English Have Reached New Levels Of Excuse Making For World Cup

[goldilocksporridge]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1300215/Is-addiction-cigarettes-reason-Englands-World-Cup-dream-went-smoke.html

Were all used the standard english excuses for leaving the latest tournament early - e.g the worlds against us, the referee, the football season being longer than other countries, hand of god, penalties, bad choice of manager, etc - I am sure some of you english could give a few more. Rather than just being honest and admitting they were not good enough.

[ken_ichikawa]

Were all used the standard english excuses for leaving the latest tournament early - e.g the worlds against us, the referee, the football season being longer than other countries, hand of god, penalties, bad choice of manager, etc - I am sure some of you english could give a few more. Rather than just being honest and admitting they were not good enough.

Least you qualified. China did not qualify with 3/12ths of the world's population they didn't qualify, even NK qualified

[Bossybabe]

Were all used the standard english excuses for leaving the latest tournament early - e.g the worlds against us, the referee, the football season being longer than other countries, hand of god, penalties, bad choice of manager, etc - I am sure some of you english could give a few more. Rather than just being honest and admitting they were not good enough.

The best excuse they can give is: "We're English"!!

[Guest Noodle]

Who won that in the end?

[tahoma]

Been in Spain for last 2 weeks, and have not seen a trace of World Cup promotional material.

Can you imagine if we won? We would have Rooney's spud face leering at us from 10 million different promotions.

[CokeSnortingTory]

Almost all the most recent exits by England from the World Cup have involved a controversial refereeing decision. When they won the World Cup in 1966 they had the benefit of a number of controversial refereeing decisions.

This is the structural problem with football - because it is such a low-scoring game, it is particularly prone to be influenced by the referee. This is why any manager worth his salt (think Ferguson, Wenger) spends a good deal of this time criticising (intimidating) referees.

This is also why it is crazy for anyone to put emotional store in the result of a football match. The closer the teams are in terms of skill, the more likely the result is to be completely arbitrary.

[deflation]

Almost all the most recent exits by England from the World Cup have involved a controversial refereeing decision. When they won the World Cup in 1966 they had the benefit of a number of controversial refereeing decisions.

This is the structural problem with football - because it is such a low-scoring game, it is particularly prone to be influenced by the referee. This is why any manager worth his salt (think Ferguson, Wenger) spends a good deal of this time criticising (intimidating) referees.

This is also why it is crazy for anyone to put emotional store in the result of a football match. The closer the teams are in terms of skill, the more likely the result is to be completely arbitrary.

Generally, I would agree with you but this last World Cup had a high number of proper winners in the k.o. stages.

Only 3 of the 16 games went to extra time, the lowest since the world Cup went to a last 16 k.o. structure in 1986. There were the equal lowest no. of penalty shootouts (2) with the 2002 tournament. Slight tweaks to the offside rules may have, indeed reduced the number of draws.

[Tin Foil Hat]

Who won that in the end?

Was it Spain? I don't follow womens sports.

[Guest Noodle]

Was it Spain? I don't follow womens sports.

Spain rings a bell and tahoma mentions Spain there.

[Guest X-QUORK]

Were all used the standard english excuses for leaving the latest tournament early - e.g the worlds against us, the referee, the football season being longer than other countries, hand of god, penalties, bad choice of manager, etc - I am sure some of you english could give a few more. Rather than just being honest and admitting they were not good enough.

Let me guess, sweaty sock?

[CokeSnortingTory]

Generally, I would agree with you but this last World Cup had a high number of proper winners in the k.o. stages.

Yes it was quite anomalous in that respect.

Generally though I can't think of another sport where the relative performance of two teams can have such little effect on the result. I can't think of another team sport where it is possible for one team to have, say, only 35% of the possession and still win comfortably. Maybe ice hockey?

It's why I don't see football as a real sport, but more a part of the entertainment industry. It's also why I've always thought that British people don't really understand football. The reason why South American or Italian teams can have a dismal world cup one year, and a sparkling one the next time round is because they are more attuned to the arbitrary nature of the game i.e. they don't let it get to them.

[profitofdoom]

Yes it was quite anomalous in that respect.

Generally though I can't think of another sport where the relative performance of two teams can have such little effect on the result. I can't think of another team sport where it is possible for one team to have, say, only 35% of the possession and still win comfortably. Maybe ice hockey?

