Correct or not correct

So basically the Scots need 9 points to pip England to second place.

What's the betting the person conducting the survey wasn't dressed in a black shroud and carrying a scythe ?

Almost two in three 25 to 34 year olds said they were non-religious, while 75% of people aged 75 and over said they were religious.

"There are no atheists in foxholes"

To empirically examine the question, "Are there atheists in foxholes?" Cornell University behavioral economist, Brian Wansink examined 949 post-combat surveys of World War II American infantrymen and observed that these soldiers' reliance on prayer rose from 42% to 72% as the battle intensified.

michael adams

..

Aren't you being slightly cynical? Couldn't those players actually be enjoying it at that level, free of all the commercial pressures to 'perform'?

Quite ... and I for one wouldn't want to stop them and that's what it's all supposed to be about.

Then they would go and watch / do something else ... I know I would?

But this is were the money comes in and creates teams that have nothing in common (eg, location, history / background). It's no more than the 'manufactured' boy bands and to all intents and purposes, could be robots.

Understood and again, that's fine as long as it stays at that position for those reasons. eg, The should / could be 'non profit' organisations and I'm sure many are still run that way, with everyone doing it for the real 'love of the sport / game', not £1M / week.

Ok.

Other than on the rec with jumpers for goalposts? The thing is, the game of football wasn't invented for the spectators but the players. I like cycling and will do so if someone is watching me or not?

Yes, once it goes beyond one group of lads playing another group 'for fun', or even for a cup or the duty of buying their opposition a beer afterwards.

Yes, I can see how it all works and I've been there myself ... and walked away from it ...

It was when racing 12th scale RC buggies off-road. I was winning the championship (with no sponsorship or spectators ) and another racer was slowly catching up by basically copying my setup. I would have liked to win the last final but was beaten by a cars length by this guy who had paid fortunes to have a Limited Slip Diff engineered for him.

I still won the championship but left with a (moral) protest because using such expensive and otherwise unobtainable parts was against the general spirit of the 'sport'. This was especially so for the 'kids' who had been given a kit for say Xmyth, had assembled it themselves but had no real budget to afford expensive upgrades.

So, wanting to be part of the solution, I started a RC Stock Car club were the basic rules were you could only run the components that came in the box (or were sold as spares for the same). This meant that 'little Johnny had as much chance of winning as anyone else

This is also found in another RC class I'm involved in, the RC Lasers. Again, the rules are very strict (and simple) as you can generally only run what you get in the box. Winning the races are therefore down to skill (and luck to some degree), rather than having a technical advantage over someone. That's why I might be more inclined to watch the 'Cleo Cup' than F1 (but I rarely watch either). [1]

I know and often the original goals (excuse the pun) of the game / sport are lost / consumed in the whole commercial / money thing.

Like someone said it might be fun to have two Olympics, one with drugs (like the current one) and one without. The 'with' one you could hop yourself up on anything you like and see how fast, high or far you could go before you explode! ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Hmm, whilst I could rejoice in the good sense of that outcome (IMHO), I'm not sure 2,942 people represents the general feelings of the people than the small percentage of the population who voted to leave the EU. ;-)

Funny I was talking with the Mrs in this area this morning.

I was considering homeopathy and that is 'doesn't do any harm' (being

I (personally) consider 'religion similarly, in that it can and does do some good things for 'people' (directly and indirectly), just as the Scouts, The Red Cross or the RNLI do, but unlike them, it's also responsible for much that is considered bad in this world (again, directly or indirectly).

However, my 'value' test is 'would people think to do it today, if it didn't exist' and would they actually be worse off without it?'

Along those lines I'd put smoking and religion in the same bracket (in these 'science enlightened' times). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

At least that uses the right perspective (and you don't actually play for England). ;-)

And so, if 'the Scots' do do as you suggest, is this a good or bad thing (for you)?

Do they win some land, or some of the other tribe (or their wives or girlfriends) if they do win? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Given that the Social Attitudes Survey has been running for 34 years, and breaks down religiosity by sex, age, whether or not brought up in a faith, level of education and political affiliation - I assume they try to keep the datasets comparable over the years.

Actually, last years survey they concluded the religious decline had come to a halt

Ok.

The stat that suggests that 'No religion' has gone from 31 to 49% over the period they monitored (and continuing that tend as per the recent result (53%)), gives me hope that the human race (in the UK at least) is getting brighter and more spend their time doing something 'worldly' (hopefully) instead. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

non-Christian does seem to have spotted a gap in the market though ...

I'm sure they will fall into line once they realise it doesn't make any difference ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m

but for the points total to remain same Slovakia will have to lose to Malta

tim

not a possible scenario

If Scotland win both of their remaining matches, those results alone will guarantee England a top 2 finish. (And if they don't win both of them they cannot be placed above England in the group at all.)

tim

Is something like the Brexit poll results were the opinions of a minority are taken to represent the majority? ;-)

On one hand it sort of stands to reason but why? Because I really DGAS about football (or most other 'sports' for that matter) they have no status or value to me. Therefore I can't (not able) to 'care' if 'England' (where the chances are any 'national' team would be made up of 'international' players) wins or loses.

So as to not confuse the Brexiteers (who can only see in black and white), that doesn't man I hope that 'our' teams don't do well (as I wouldn't for any individual doing their best, no matter if I consider their efforts pointless etc).

Part of the reason to why I often DGAF about such thins is down to how un level the playing fields are. You get one team entering an international competition who have trained on their local rec whilst others have indoor facilities and the best of everything. I wouldn't be willing to give extra funding to the under funded team over maybe giving those (often limited) resources to (IMHO), better causes.

