McDiarmid Stands & Tributes

[blueheaven]

10 hours ago, dave mc said:

The league was much stronger in Ormonds day,two European trophy winners,that we went toe to toe with.Tommy’s reign included 4 seasons of Rangers out the league,Hearts,Hibs and Dundee Utd too,so a much weaker opponent without doubt,but still a great achievement 

That argument doesn't really stack up for me. I'd agree the standard was probably higher in Ormond's day (I wasn't around to see it so can't say for sure). I'd also suggest the standard was significantly higher than it is now when Sandy Clark had his successful period. However, in each era we've come up against the teams who were the best teams in the country at that particular time, and our own status within that has stayed relatively similar (i.e. we've been one of the smaller clubs, and looked upon as underdogs).

Hearts, Hibs and Dundee United had spells out of the top league during Tommy's time because they weren't good enough for the top league. So it doesn't make sense to say the league would be stronger with them in it (it could just as easily be argued that those teams not being good enough to stay up indicates the rest of the league being stronger, rather than weaker). Either way, the teams we were playing against were the best in the country at that time, fair and square. And Rangers had of course vanished because they'd been cheating.

Of course there's also the point that Tommy's success was sustained over a period of seven seasons, during which time we not only won a cup but regularly qualified for Europe. And he left us on a high. Ormond's success was more fleeting, and really only lasted a couple of seasons.

 

 

 

[RandomGuy]

Was the standard of Scottish football higher during Ormonds reign, or was it just a case that the standard of the rest of Europe was lower?

[Johnny B]

2 minutes ago, RandomGuy said:

Was the standard of Scottish football higher during Ormonds reign, or was it just a case that the standard of the rest of Europe was lower?

During that era Scottish team were winning European tournaments and beaten finalists. The big difference is the top teams in Europe and to some extent the OF have widened the gap as they spend a hell of a lot of money on the top players. I read that when Celtic win the European Cup all there players were from Glasgow or thereabouts.

From memory I think real Madrid were the only team to buy top integrationists from outside Spain. The majority of European team were made up of home grown players Benfica, Ac Milan Inter Milan Manchester United (British players), Feyenoord, Ajax, Bayern Munich etc.  Now they have foreign internationalist playing.

I think the answer to you question is the top European clubs are much stronger now than in Ormond's era. 

[sixties saintee]

56 minutes ago, RandomGuy said:

Was the standard of Scottish football higher during Ormonds reign, or was it just a case that the standard of the rest of Europe was lower?

No the standard o the Scottish player was a lot higher, near on every english team had 2 or 3 Scottish players in there team.

[blueheaven]

2 hours ago, RandomGuy said:

Was the standard of Scottish football higher during Ormonds reign, or was it just a case that the standard of the rest of Europe was lower?

I'd also ask ... if the standard was higher back then, does that mean people think Ormond's strongest team would beat Tommy Wright or Callum Davidson's strongest team? I tend to think that while Ormond's players may have been technically more gifted, the levels of fitness and organisation today would mean that the modern teams would win.

 

[RandomGuy]

6 hours ago, sixties saintee said:

No the standard o the Scottish player was a lot higher, near on every english team had 2 or 3 Scottish players in there team.

How does that make it stronger though? English teams barely signed foreign players until Sky/Wenger in the mid-90s.

[THE LARK SAINT]

7 hours ago, blueheaven said:

I'd also ask ... if the standard was higher back then, does that mean people think Ormond's strongest team would beat Tommy Wright or Callum Davidson's strongest team? I tend to think that while Ormond's players may have been technically more gifted, the levels of fitness and organisation today would mean that the modern teams would win.

 

An Ormond team would beat today's team easily. 

[Johnny B]

15 hours ago, THE LARK SAINT said:

An Ormond team would beat today's team easily. 

Question is it played toady on a modern pitch with a modern ball, the tackling restrictions and all the other rule restrictions. Or is played on a muddy cows field where defenders can kick lumps out of attackers?

The modern day footballer is fitter, they have access to modern day technology (pitches, balls, training facilities, boots etc.), They have modern day training programs for fitness, diet, muscle development, etc. They have more knowledge of tactics, and teams are more organised. Therefore players today are better athletes they are faster and stronger, than their 70s counterparts. Look at the shape of the modern day player compared with one from the 70s

1970s players training program a couple of hours ball work with some physical work the of to the pub and the bookies in the afternoon. I recall in the 60s on a cold winters day the players were given a dram at halftime to warm themselves up

Any sport which can be measured by time distance and strength have improved over the years therefore I believe so have football teams

Todays ream would win easily if played in modern day and they would still win if played in the 70s but MOH would end up with a broken leg if they could catch him. The old saying from my Junior days. You got past me once do it again and I will break your leg and they meant it. 

