|
|
Post by loy PRA on Dec 10, 2009 21:57:19 GMT
It's not part of the fun as nobody gives the slightest chuff about the minnow nations... I'm a nobody then! Watching the progress (or lack of it) of the 'minor' footballing nations is often at least as equally appealing as seeing how the big guns get on. It's surprising that someone on a forum for tinpotters thinks that the little 'uns don't deserve their share of the spotlight. Tell you what: scrap the qualifying rounds of the F.A. Cup as none of our clubs has an earthly chance of winning it. Banal Rubbish. Yeah, you and Ambersalamander are nobodies and to watch someone like Saudi Arabia get beat eight nil off Germany is some sort of pleasure for you then I am utterly convinced you do not like football. You like small grounds and obscurities and random pecularities which are the semantics of the game, not the actual beauty, passion and life/death nature of the game on the pitch. If a team gets whalloped and their fans dont show up, then who cares about them? if they're a fine old institution like Stanley United then I will feel great compassion (possibly even empathy given my old clubs own predicament in seasons' past) but if they're New Zealand then they can go stuff it back to Wellington. You are putting words in my mouth. It's not that I don't care about how the 'little 'uns' get on, it's the fact that if there is an ELITE sporting even contested on the world's best then qualiying should reflect that. We should have the best footballing nations there, not some geographical idiosyncracy where a team that shouldn't be there are placed there for financial gain. Comparing the FA cup to the World cup is simply ludicrous. I come from an area and family who have a strong football tradition both playing and supporting, I am noy saying I am infallible I am just reflecting the view of a traditional football fan. This noveau love of all things perceived as rustic and charming is missplaced. Your love should be for the brilliance of football. The local pride of your team (regardless of what league they're in) respect for teams who play as beautifully as Arsenal or in days gone by, West Ham United. This factioning of football between obscurity and established just serves to make 'tinpoticity' look very silly indeed, rather than celebrating the real hardcore passion of football regardless. |
|
|
|
Post by LeedsWCFC on Dec 11, 2009 0:24:56 GMT
Banal Rubbish. Yeah, you and Ambersalamander are nobodies and to watch someone like Saudi Arabia get beat eight nil off Germany is some sort of pleasure for you then I am utterly convinced you do not like football. Well, I'm the one who said I am a nobody based on your earlier premise so I can't have a go at you for that but I do find the hostile tone of your post rather unnecessary. And as for someone who says You are putting words in my mouth. you seem to have a much a greater capacity it for it than I have. There are very few instances where I would enjoy seeing any game where one side gets beaten by another by (You said 'beat off' but that doesn't make sense in the sentence you used as 'beat off' is a vulgar slang term for something entirely different although I expect you have expertise in this.) eight goals to nil. The smaller nations sometimes throw up surprises and in a quite traditional British way I think we all like to see the underdogs do so. You aver I am utterly convinced you do not like football. You like small grounds and obscurities and random pecularities which are the semantics of the game, not the actual beauty, passion and life/death nature of the game on the pitch. and I readily admit to a liking for the pecularities you mention but why do you take this as any reason why I do not like football. I love it but I do take more pleasure from what is commonly known in these parts as the tinpot rather than the elite yet this cannot be construed to infer that I have no feeling for the beauty and passion of the game. In fact, I expect most on here would claim that having such a preference actually shows a greater apprciation of the beauties of the game. I won't bother with your 'life/death' comment as such a choice of words is both trite and inappropriate. if there is an ELITE sporting even contested on the world's best then qualiying should reflect that. We should have the best footballing nations there, not some geographical idiosyncracy The concept of an 'elite' sporting event should not preclude the participation of those who might aspire to join the 'elite'. To be a truly elite competition there would have to be either abolition of or a fundamental alteration to the qualifying process else one might as well just simply select, say, the top 32 in the world rankings. But your claim that it is an elite event is somewhat ingenuous anyway. Even the 1934 event had the minnows Egypt and United States of America in it. There has always been provision for little 'uns to join the big boys on the top table. One of the stated reasons for the expansion of the final stages to include 32 teams was so that developing football nations could have a better representation with a view to helping foster development of the game in these outposts. Is that really such a bad thing? You have said respect for teams who play as beautifully as Arsenal or in days gone by, West Ham United. This factioning of football between obscurity and established just serves to make 'tinpoticity' look very silly indeed, rather than celebrating the real hardcore passion of football regardless. but what I said was Watching the progress (or lack of it) of the 'minor' footballing nations is often at least as equally appealing as seeing how the big guns get on. so it is not me who introduced factionalism, is it? |
