Correct or not correct

formatting link

From the link

"Nine more points are needed for Gordon Strachan's side to have a chance of pipping Slovakia to second spot and that possible play-off berth."

Reply to
ARW
Loading thread data ...

I have no idea what you're talking about, although I'd hazard a guess it might be something to do with "football", whatever that is.

Reply to
Huge

If Scotland fail to beat Malta but get a draw, and get six points by beating Slovakia and Slovenia* that gives them 18 points with a present GD of 2. All Slovakia have to do is beat Malta at home to end up with 18 points with a present GD of 9. And this is regardless of how Slovakia do in their other match.

michael adams

  • They could possibly beat Malta but only draw with Slovenia instead. They definitely need to beat Slovakia though. I think.

...

Reply to
michael adams

Posting sport questions here is almost as bad as talking about politics or trying to fathom out those posts from that hiome wallies club interface. Brian

Reply to
Brian Gaff

At least the URL indicated it was football.

Otherwise it could have been tiddlywinks as far as I'm concerned.

Owain

Reply to
spuorgelgoog

Ah yes, not enough minority sport on TV is there. Brian

Reply to
Brian Gaff

I wonder why 'some people' are so into sport (where 'into' in the majority of cases means them watching other people do sport) and others (like me) are as interested in that as I am politics, religion or 'fine art'.

The other thing that confuses me is at what point does someone think that *any* sport should warrant something that anyone would consider 'a profession', other than a coach or PE teacher etc?

Don't get me wrong, it's like many things humans do where they feel they have to compete, be it seeing how fast they can run compared with anyone else (handy when wild animals were about but no so much these days) or seeing how high they can jump or vault with a pole (again, to get away from wild animals or attacking a castle etc), it's something some seem to enjoy ... but as a 'job'?

I would no more expect anyone to pay me to 'play' (there is a clue in the word there) tennis than I would to pay me to go to walking my own dogs.

The exception (ignoring the commercialisation of everything these days) being people raising money for charity by, putting themselves out somehow.

You pay a surgeon for their skills because they are doing something that is important to / for society ... but footballers or golfers? Assuming you weren't addicted to either, what impact would it have (to 'most people') if you just went back to doing it for (your own) fun?

I guess at least those at the top of their 'profession (?) have some skills (not that they impress me), unlike many of those some refer to as 'celebrities' these days. ;-)

I bet the same people who like all the above, often don't appreciate the skills and contributions to society of the likes of Brunell, Edison or even Percy Shaw? ;-(

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

I feel you are missing the point. Sports people get paid through "gate money". If nobody wanted to watch, then they wouldn't get paid. Of course, I include watching via television, which is where the enormous sums are created.

Reply to
charles

Ok ...

Some, not all, even 'professional', although they may also be 'paid' via product endorsement etc.

Quite.

Like I said, I can *understand* the 'spin off and the commercialisation of 'sport' but not how or why it is the case. Like, I couldn't and wouldn't want or expect anyone to want to pay (or watch or pay to watch for that matter) me do something, just because I happened to be interested in it myself?

Society has benefited a great deal from the names I mentioned above, but what if Beckham or his kind hadn't existed, or the 'game' of football hadn't existed, who would be worse off? I wouldn't, nor would most of my friends and family that's for sure.

We would all be worse off had it not been for the efforts of Percy Shaw or Dr Christiaan Barnard etc.

I'm perfectly ok with 'jumpers for goalposts' or even then charging to pay for a stand or proper equipment but the 'game' should still just be what people do for fun.

Just like some say they are actually put off by overt use of LBGT people in public roles (rather than just using those best suited for the job), I have never bought anything because it was endorsed by any 'celebrity, especially 'sports people'.

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

I can understand sport far more art. A nice painting by someone is worth X if they find out it's painted by someone more famous it's worth more, the subject the sytle nothing in the painting changes but it;s suddently worth more. Yes I know I shouldn't watch Fake or fortune.

I think it comes from the days of gladiators, and people well some have always desired fame and with that can come fortune. I bet if Mo Farah advertised hair shampoo he'd make a fortune and peole would by it because he advertised it.

If you can earn money from it rather than shovling shit why not. I also watch something about those that do things to become famous on imstargrm for doing virtually nothing of any use to anyone :-0 Now that is something I'd find difficult to understand. Why do women want an arse the size of a hippos .

Well dog walkering is paid employment for some as is cat sitting.

Depending what is it somewhere here is walking across a desert to raise money for still births of something. The Q is why does she need to walk across a desert to raise money ?.

Some call it entertainment lioke watching a film or listening to music or loking at a painting which you lioke but will like more if it;s by someone famous.

Painting for fun, sawing wood for fun, I'd rather have fun playing tennis ona video game of course.

'celebrities' yep that is a strange world.

Did Edison actually invent anything I thought he just 'borrowed' ideas form others and found ways to profit from them.

Reply to
whisky-dave

Because people who don't fancy themselves as rocket scientists and have no interest in ballet dancing or opera still need something to talk about; and sport can fulfil that role. It will have need to have become sufficiently commercialised to appear on TV, in order to become a topic of general conversation and media interest.

Fishing is apparently the largest participation sport in the UK. But when was the last time you heard people holding a heated conversation about any fishing competition ?

michael adams

...

