Forum: Author Hangout

Peru's high ranking depends heavily on their being unbeatable at home, where they have a tremendous advantage from playing at high altitude.

Thanks. I won't give up hope yet.

I'm surprised you haven't tried to return a favour by being a joyful bearer of bad news. :-)

France should be able to win all three games, leaving the other teams to form a mini-league for second place.

Yes, you'd expect France to win all three, in which case losing by one goal and scoring one is a good result. But I think that maths falls apart if France doesn't win all three.

At least it's better than the last time we qualified, in 2010, when Germany effectively destroyed all chances of progressing in the first half of our first match.

leaving the other teams to form a mini-league for second place.

Peru v Denmark just kicked off. I'm hoping for a low-scoring draw.

The socceroos were unlucky today, they played well in the second half but didn't quite bring home the bacon.

Now they have to beat Peru handsomely and hope.

Yes, they played well after a horror start.

At this point, any win against Peru should be enough -- provided France win against against Denmark.

I'll be hoping that Argentina crush Croatia later today in the group D match: France and Denmark would be unlikely to play out a defensive scoreless draw if Argentina look likely to win their group.

That match must be a good bet for a red card or two.

It could have been three or four red cards if the ref had brought his guide dog along. :-)

I see the Germans have some deeply nefarious strategy that requires them to come second in their group ;)

Perhaps they are afraid of encountering England in the quarter-finals? :-)

Jump in a time machine and go back exactly 12 years ago to Germany 2006 World Cup. They ended in a 1 to 1 tie

You can probably guess the incorrect assumption I made about the identities of the two teams :(

Time to face the awful facts, no white-skinned team wearing white will win the World Cup in your lifetime - a compelling reason to stop Brexit if ever there was one!

Hold on ... That's total crap. Germany wears white shirts too ... then I looked at images of the English and German squads and realised England had already tried that. And it didn't work either.

hence Scotland's phenomenal record of success.

Yes, they're unbeaten in the knock-out phases of World Cup finals tournaments.

And a comfortable 5-2 win for Elyse against Tunisia. She's already through to the knockout stages even before she beats England.

Will both Belgium and England be hoping to lose their last group match?

Both have already qualified. The winner of the group will be the winner of their last-round match, but will be decided by drawing lots if that match is drawn.

If Poland don't qualify from group H (after losing their first match), I doubt either would care who they face out of that group in their round-of-16 match. Senegal, Japan, or Columbia? Who cares?

As the groups now stand, the second place from group G will face the winner of Mexico v Switzerland in their quarter-final, while the winner of the group must face the winner of Brazil v Germany! :(

Wow! To think Panama qualified ahead of the USA.

Yeah! And the USA somehow conspired to finish behind Honduras too in the final qualifying group.

Currently advantage England - they've had one less yellow card.

You're right about yellow cards being the next tie-breaker.

I don't rate Poland either - all four teams are much of a muchness.

I don't have much faith in FIFA's ranking system, but Poland must be considered a potential threat to have reached #6 in world rankings, ahead of both Spain and Portugal.

Brazil v Germany is far from a given ;)

I agree that Switzerland are favourites to finish ahead of Brazil in their group. That's why I qualified my statement with 'As the groups now stand'.

I don't have much faith in FIFA's ranking system

I don't have any faith left in it now. :(

There are certainly some major anomalies [in FIFA rankings].

There are usually reasonable for comparing countries in the same continent, but almost meaningless for comparing between different continents.
There aren't enough competitive matches between countries from different continents to shift relative ratings. In a four-year cycle, teams from Africa and Asia only play about 20 competitive matches each against teams from other continents.

I strongly suspect FIFA mungs the ratings, otherwise the world cup finals would consist almost entirely of European and South American teams

There's no need for FIFA to "fix" anything. They allocate a number of spots to each conference (continent) and each conference then has internal qualifying rounds to select their number of teams for the finals.

The strength of African teams doesn't justify their 5 spots, even more so for Asia and Oceania with their 4 1/2 and 1/2 spots.

FIFA aren't interested in running the strongest possible tournament; they're interested in how much money they can make by selling broadcasting rights and sponsorships.

It was highly amusing to read of the unsubtle implication that the Russians are drug-enhanced, based on the physical characteristics of their performances (distances run etc) outclassing everyone else.

Isn't there an old proverb that warns people stop trusting if they're bitten by a wolf too often?