|
|
|
Post by ambersalamander on Dec 11, 2009 14:44:00 GMT
Let's not turn this into a row, please - civilised debates are a fantastic part of this forum, but as I have mentioned on other threads, I'd like us not to be aggressively or overly opinionated (e.g. dismissing others' opinions as "rubbish," or using personal insults/digs) and please avoid presenting your own opinions as fact. Anyway, moving on... Banal Rubbish. Yeah, you and Ambersalamander are nobodies and to watch someone like Saudi Arabia get beat eight nil off Germany is some sort of pleasure for you then I am utterly convinced you do not like football. You like small grounds and obscurities and random pecularities which are the semantics of the game, not the actual beauty, passion and life/death nature of the game on the pitch. If a team gets whalloped and their fans dont show up, then who cares about them? if they're a fine old institution like Stanley United then I will feel great compassion (possibly even empathy given my old clubs own predicament in seasons' past) but if they're New Zealand then they can go stuff it back to Wellington. That's an interesting post, not least because you don't seem to have taken into account the fact that not everyone has the same opinions/views on football as you do. I'm with Mr Leeds in that I don't gain any pleasure from watching the underdog being beaten 8-0, but it's the potential for a shock that I enjoy. Watching an underdog perform against a big team can often be fascinating because of the dynamics between the two sides on the pitch: for example, one is confident in its ability yet cautious of potential embarrassment while the other is passionate, determined and grimly hanging on. It's a contest between two completely different mindsets, and nobody but me is in any position to say what I "like," or not, about the game. In fact, it is precisely what you say - "the actual beauty, passion and life/death nature of the game on the pitch" - that is what I love about watching an underdog fighting it out with a "big team" with the potential of causing an upset. As for "the random pecularities which are the semantics of the game" - yes I do like those, but they fit in with and are a part of that which you assert, incorrectly, that I do not like. I also find it quite interesting that, according to the last sentence of the bit I quoted, in your opinion it depends on what team one is watching. I'm a bit puzzled by this...if you like to watch certain "tinpot" teams then it means you don't like football, but others it's OK because they're "fine old institutions"? You may feel this way, but it doesn't mean everyone else has to or that your opinions are more "right" than anyone else's! I went to see Sutton play at Hereford in the FA Cup recently. If I were to take everything you say at face value, then you're saying I shouldn't have gone because we were always going to lose and that I enjoyed watching us lose. I knew we were going to lose, but I still looked forward to it BECAUSE of the potential of a shock. I know it's a bit different if I'm talking about my own team, but that part of it is still the same. As for your assumption that because of my personal opinions I do not like football... Well, I assume that this was designed to be provocative as well as dismissive, but it did make me chuckle  because you know personally that I've been moderating these forums since 2003 and (along with ISIHAC) thought up and started this forum and did all the hard work advertising to try and get people on here; I came all the way up to Gateshead with a bunch of other forum users in order to help out your club financially; I haven't missed one of my team's home matches since 1997 or away since 2004. But of course, because I don't feel EXACTLY the same way you do about football, my opinions must be inferior and I can't like football at all...I really must have far too much time on my hands if I go to such extraordinary lengths to hide that fact, Loy!  |
|
|
|
Post by loy PRA on Dec 11, 2009 14:59:53 GMT
Banal Rubbish. Yeah, you and Ambersalamander are nobodies and to watch someone like Saudi Arabia get beat eight nil off Germany is some sort of pleasure for you then I am utterly convinced you do not like football. Well, I'm the one who said I am a nobody based on your earlier premise so I can't have a go at you for that but I do find the hostile tone of your post rather unnecessary. And as for someone who saysyou seem to have a much a greater capacity it for it than I have. There are very few instances where I would enjoy seeing any game where one side gets beaten by another by (You said 'beat off' but that doesn't make sense in the sentence you used as 'beat off' is a vulgar slang term for something entirely different although I expect you have expertise in this.) eight goals to nil. The