Scotland are now waiting, in a strange form of football purgatory at this World Cup, but a hobbled Andy Robertson wasn’t hanging about to make judgment.
“I don’t think it’s enough,” the captain asserted. “I don’t think we’ve done enough. Time well tell. Maybe we’re proved wrong. Maybe another shot at it. The next couple of days will be horrible, and long. This is the situation we’ve put ourselves in. We have to deal with it.”
As Robertson acknowledged, Scotland’s three points and minus-three goal difference might yet be enough to get to the last 32, but it didn’t feel like his frustration even came from that.
A player has decorated as the left-back knows they could have done much more; that they didn’t need to be in this position… that they could have attacked, they could have had a go.
It actually represents the bind that Scotland have long found themselves in under Steve Clarke.
Should they just be trying to do enough, to get by, or actually push the limits, to go out there and try and go further? Should they hold what they’ve got or try and claim more?
The argument will of course persist that you shouldn’t overly change an approach that has repeatedly got you this far, but it holds less and less weight with every tournament you get to.
Where’s the progress, not just in getting to the next round but in play?
This is Clarke’s third, and it’s been the same thing again. It isn’t so much the definition of insanity but inanity.
There was just so little to this team. It was empty.
All that was memorable came from the stands. Scotland otherwise went almost two full matches without a shot on target, Scott McTominay’s 57th-minute strike here eventually following John McGinn’s fortunate goal against Haiti.
This is the great lament around the Scottish camp in Miami: that they left something out there.
It’s the World Cup, the great stage, and there was no great statement; no grand show of what they’re about – except trying to keep defensive shape in such a miserly fashion.
It was also, lamentably for Clarke here, in such a miserable fashion.
While the Scotland manager naturally gestured to how good Brazil are, the reality was that Scotland gifted them the first two goals.
They were dismal, any energy from the team again so lacking.
You can’t base your entire game on defence and then defend like that.
You might be playing Vinicius Junior, sure, but at least make him work for it. His two goals were so easy, both of them coming from messes inside the Scottish box. And a third could have come from Jack Hendry’s error, only for a generous VAR decision to save them.
Such situations also bring a bit more to untangle, not least the idea of what fair expectations of such teams should be.
There can often be a strange public debate when countries of Scotland’s resources – and especially the British teams and the Republic of Ireland – get to such stages.
Those on the outside often get hung up on that size, put everything in that macro context, and just see it as achievement to be there.
Those on the inside are more aware of the nuances, of the actual capabilities of a team and all of the internal questions and debates; of where more can be done.
Hence that frustration within the camp.
More meagre sides than Scotland are doing better, teams that don’t have decorated Premier League winners or Serie A stars, Haiti have outscored them at this World Cup. McTominay only ever really got going in those late bursts. What might have been possible if they’d played to his strengths more? This is another frustration. For all that Morocco have been talked up, and Brazil have such attacking quality, both looked susceptible when pushed. Scotland didn’t even do that.
The 3-0 defeat to Brazil ended up such a farce that Neymar Jr was able to be introduced for a bizarre cameo. None of it felt in-keeping with the cherished history of this fixture, outside some Scottish defensive calamity.
Worse than even that, there’s the question over whether any side has offered less at this tournament, certainly relative to resources.
Have Scotland actually been the most dour team at the tournament? That certainly does not feel like maximising what they’ve got in the way such countries need to.
They’ve consequently left themselves more subject to fortune.
Scotland are now increasingly dependent on results elsewhere, and were really hanging on to the top eight by Wednesday. Every new result causes that 38% chance of progression, according to The Athletic, diminish yet further.
You could argue Scotland are even lucky to be in that situation, in two ways.
The expansion of the tournament offered them a chance at qualification they have now come close to blowing.
Its bizarre convolutions meanwhile meant this poor defeat wasn’t as bad as it might have been. Imagine if the old goal difference rule was still in play, and Haiti hadn’t been eliminated. The entire evening could have had a very different feel had news filtered through of their 1-0 and 2-1 leads over Morocco with the potential for overtaking Scotland still there.
An apathy would have turned to real tension and nerves.
The possibility of a bottom-place finish would have been on.
And yet it’s still hard to see how the team could have felt much lower after the game.
They were crestfallen. Clarke couldn’t even talk about the situation, leaving one interview after less than a minute.
That third goal, again well taken by Matheus Cunha, feels like it could be fatal.
That points to one other positive with Brazil. If Scotland never tested an obvious vulnerability in their team structure, Carlo Ancelotti’s attack is starting to develop an exciting relationship. The swift interchanges, usually driven by Vinicius, are increasingly exhilarating.
None of which you could say about Scotland’s situation right now.
They’re in limbo, in this World Cup, and in their very approach.