 

Edited May 3, 2021 by Johnny B

[blueheaven]

5 hours ago, Johnny B said:

Question is it played toady on a modern pitch with a modern ball, the tackling restrictions and all the other rule restrictions. Or is played on a muddy cows field where defenders can kick lumps out of attackers?

The modern day footballer is fitter, they have access to modern day technology (pitches, balls, training facilities, boots etc.), They have modern day training programs for fitness, diet, muscle development, etc. They have more knowledge of tactics, and teams are more organised. Therefore players today are better athletes they are faster and stronger, than their 70s counterparts. Look at the shape of the modern day player compared with one from the 70s

1970s players training program a couple of hours ball work with some physical work the of to the pub and the bookies in the afternoon. I recall in the 60s on a cold winters day the players were given a dram at halftime to warm themselves up

Any sport which can be measured by time distance and strength have improved over the years therefore I believe so have football teams

Todays ream would win easily if played in modern day and they would still win if played in the 70s but MOH would end up with a broken leg if they could catch him. The old saying from my Junior days. You got past me once do it again and I will break your leg and they meant it. 

 

Two legs ... first leg played at Muirton in 1970, second leg played at McDiarmid in 2014. 

[Abernethy Saint]

It’s not just the fitness and organisation, it’s the refereeing. An Ormond side would get 3 or 4 red cards without thinking they’d done anything wrong.

[slf]

22 hours ago, THE LARK SAINT said:

An Ormond team would beat today's team easily. 

True.

 

 

[slf]

6 hours ago, Johnny B said:

Question is it played toady on a modern pitch with a modern ball, the tackling restrictions and all the other rule restrictions. Or is played on a muddy cows field where defenders can kick lumps out of attackers?

The modern day footballer is fitter, they have access to modern day technology (pitches, balls, training facilities, boots etc.), They have modern day training programs for fitness, diet, muscle development, etc. They have more knowledge of tactics, and teams are more organised. Therefore players today are better athletes they are faster and stronger, than their 70s counterparts. Look at the shape of the modern day player compared with one from the 70s

1970s players training program a couple of hours ball work with some physical work the of to the pub and the bookies in the afternoon. I recall in the 60s on a cold winters day the players were given a dram at halftime to warm themselves up

Any sport which can be measured by time distance and strength have improved over the years therefore I believe so have football teams

Todays ream would win easily if played in modern day and they would still win if played in the 70s but MOH would end up with a broken leg if they could catch him. The old saying from my Junior days. You got past me once do it again and I will break your leg and they meant it. 

 

There isn’t anyone in Tommy wrights side or the present team that could compare with hall , connelly or Pearson for goal scoring.possibly s may in his first season .that’s it.

 

also for entertainment value I ken what team I would be watching.

 

 

[slf]

43 minutes ago, Abernethy Saint said:

It’s not just the fitness and organisation, it’s the refereeing. An Ormond side would get 3 or 4 red cards without thinking they’d done anything wrong.

Ha ha also a pre match aperitif in the Tay motel.

[slf]

Ye could always go for a statue of Harry Corbett with his hand stuck up sootys bum.

 

 

[SaintJet]

On 5/2/2021 at 1:01 PM, blueheaven said:

I'd also ask ... if the standard was higher back then, does that mean people think Ormond's strongest team would beat Tommy Wright or Callum Davidson's strongest team? I tend to think that while Ormond's players may have been technically more gifted, the levels of fitness and organisation today would mean that the modern teams would win.

 

You make some good points and fitness and professionalism ( Fitness, diet, tactics etc) can't be underestimated. Having seen all these teams from different decades I think the Ormond era teams were more entertaining but I think some us of a certain vintage often look at things through rose tinted spectalcles.

These last ten or more years we've never had it so good - long may it continue.

[Pat McGroin]

2 hours ago, SaintJet said:

You make some good points and fitness and professionalism ( Fitness, diet, tactics etc) can't be underestimated. Having seen all these teams from different decades I think the Ormond era teams were more entertaining but I think some us of a certain vintage often look at things through rose tinted spectalcles.

These last ten or more years we've never had it so good - long may it continue.

Prime example being the energy levels shown against Rangers in the QF. 
 

Teams 15-20 years ago couldn’t have matched that for 90 mins. 

[Abernethy Saint]

You wonder how many of the Ormond team lit up a fag as soon as they got their half time cuppa. Half, maybe?