smaller nations sometimes throw up surprises and in a quite traditional British way I think we all like to see the underdogs do so. The smaller nations traditionally flounder and look out of their depth. There is no truth in the twee belief that we must support the underdog as it has some sort of symbiosis with being British as it's utter tosh. Although you don't make your point particularly clear, I identified a team which is qualifies for the world cup fairly easily but then receives a heavy beating from an elite team, yet you fail to provide any factual or anecdotal evidence about a smaller team doing well (The only one I can think of even coming close is Senegal, who are still a footballing nation and have contributed so much to the world of elite players through the years who've represented France. I won't respond to the 'beat off' comments as I feel they're rather childish. Not sure what the word 'averand' means, but essentially football is a game played in its purest form with 22 players, a ball, and two nets at either end of a playing field. The fact that your ground was a former victorian infirmary or a poor law house does not make you appreciate the beauties of the game anymore than the bloke who supports a team who's ground is next to an airport or an industrial estate. However, rather than justifying my comment I could just retort that you infer that I have no feelings towards the FA cup (despite the fact I have seen every round of the cup bar the final layed) because I want the World Cup to be an exhibtion of the very elite. Yes, it is such a bad thing. For the record, the USA were beaten by six goals and although I don't really regard Egypt as minnows (six times winner of the African nations cup! 15 in the Elo rankings and the top 30 in FIFA rankings!) If you read back through my posts (or if you have read through them at all) I do make provision for some smaller nations to join presuming they're of the pedigree that can compete, however a precursor tournament for the smaller nations would determine who was ready to join the elite. By the way, the 'life or death' comment was not at all trite, it was a pastiche of the famous Bill Shankly quote (he was a rather famous football manager - not very 'tinpot' so you may not have heard of him.) I was never discussing factionalism. That quote merely serves my point, how can you say watching minor footballing nations is often at least equally appealing? how can that be so? This leads me perfectly back to my point; given your quote you could find Saudi's eight nil thrasing by Germany at least as appealing as the Garrinchas, the Socrates', the Beckenbaurs, the Zicos, the Yashins, the Linekers, the Rivaldos and the Ardiles'? If so then that's absolutely crazy. It's the anti-football. |
|
|
|
Post by robotsmfc on Dec 11, 2009 20:00:43 GMT
yet you fail to provide any factual or anecdotal evidence about a smaller team doing well (The only one I can think of even coming close is Senegal, who are still a footballing nation and have contributed so much to the world of elite players through the years who've represented France. South Korea (2002). Or are they somehow a footballing nation all of a sudden? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Hilarious stuff. Made my day. |
|
|
|
Post by loy PRA on Dec 11, 2009 22:30:33 GMT
That's an interesting post, not least because you don't seem to have taken into account the fact that not everyone has the same opinions/views on football as you do. I'm with Mr Leeds in that I don't gain any pleasure from watching the underdog being beaten 8-0, but it's the potential for a shock that I enjoy. Watching an underdog perform against a big team can often be fascinating because of the dynamics between the two sides on the pitch: for example, one is confident in its ability yet cautious of potential embarrassment while the other is passionate, determined and grimly hanging on. It's a contest between two completely different mindsets, and nobody but me is in any position to say what I "like," or not, about the game. In fact, it is precisely what you say - "the actual beauty, passion and life/death nature of the game on the pitch" - that is what I love about watching an underdog fighting it out with a "big team" with the potential of causing an upset. As for "the random pecularities which are the semantics of the game" - yes I do like those, but they fit in with and are a part of that which you assert, incorrectly, that I do not like. I also find it quite interesting that, according to the last sentence of the bit I quoted, in your opinion it depends on what team one is watching. I'm a bit puzzled by this...if you like to watch certain "tinpot" teams then it means you don't like football, but others it's OK because they're "fine old institutions"? You may feel this way, but it doesn't mean everyone else has to or that your opinions are more "right" than anyone else's! I went to see Sutton play at Hereford in the FA Cup recently. If I were to take everything you say at face value, then you're saying I shouldn't have gone because we were always going to lose and that I enjoyed watching us lose. I knew we were going to lose, but I still looked forward to it BECAUSE of the potential of a shock. I know it's a bit different if I'm