It's why I don't see football as a real sport, but more a part of the entertainment industry. It's also why I've always thought that British people don't really understand football. The reason why South American or Italian teams can have a dismal world cup one year, and a sparkling one the next time round is because they are more attuned to the arbitrary nature of the game i.e. they don't let it get to them.

I'm not complaining I won a decent amount on Germany V England, got almost 2/1.That's crazy.

[deflation]

Generally though I can't think of another sport where the relative performance of two teams can have such little effect on the result. I can't think of another team sport where it is possible for one team to have, say, only 35% of the possession and still win comfortably. Maybe ice hockey?

I'm thinking possibly rugby league? In the Union version, pressure / possession pays via penalties if nothing else in the end.

But in the league variety, the 6-tackle rule can result in teams defending their lines for long periods without conceding if the attacking team are not good enough to break down the defence but good enough to force repeat sets.

[CokeSnortingTory]

I'm thinking possibly rugby league? In the Union version, pressure / possession pays via penalties if nothing else in the end.

But in the league variety, the 6-tackle rule can result in teams defending their lines for long periods without conceding if the attacking team are not good enough to break down the defence but good enough to force repeat sets.

Yeah I don't know about Rugby League, so can't comment.

I would see basketball as a true athletic contest, because if the referee drops an absolute clanger, the score might end up 108-78 instead of 108-74. i.e. the ref isn't likely to make much difference.

The other weird thing about football is that because luck/fate plays such a big part in results, confidence tends to be much more fragile. It's much easier psychologically to accept being beaten by another team than it is to feel that fate/destiny is against you. Hence the ingrained superstition and loser-ethos that tends to almost permanently infect certain football clubs and national teams.

[ccc]

Yeah I don't know about Rugby League, so can't comment.

I would see basketball as a true athletic contest, because if the referee drops an absolute clanger, the score might end up 108-78 instead of 108-74. i.e. the ref isn't likely to make much difference.

The other weird thing about football is that because luck/fate plays such a big part in results, confidence tends to be much more fragile. It's much easier psychologically to accept being beaten by another team than it is to feel that fate/destiny is against you. Hence the ingrained superstition and loser-ethos that tends to almost permanently infect certain football clubs and national teams.

Really ? I agree it does a little bit - but that is the same with most sports. Simple fact in football - the better team nearly always wins. The bookies are nearly always right. There is a little luck involved - but not nearly as much as you say.

Only an event like the High Jump or Javelin could be purely classed as being totally devoid of luck. Even then weather conditions could have a small impact.

[CokeSnortingTory]

Really ? I agree it does a little bit - but that is the same with most sports. Simple fact in football - the better team nearly always wins. The bookies are nearly always right. There is a little luck involved - but not nearly as much as you say.

Only an event like the High Jump or Javelin could be purely classed as being totally devoid of luck. Even then weather conditions could have a small impact.

Well I'd say in cup competitions one of the better teams usually wins, but only occasionally the best one. In the last World Cup the Italians won it without playing well even once. They did however get a few crucial refereeing decisions, such as the well-dodgy penalty against Australia.

Leagues tend to even themselves out more, but then in that situation the history-of-success and history-of-failure blessing/bogey tends to play its part. Which is why two potentially equally successful clubs such as Man Utd. and Man City have radically differently sized trophy cabinets.

The purest of all sports in terms of being a fair contest is probably Darts. You don't even need a referee for that one.

[ccc]

Well I'd say in cup competitions one of the better teams usually wins, but only occasionally the best one. In the last World Cup the Italians won it without playing well even once. They did however get a few crucial refereeing decisions, such as the well-dodgy penalty against Australia.

Leagues tend to even themselves out more, but then in that situation the history-of-success and history-of-failure blessing/bogey tends to play its part. Which is why two potentially equally successful clubs such as Man Utd. and Man City have radically differently sized trophy cabinets.

The purest of all sports in terms of being a fair contest is probably Darts. You don't even need a referee for that one.

So in conclusion:

In Cups the better teams usually win.

In Leagues the better teams usually win.

So this luck/fate thing playing a big part in results ...

I do agree there is more luck than in many of other sports though. Luck usually evens itself out though. Well that is another discussion though.