Before the World Cup started Russia were ranked #70 in FIFA's rankings, just ahead of these perennial powerhouses of European football: Macedonia (71), Belarus (78), Luxembourg (85), Cyprus (87), and Faroe Islands (90).

root

In 2006, Gatorade used an instrumental version of "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" in a commercial over video highlights of the United States Men's National Soccer Team in the lead-up to the 2006 FIFA World Cup, closing with the tagline "It's a whole new ballgame."

Below are the lyrics of the 1908 version, which is out of copyright.

Katie Casey was baseball mad,
Had the fever and had it bad.
Just to root for the home town crew,
Ev'ry sou1
Katie blew.
On a Saturday her young beau
Called to see if she'd like to go
To see a show, but Miss Kate said "No,
I'll tell you what you can do:"

Chorus

Take me out to the ball game,
Take me out with the crowd;
Buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jack,
I don't care if I never get back.
Let me root, root, root for the home team,
If they don't win, it's a shame.
For it's one, two, three strikes, you're out,
At the old ball game.

Katie Casey saw all the games,
Knew the players by their first names.
Told the umpire he was wrong,
All along,
Good and strong.
When the score was just two to two,
Katie Casey knew what to do,
Just to cheer up the boys she knew,
She made the gang sing this song:

1 The term "sou", a coin of French origin, was at the time common slang for a low-denomination coin. In French the expression "sans le sou" means penniless. Carly Simon's version, produced for Ken Burns' 1994 documentary Baseball, reads "Ev'ry cent/Katie spent".

The above information is courtesy of Wikipedia who has far more information about the song than even SOL fans would want.

So you can root for any team at any sport, the lyrics and "rooting" are out of copyright, at least in the USA. That may not be true in what is left of the British Empire. Or the British Umpire.

Absolutely not! We root for Iceland!

My natural inclination as an Aussie is to support the underdog - but rooting for a football team is taking things too far. :-)

I've also given up on NASCAR in favor of Formula 1.

Have you tried Indy car, https://www.indycar.com/ ?

I've watched off and on. Don't like the ovals, except for Indy, so that takes away a lot of enjoyment.

While a bit over half the tracks on the Indy circuit are ovals, there are 9 road courses and 9 street circuits as well.

s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IndyCar_Series_racetracks

The Indianapolis Motor Speedway has both an oval and a road course inside the oval. The Indianapolis 500 uses the oval.

Michael & DS,

Did you two miss the note 'Americans may look away' in the title of this thread?

FYI, there'd be few among the 95% of the world's population who don't live in North America who've even heard of NASCAR racing. 'Football' is the only sport most of them care about, passionately, and for them that means a game played with a round ball.

you know when you can get up and go take a whiz without missing something.

You just need to stand closer to the urinal.

The quality of the penalty taking was awful

Yeah. Beaten 4-5 on penalties is being "shat upon by the 'luck' fairy", but beaten 2-3 is a self-destruction.

Why aren't the managers taking control off the prima donnas (earning millions) and insisting how penalties are taken? I'd guess players practice taking penalties against goalies. It would be better practice with no goalies and just targets the players are told to aim at with power.

the Japanese need more meat in their diet. That would increase their average height

I doubt that would work. Average heights in Japan rose in the mid-20th century but leveled off during the 1970s. That suggests they're already near their genetic potential. And fish and tofu don't come with those nasty saturated fats as in meats, so they live much longer than Westerners. I guess the question is whether they want a long life or a tall one. :-)

men's netball

Whoa! Men's netball?

Americans call it basketball

I knew what you meant but netball is a very different game, for women-only at the highest levels, and guess who's top of the world rankings?

If the two underdogs in the semi-final matches (Belgium and Croatia) win it will be only the third time that the two teams meeting in the final have never played in the final before. The other two times were in 1930 and 1934.

In 1938, 1950, 1962, 1966, 1974, 1978 one of the two teams in the Final was a previous champion.

In 1970, 1982, 1986, 1990, 1994, 2002, 2006 and 2014 both teams in the Finals were previous champions. Argentina and Germany were the most common combination having faced off in the finals three times. Brazil and Italy faced off twice.

Croatia WON! Really happy for them, now they just have to kill France and win the Cup :D

Croatia had two thirds of the possession and two thirds of the shots on goal.