talking about my own team, but that part of it is still the same. As for your assumption that because of my personal opinions I do not like football... Well, I assume that this was designed to be provocative as well as dismissive, but it did make me chuckle because you know personally that I've been moderating these forums since 2003 and (along with ISIHAC) thought up and started this forum and did all the hard work advertising to try and get people on here; I came all the way up to Gateshead with a bunch of other forum users in order to help out your club financially; I haven't missed one of my team's home matches since 1997 or away since 2004. But of course, because I don't feel EXACTLY the same way you do about football, my opinions must be inferior and I can't like football at all...I really must have far too much time on my hands if I go to such extraordinary lengths to hide that fact, Loy! Well I'm glad it made you chuckle, I do try to evoke some humour in posts however people of a rather more sensitive disposition take it as hostility and I am reminded to stay friendly, despite the fact if someone else does the same thing it's roundly ignored (?!) I may be having some trouble convincing you of my views of elite football but it would take someone with the Brain the size of Merrick to work that one out. Anyway back to the point. Your FA cup point is quie salient, and you and this leeds fellow have both mentioned the FA cup despite my insistence that I am referring to elite football on a world stage, the FA cup is the oldest cup competition in the world and is played as an invitational club competition to a variety of clubs at the top and bottom end of the pyramid. Completely different competitions and I have no quarrel with the idiosyncracies of the the FA cup however please don't try and taint the debate when I am infact referring to the World Cup! You needn't feel 'puzzled' by any of my comments, I was trying to assert that the aparatus of non league football (I think thats how I best the best way to correct tinpot, correct me if I'm wrong) appears to be held in more significance on this forum than the more aspirational teams up and down the pyramid, and are often referred to derisively, when it should be the football that counts. Although I intended my comments not to be particularly personal, the fact that you've mentioned you run this forum and you haven't missed a game since such and such as some sort of credence that you're an enthusiast you did also say once that you never wanted Sutton United to be promoted/relegated (obviously you wouldnt want your club relegated) because you had a friend at every ground. A good 90% of my friends are Newcastle fans and ones even a Blyth Fan, but I still wasn't mourning the fact that Skunks were relegated and we tanned the junkies home and away en route to promotion. Quite the opposite, I danced up and down the penines for four days straight. Good point Roboto, and I am glad you enjoyed some of the quotes, South Korea was indeed a shock but I'd rather see the likes of Poland or the Eire knock out Brazil than mild hysteria of South Korea doing well in one world cup and returning to obscurity. |
|
|
|
Post by Sultan of Cannock- SRFC on Dec 12, 2009 0:10:16 GMT
The differences between us on this subject stem from the fact that the World Cup doesn't seem to know exactly what it is supposed to be.
On the one hand, there is the Corinthian ideal of the World coming together in a celebration of football every 4 years (similar to the original Olympic ideal) and as such all the regional federations should be represented. On the other, it is still supposed to be the pinnacle of achievement in world where we are deciding who the absolute best nation in the world are.
On balance i like it as it is. I'm not sure that any tournement that has a knock-out element in it played over a 4 week period is going to answer that question correctly anyway. Look at 1982 for instance. Football-wise Brazil were the best team, but they didn't win the cup. That final was contested between one team that lost a group game to Algeria and another that couldn't beat Cameroon.
The point i'm making is that football being as it is, the odd bad bounce, unfortunate injury or crap reffing decision can add up to one team or another getting a result they don't really deserve. To me the only sure way of doing it is for the top 16 elite qualifiers to decide it, all playing all, on a league system. That just aint gonna happen.
Athletics gets round this dichotomy by holding a World Championships every 4 years where they bring their elite together and this sits quite nicely alongside the Olympics. However this just won't happen either, unless there's going to be a complete scrapping/reorganisation of the European Nations Cup and the Copa America. Either that or expand the Confederations Cup into something more meaningful. However you are then coming up against the financial interests of club football so that ain't gonna happen anytime soon either.
Arguably, we can tinker about with the qualification process a little. For example, i think NZ should have joined the CONCACAF final group against the likes of Mexico, USA anf Honduras after winning Oceania ( remember the Aussies are now officially an "Asian" nation).
