Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Sports, Hobbies & Interests => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on October 11, 2017, 12:47:27 PM
-
Unconvinced by this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41580638
-
Clearer explanation of it but still seems that will be a lot of matches between minnows like Scotland.
http://www.skysports.com/football/news/12010/11076124/uefa-nations-league-explained-how-new-format-could-aid-euro-2020-qualification
-
Unconvinced by this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41580638
Must admit I'd never heard of this.
-
Clearer explanation of it but still seems that will be a lot of matches between minnows like Scotland.
And
Hungary
Romania
Slovenia
Greece
Serbia
Albania
Norway
Montenegro
Israel
Bulgaria
Finland
Cyprus
Estonia
Lithuania
Who are in exactly the same situation as Scotland in terms of extra games to play. Along with:
Azerbaijan
Macedonia
Belarus
Georgia
Armenia
Latvia
Faroe Islands
Luxembourg
Kazakhstan
Moldova
Liechtenstein
Malta
Andorra
Kosovo
San Marino
Gibraltar
Who are in a worse situation.
Why the unique focus on Scotland out of 31 countries - oh yes I forgot, Scotland uniquely is additionally suffering from an acute butter shortage and is uniquely cut off from the rest of the world because of Ryanair.
Somehow I feel we've been here before and yet NS still cannot avoid glaring parochialism.
-
Unconvinced by this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41580638
I guess the idea is to reduce the number of pointless friendly games, which also seem to disproportionately bias the current FIFA rankings, thereby hitting seeding in major tournaments. There was an article a couple of months ago that suggested the best way to rise up the rankings was simply to play no friendly games, as even if you won them they dropped you down on average ranking points per game, which dropped you lower overall.
-
glaring parochialism.
To be fair, a lot of us indulge in that. For example, I might be tempted to write a post about England's chances of avoiding relegation from group A. But why England? Why not Iceland who are currently punching above their weight but can't be expected to go on forever? Well, I'm English and feel duty bound to support the bunch of mediocre talent that currently wear the England shirt.
-
To be fair, a lot of us indulge in that. For example, I might be tempted to write a post about England's chances of avoiding relegation from group A. But why England? Why not Iceland who are currently punching above their weight but can't be expected to go on forever? Well, I'm English and feel duty bound to support the bunch of mediocre talent that currently wear the England shirt.
Maybe so but I don't think in recent weeks you have started posts implying that.
1. Scotland is predominantly affected by the Ryanair cancelled flights or
2. That the current problems with butter supply are a Scotland only issue.
To name but two examples.
This is just one example of many where NS seems completely Scotland-centric, not just focussing on Scotland but implying that things which affect many countries and not even disproportionately Scotland are somehow really only issues for Scotland.
And in each case - this one, Ryanair, Butter - the Scotland-centric nature of NS's OPs or in this case his supplementary post when no-one had commented (note he started the threads, not just commented on them) detracts from the actual issues which are much broader than NS's narrow Scottish focus.
-
To be fair, a lot of us indulge in that. For example, I might be tempted to write a post about England's chances of avoiding relegation from group A. But why England? Why not Iceland who are currently punching above their weight but can't be expected to go on forever? Well, I'm English and feel duty bound to support the bunch of mediocre talent that currently wear the England shirt.
Back on topic - what do think of the actual proposals.
Hard to know how it would pan out yet, but in many respects this seems quite sensible. I seems to be a way of giving some kind of meaning to what would otherwise be pretty pointless friendly matches. I guess where it may fall down is that teams will no longer be able to use friendlies to check progress against better sides, or if already good, offer opportunities for lower ranked sides to have a high profile fixture. Also will this cram out the fixture list so much that European teams never get the opportunity to play non-European sides except in the World Cup finals itself.
-
Back on topic - what do think of the actual proposals.
Hard to know how it would pan out yet, but in many respects this seems quite sensible. I seems to be a way of giving some kind of meaning to what would otherwise be pretty pointless friendly matches. I guess where it may fall down is that teams will no longer be able to use friendlies to check progress against better sides, or if already good, offer opportunities for lower ranked sides to have a high profile fixture. Also will this cram out the fixture list so much that European teams never get the opportunity to play non-European sides except in the World Cup finals itself.
Another advantage is that it would allow some countries to actually have the chance of 'winning' something or making a competitive final.
So, for example, Finland have never qualified for a major finals tournament (World Cup or Euros) from the qualifying tournament. So their history consists entirely of entering the qualifying tournament - finishing well down the table, and that's kind of it. And then they do it again 2 years later.
Under this proposal they'd enter a 3rd tier tournament with other comparable teams, would have a decent chance of making the semi's, final or even winning every once in a while. And in doing so give much more emphasis to their international matches and some joy to their fans.
If you think about club football, there must be precious few (if any) clubs that over the past 60 years have failed to have a season with promotion, relegation, winning one of the divisions, making a play-off. Yet that would be the equivalent of Finland's international record since the 1950s.
-
I guess where it may fall down is that teams will no longer be able to use friendlies to check progress against better sides, or if already good, offer opportunities for lower ranked sides to have a high profile fixture.
I don't think the friendlies are worth a damn any way. Without something at stake, the matches turn into pointless affairs about which nobody cares.
Also will this cram out the fixture list so much that European teams never get the opportunity to play non-European sides except in the World Cup finals itself.
Apparently, there are still going to be slots available for friendlies, however, I don't know what value playing (say) Brazil would have in a non competitive context.
-
Apparently, there are still going to be slots available for friendlies, however, I don't know what value playing (say) Brazil would have in a non competitive context.
The value would be in the gate and possibly TV receipts I guess?
-
The value would be in the gate and possibly TV receipts I guess?
Just looking at League D, a possible group is Faroes, Gibraltar, Latvia, Kazakhstan. What are the gate and TV receipts?
To be fair Prof D makes a valid point about the chance to win something but will it feel like something?
-
Just looking at League D, a possible group is Faroes, Gibraltar, Latvia, Kazakhstan. What are the gate and TV receipts?
I was responding to comment on playing Brazil in a friendly!
-
I was responding to comment on playing Brazil in a friendly!
No, I got that, apologies, was using your post as a further discussion point.