These stats agree that Croatia has two-thirds of shots on goal - but have France with 6 out of 6 on target and Croatia only 4 out of 12.

France were very professional, rotating the players fouling Mandzukic and Modric to reduce the risk of yellow cards.

All's fair in love and war!

Croatia were unbelievably inferior

One of the Croatian team said that about England after the semi-final. What comes around comes around.

Considering Croatia's total population is about half that of London, to produce a team that outplayed France for most of the final is a magnificent achievement.

Croatia has an astonishing record in the World Cup for a country of just over 4 million people.

They've qualified for the finals 5 out of their 6 attempts, from the European conference which is extremely tough. The only European countries to have qualified all 6 times in that period are Germany, France, England, and Spain. The others who've qualified 5 times are Italy and Portugal.

At the finals, they've qualified from the group stages 2 out of 5 times. That's not bad, but their record in knockout matches is incredible - 6 wins from 8 matches. Their scalps include Germany, Italy, England, and the Netherlands. The only team to have beaten them in a knockout game is France. They knocked out Croatia in the semi-final on their way to winning in 1998, and beat them again this time in the final.

I think France were the marginally better side - but it was not way until France were given that ridiculous penalty in the second half to gain the lead. :(

As for VAR, overall I think it worked very well. The exception is a number of stupid penalties given for handball when players merely did not have time to react so the ball would not hit their arm.

It was not my verdict, it was a reaction to http://www.ukpressit.com/england-were-unbelievably-inferior-croatian-press-on-world-cup-semi-final-football/ (something I thought came from the team).

Going back to that semi-final, for the first 45 minutes Croatia made Sweden look good in comparison. England were breaking through almost at will, they just could not get that second - or third - goal and that came back to bite them after an hour.

France had an enormous advantage when it came to the final - 25 extra hours to recuperate. This was even before the referee got involved.
Four years ago the Germans had an even bigger advantage, their semi-final was over before half-time and the other one went the full 90+30 minutes.

Poor referees are nothing new in the World Cup, the worst ones I remember were in games involving both co-hosts back in 2002. I think it was Italy who had a player chopped down in the area and the 'ref sent him off for diving. Spain were also victims.
One particular referee sent the Soviet Union back home with an appalling decision, a couple of World Cups later he sent the Russians home with another travesty. At this point even FIFA noticed and he was kicked off the list.

There have also been several referees that permitted violent play by members of one team to the point that some of the players victimized by that violence required weeks or even months before being able to play again. In some cases the player who caused that injury did not even get a yellow card.

Some liberal idiots have written that Croatian team is racist because they don't have any black members on team...

Even though this thread was opened in regards to the FIFA World Cup, it's still the Author Hangout. So I want to ask you to clarify your ambiguous sentence. Are the people you were referring to idiots because they are liberals, or because of the asinine accusation you mentioned, or is every liberal an idiot no matter what they say?

So I want to ask you to clarify your ambiguous sentence. Are the people you were referring to idiots because they are liberals

As a point of grammar ... :-)

If the writer thinks being a liberal makes someone an idiot, they should just call them 'liberals'. The 'idiots' would then be implied.

If the writer thinks being a liberal makes someone an idiot, they should just call them 'liberals'. The 'idiots' would then be implied.

Exactly. It's dubious whether being a liberal automatically turns someone into an idiot or if being an idiot comes first and is a prerequisite to becoming a liberal. The stupidity of the statement in regards to the Croatian football teams gets lost in the shuffle in either case.

Are the people you were referring to idiots because they are liberals, or because of the asinine accusation you mentioned, or is every liberal an idiot no matter what they say?

First some data:
Point is very simple - in whole f*****g Croatia there is less than 100-200 people of black color.
They simply didn't get any immigration during last 25-30 years.

So that what they stated is (let's say it polite) pure nonsense.

PS:
I still somewhere in darkest corner of my brain hope that there somewhere are some smart liberals (or at least one)...

liberal

"Definition of liberal
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts liberal education
b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : openhanded a liberal giver
b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way a liberal meal
c : ample, full
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4 : not literal or strict : loose a liberal translation
5 : broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism
b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives"

5 : broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

I always knew I why I hated IDIOT Conservatives it's because I hate Fascists.

Really strange that on a largely sex-based story site that so many conservatives abound. I guess these are the same ones who hide their activities when they attend their deeply religious conservative churches.