I'm sure that the likes of Poland or Eire are better than some of the qualifiers this time but to me that's a price worth paying for me if the likes of say Eusebio and Gullit could have got there playing for their own countries (Mozambique/ Surinam) instead of Portugal and Holland.
|
|
|
|
Post by loy PRA on Dec 12, 2009 22:38:11 GMT
The differences between us on this subject stem from the fact that the World Cup doesn't seem to know exactly what it is supposed to be. On the one hand, there is the Corinthian ideal of the World coming together in a celebration of football every 4 years (similar to the original Olympic ideal) and as such all the regional federations should be represented. On the other, it is still supposed to be the pinnacle of achievement in world where we are deciding who the absolute best nation in the world are. On balance i like it as it is. I'm not sure that any tournement that has a knock-out element in it played over a 4 week period is going to answer that question correctly anyway. Look at 1982 for instance. Football-wise Brazil were the best team, but they didn't win the cup. That final was contested between one team that lost a group game to Algeria and another that couldn't beat Cameroon. The point i'm making is that football being as it is, the odd bad bounce, unfortunate injury or crap reffing decision can add up to one team or another getting a result they don't really deserve. To me the only sure way of doing it is for the top 16 elite qualifiers to decide it, all playing all, on a league system. That just aint gonna happen. Athletics gets round this dichotomy by holding a World Championships every 4 years where they bring their elite together and this sits quite nicely alongside the Olympics. However this just won't happen either, unless there's going to be a complete scrapping/reorganisation of the European Nations Cup and the Copa America. Either that or expand the Confederations Cup into something more meaningful. However you are then coming up against the financial interests of club football so that ain't gonna happen anytime soon either. Arguably, we can tinker about with the qualification process a little. For example, i think NZ should have joined the CONCACAF final group against the likes of Mexico, USA anf Honduras after winning Oceania ( remember the Aussies are now officially an "Asian" nation). I'm sure that the likes of Poland or Eire are better than some of the qualifiers this time but to me that's a price worth paying for me if the likes of say Eusebio and Gullit could have got there playing for their own countries (Mozambique/ Surinam) instead of Portugal and Holland. I agree. I stated earlier that I thought NZ should join COCACAF - as should Australia in my opinion. I think Eusebio would have been a footnote of a footnote playing for Mozambique rather than the Portuguese Black Pearl, and on a far less grander scale John Barnes for England (to be fair it was not at the World Cup, but his goal against the Brazilians amazes me, what a cracker.) What people need to realise is my point is not to entirely banish smaller less powerful nations from the world cup, but to award the allocation of spaces not through abritrary FIFA placed geographical splits (Australia in Asia but NZ in Oceania...eh?) but to award them on the virtue of relative excellence. It may mean the that the World Cup has a higher instance of European teams but given the game is European this shouldn't come as a massive surprise. As much as people would like to have a go at me for my apparent lack of tinpot credentials in making this bold statement going against FIFA, and somehow comparing my proposal as some sort of diatribe against the FA Cup/every cup competition that's ever existed. Ever. That is not the case. This tournament is the biggest bar the Olympics and people pay attention because of the calibre of the competition. The World Cup evokes the idea of the brilliance and innovation; the Cruyff turn, the Socrates backheel, that Bergkamp goal vs the Argentines - Of course the oddities gain some minor attraction, Zambias halfwits kicking the ball away when it was the oppositions free kick and such, but this does not sear itself in the memory as much as Bobby Moore's tackle against Pele. You simply cannot compare the two ideals, excellence against obscurity. In a broader context of (as I've taken exception to these FA cup comparisons, a competition very close to me heart,) running around grinning inanely shouting 'I like tinpot lots and lots because of cute old grounds, tea bars, mascots and Billingham Synthonia!' ad nauseaum; yes they are wonderful things (apart from maybe Billingham) but essentially if it's football played with enough pasison and verve, then the semantics should be very much secondary. A personal belief, perhaps at odds with other members of the forum and people who've seen far more football games/more knowledgeable/haven't missed a game since 1834 et al than me but this belief is a deeply held one. No amount of averands* will be able to change that. *This word is not in my dictionary, although it is from 1986 and predates me by two solid years. Please enlighten me as to what it means, if anythinf. |
