Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

2014 FIFA World Cup


Guest Andre91

Recommended Posts

  • Admin

Making more stuff up...

What I actually said was...

You said they aren't important (towards the world rankings - this was always a convo about the world rankings).

(you also said you weren't agreeing with me when you agreed with me. that's how much of your own bollocks you're trying to talk your away out of).

FIFA disagree with you. Which is why they include them as relevant.

Perhaps FIFA would know more if they went to more matches?

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And as far as the practicalities of it goes, a friendly-free rankings table would be 9 months old now, and so would surely be more-meaningless than a more up-to-date rankings table that included friendlies (with appropriate weighting, whatever that 'appropriate' might be).

But yes, the rankings as FIFA has actually done them is pathetically stupid - because it works on the idea that teams will try harder in WC finals matches than they might other competitive matches. Which is just plain silly, but perfectly self-serving in the usual FIFA way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

9 months would be out of date? You do know that all team points in the FIFA rankings take into account matches up to 4 years old don't you...

If they only included competitive matches, the most recent matches that could possibly be included would be around 9 months old, and not just a day old as was the case when the latest rankings were released last week.

Got that? It's very simple. :)

So...FIFA rankings are "pathetically stupid" yet the fact that FIFA and you agree on them and I don't makes me wrong... :wacko:

You said friendlies shouldn't be included at all (despite saying you saw they have some relevance [which is about as ridiculous an argument anyone could make lol]).

I say that the relevant should be included.

FIFA include the friendlies as relevant towards rankings.

Got that? All very simple. :)

Exactly how any weighting should be applied is another entirely different conversation.

To get there we'd first have to agree on what should be included to then be considered for weighting. There's no point me suggesting weighting of any level for friendlies to someone who thinks friendlies shouldn't be included.

I'm getting rather bored stating the obvious, anyone might think you're choosing to be deliberately obtuse. Or perhaps you really are that stupid, I dunno? But for now I'll continue to give you the benefit of the doubt. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

If you agree with that then yes we agree...

No, I agree with the other words that for some reason you can't find, where you explicitly agree with me.

I know you're too gutted to actually speak the words yourself, but never mind. You know in your head that you agree with me, we've got there. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The England football team were given a tour of a Favela in Brazil today....."It was sad to see those people who have absolutely no hope."....Said a resident of the Favela

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they only included competitive matches, the most recent matches that could possibly be included would be around 9 months old, and not just a day old as was the case when the latest rankings were released last week.

Got that? It's very simple. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

You said friendlies shouldn't be included at all

No I didn't.

So what are you arguing against me for when you're agreeing with me then? :lol :lol::lol:

I said that friendlies are relevant and should be included in the forming the rankings, and you've been arguing against me.

Your point is what???

What are you disagreeing with me about?

Please do make sure that you include (full context) quotes of my words that you're saying are wrong, won't you? :)

</me sits back, and knows that The Thick Twat is gonna struggle :lol: >

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I think the most amusing point now, is the fact that you've thrown your opinion around on the FIFA rankings when it's quite clear that at the time you were doing so, you didn't actually understand how they work. Pretty dumb even for you.

Still, if you ignore being pulled up on the fact that you didn't understand the system that you're arguing for, maybe people won't notice...was that your thought process?!

You've been calling me wrong. Care to repeat what I've been wrong about?

Or will you just throw in empty bollocks like that, trying to label me wrong when you've been agreeing with me the whole time? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

How haven't I understood the system? :lol:

Where have I been arguing for the current system? :lol:

I understand the system. I've neither argued for or against it. :rolleyes:

What i've argued for - when people like you have said that friendlies are "meaningless" towards the rankings - is that friendlies are not meaningless towards the rankings, which even you've agreed with.

WTF are you calling me wrong about (that's based in what I've said and not what you've invented)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Or perhaps its all been said already... and maybe we are all just fucking bored now....

or perhaps you're wrong when you say I'm wrong.

Given that you're not able to say what i'm wrong about, it's you that's wrong.

Oh dear.

Now, meanwhile, back at the ranch, FIFA rankings. Not perfect, but more perfect with friendlies included in some manner than excluded entirely as some here said they should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

If you say so Neil.... No one agrees....

Except TGT, who said that friendlies show something of a team's abilities. :)

The only true ranking can come from competitive games.

then in your own logic it must be the case that the team who wins the FA Cup is a better team than the team who wins the league, because knock-out games are by-nature more competitive than an aggregated competition. :lol:

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

TGT didn't say that... He said it showed a SMALL amount of what a team is capable.

if it shows something then it has relevance at some level - and anyone who excludes the relevant is more stupid than even you.

Certainly not enough to "rank" anyone...

Yes, more than enough. It's relevant data. :rolleyes:

The 'how' it's used for ranking purposes is a different discussion, one that's only worth having with someone who has enough brain to realise that relevant data shouldn't be excluded.

And it's such an outrageously wrong idea that football's governing body agrees with the idea and all of the football world goes along with it (while having quibbles over the methodology used but not the data that's included).

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...