Maybe your tribe isn't very big / strong / popular?

On that, I wonder what it is when people 'support' a particular tribe/////team or individual?

Ok, I'm guessing most of the extended friends and family of someone would support them out of duty etc (like supporting your 5yr old doing crap in a crap play at school or putting crap pictures on the fridge at home). Then if it is your local club / person that also makes sense (supporting your home tribe) ... or even if you support a tribe that isn't local but because it was once or someone else you know or in the family supports them.

I used to support Chelsea Football tribe, but only in so far as it was a name of a genuine team that I could remember and would generally shut kids up if they asked 'What team do you support mister?' ;-)

I'm a motorcyclist and been to Brands Hatch on a proper Superbikes race day and whilst I generally enjoyed the experience (except watching a rider die) as a 'day out' and the technology, I can't say I'm in a rush to go back again (even if given a free ticket). Daughter bought be an 'Extended Rally Experience' at Brands for my 60th last year that I was very grateful for and looking forward to doing, only to have it expire because I didn't 'getrountuit'. ;-( Luckily she was able to renew it for another year for another 20 quid.

Same with watching the Touring and Supercars at Silverstone, or the top fuelers at Santa Pod. Nice to experience but maybe only once.

So I wonder if it's that I have a short attention / entertainment span that can't really be satisfied by watching but only by doing?

I'm happy to walk, cycle, motorcycle or row all day and generally like to be going from A to B and so not just be going round in circles on a track or lake.

I have raced though (personally) on the electrically propelled two wheeler I designed and built but very much part of that was the actual designing and building, possibly more so than the racing (which wasn't really 'racing' as in speed but more eco / endurance etc).

Horses for courses and YMMV of course. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

No different from Northern businessmen importing Scottish Professionals from the 1890's.

The people who owned the clubs never had that much in common with the average spectators in any case. The spectators were lucky to get a cup of tea and a pie at half time if that, having been standing in the cold throughout. While the directors with their heated seats in the stands would be drinking whisky and eating beef or smoked salmon sandwiches, with their fellow directors from the visiting club.

Prior to the Taylor Report and the impostion of all seater stadiums at the top tier there was a school of thought that said ordinary spectators were treated no better than farm animals - for all the owners cared. But they for their part happily put up with it as it kept admission prices low. Taylor changed everything. Not only were stadiums expensive to convert but capacity took a hit. So ticket prices went up and those able and willing to pay much higher prices for a seat weren't willing to watch rubbish. The Premier League and the TV income in generated - football is still cheap telly ratings wise - which allowed all clubs to up their game only upped the ante even further.

Fans who were priced out of the stadiums now have to pay Rupert Murdoch instead. And because all seater stadiums now attracted middle class fans the media profile of football changed irrevocably as well.

michael adams

...

But the more you know about football, the more you come to realise how poor the England team are - and always have been as compared with the opposition; apart from various bits of good fortune which somehow allowed them to win the World Cup in 1966 *

And that the only people suggesting otherwise are the media - the press hoping to to sell more newspapaers or TV hoping to attract viewers - and people who are easily swayed by the media and by special offers from flag manufacturers.

• Which isn't to say that the UK hasn't consistently produced World Class players capable of holding their own with the best. The problem has always been finding enough talented players to make up a team to play alongside them.

The various reasons suggested for this state of affairs, and all possible combinations thereof could probably fill a 1000 page book. In very small print,

michael adams

...

Which has always been the case; see above - "All Slovakia have to do is beat Malta at home".

It's always been theoretically possible that Malta could win their final match and that Scotland could win their last match by such a large margin as to achieve a better GD than Slovakia.

Possible but highly unlikely. Which is why Scotland are stuffed, and the headline is correct.

michael adams

...

Interesting, thanks. ;-)

So it's exactly what I said then, it's all down to money and little to do with 'the beautiful game'?

Cheers, T i m

No it isn't.

Money is necessary to attract the most talented players.

Only players with severe learning difficulties or those who hadn't come to the attention of an agent, would willingly do for nothing something for which they could be paid thousands of pounds per week

Your idea of "the beautiful game" you mean.

Games played exclusively by players with severe learning difficulties, playing for nothing, possibly in front of crowds paying thousands of pounds for the priviledge of watching them.

michael adams

...

Ok ... and they want the most talented players because ... that will attract more spectators and that means more money though the turnstiles and that means they can afford fancy stadiums to attract more money from fewer spectators to be able to pay higher wages to attact better players to attract more money ... that even fewer people can watch without having to pay?

What you are saying is no one wants just play football for fun any more ... or just that you (personally) wouldn't get any pleasure from watching such?

And so nicely reinforcing it's only about money.

The truth of course is there are thousands of people competing and partaking in all sorts of activities from running to car racing who are doing so at their own cost and for their own fun. Yes they might have some followers / spectators but likely only their friends or family or just fellow competitors..

Not mine, 'the'. So, go back to it's origins ... was it invented as a means of making vast amounts of money or making it's players obscenely rich?

I'm guessing you wouldn't be attending any 'anti capitalist' rallies wearing your team shirt?

Eh?

Cheers, T i m

No need, as the players were rich already. Association Football was originally codified ( see The Cambridge Rules ) so as to allow public schoolboys from various schools which played their own version of the game to be able to play one another.

So given your deep seated knowledge of the game and its history, you much clearly much prefer the days when soccer was the exclusive preserve of public schoolboys.

michael adams

...