MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The Importance of Sport (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 68, 69, 70, 71, 72  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I am not in favour of these new women pundits. Yes, they are more articulate than the male pundits, they clearly know more about football than the male pundits (not difficult in either case) but that is hardly the point. If we wanted articulate, knowledgeable people we would haul in journalists, as they do in America where they take sport seriously. Sports, as they call it.

We want people telling us what we've just seen because they've been there and we haven't. A woman pundit may have a hundred and sixteen England caps but she's never been there, has she? She doesn't know what it's like for a nation's hopes to rest on her shoulders. If we really want women pundits we can always ask Grahame Le Saux. [That's a Guernsey/Guardian joke in poor taste and shouldn't be repeated outside these hallowed walls.]
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There is no barmy army in Russia. Why not? I have seen no commentary on this hugely significant development and is therefore a case of careful ignoral. You are invited to explain both the fact and the ignoral. Try to avoid the more obvious saloon bar explanations -- unless they are true, but they won't be, otherwise there would have been no careful ignoral..

However, the fact of it means there will be a huge Russian audience for the England/Croatia semifinal. Who will they support? Historically, Russia is anti-Croat (because of being historically pro-Serb) but ambivalent about England. Politically, Russia is currently anti-England but ambivalent about Croatia. Russia being knocked out by Croatia cuts both ways. In any case both England and Croatia for different reasons thrive on the 'everybody hates us' ethic so it may not matter.

A final between England and France/Belgium will presumably be pro-French/Belgium. A final between Croatia and France/Belgium does not matter. The dominance of European countries is one in the eye for orthodoxy though whether we should be celebrating this is not clear.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The dominance of European countries is one in the eye for orthodoxy though whether we should be celebrating this is not clear.


Since this will be the 4th straight World Cup win for a European team, you might not be the first to have spotted this paradigm shift.
Send private message
aurelius



View user's profile
Reply with quote

On a related point:
The English Premier League is more popular than the Russian Premier League as it is in a lot of countries.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/fifa-russia-2018/russians-english-divided-by-nationality-but-united-by-premier-league/606722.html

Hence most Russians are looking forward to seeing our top stars, even the English ones, and they will want to see those they are familiar with and like on the winning side. This will include the likes of Luka Modric, an ex-Premiership star, so I would expect their support to be split, but in our favour.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Since this will be the 4th straight World Cup win for a European team, you might not be the first to have spotted this paradigm shift.

Wrong! It is not the winner that is important because that is essentially a lottery and in any case, since there is only a choice of two (Europe and South America), one winning four times in a row is almost but not quite statistically insignificant. It is the geographical origins of the teams making the final stages that counts -- the origins of the qualifiers is strictly a political matter.

Now do the maths. As you should have done in the first place. It ought to, but won't, affect the number of places awarded to Europe in the future.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Not that it will affect us since as holders we won't need to qualify. But here at the AEL we have to take due cognisance of the Scotch, the Welsh and the Paddies. And, please, let's not spoil everything by crowing. We've always been good losers, let us show the world we can be good winners.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There is no barmy army in Russia. Why not?

One of my son's friends is an England fan but didn't go to Russia "because it was too expensive". This is undeniably so but surely can be said of all World Cup tournaments and in most cases a true fan would find the means somehow.

Perhaps fear rather than expense deterred him -- fear of Russian 'ultras' and fear of disappointment. Only a couple of weeks ago expectations were so low that wins against Panama and Tunisia were the best one could hope for.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

All definitely irrelevant. Eighty thousand Peruvians managed it. English fans frightened of ultras? They're a bonus. Low expectations? Everybody knew we would at least qualify for the group stages. Not that the barmy army particularly cares. Test matches in Australia a speciality.

Try to do better with this week's topical quiz question:
When was the St George flag popularly adopted as a symbol for England?
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:

Try to do better with this week's topical quiz question:
When was the St George flag popularly adopted as a symbol for England?


I don't know, why is a red cross an emblem that is universal, non-religious, non-political, non-ideological and distinct recognised the world over....as a symbol that could give help to the wounded...also the flag of England?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I asked 'when'. Once you answer that, alles klaar. You were alive at the time, Wiley, you just didn't notice.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Case Bleu. MI6. Mbappé. Wet job.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

As usual everyone is making the classic AE error of judging by results i.e. we reached the semis, rejoice. Actually in terms of results, we beat two poor teams, beat one reasonable team, lost to another reasonable team and had two inconsequential games against a good team. In other words we did precisely what a middle ranking power ought to do, what we always do and what we always will do.

Yes, it's the old AE rule: the truth is always boring. No wonder nobody ever buys my books. But I don't judge by results.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

When was the St George flag popularly adopted as a symbol for England?

England supporters traditionally used the Union Jack as their emblem, as did the supporters of British right wing political parties, including the Conservatives. Welsh, Scottish and Irish supporters used their own flags. This anomaly never became a sporting issue because, by an odd concatenation of circumstances, England only qualified for tournaments when none of the other home countries did and vice versa. The one exception being 1982 when Northern Ireland and England qualified but since the Northern Irish flag is a George Cross (!) England could continue with the Union Jack untroubled.

The problem came to a head in 1996 when England and Scotland qualified. Not only was the tournament being held in Britain but Scottish nationalism had become a national issue. Faute de mieux, English supporters had to switch to the George Cross. Right wing parties also had to make their minds up. Non-respectable ones (UKIP and the BNP) went defiantly for the George Cross, the Conservatives were obliged to stop waving flags of any stripe.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

In other words we did precisely what a middle ranking power ought to do, what we always do and what we always will do.


Also, no-one wants to point out that the tactics were not dissimilar to the ones Sam Allardyce would have pursued, ie accepting that because we don't have any decent midfielders we will instead punt the ball from defence into an area of opportunity and hope it bounces somewhere nice. Big Sam remains statistically the most successful England manager ever (played one; won one).
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Up to a point. England have shown they can play it out from the back when not pressed; they have also shown they can play it medium long to the wing backs when pressed and they are fit and the other side aren't pressing properly. But when, for instance, Ashley Young ran out of puff -- as he was entitled to do at his age and after his yeoman service during the tournament -- then the whole system broke down and England were hoofing it up the park just as in the bad old days (of Allardyce & Co). This is clearly the next step -- developing the nerve to play it out from the back when pressed though since only Barcelona, Brazil et al can do this, it may be unfair to ask it of relative England neophytes. Maybe next time.

Given that playing it medium long to the wing backs was certain to be essential against Croatia, it was a bad error from Southgate not replacing Young soon enough, even picking him to start. He was after all only marginally ahead of other candidates, of which there were several including playing Kyle Walker as one. He's worth fifty plus million so by definition is wasted in a back three. In fact Southgate's entire substitution policy was flawed. How can it possibly be correct to bring on your fourth substitute in the 115th minute in debilitating conditions? As for a 'creative midfield', that raises more complex issues.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 68, 69, 70, 71, 72  Next

Jump to:  
Page 69 of 72

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group