With no real football to keep me busy I have been reading a bit of football history and had a bit of a startling discovery.
It is now 26 seasons since a non Old Firm team won the top league in Scotland. This though is not the longest period of Old firm dominance in Scottish football history. That record is 27 years done between 1904 and 1931.
Now most fans know that the Old Firm have dominated Scottish football, demonstrated in that between them they have 96 titles in a continuing competition that has run for 115 years. What they may not know though is the level of domination at the top level of the competition over the years.
It is only on five occasions that the Old Firm have not finished in 1st or 2nd place. This happened in 1896-1897, 1902-1903, 1903-1904, 1959-1960 and 1964-1965. On only one occasion has an Old Firm team failed to finish in the top 3 and that was in 1964-1965. Incidentally Rangers finished 5th and Celtic finished 8th.
This level of domination is not healthy and I don't think it helps our game to develop. Continued domination will only continue to disillusion non Old Firm fans with a generation growing up never knowing their team to compete.
Also can it be a coincidence that when our football was at it's most competitive, 1960's and early 1980's that we as a nation competed at our best on the European stage. Whilst the early 1960's saw Rangers win the majority of titles and the late 1960's were dominated by Celtic the early part of the 60's had Hearts, Dundee and Killie all winning the title and all competing at the top end of the table on a regular basis. Certainly Killie and Dundee competed well in European football at this time and obviously Celtic became the first team to win the European cup. Arguable a great Celtic team were made better because of the increased level of domestic competition.
Some European results to ponder from the 1960's, Dundee 8-1 Cologne (1962), Hibs 3-2 Barcelona (1961) and Dunfermline 6-2 Valencia (1962).
Obviously in the 1980's the European exploits of Aberdeen and Dundee United are well known.
Quite clearly there is no easy answer to what we should do, I have some ideas that the article can probably build upon but even the most blinkered Old Firm fans must concede that this level of dominance is not healthy.
The dominance of the Old Firm
posted on 8/6/11
If competitiveness does not come back into our game then domestic competition will die to be replaced with some sort of european super league. TV will rule the playing of fixtures and the set up of any such competition.
Whilst in other leagues teams dominate it is not to the same level as it is in Scotland. Comparisons with the Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian and Portugese leagues show whilst titles are evenly spread between 2 or 3 big clubs it is not the same level of dominance as in Scotland.
I also think this continued dominance only heightens the rivalry between the OF which in some way perpetuates the sectarian problem that clearly exists.
posted on 8/6/11
There might be a case for the Dundee teams merging ( they almost did a few years back: Would have been called Dundee United City and would have worn Orange and Black - some 'merger'!) but surely Edinburgh is big enough to support 2 teams as it has a bigger population than Liverpool or Sheffield?
BrotherYoung 84, Kilmarnock beat Eintracht in the 60s, Real's opponents at the 1960 Hampden European Cup Final.
If we go back to a 10 team league we'll never do anything in Europe again. Better to have a 14 team top division so that young players can be 'blooded' in so-called 'meaningless games.
posted on 8/6/11
"nothing like that will happen ever again though no matter what the plan is"
Why not?
In comparison with Norway, we hold up quite well. I think Rosenburg have won the title 13 out of the last 14 seasons. At least we have two teams competing.
I still don't see what the difference between a 12-team league and a 14-team league is, unless there is going to be two relegation spots.
OP - as you point out, this has always been the way in Scottish football. So why do you think this on-going trend will destroy Scottish football if it continues?
posted on 8/6/11
West coast don
It is the scale of the domination now that concerns me, it hasn't always been at this level at the top of the league. Look at the following stats:
1890 -1904
5 non OF champions and on 4 occasions a non OF runners up.
1904-1931 - The longest period of dominance.
No non OF champions obviously but on 14 occasions the runner up was a non-OF team.
1931-1965
9 non OF Champions and 17 non OF runners up.
1965-1985
4 non OF champions and 7 non OF runners up.
1985-1998
Again no non OF Champions but 9 non OF runners up.
1998 to present
Again no non OF Champions and 1!!!!!!!! non OF runners up.
On top of that if you look at two of the periods, 1931 - 1965 and 1965-1986 you will see an amazing stat. In the first period Celtic were only champions on 3 occasions. In the second period Rangers were only champions on 3 occasions. That is a whole generation growing up only seeing there team win on a limited basis.
Whilst one of the OF have invariably been in the top 3 at least there has never been the concerted domination of the top two positions by the OF at any point and that continuation can not be healthy for the game.
posted on 8/6/11
Hate to tell you this mate, but Elvis is dead.
posted on 8/6/11
The size of the league won't make a difference to who wins the league.
Rangers or Celtic would win the league wether it was a 10, 12, 14, 16 or 18 team league.
The only difference would be how far ahead they would be of the rest of the teams.
posted on 8/6/11
Hate to tell you this mate, but Elvis is dead.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elvis has left the building!!!!!! Permanently??
Just trying to engage in constructive debate, that is all
posted on 8/6/11
Change doesn't happen quickly enough in football IMO
I'd love to see an end to seeded draws for the Champions league and Europa league .It's even happening in world cup draws now ie.(Ireland v France play off).
Stick all the teams in a pot and draw them out.Surely this is the fairest way.
It's almost impossible for a team with a small buget to progress in European compitition these days.The rich get richer and the ever widening gulf in finances grows.
I'd also love to see a world wide football Salary cap to stop the big teams buying all the talent.This would make it a more of a level playing field and breed loyalty to your club.Instead of players chasing the ££££££s at the end of every season.
None of this will happen though.Unfortunately money talks and SKY has all the money.
posted on 8/6/11
In order to close the financial gap the old firm would need to be prepared to accept a change in the distribution of income amongst spl clubs.
-------------------------
People keep saying this and although every little helps, equal TV rights and ticket sales would not make a huge difference. Certainly not to a level that would make Kilmarnock or Hibs title challengers.
The fact is Rangers and Celtic sell 10 of thousands of season tickets and have wealthy owners who can spend millions at a time on players. Redistribution of TV rights would not really change this. Besides Rangers or Celtic feature on TV EVERY week, the others feature maybe once every 6 or 7 weeks if they're lucky, why therefore should they get the same money as Rangers and Celtic. The OF are the attraction for TV companies, they are the reason the SPL gets the (little) money it gets.
posted on 23/6/11
Howsabout, hibs and hearts, lower the price of their season tickets a bit, then fill their stadiums. The 2 clubs have a big enough support to do this, their respective chairmen spend a bit more money on their sqauds, and their managers believe they can win in glasgow. That last comment was espescially for JIM JEFFRIES, his teams are beat before they come to Celtic park or Ibrox.