The football thread!

Mutsumi said:
The evidence provided supported my statement. You are welcome to either prove me wrong, or go away and stop trolling.
Click to expand...
Since any factual proving or disproving of your statements would need to agree upon numerical values for the terms "regularly" "frequently" and a precise definition of what a "good challenge" entails I think I'll pass. This just strikes me as a case of arguing for the sake of arguing now.
 
ayase said:
Mutsumi said:
The evidence provided supported my statement. You are welcome to either prove me wrong, or go away and stop trolling.
Click to expand...
Since any factual proving or disproving of your statements would need to agree upon numerical values for the terms "regularly" "frequently" and a precise definition of what a "good challenge" entails I think I'll pass. This just strikes me as a case of arguing for the sake of arguing now.
Click to expand...
We can at least agree on the facts mangaman74 provided though, right? Or are his facts incorrect? Otherwise, you make a fine point there. We can probably agree that the most competitive non-European teams are the South American ones though, right?
 
Mutsumi said:
And yet still no one attempts to disprove my statement by providing evidence to the contrary. Come on then, if I am wrong, prove it, and I shall concede that point. Show me a non-European team that frequently gets to at least the quarter finals and has won it before also.
Click to expand...

We were arguing with your statement that "both Euro Cup and World Cup are more or less the same". That sentence implies that European teams dominate the World Cup, which is pretty far from being the truth.
If you look at the winners, European teams won 10 times out of 19: half times is quite far from domination. There are 5 countries that won the World Cup 2 or more times, "only" 2 are Europeans.
If you look at the most consistent results (reaching top 4), 6 countries reached it 5 times or more, 3 of them are European.
If we analize it deeper, we should consider the amount of teams that are admitted at the final stage of the World Cup. On most editions the vast majority were Europeans. The ratio decreased over time, but just for example in Spain 1982 out of 24 teams there were 14 European ones, in Mexico 1986 they were 13 on 24, if you go back in time the ratio was even greater. Winning half the competitions where your teams were more than half of the contestants is not a big sign of domination.



Teo
 
Mutsumi said:
MaxonTreik said:
Mutsumi said:
teonzo said:
Mutsumi said:
In the world cup, most of the most successful teams are European. Does the absence of Brazil mean so much? Let time I looked, they were pretty much the only non-European team that regularly put up a good challenge for the world cup.
Click to expand...

A+ for trolling.



Teo
Click to expand...

And yet still no one attempts to disprove my statement by providing evidence to the contrary. Come on then, if I am wrong, prove it, and I shall concede that point. Show me a non-European team that frequently gets to at least the quarter finals and has won it before also.
Click to expand...
You pretend to know anything about football, get told you're wrong by people more knowledgeable than you and make them provide evidence. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Mutsumi said:
It asserts that while my statement was in many ways correct, it was not flawlessly so.
Click to expand...
1319901250777.jpg
Click to expand...
The evidence provided supported my statement. You are welcome to either prove me wrong, or go away and stop trolling.
Click to expand...
I was referring to your point about Brazil always being a major threat, which hasn't been true for years. This (and your previous remarks in this thread) is why I said you need to stop pretending you know what you're on about.
 
Consider it this way, if I make an incorrect statement and it is disproven, I will recognise that fact and in doing so become more educated on the subject. Teo made a good post just now, which I have read and learned from. Rather than just having a go at me, just explain why I am wrong, and I'll listen. :)
 
None of that matters. All that matters to me right now is that tonight is that this evening (and indeed probably the next week or two) is going to be painful.
 
Hearing that Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain is starting today instead of Stewart Downing as was expected, it's a bold move that I think will pay off. He'll be energetic and unpredictable which could provide the spark that England will need to get a good result tonight. I was at Wembley when England last played France in a friendly back in 2010, Blanc's France looked very promising then so England will definitely need to perform at their best. I think we'll nick it 2-1.
 
Ath said:
Hearing that Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain is starting today instead of Stewart Downing as was expected, it's a bold move that I think will pay off. He'll be energetic and unpredictable which could provide the spark that England will need to get a good result tonight. I was at Wembley when England last played France in a friendly back in 2010, Blanc's France looked very promising then so England will definitely need to perform at their best. I think we'll nick it 2-1.
Click to expand...

I'd start pretty much anyone over Downing...

I'm thinking it will be 2-1, but I wouldn't like to call to which team. I'd like to have faith but Ireland already let me down and France are on very good form.
 
I think we can only win this one 1-0, if at all. There's gonna be a lot of defending like Chelsea in the Champions League. Glad Downing isn't starting, he's awful.

I'm going for 2-1 to France :(
 
This is shaping up to be an absolute drubbing unless Greece can somehow improve their defence and start showing some bouncebackability...
 
Both matches were really good today I thought, some great goals and shocking misses as well.

Sky Sports News claiming that David Moyes is the favourite to replace Harry Redknapp, would be a good choice in my opinion.
 
Yeah he would be a great coup for us. He is very good at changing tactics during the game when it is needed something harry isn't know for. Also he has done wonders with what he has got at everton. Wonder what he could with a bigger and better team? It is a exciting thought to be sure!
 
Wow, read in the new that apparently Rangers are pretty much destroyed because they didn't pay £14million in tax they owed, in addition to over £70million in other debts to the government. How can they get so deeply in debt? It is stupid, they should have had people checking the numbers, telling them "STOP SPENDING, WE'VE RUN OUT OF MONEY". Their own fault.
 
Mutsumi said:
How can they get so deeply in debt? It is stupid, they should have had people checking the numbers, telling them "STOP SPENDING, WE'VE RUN OUT OF MONEY". Their own fault.
Click to expand...
You talking about western governments there Mutsu? No business ever folded with zero debt, that's not the way things work. A business / govt / individual thinks "financial situation isn't great, I'll borrow some money to tide us over until things pick up, or to invest in something which will hopefully pay off". Then it doesn't, and they are left with even more debt. If they can, they'll probably keep repeating that scenario until no-one will lend them any more money. Once you're in that hole you might as well keep digging - The worst that can happen these days is bankruptcy, and the money you're borrowing has been conjoured into existence on a computer screen anyway.
 
ayase said:
Mutsumi said:
How can they get so deeply in debt? It is stupid, they should have had people checking the numbers, telling them "STOP SPENDING, WE'VE RUN OUT OF MONEY". Their own fault.
Click to expand...
You talking about western governments there Mutsu? No business ever folded with zero debt, that's not the way things work. A business / govt / individual thinks "financial situation isn't great, I'll borrow some money to tide us over until things pick up, or to invest in something which will hopefully pay off". Then it doesn't, and they are left with even more debt. If they can, they'll probably keep repeating that scenario until no-one will lend them any more money. Once you're in that hole you might as well keep digging - The worst that can happen these days is bankruptcy, and the money you're borrowing has been conjoured into existence on a computer screen anyway.
Click to expand...
It is just as bad, if not worse that governments have also been doing this. Letting a business die is ok, but governments are playing with the futures of their people by doing so. You shouldn't try to borrow your way out of debt, surely that much is obvious to everyone here?
 
Back
Top