Is there any chance

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by Ste

bollocks.

If I get a C in my maths GCSE when I was expected to fail, am I better at maths than someone who got an A but was expecting an A*?
No. You're talking crap Sunday.
I guess you reckon Ireland are also better than France, Italy and Germany as well? Because they've hardly been performing in the last few years.

Let's put it in better perspective, If your expected to get an A in a GCSE cause you already hold a degree in Maths, but achieve a B, then someone else who didn't have any tuition beyond GCSE level got a B-, Then the latter would be told as better as the former.

At least if you are going to try and defeat my metaphor's with your own, understand the context of yours first please.

[Ste]

ahem:
Let's put it in better perspective, If your expected to get an A in a GCSE cause previous generations in your family hold a degree in Maths, but achieve a B, then someone else who didn't have any tuition beyond GCSE level got a B-.
Get it right.
And you're still wrong.

[Sunday8pm]

Ok let's put it this way, you come from a country with a world reknowned education system, hundreds of untold millions are ploughed into it's youth every year, all for the sake of maths.

You should easilly pass the GCSE with at least a 95%-100% record.

Your people you are comparing yourself too come from a country with an impoverished Education system where not everyone can get an education in maths and very few are selected specifically at a much later age to continute their education in your country to learn in maths.

Your GCSE which you set the standard of should be rather hard for them and anything of a 70-80% score should be considered extremely credible and worthy of praise given the poor resources and state of education over there.

However in the most recent 10-15 years, your country has been performing at 85% grade marks in GCSE's regardless of the fact that generations of students have had access to the best learning facilities around in the known world.

This other country you are priding yourself against have only been achieving 82% grade marks however but given the circumstances this is beyond their wildest and everyone else's wildest dreams given their level of investment represents 1% and the depth of talent they can pick from is 40% of your own at best.

I think you can see why people are saying that England by far aren't the best team in the british Isle's.

They are dismally poor and offer poor value in results for money with regards to what level they should be performing at, however the Irish team is exceptional value for money and provide great entertainment and results that sound impressive everywhere regardless of the fact that it may not be as great a score, it's done with flair and less pompousness and less arrogance.

People will always rate those that succeed to within a very close range of a country that spends wasteful amounts on priding themselves on being exceptionally better and wasting millions more times amounts of money than other countries on trying to prove this yet fail to scrape ahead of said country.

Accept that you are quite possibly in the wrong here and that what you may quote maybe factually true if all countries and sides were exactly equal, they aren't and hence everything must be addressed in perspective if you do not wish to look blinded and arrogant and moreover moronic.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

This other country you are priding yourself against have only been achieving 82% grade marks however but given the circumstances this is beyond their wildest and everyone else's wildest dreams given their level of investment represents 1% and the depth of talent they can pick from is 40% of your own at best.

Regardless of the excuse, the child that obtained a higher score did objectively better and if asked, you'd need to say they were better at Maths than the other child. The child who came from the poorer country could be argued to have had more spirit, or to have had a greater achievement, but it's clear which one is "best".

[Timeline]

Bringing this back to the original problem but keeping to the crux of the arguement, look at the poulation of England. Now compare this to the populace of Wales, Ireland, Scotland and Ireland. If you look at it wide eyed and with an open state of mind, you will see that England has a far greater range of selection than the other home nations. Therefore when you compare the relative 'greatness' of each team you must also take this into account.

Btw you can't compare countries like Germany, France and Spain in the same manner as the home nations. This is because unlike the british teams they have independant governments with differing views on national sport, whereas the british have one major government with minor assemblies and therefore just the one opinion.

[Timeline]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Regardless of the excuse, the child that obtained a higher score did objectively better and if asked, you'd need to say they were better at Maths than the other child. The child who came from the poorer country could be argued to have had more spirit, or to have had a greater achievement, but it's clear which one is "best".

Not necessarily. If the child from the poorer background had the resources available to him that the other did you could say that his performance would have been better, because he would have had better support. Now if the kid from the more affluent society had the resources the poor kid had would he have got a similar grade that he got or would it have been worse.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

...

Look for ****s sake.
In football, how good a team is is based on results. England have consistently (bar 1994) outperformed every other 'British' team. END OF STORY.
Yes, Ireland have done well despite having a significantly smaller pool of resources. That does not mean they are a better football team.

In your original metaphor - Yes, Bolton have done well. But that does not mean they are a better team than Man Utd.

Is Eddie the Eel a brilliant swimmer? NO!
"But he comes from a shit background"
"Ok, fair play to him, but he's not a good swimmer." (hmm very David Brent)

You're talking bollocks, still.

[Dante Hicks]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the English team aren't under-performers. Obviously they are.