PROUD LIBERAL

PROUD LIBERAL

There's one thing I think is always really stupid: when rabid right-wingers find one stupid statement by a liberal and portray that as if proof that all liberals are stupid.

There's one thing I think is always really stupid: when rabid right-wingers find one stupid statement by a liberal and portray that as if proof that all liberals are stupid.

Stupid is to be so close to any political side, be they conservatives, liberals, american democrats or chinese comunists, socialists or republicans or crown monarchists, you name them ...

You always should think with your head, or at least check around if you are not familiar wit one topic.

Any of them who can't see behind one narrow outlook and lock his/her self behind this constraints doesn't deserve anything else than to be called stupid ..

You always should think with your head, or at least check around if you are not familiar wit one topic.

I agree. That's why your statement should have been something like this:

Some liberals (If they were self-proclaimed liberals) made an idiotic claim that the Croatian team is racist because they don't have any black members on the team...

Any of them who can't see behind one narrow outlook and lock his/her self behind this constraints doesn't deserve anything else than to be called stupid ..

"Any of them who can't see behind one narrow outlook and lock his/her self behind this constraints doesn't deserve anything else than to be called stupid .."

They proclaim them liberals.
Is it not enough to call all of them stupid?

(The same is with any other narrow minded group, you can add there any political group ...)

Any of them who can't see behind one narrow outlook ...

You cite this and then ask "Is it not enough to call all of them stupid?" Seriously?

Since, by definition, I am always right, anybody who disagrees with me must be stupid.:)

Like most self-applied labels, 'liberals' tend to be the exact opposite of how they think of themselves :(

Probably an apt observation. So I guess you added an 'idiot' after 'liberal' to correct this phenomenon. However, it was you who applied the label 'liberal' as well as the endearment and I wonder whether your observation is still significant in cases where the label isn't self-applied.

Like most self-applied labels,

First of all, I have no idea whether people who self-label are correct in their labeling. I wonder how you can you possibly know whether "most self-applied labels" are done so correctly? Do you have any scientific evidence to back up that assertion? Or is it just your unbiased opinion? Since, in your example, you apply it only to 'liberals' does that mean you've somehow determined that 'conservatives' or 'vegetarians' or 'mugwumps' do not misapply labels to themselves.

I have no idea whether people who self-label are correct in their labeling.

As only they care, why waste time on them?

Anyone can self-label, however those that do open themselves to ridicule when their actions belie their label.

For the rest of us, to mis-quote 'Blazing Saddles'. Labels? We don't need no stinkin' labels..!!

Wasn't the original "stinkin'" quote from a much older movie? I think a movie starring Humphrey Bogart, though his character, IIRC, was not the one to use the line.

According to Mike Lowe in what he wrote of Shiloh, it comes from Casablanca.

Nope:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinking_badges

The original version of the line appeared in B. Traven's novel The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1927):

"All right," Curtin shouted back. "If you are the police, where are your badges? Let's see them."

"Badges, to god-damned hell with badges! We have no badges. In fact, we don't need badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges, you god-damned cabrón and chinga tu madre!"

The line was popularized by John Huston's 1948 film adaptation of the novel, which was altered from its content in the novel to meet the Motion Picture Production Code regulations severely limiting profanity in film.[3] In one scene, a Mexican bandit leader named "Gold Hat"[4] (portrayed by Alfonso Bedoya) tries to convince Fred C. Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart)[5] that he and his company are Federales:

Dobbs: "If you're the police, where are your badges?"

Gold Hat: "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!

Wasn't the original "stinkin'" quote from a much older movie? I think a movie starring Humphrey Bogart, though his character, IIRC, was not the one to use the line.

With due respect, I'm not old enough to have been born when Blazing Saddles was released, so I've no hope when you ask about an older, un named movie, even one with Bogie in it.

"Definition of liberal

Hey!

I have some encyclopedias at home, some as dead tree, some on removable media, have at one click of mouse Encyclopedia Britanica, Wikipedia, you name it, they are somewhere close.
And I have read a lot from them...

So if I want some dry definition I don't need to read it here :D

The American players all say they're passionate about representing their country. But they're pretty hopeless actually.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of Americans who don't play soccer don't give a rat's ass.

Methinks the resident troll was trying to needle Americans over the performance of their golfers.

1. FIFA is soccer not golf.

2. The vast majority of Americans who don't golf, don't give a rat's ass.

Possibly the only sport that is more boring as a spectator sport than golf is fishing.

