• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Reply to: Blackwashed

Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Blackwashed"

Collapse

  • WageSlave
    replied
    Originally posted by wendigo100
    Names that trip off the tongue when picking the best teams of all time.

    Are they from the 1958 team?
    They are from the great Milan side of the 50s, and the Swedish side that won Olympic gold in 1948.

    Leave a comment:


  • wendigo100
    replied
    Re: great Swedish footballers in history

    Originally posted by WageSlave
    Gunnar Nordahl, Gunnar Gren and Nils Liedholm.
    Names that trip off the tongue when picking the best teams of all time.

    Are they from the 1958 team?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mailman
    replied
    Originally posted by Alf W
    Excuse me but don't New Zealand pick the best players from pretty much the whole of the Pacific Ocean islands? There was talk of putting together a Pacific team for the Tri-Nations which would put the All Blacks back to a similar level to Argentina.

    Any, most people just assume people from New Zealand are Aussies anyway.
    Actually no...99.99% of Islanders selected to play for the All Blacks were either born in NZ or moved here with their parents when they were children.

    The one Islander that wasnt borne here was picked up by Wesley Boys college in Auckland a number of years ago (and he had to go through a waiting period before he could be selected). Of course the English media neglect to say that Wesley Boys College has always offered scholarships to Island children who are both strong in school and sports activities.

    Then lets not even get in to the arguement about how NZ is just another Pacific Island and also has the largest population of Pacific Islanders in the world.

    If the IRB was so concerned about growing the sport in the Pacific Islands why arent they investing more money in their game? Ill tell you why, because the IRB isnt interested in growing the game in the Pacific Islands.

    Secondly, if England was so concerned about Islanders being selected to play at international levels then perhaps you guys should start looking to your own islands. Im sure you could russle up a couple good players from Jersey, the orkneys, Falklands and the Shetland Islands. If you cant then perhaps you should grant these people their independance?

    Why are so many of you lot over here AND never want to go back? All the Kiwis I know are going to live in Aussie after the UK kicks them out...
    Simple...its all to do with economics and perceived quality of life. One soon realises that there is no place like home

    Regards

    Mailman
    Last edited by Mailman; 12 July 2005, 14:07.

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by WageSlave
    Also an Aussie colleague of mine just here tells me that even at soccer Australia are better than England as the last time they played, Australia won. Can't comment on that but he seems pretty sure of this fact.

    Your colleague's statement doesn't deserve a serious reply. That would be like saying Holland are better at cricket than NZ, because they beat them once.

    The game against Australia was a friendly, and under Sven friendlies are completely meaningless; he uses them as an opportunity to test different players and tactics.
    England are a very strong team. The fact that we don't dominate is simply because football is a game played around the world and there are a number of exceptionally strong nations that could win the World Cup; Argentina, Brazil, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Holland, England -and then a number of strong nations just behind that group; Portugal, Czech Republic, etc.
    By contrast, the number of great teams in rugby can be counted on a few fingers.

    England usually do well in the major competitions, whereas Australia never qualify (despite being in a qualifying region with the Cook Islands!!!).
    It is very much like software. The Aussies come over here and tell us that they use the most up to date software, development tools etc etc. There is however a reason for that, If the product does not work then it does not matter in Australia. It is a software Christmas Island for trying things out without having to worry about the consequences.

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by wendigo100
    I'm not sure I agree with you there. Those countries tend to specialise in fewer sports. How many great Swedish footballers in history can you name, and how many great Dutch tennis players?

    Australians have warm weather all the year round, so their kids can go out and play impromptu games with their mates any time they like. Think cricket - how often do you see kids in the UK having a knock-about, learning ball-skills at the genuine "grass-roots" level?
    Tom Okker Richard Krajeck, I know it is not many but considering their population they have at least had a Wimbledon champ in recent years.. I loved his description of women players being fat lazy pigs! I am sure it helps having an Aussie climate, but there is more to it than that.. there is little else to do in Australia other than to play sport. Cultural activities are low, popping over to France or Germany for a weekend is not possible. No decent music bands.. bland food, and despite the climate none of the richness of the Mediterrenean cafe culture. You only go to a pub for a fight.

    So it is surfing, footy beer and cricket for your average Aussie. We certainly do not have the right balance, but I believe that the Aussies are further from a decent balanced society than we are.

    The Lions lost fair and square and there are no questions about who was the better team, but before the Aussies and Kiwis start saying that their teams are coming from a disadvantaged base compared to the UK, then we can all play that game.

    Leave a comment:


  • WageSlave
    replied
    Originally posted by wendigo100
    How many great Swedish footballers in history can you name?
    Gunnar Nordahl, Gunnar Gren and Nils Liedholm.

    Leave a comment:


  • WageSlave
    replied
    Also an Aussie colleague of mine just here tells me that even at soccer Australia are better than England as the last time they played, Australia won. Can't comment on that but he seems pretty sure of this fact.

    Your colleague's statement doesn't deserve a serious reply. That would be like saying Holland are better at cricket than NZ, because they beat them once.

    The game against Australia was a friendly, and under Sven friendlies are completely meaningless; he uses them as an opportunity to test different players and tactics.
    England are a very strong team. The fact that we don't dominate is simply because football is a game played around the world and there are a number of exceptionally strong nations that could win the World Cup; Argentina, Brazil, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Holland, England -and then a number of strong nations just behind that group; Portugal, Czech Republic, etc.
    By contrast, the number of great teams in rugby can be counted on a few fingers.

    England usually do well in the major competitions, whereas Australia never qualify (despite being in a qualifying region with the Cook Islands!!!).