Reply to
michael adams

Well if nothing else I don't buy the "England doing the Scots a favour" by not losing to Slovakia, stands

we need to do that to secure our own position in the group

Dunno how strong a side Slovakia are,

but looking at the past results in the group means that England getting at least a draw ought to be a given.

tim

Reply to
tim...

how can a GD possibly be "regardless of how they do in the other match"?

tim

Reply to
tim...

looking at the other groups, ISTM that what they are saying is that 20 points will be needed to ensure that Scotland isn't the worst 2nd placed team and thus eliminated under that rule - even if they did manage to scrape past Slovakia in this group with fewer points

Actually, it seems that only the results within the top 5 teams in the group will count for this test, so they will lose the 6 that they gained by whipping Malta, but it is normal for every group to have a whipping boy so all second ranked teams will be in the same boat here

tim

Reply to
tim...

typical new Left brain.

uses the word 'should' at every opoortunity. Never 'is'

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

At present Slovakia have a GD advantage of 7 over Scotland

- 9 as against 2.

And this is without taking into account any further GD advantage Slovakia should accrue as result of beating Malta in their final match.

Unless Slovakia lose that other match by 6 goals and that doesn't include any further goal difference they may later accrue againt Malta, or Scotland win by their remaining matches by a cumulative GD of 6 or more (again ignoring any further GD advantage Slovakia will have accreued against Malta) then Scotland are well and truly stuffed.

michael adams

...

Reply to
michael adams

Sure, but like I said, couldn't they still watch a 'game' of football with jumpers for goalposts and still be entertained?

Are you saying all the places where they have any form of game or sport in what is no more than a field don't entertain plenty of people?

I'm not sure that is the case, as I'm guessing people were talking about it long before television or radio existed (albeit only their 'local teams' in most cases).

I'm sure the newspapers covered it pre 'media' as we would know it today, as would word of mouth?

For me, about as often as I (personally) hear a heated discussion about anything like that ...as I don't generally mix with people who are into any of it (and if I do they know I'm not interested in it at all).

The other thing that I find funny is the whole 'tribal' connection some people have with their tribe/////teams. "Yeah, we really played well, especially in the second half ... " ... 'we'? I'm guessing I wasn't witness to one of the actual players in that game and maybe they weren't even at the match so they were as much of a 'we' as I would, had I flicked over onto a televised match by mistake.

I like cycling, motorcycling, boating, camping, walking, archery (to name just a few) but generally do (and prefer to do) all / any of them with friends and family. When we were regularly going to Archery they asked us if we would help represent the club at a competition but we declined because we were just in it for us. However, we understood that part of being a club member meant helping set up and taking down all the kit and that was fine.

So, whilst I like all the things mentioned above, the 'like' is in the doing and I really don't care how others do any of them or want to watch them doing it. I don't watch the London boat race for example, care who wins or who are in the teams.

If someone says "I like playing " then that's one thing ... getting paid an immoral sum of money a week for 'playing a game' is another (although I fully understand why they do and how it works commercially 'these days').

I wonder how many 1st division footballers are there simply because of the love of the game, rather than the money they might be given (I can't bring myself to say 'earn') or the 'fame' it might bring them? How many would carry on doing it if you just gave them a 'living wage' (not that I think they should get anything, it's just 'a game', something you do yourself for fun in your spare time after all). ;-)

Footballers aren't gods, they are *just* people who run and kick things. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

Yup, it's (artistically) BS.

;-)

But weren't most of the gladiators slaves, forced to do what they did?

Oh, I'm sure there are millions of gullible people out there, they also follow brands for the name alone (especially clothes etc).

No, sure, but that only works because there is money to be made by others off the back of them.

Quite.

Pass. ;-)

Of course, but I wasn't talking about someone doing something as a job (and 'sport' shouldn't be 'a job' from my POV).

Ok.

Because it's 'different' ? But it really doesn't matter as long as they are doing it for 'a good cause'.

Sure. However, it isn't 'entertaining', it is only deemed to be 'entertaining' by those who find it so. I'm not 'entertained by watching sport. I can be entertained by watching or listening to something that was fundamentally created to be 'entertaining' (unlike most / all sports). It's like musicians who play because they like doing so and people then asking to have / buying copies of their material versus the artificially manufactured 'pop bands' who are

*only* there for the fame and money but who have no raw talent etc.

It really doesn't matter what it is, the point is that you are choosing to do it for *yourself* and for fun. That's what differentiates if from work and why it's called sport, 'a game', 'a hobby' or 'for leisure'.

And a strange and mostly artificial / superficial breed.

Ok, cross him off the list (but he's still way above any footballer who isn't donating 99% of his 'wages' to good causes.

As with most things people do, few actually fully consider what they are going and why. Like my teenager mates who were smoking and drinking and trying to get into pubs before they were old enough and buying expensive clothes (that the often couldn't actually afford) that they thought made them look / be 'cool'? I just thought they were stupid for wasting their money and lives that way.

At the same time I was often in my shed, building radio controlled racing boats and cars and that's where my mates often ended up once they couldn't get into the pub and wanted a beer ... or I'd be off on my moped to go and visit my girlfriend. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

Rejoice that the non-god-squad is now in the majority ...

Reply to
Andy Burns

By 'we' (and assuming you aren't an England team player) you mean 'they', the England team players as I'm English but don't have anything to do with the team or the game?

I know, it's just a tribal thing ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.