But it seems ridiculous to try and change "best" to work out which is the best footballing team per capita, or something. Best = team which obtains the best results over a sufficient time-span. Brazil is better than England. The fact they have a higher population than the UK is irrelevent in this basic statement of fact.

[Ste]

thankyou dante

[pablissimo]

By logical extension, Canada must be better than the USA! Root cause found.

[Timeline]

What i'm trying to say is that England has a greater populace, therefore it has a greater range of selection than the other home nation teams. So when you look at results, a win can say how great a team is, but relatively you need to look at how a teams results compare to the so called ranking system.
ie
England play Brazil and they draw, this would be a fair result as both are in top ten teams in the world.
Northern Ireland play Brazil and lose 2-0. This actually says the result is in Northern Irelands favour even though they lost, because of the vast gap in the rankings between the two teams.

[LHC]

You might say Brazil underperformed, but you would still say that they are superior team to Northern Ireland.

[Ste]

thats the kind of argument that comes from people who say "West Brom beat Bolton and Bolton beat Liverpool, Therefore West Brom are better than Liverpool"
Yes it's not a bad result for NI to only lose 2-0 but it isn't a good result. It's an expected result.

[Timeline]

No the expected result would be that ireland would lose. But the fact that they managed to keep the score down would show how they performed over and above their station in the rankings, which in turn would say they performed better than England in relation to the challenge set against them.
The problem is all fans expect their team to do the best they can and show some pride whilst representing their country, English fans in particular. However the teams don't........unless they are the underdogs, which is why the other home nations play better football than England as their heart is involved in the playing of the game, whereas the English players is all about the pay packet.

[Ste]

Bosnia are the best team in the world cos they drew against Spain and France!!!
or could it be Slovenia who beat Italy?
or Iran because they 'only' lost 2-0 to Germany?
Maybe Belarus because they 'only' lost 4-3 in Italy?
By your logic it could even be Israel, they drew in France...

Drawing with Moldova though? Oh dear...

[Timeline]

Originally Posted by Ste

Bosnia are the best team in the world cos they drew against Spain and France!!!

Nope cos Spain are sh*t, but the result against France was against the odds

Originally Posted by Ste

or could it be Slovenia who beat Italy?[

An unexpected result

Originally Posted by Ste

or Iran because they 'only' lost 2-0 to Germany?

Again another performance against the odds

Originally Posted by Ste

Maybe Belarus because they 'only' lost 4-3 in Italy?

Falling foul of repetition now but another well deserved result

Originally Posted by Ste

By your logic it could even be Israel, they drew in France...

Very unexpected result, but again the israeli side playeed with a passion and determination that the French couldn't match.


You seem to have taken my arguement to the extreme. what i'm trying to point out is that a win is not everything. A team that plays poorly but wins is considered a great team, but equally so a team that plays well and loses shows a passion and determination that is missing from major teams these days and therefore gets my vote as a better team.

[JonnyBGood]

PS http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/foot...ic/3747136.stm

[Timeline]

Martin O'Neill believes anyone wanting to become Scotland manager in the next few years needs psychiatric help.

Don't they say that about the England managers job?
Which is why we ended up with Sven

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Mystic

Nope cos Spain are sh*t, but the result against France was against the odds

An unexpected result

Again another performance against the odds

Falling foul of repetition now but another well deserved result

Very unexpected result, but again the israeli side playeed with a passion and determination that the French couldn't match.

Originally Posted by Mystic

England play Brazil and they draw, this would be a fair result as both are in top ten teams in the world.
Northern Ireland play Brazil and lose 2-0. This actually says the result is in Northern Irelands favour even though they lost, because of the vast gap in the rankings between the two teams.

Originally Posted by mystic

the expected result would be that ireland would lose. But the fact that they managed to keep the score down would show how they performed over and above their station in the rankings, which in turn would say they performed better than England in relation to the challenge set against them.

What is the damn difference between your hypothetical situation and the real ones that i outlined?

Now, my point is that England are better than Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Rep. of Ireland.
You and Sunday seem to have the point that England aren't as good because they underperform whereas the other teams often overperform so despite England progressing further in every tournement, and having much higher skilled players, and generally being regarded as vastly superior, the other teams are better...

We all know England don't perform as well as they should. But that doesn't stop them being better than the other countries.

Anyone who still argues against this must be trolling...

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

By logical extension, Canada must be better than the USA! Root cause found.

Canada did win the Gold Cup recently (the north & central american version of the Euro championships).

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by Ste

What is the damn difference between your hypothetical situation and the real ones that i outlined?

