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

Never bet on friendlies, never bet on the last 5 rounds of games of a league season, never put an accumulator containing more than 5 options without hedging. There's some other rule I passively follow, but the unpredictability of football means that you have to be careful with going on things that have an added risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Admin

Nice one :) .... just need to find the numbers of players from each league now.

I'm thinking that one might be a surprise, because a lot of the 2nd tier of players might be in leagues that aren't what you first think of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice one :) .... just need to find the numbers of players from each league now.

I'm thinking that one might be a surprise, because a lot of the 2nd tier of players might be in leagues that aren't what you first think of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Thanks. :)

interestingly, that article disagrees with the other one about the club numbers, tho perhaps that's the result of late pull-outs - Ribbery, perhaps, in the "Bayern (15)" which this article says.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Barry Glendenning on the football weekly podcast when he said reaction to the England performance against Italy was ott and I agree. I heard a guardian (normally fairly reserved) journalist call it exceptional, which to me takes that word to a whole new level.

I personally think the overreaction was partially based on lower expectations to a ridiculously low level, which is kind of opposite of what normally happens. England are a top 10ish international side and should be competing against teams like italy, just as bosnia competed against argentina, mexico competed against brazil etc.

Interestingly I wonder if expectations are going to go the normal way. Listening to both fans and pundits, I have only heard 1 (warnock) say England wont beat both uruguay and costa rica while the few who have looked further ahead have all predicted England will beat Columbia, confidence seems to be on the up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take most of the chat with a pinch of salt. The World Cup comes round every 4 years and every 4 years every Tom, Dick, and Harry has an opinion and becomes an expert. Same will happen next week with Tennis and Wimbledon. Same will happen next month with Golf and the Open.

The FIFA rankings suggest England are a very good side as international teams go but that Uruguay and Italy are slightly better. The ELO rankings suggest similar (in that the teams are very close in quality) but that England are slightly better than Uruguay and Italy. 5 places separate the 3 sides on the ELO rankings and 4 on the FIFA rankings. In other words, fine margins separate the 3 teams.

I don't know, but I'll be watching tonight in hope that 1) we play well, and 2) we win. Other than that it's all bollocks ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

The FIFA rankings suggest England are a very good side as international teams go but that Uruguay and Italy are slightly better. The ELO rankings suggest similar (in that the teams are very close in quality) but that England are slightly better than Uruguay and Italy. 5 places separate the 3 sides on the ELO rankings and 4 on the FIFA rankings. In other words, fine margins separate the 3 teams.

I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

In other words, fine margins separate the 3 teams.

:blink: ... maybe my memory is fading, but I seem to remember someone arguing the other day that these rankings were a crock of shit? :lol:

If you look at those FIFA rankings - the points, rather than the positions - it suggests that the differences between the teams ranked 4th to (about) 14th are all pretty tiny differences.

(there's about 200 points between 1st and 3rd, and about 200 points between 4th and 14th).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I think thats a fair assessment, but the way some have been discussing England coming in to this tournament you would think they are closer to Hungary or Bulgaria!

Not at all.

But England are about the weakest team out of the teams that stand a (half :P) realistic chance of winning - whereas that's not normally the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree, they are in the same group where they have always been, which is borderline last 16, last 8. Theres nothing from their competitive record or any ranking system to suggest they dont belong at that level. They should be compettiive with Uruguay and Italy, many worse teams in this world cup have competed against better sides than these two.

Edited by TheGayTent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

1) I didn't say they were correct, i said that's what they say.

If you want to imagine you're saying they should be ignored because they're wrong in the words below, you go ahead. :lol:

The FIFA rankings suggest England are a very good side as international teams go but that Uruguay and Italy are slightly better. The ELO rankings suggest similar (in that the teams are very close in quality) but that England are slightly better than Uruguay and Italy. 5 places separate the 3 sides on the ELO rankings and 4 on the FIFA rankings. In other words, fine margins separate the 3 teams.

2) I seem to remember we were discussing the merits of using friendlies as a guide to a team's quality....

No, we were discussing whether there was any merit in including the results of friendlies within the rankings (using whichever model to create those rankings you might think up).

You agreed there was an indication of a team's strength from friendlies a team plays, but you also said that relevant data like that should be fully excluded. and you never were able to explain that contradiction.

But never mind. Done and dusted, and opinions of stupidity have been formed (in all directions, I'm sure).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Barry Glendenning on the football weekly podcast when he said reaction to the England performance against Italy was ott and I agree. I heard a guardian (normally fairly reserved) journalist call it exceptional, which to me takes that word to a whole new level.

I personally think the overreaction was partially based on lower expectations to a ridiculously low level, which is kind of opposite of what normally happens. England are a top 10ish international side and should be competing against teams like italy, just as bosnia competed against argentina, mexico competed against brazil etc.

Interestingly I wonder if expectations are going to go the normal way. Listening to both fans and pundits, I have only heard 1 (warnock) say England wont beat both uruguay and costa rica while the few who have looked further ahead have all predicted England will beat Columbia, confidence seems to be on the up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

You're right about some people being OTT about it (like Neville calling it the best England performance for fifteen years) but I think you might be downplaying it too much.

I watched some of the Russia game the other night, and it didn't half feel very familiar. ;)

And the simple fact is, there was very little difference in what was seen on the pitch between Fabio and Sven.

Personally I think it's not only England that have suddenly woken up to the fact that there's better things to do than try and imitate 1994 Italy with sub-standard players.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had an accumulator through the whole group stage, worth £280, purely on (should be) easily winnable games... Starting with Uruguay vs Costa Rica...

Also would have won £120 on the final set if international friendlies had England beaten Honduras ffs.

Edited by mrtourette
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...