|
|
|
Post by Sultan of Cannock- SRFC on Dec 13, 2009 7:58:06 GMT
but this belief is a deeply held one. No amount of averands* will be able to change that. *This word is not in my dictionary, although it is from 1986 and predates me by two solid years. Please enlighten me as to what it means, if anythinf. Have a just wandered into an edition of "Just A Minute"? ;D Loy, you have a point for a clever challenge but i don't think amber was deviating so she gets to keep the subject..... ;D That's why it's been called "cold print", you see, because we can't see the facial expression of the writer or hear the tone of voice- hence you being misunderstood as "hostile" on the page whereas in real life it wouldn't come across that way at all. "Averand" could be just a missing space between the words "aver" and "and" where someone typing quickly may not have depressed the space bar long enough for the keystroke to register. On the other hand, "averand" may just be "on the other hand" spoken in a Southern accent.  Australia in Asia, by the way, has a lot more to do with politics than sport. The last two Aussie Prime Ministers (and the current one, the Mandarin-speaking Rudd in particular) have been very conscious of trying to find a place in the world for the country and are firmly trying to establish themselves as a modern Asian nation rather than a white colonial anachronism anchored off Papua New Guinea. Many of the AFC nations did not really want the Aussies in their group as they felt (quite rightly as it turns out) that they (the Aussies) would hog one of the qualification spots. As far back as i can remember, FIFA has never quite known what to do with the Oceania region. At one stage they even stuck Taiwan and Israel in the group for "political" reasons! |
|
|
|
Post by ambersalamander on Dec 14, 2009 15:02:57 GMT
Well I'm glad it made you chuckle, I do try to evoke some humour in posts however people of a rather more sensitive disposition take it as hostility and I am reminded to stay friendly, despite the fact if someone else does the same thing it's roundly ignored (?!) I may be having some trouble convincing you of my views of elite football but it would take someone with the Brain the size of Merrick to work that one out. Anyway back to the point. Your FA cup point is quie salient, and you and this leeds fellow have both mentioned the FA cup despite my insistence that I am referring to elite football on a world stage, the FA cup is the oldest cup competition in the world and is played as an invitational club competition to a variety of clubs at the top and bottom end of the pyramid. Completely different competitions and I have no quarrel with the idiosyncracies of the the FA cup however please don't try and taint the debate when I am infact referring to the World Cup! You needn't feel 'puzzled' by any of my comments, I was trying to assert that the aparatus of non league football (I think thats how I best the best way to correct tinpot, correct me if I'm wrong) appears to be held in more significance on this forum than the more aspirational teams up and down the pyramid, and are often referred to derisively, when it should be the football that counts. Although I intended my comments not to be particularly personal, the fact that you've mentioned you run this forum and you haven't missed a game since such and such as some sort of credence that you're an enthusiast you did also say once that you never wanted Sutton United to be promoted/relegated (obviously you wouldnt want your club relegated) because you had a friend at every ground. A good 90% of my friends are Newcastle fans and ones even a Blyth Fan, but I still wasn't mourning the fact that Skunks were relegated and we tanned the junkies home and away en route to promotion. Quite the opposite, I danced up and down the penines for four days straight. Loy, I think you might have taken something I posted slightly out of context. Just so you (and everyone else) are aware, I did not mention anyone's name when I said "let's not turn this into a row" or "I'd like us not to be aggressive" - the "let's" and the "us" should have been a clue there, so please don't feel that other people are "ignored" if they behave in this way. It was a general warning for ALL of us to bear in mind that as the subject matter was getting a tad emotive, we might need to watch ourselves. The only reason it was posted directly after your post was because you happened to have been the last person to post before I came on the forum that day. On the other hand, if the cap fits... Fair point about World Cup vs FA Cup - they are completely different competitions, but that doesn't mean we can't find appeal in the same features of both competitions. I do actually see where you're coming from about the World Cup being a chance for us to watch the very best football skills in the world being put competitively to use. My point was, going back to the original post in this thread and the original discussion, that I valued smaller nations being given a chance to play against these best-in-the-world