Now, my point is that England are better than Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Rep. of Ireland.
You and Sunday seem to have the point that England aren't as good because they underperform whereas the other teams often overperform so despite England progressing further in every tournement, and having much higher skilled players, and generally being regarded as vastly superior, the other teams are better...

We all know England don't perform as well as they should. But that doesn't stop them being better than the other countries.

Anyone who still argues against this must be trolling...

Or isn't trying to protect their pride over being pragmatic about what really should be considered best.

Mystic surmised my point perfectly and the argument was won there.

I mean applied politically let's try it this way, If England and Ireland were competing over some sort of resource that had just been discovered.

England ploughs 100 million into it and get's an 82% mining efficiency of the resource instead of an expected 95% that the nation and media had came to expect especially by the quotes suggested by the goverment in control, it'd be called a disaster.

Ireland ploughs 1 million into it, and get's a 79% mining efficiency instead of a paltry 60% expected by the nation and the public and the govermental quotes it would be hailed as miraculous and in fact something to hold over England as being better.

You can't deny this and this is the same for football, no true english fan could be proud of totally underachieving with a heavily stacked deck in your favour while your neighbours are overachieving with a small deck that isn't stacked in anyway biased to them.

Ireland are the only country in the British Isles that are producing results of a greater than satisfactory quality, hence they are the best.

And that's the end of that.

[Timeline]

Footballers keep going on about the nature of the game and how they work harder now these days to keep at a standard level of competition. However how much do you actually see them try on the pitch?

For example, Stuart Pearce. Here is the type of player who wore his heart on his sleeve and would have run himself into an early grave if it would mean england playing well. He showed passion for the game and enourmous pride in playing for his country.
in fact all the teams before the current group showed grit and determination to do well......even the 92 side when they were crap. Now be truefully honest how many players these days sing the national anthem before an england match......now compare this to before the Man Utd/Arsenal Premiership domination era and you'll notice a big difference.

Scotland may be a terrible team at the moment, but i have more respect for them as a team as they show more pride, determination and effort on the pitch than England current 'stars' ever do.

[Sunday8pm]

You were good until the last line there Mystic, if we showed determination and effort on the pitch as a nation berti wouldn't be up for the chop.

However, Ireland is where it's at with Determination and Effort.

[Timeline]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

if we showed determination and effort on the pitch as a nation berti wouldn't be up for the chop.

What i meant was that even though Scotland are performing badly result wise, the players still go out and try their hardest to get a result. Obviously they have been losing but that shouldn't go against their effort in the attempt.
if the players just gave up and played thinking they were going to lose anyway so whats the point then you can say they had no pride in their national team, but this isn't the case.

[Sunday8pm]

The reason that people want Berti to go is not just because we are being beaten by the other side, but because in the beating the scottish players have been all too easy to react poorly, not chasing every ball etc etc.

They aren't giving 100% out there and that's the reason no-one is behind berti, if they were at least giving 100% and losing people would be on the backs of the SFA and the teams that fail to develop talent.

[Timeline]

fair enough

[JC]

Originally Posted by Mystic

the players still go out and try their hardest to get a result.

The England players on the other hand go out and dont give a damn if they lose. What's it matter? It's only the World Cup. Thats not a big tournament is it.

Talk sense. People through the word 'passion' around too much these days. Just because England arent necessarily playing that well it doesnt mean the players want to win any less than an Irish or Scottish player. I think Beckham is a bit of a prick, but i have no doubt that he takes a lot of pride in pulling his England shirt on. The same goes for most of the others even though they dont have the brains to learn the words to the national anthem.

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by JC

The England players on the other hand go out and dont give a damn if they lose. What's it matter? It's only the World Cup. Thats not a big tournament is it.

Talk sense. People through the word 'passion' around too much these days. Just because England arent necessarily playing that well it doesnt mean the players want to win any less than an Irish or Scottish player. I think Beckham is a bit of a prick, but i have no doubt that he takes a lot of pride in pulling his England shirt on. The same goes for most of the others even though they dont have the brains to learn the words to the national anthem.

JC point was argued and defeated already, he took it in a tangent that was not true and it was handled, the main argument stands however and let's not detract from it.

Ireland are the only country in the British Isles that are producing results of a greater than satisfactory quality(consistently as well), hence they are the best.

and this should be the end of the argument.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Ireland are the only country in the British Isles that are producing results of a greater than satisfactory quality, hence they are the best.

Your definition of "best" is different from most people, heh.

[Sunday8pm]

Take any industry that is on the stock market, when you look to invest, do you invest in the great big telecom company that's #1 but sucking ass to what they could best achieve, or do you invest in the one that's #12 but performing well above satisfactory quality.

I can tell you what's the best in that situation and I think that's the proper way to rate football given how widely played it is and it's history.