Who can take seriously a game in which it's possible to be a world class professional while clinically obese!

There goes chess, darts, sumo, power lifting, snooker, pool, bowling, etc etc

I'm still disappointed it's called the Ryder cup and not a horse in sight. Maybe that's what we need, mounted golf, a game like polo but for men with smaller balls. Unless of course you pronounce Ryder as 'Ride-her' like Mr Woods did, literally.

All of which like to consider themselves as sport, despite there being no athleticism involved :(

There are several meanings to the word sport, other that the athletic one. So sport does describe those pursuits without implying physical exertion.

'Physical exertion' is a requirement according to the Oxford Dictionaries definition, so I guess it depends which dictionary or rulebook you prefer.

sport
noun
1 an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment: team sports such as soccer and rugby

(sports) British an occasion on which people compete in various athletic activities: I won the 200 metres in the school sports.

[mass noun, usually with adjective] success or pleasure derived from an activity such as hunting or fishing: I have heard there is good sport to be had in Buttermere.

[mass noun] dated entertainment; fun: it was considered great sport to catch him out.

archaic a source of amusement or entertainment: I do not wish to show myself the sport of a man like Wildeve.

2 informal a person who behaves in a good or specified way in response to teasing, defeat, or a similarly trying situation: go on, be a sport! | Angela's a bad sport.
chiefly Australian/NZ used as a friendly form of address, especially between men who do not know each other: hold on, sport!

3 Biology an animal or plant showing abnormal or striking variation from the parent type, especially in form or colour, as a result of spontaneous mutation.


Fishing isn't exactly a physical sport.

As to whether the examples you cited qualify as genuine sports, we'll have to agree to disagree.

No, I agree with you about them not being physically demanding, it's only the definition of the word we disagree on.

But I do appreciate you being a good sport. :)

Do you recognise the existence of an half-good Australians?

My mother was born an English Rose.

My father's side are all Australian-born petty criminals for as far back as I have any knowledge.

1 - I'm not Australian.

See 2. in my post...

Note: No antipodeans were referenced in my comment.

No antipodeans were referenced in my comment.

I assumed his shot was directed at me.

That's OK. I take gratuitous pot-shots at Poms all the time. :-)

2 - Isn't a 'good Australian' an oxymoron? If they were good, why were they convicted?

Isn't that a rather catholic attitude? You know, original sin, sins of the father borne by the child etc?

Given that the last convict ship arrived in Australia just over 150 years ago, for how many generations do you consider their offspring to be guilty of their crimes?

Granted they have developed some rather strange customs and somehow evolved into a country of two separate but similar religions, namely Fosters and Castlemaine, but they also gave us Cate Blanchett, Nicole Kidman and Margot Robbie, oh and Hugh Jackman, added so I'm not accused of being sexist, and 'cos he's hot. :)

Anyway, back to the point. Time to call it quits on the racial profiling?

Typical Pom, always whingeing. Be a good sport, Sport. :-)

Australia [...] a country of two separate but similar religions, namely Fosters and Castlemaine

Unlike the USA, which is a country of two separate but similar religions, namely Bud and Miller

My attempt at light-hearted humour has obviously failed. So I'll crawl back under my rock while sporting a massive dent to my social confidence.

Good boy. *smiles*

Behave and I might wear the leather boots you like so much. *Evil grin*

'Physical exertion' is a requirement according to the Oxford Dictionaries definition, so I guess it depends which dictionary or rulebook you prefer.

Could you give us a break on telling us you don't consider golf to be a sport? We all knew your opinion on that long ago.

Why can't you just take some delight from the fact that a bunch of obscenely overpaid, over-inflated American egos have been put through yet another ritual public humiliation?

Meanwhile, the vast majority of Americans who don't play soccer don't give a rat's ass.

Hopefully no one is collecting them to give in the first place.

The brackets look to bring epic battles on the [one] side

There are a lot of big names on Brazil's side of the draw. The cynic in me is wondering if England and Belgium would both prefer to lose tomorrow and avoid joining them.

Can see someone 'accidentally' booting the ball into their own goal

A draw may bad enough to secure second place for one of the teams. They are dead-level now. It goes to yellow cards if they draw, then a draw by lots if those are tied too.

Belgium currently has the "advantage" of one more yellow card from the earlier games.