs Poland. No one cares about a game like that aside from people from Scotland and Poland.
The fact you have to reduce yourself to polar opposite arguments suggests you are running on empty here.
Those "opposite arguments" state my position. That's different. More on your faulty logic as we go along.
Is McTominay the best player ever, course not but then no one has stated that or even come close to it.
Here we go. You're arguing against something that I didn't argue for. How great Scotty was or wasn't, is not the topic at hand.
You are delusional if you think that McTominay wouldn't have offered better than Casemiro in that Liverpool game. Especially given his recent Scotland performance which obviously you didn't watch and so can't comment on at all.
Delusional, ok. Do you know what that word means? Let me explain:
Your position is that before the game started you would have picked McTominay over Casemiro.
You're saying that among those two players Scotty is the better choice.
You're implying that you knew that Casemiro would have a very bad day and therefore Scotty starting would mean that Scotty would have delivered a better performance.
What recent Scotland performances? When was that, months ago and that is your argument that his "recent performances" would put him ahead of Casemiro?
That is pretty delusional.
It's clear and obvious you don't like McTominay, but it really shouldn't cloud your judgement, he can be a useful player as well as not being the best in the world.
I don't like the player, I don't care about the person. Useful players don't have to be the best in the world. I didn't say what you're implying.
My issue with Scotty is moreso what he, Maguire, Lingard and the other
useful players stood for. Mediocrity. Failure. Embarrassment. Lack of everything. They symbolised our downfall. They marked our new level.
You talk about standards yet SAF had players like O Shea, P.Neville, Park, Fortune, Smith etc etc all squad players who weren't the best but were trusted by the manager.
Yes, I talk about standards. Specifically the ones we lost along the way.
SAF had standards and he had useful players. I believe Park was a level above the ones you mentioned, but I'll take the others.
They weren't great players but they worked in the SAF system. What was his system? To make the team
stronger than the sum of it's parts. That's one of the most important things that set him apart. That's what we're lacking today (among many other things).
Under philosopher Ten Hag the team is
weaker than the sum of it's parts. Ten Hag is a disaster.
It's interesting you bring up Fletcher, as Sir Alex actually stated that McTominay reminded him of Darren.
It's really interesting, fascinating even. SAF thinking of Fletcher is what, an absolution?
It's meaningless. Meaningless because McTominay reminded me of Fletcher right away, too. A limited player, not starter material, an option from the bench in cup games. That's it.
It could have worked under SAF and I mean that. Darren Gibson and Tom Cleverly worked under SAF. They started CL games.
In reality philosopher Ten Hag is not SAF and therefore
a) I don't trust the philosopher and
b) Pele McTominay never worked out.
I'm glad he is gone.
I get it though - people like you had a vision right before the Liverpool game and would have picked Scotty ahead of Casemiro, based on merit.
But nevermind. Standards etc.
Yeah, standards. Some have them, some don't, some lost them and some are just confused about the world we're living in.