    Leave a comment:


  • wendigo100
    replied
    Re: the weather argument

    Originally posted by DodgyAgent
    I do noy buy the weather argument.. countries like Sweden produce top footballers and tennis players, the Netherlands also, as do the Russians.
    I'm not sure I agree with you there. Those countries tend to specialise in fewer sports. How many great Swedish footballers in history can you name, and how many great Dutch tennis players?

    Australians have warm weather all the year round, so their kids can go out and play impromptu games with their mates any time they like. Think cricket - how often do you see kids in the UK having a knock-about, learning ball-skills at the genuine "grass-roots" level?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Lone Gunman
    replied
    Originally posted by Rebecca Loos
    Mmmm... DA, Gunman and Pinto, this sounds to me like a poor excuse to explain defeat.
    I wasnt trying to explain the defeat, I was just pointing out that in the soccer world our official rank is quite high.

    My EXCUSE for the Lions is simple. They are not a team that trains together and plays together on a regular basis, sure they are some of the best players in the world, but they dont have that team understanding that goes with being part of a national team. That and Sir Clive having too much bias towards has been and out of condition England players over in form Welsh and Irish.
    Oh yeah and deliberately breaking our best player was out of order!

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by stackpole
    It's more to do with the bad weather, the lack of space in towns to kick or whack a ball about, the plethora of alternative attractions, the fact that our pool of athletes are spread thinly over more sports than most countries, and the anti-competition brigade, who buggered junior school sports here for a generation. How much "investment" per capita will put that lot right?
    I do noy buy the weather argument.. countries like Sweden produce top footballers and tennis players, the Netherlands also, as do the Russians. We also have here the widest mix of sport and a huge number of inactive children. Sports facilities should be built that can be used by kids at school and clubs.

    Leave a comment:


  • stackpole
    replied
    Re: invest far more money per capita?

    Originally posted by DodgyAgent
    His conclusion purely and simply was that Australia invest far more money per capita in sport than the poms do.
    It's more to do with the bad weather, the lack of space in towns to kick or whack a ball about, the plethora of alternative attractions, the fact that our pool of athletes are spread thinly over more sports than most countries, and the anti-competition brigade, who buggered junior school sports here for a generation. How much "investment" per capita will put that lot right?
    Last edited by stackpole; 11 July 2005, 22:11. Reason: Removed an insult to Hawaiian ladyboys

    Leave a comment:


  • DBNOv4.0
    replied
    Boring NZ

    and a great lifestyle
    and the ability to come over to England for a few years and make tons of money to spend there
    and the outdoors
    and the food
    and stress-free working environments
    and great, varied scenery
    and... lots more
    ----------------------------------------------

    Why are so many of you lot over here AND never want to go back? All the Kiwis I know are going to live in Aussie after the UK kicks them out...

    I have lived in NZ. It is great for a holiday but it is boring as hell, there is no choice, it is far from anywhere, the food is no different to elsewhere(how can this be a plus?), it is full of hillbillies, and it is boring!

    What makes me laugh is all these Brits that emmigrate over there and realise living in a periphery country with no clout in the world is not much fun.

    Kiwis get very defensive when you slag off their little country - the truth hurts.

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    pacific Islanders

    Originally posted by Alf W
    Excuse me but don't New Zealand pick the best players from pretty much the whole of the Pacific Ocean islands? There was talk of putting together a Pacific team for the Tri-Nations which would put the All Blacks back to a similar level to Argentina.

    Any, most people just assume people from New Zealand are Aussies anyway.
    That may be true, but without being part of the All Black training and playing system these guys would find their game would not develop as well. Having said that we should pull rank and have first choice of these players... hmmmm I can feel a recruitment opprtunity coming out of this

    Leave a comment:


  • Rebecca Loos
    replied
    Fair enough - I can see how in a way it can seem that the colonies seem to live in some sort of sport oppression.... actually there isn't anything in government policy to force you to be any good at any sport, but there can be a kind of peer / society pressure to do that.... in NZ anyway. In some ways. So maybe yes we are producing lots of good sportsmen, but not many outstanding artists, scientists etc... (Britain does produce lots of them). Maybe sport takes too big a place in NZ and Oz.

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by Rebecca Loos
    Mmmm... DA, Gunman and Pinto, this sounds to me like a poor excuse to explain defeat. Contrary to popular belief, not every Kiwi (can't speak for the Saffos but I know for a fact this is true of the Aussies too) want to become a rugby player (thank God! My school was next to a big rugby-playing school and those guys were horrible)

    Also an Aussie colleague of mine just here tells me that even at soccer Australia are better than England as the last time they played, Australia won. Can't comment on that but he seems pretty sure of this fact.

    Anyway, DA, what you say is correct but the only valid conclusion to your piece is that English men are not as sporty as Antipodeans. I would agree especially given the number of, errr..., shall we say, well-fed looking men here ;-) (was especially true in Nottingham, more so than London)
    Good point loos, and my "defence" of the lions loss may to an extent be "sore loser".. An eminent Aussie rugby player wrote a column a number of years ago discussing the reasons why Australia punched (ALTHOUGH THEY ARE tulipE AT BOXING.. and darts for that matter ) above its weight in comparison to the poms. His conclusion purely and simply was that Australia invest far more money per capita in sport than the poms do. So for every pom who is out of condition there is a lack of sporting facilities at school and beyond to show for it.

    Although we Brits like to think that there is more to life than sport, and that it has become oppressive in the colonies, it is an absolute disgrace that sport is so undervalued and underdeveloped in the UK. The reason for this stinks.. it is thanks to socialists who hate competition and competitiveness.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X