When you reference John Locke in a blog title, you give the reader an expectation on quality which you are never likely to live up to. Â Nevertheless, I’ve done it anyway – mainly because it worked as a title but partly as a device to emphasise my point. Â So now, as you read on, expectations are raised as to the quality of prose – but I’ll leave you as the judge of whether the result is an almighty effort which results in heroic failure or produces a positive result only to be hampered by the sizeable expectations laid upon it to begin with.
Anyway, the reason I’ve regarded this as “Two Treatises” is that I’ve already seen a first (though not written by me).  Read it here.  It is written by the enlightened (well, for a No.8 at any rate) John Beattie, a former Scottish rugby international, whose son is a current Scotland back-rower and his daughter is a Scottish football international.  I guess if there’s a family who know a little bit about sport and representing your nation, it could be Mr Beattie’s.  So when he asks: “how Scottish people beat the Australians, New Zealanders, and indeed the English, at anything?” I feel we need to explore the question a little.
His post is a summary of Scottish success (oh yes – there was some of that!) at the Commonwealth Games in Delhi (9 golds, 10 silvers and 7 bronzes – 26 medals in total). Â He points out the huge disparity in population between Scotland and Australia (we’re 25% of them) and the fact that they have more swimming pools in Melbourne than we have in total as emphasis that we shouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in… erm, an Australian summer of beating them in the pool. Â And yet it happened.
But I don’t buy that. Â I was going to use this post to emphasise the same point – that for a nation of just 5 million Scotland punches above its weight. Â But then I looked at the new FIFA World Rankings. Â We’re now #57= in the world, and started counting the countries above us with a population smaller than ours. I gave up at 10, but there are more. Â So that can’t solely be it. Â Similarly in rugby – New Zealand are the best team in the world and arguably have been for some time (Rugby World Cup competitions notwithstanding) yet their population is less than ours (and indeed, they have more – 13 times more – sheep than people… just saying).
So if its not how many people we have – as John Beattie suggests – that impacts upon sporting success, then what is it?  Well, pick any number of factors – government funding for sport, sport in schools (PE), lack of decent facilities, the invention of computers and computer games.  But if those are actually good excuses for us, then surely the rest of the world should be suffering the same?  Well, perhaps they are – and the quality of sport has taken a dive in recent times.  I’m not really talking about elite sports level (world class pro footballers are probably more skilled –  but less smart with it – than previous generations; rugby internationals are massive) but the depth of talent is probably less than it has been.  And having a smaller population will inevitably impact upon this.
John Beattie also points to us being pessimistic, to us talking Scotland down and being negative, as a national trait.  I have to be honest – I’m as guilty as the next at that, particularly when it comes to sport.  But just as sport is part of our identity, so is, I think is this pessimism.  Not a healthy aspect of identity – and one which rightly sees politicians taken to task when they imply we’re too wee, daft or poor to survive on our own (a caricature of a unionist position to be sure, but perhaps a fair criticism).  But I’m not convinced it is this attitude that is holding us back.
Honestly (and here’s a surprise for Jeff and James who have me down as a sporting pessimist) I think Scotland are as good as we can be at the moment in sporting terms. Â Sure we can only marginally beat Liechtenstein and draw with Lithuania, but that is perhaps our level. Â It is only because our expectations are so high – because we’ve historically been spoiled by the over-achievement of our small nation – that we see these results as poor. Â And this is where I have one-up on my co-authors.
I’ve watched Scotland performances with them in the past (Netherlands in the last qualifying campaign stands out) and both hoped (expected?) us to win. Â I think James even had us, optimistically, to beat World and European Champions Spain last week! Â I, on the other hand, am much more pessimistic. Â But I find that a good thing – it makes for less heartache in the long run. Â You see, if you expect Scotland to be good and we’re not, you get incredibly frustrated when we struggle against minnows of world football. Â If you are more pessimistic (some may say “realistic”!) then when victory comes, it is perhaps all the sweeter for its surprising nature.
So I think what I’m saying is this – by all means be ambitious. Â But temper it with some realism. Â Raising expectations is only going to disappoint. Â Be a little more pessimistic, a little less expectant, and we, as fans, will enjoy the experience more.
#1 by James on October 23, 2010 - 1:28 pm
Malc, that was a joke, I said I thought we might win 0-1, same as we beat Brazil 1-2 in France 1998.
#2 by Malc on October 23, 2010 - 2:34 pm
Yeah, I just re-read your message. But we ended up “winning” 2-3, so I guess you were almost right…
#3 by Jeff on October 23, 2010 - 1:59 pm
This won’t come as a massive shock so no
need to be sitting down or anything… I disagree.
I’m not sure if you’re saying pessimism can propel sporting performance but either way I would suggest that pessimism can only ever be a negative factor. A pessimist isn’t never disappointed, he/she is ALWAYS disappointed. A pessimist would celebrate Commonwealth golds but then predict no such success at Olympic level an they would celebrate McFadden’s winner against France but then gloomily point out that we won’t qualify anyway. Even if they are right, it is hardly a force for progression, ne c’est pas?
If Scotland is going to be the best it can be in the sporting arena we need to sort out schools and local clubs but we also need to fire up the imagination of both kids and parents to help them
strive for the depth and breadth of sportng experience in whichever discipline they happen to choose.
That firing up of the imagination will not be realises through constant reminders that we’re a tiny nation on the world stage and should only ‘realistically’ aim for second tier status. The only ‘tempering’ should be a healthy berating of oneself if they come up 2nd best and analysing where improvements can be made.
Which way do you think Andy Murray thinks?
#4 by Malc on October 23, 2010 - 2:39 pm
I think you’ve taken my “pessimism” thing to a degree I didn’t quite mean it to go to. What I mean is managing expectations. We’re a nation of proud sporting history, but that’s in the past. We’ve got to realise the current crop of sporting talent (with laudable exceptions like Mr Murray) are not as good as previous generations. Thus we can’t expect them to produce the same quality. I thought I’d made that point well, but apparently I didn’t.
I am of the “we won’t qualify anyway” school of thought, but purely because I don’t expect us to, not because I don’t want us to. I’m as disappointed with us at the moment as any optimist is, but I think I’m also more realistic about our potential.
On your second point though… Its not the fact we’re a “tiny” nation that’s the problem (as the evidence above shows). I think its the unreal expectations that are holding us back. Get the expectations under control, and we give our athletes a chance – and I think Mr Murray at Wimbledon may agree with that sentiment.
#5 by NoOffenceAlan on October 23, 2010 - 2:52 pm
The resident population of Scotland may be 5 million, but the number of people ‘with a Scottish granny’, which is the qualification for representing Scotland at sport, is much greater.