teams. Fair enough if you don't feel that way yourself, but I personally feel it's quite a valuable thing to have at least a chance of getting that far if you're a smaller nation, and I do enjoy watching an underdog fighting against the odds, as well as the top-quality football you are advocating (and me too - there are many chances to watch both in a good competition). I don't think we as a forum are particularly derisive towards more successful non-league clubs - in fact, we often applaud them on here and recognise their success. I have seen threads on here rubbishing successful teams if posters disapprove of their methods of reaching success - e.g. unsustainable financial means. Most of us will speak out against that because we have seen all too many clubs getting promoted in this way and then imploding, thus causing huge amounts of distress to their fanbase. This is, I think, what we are being derisive of. Thus it definitely IS the football that counts. I apologise if I took your comment that "you obviously do not like football" out of context - it was addressed directly to me and Leedswcfc, so I'm sure that you can see how I might have taken them to be personal. I don't remember saying I didn't WANT us to be promoted/relegated because of having so many friends in the Conf South - I think what I meant was that I'd miss everyone (and I do) should this happen. I would love to be in the Conference (or whatever it'll be called by then) again, but I don't think as a club we're ready for it at the moment. That's totally irrelevant, though...the point is that I have my opinions about the World Cup, you have yours, and they differ on certain points. That doesn't mean that one of us cares more or less about football itself than the other. |
|
|
|
Post by loy PRA on Dec 14, 2009 18:41:17 GMT
Fair point about World Cup vs FA Cup - they are completely different competitions, but that doesn't mean we can't find appeal in the same features of both competitions. I do actually see where you're coming from about the World Cup being a chance for us to watch the very best football skills in the world being put competitively to use. My point was, going back to the original post in this thread and the original discussion, that I valued smaller nations being given a chance to play against these best-in-the-world teams. Fair enough if you don't feel that way yourself, but I personally feel it's quite a valuable thing to have at least a chance of getting that far if you're a smaller nation, and I do enjoy watching an underdog fighting against the odds, as well as the top-quality football you are advocating (and me too - there are many chances to watch both in a good competition). ah, that's not what I said. Banging my head against a brick wall time.... |
|
|
|
Post by J Esaj PRA on Dec 14, 2009 18:49:59 GMT
So... How did the Geordie stumble upon a dictionary and what's he doing posting chunks of it on here?  ;D I think that Loy is of the opinion that FIFA have 'rigged' the World Cup qualification process purely to further the expansion of their soccer empire into new territories. He's probably right, but what do you do with geographically isolated nations? My personal solution would be to restrict them to the quaint minority interest 'sports', like beer chugging, rugby and cricket. Leave football to the developed world.  |
|
|
|
Post by loy PRA on Dec 15, 2009 0:11:38 GMT
So... How did the Geordie stumble upon a dictionary and what's he doing posting chunks of it on here? ;D Someone's become a reet miser since he hit the big 40. To illustrate my closing points on the subject, here's a picture of El Gordo with Socrates:  |
|
|
|
Post by frankiegth on Dec 15, 2009 10:12:54 GMT
In response to whether the "minnows" should be given any sort of respect/chance/place/whatever in the world cup finals. I once remember a world cup final taking place between a team that LOST to CAMEROON (who weren't the strength then they've subsequently become) and a team that couldn't beat ALGERIA.
That final was ARGENTINA v GERMANY.
|
|
|
|
Post by loy PRA on Dec 15, 2009 13:32:19 GMT
In response to whether the "minnows" should be given any sort of respect/chance/place/whatever in the world cup finals. I once remember a world cup final taking place between a team that LOST to CAMEROON (who weren't the strength then they've subsequently become) and a team that couldn't beat ALGERIA. That final was ARGENTINA v GERMANY. How can that be in response? It was never the question. |
|
because you know personally that I've been moderating these forums since 2003 and (along with ISIHAC) thought up and started this forum and did all the hard work advertising to try and get people on here; I came all the way up to Gateshead with a bunch of other forum users in order to help out your club financially; I haven't missed one of my team's home matches since 1997 or away since 2004. But of course, because I don't feel EXACTLY the same way you do about football, my opinions must be inferior and I can't like football at all...I really must have far too much time on my hands if I go to such extraordinary lengths to hide that fact, Loy! 
;D