Football 2015/16

[ProfessorDavey]

My argument is that England plays other sports not the same degree as the USA but more than Germany, France, Spain.

But you have no evidence for that, beyond looking at things through the wrong end of the telescope and concluding that because Germany, France, Spain don't play rugby and cricket that they therefore only play football (despite the obvious point that rugby is played in France to levels similar to England).

Sure the Germans (as an example don't play much cricket and rugby), but they play far more of the following sports than people in England do:

Basketball
Handball
Ice Hockey

So as examples Germany is ranked in the top 10 in the world and average attendance at matches is up there with many english rugby matches.

Handball is huge in Germany as they basically invented the sport. Handball is hardly even heard of in England.

And on France - I've already provided the evidence that there are more registered football players in England than there are in France, so frankly you argument just crumbles to dust when we glance at the evidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

My argument is that England plays other sports not the same degree as the USA but more than Germany, France, Spain.

So number of registered players (over 18)

Rugby (men)
France - 110,000 (approx 1900 clubs)
England - 160,000 (approx 2000 clubs)

Hardly much different and unlikely make a dent in the approx. 2 million registered football players in each country.

And to give some context there are over 400,000 registered basketball players in Spain associated with over 4,000 clubs. So Spain has more basketball players and clubs than England and France have rugby players and clubs combined.

[Hope]

There is nothing bizarre about it, we both agree the the US doesn't produce talent relative to their population because other sports are played, you argue that Russia doesn't live up to expectations because they compete more in the Olympics. My argument is that England plays other sports not the same degree as the USA but more than Germany, France, Spain.

Germany and Spain both have top international footballers, but also have top international hockey (field) players.  Germany also have top athletes, tennis players, swimmers, motor sports drivers, handball and basketball players, cyclists, skiers and other winter sports players, boxers.

[ProfessorDavey]

Germany and Spain both have top international footballers, but also have top international hockey (field) players.  Germany also have top athletes, tennis players, swimmers, motor sports drivers, handball and basketball players, cyclists, skiers and other winter sports players, boxers.

Indeed - Jakswan really is talking non-sense.

I think his problem is that he can see that they don't really play much cricket in Germany or Spain, but not that we have very few people in England playing handball, or Ice Hockey or taking up downhill skiing.

[jakswan]

But you have no evidence for that, beyond looking at things through the wrong end of the telescope and concluding that because Germany, France, Spain don't play rugby and cricket that they therefore only play football (despite the obvious point that rugby is played in France to levels similar to England).

Sure the Germans (as an example don't play much cricket and rugby), but they play far more of the following sports than people in England do:

Basketball
Handball
Ice Hockey

So as examples Germany is ranked in the top 10 in the world and average attendance at matches is up there with many english rugby matches.

Handball is huge in Germany as they basically invented the sport. Handball is hardly even heard of in England.

And on France - I've already provided the evidence that there are more registered football players in England than there are in France, so frankly you argument just crumbles to dust when we glance at the evidence.

I'm getting bored with your rhetoric, you become more like Sass every day, we will agree to disagree.

[ProfessorDavey]

... we will agree to disagree.

You have to love the 'we will agree to disagree' - as if we merely have two opposing be equally valid arguments, both equally supported by evidence, and equally compelling to others.

But we don't - my line, both on England being perennial underachievers and there being no evidence that football is more 'diluted' by other sports in England than other comparable countries, is supported by loads of evidence (see above) and also seems to be supported by others here, e.g. Hope, Jeremy P and AdO.

Your assertions to the contrary are supported by exactly zero evidence and refuted by lots of evidence. And correct me if I'm wrong, no-one else seems convinced by your assertions.

So, no, lets not agree to disagree, lets agree that I have won the argument.

But you are correct that debating with someone who makes wild assertions that aren't backed up by any evidence if boring. And in that respect you are indeed rather like Sassy.

[Maeght]

..... my line, both on England being perennial underachievers and there being no evidence that football is more 'diluted' by other sports in England than other comparable countries, is supported by loads of evidence (see above) and also seems to be supported by others here, e.g. Hope, Jeremy P and AdO.

And me!

[jakswan]

You have to love the 'we will agree to disagree' - as if we merely have two opposing be equally valid arguments, both equally supported by evidence, and equally compelling to others.

But we don't - my line, both on England being perennial underachievers and there being no evidence that football is more 'diluted' by other sports in England than other comparable countries, is supported by loads of evidence (see above) and also seems to be supported by others here, e.g. Hope, Jeremy P and AdO.

Your assertions to the contrary are supported by exactly zero evidence and refuted by lots of evidence. And correct me if I'm wrong, no-one else seems convinced by your assertions.

So, no, lets not agree to disagree, lets agree that I have won the argument.

But you are correct that debating with someone who makes wild assertions that aren't backed up by any evidence if boring. And in that respect you are indeed rather like Sassy.

Dear me I gave the last Olympics medal table, you said Russia underachieved because it invested its talent in the Olympics.

Its my opinion, I could do research on the subject but haven't the time or inclination for someone who just gets hysterical when others have different opinions.

Now back to a previous suggestion Fantasy Football next year, I know your knowledge of football is vastly superior to mine but it might be fun to actually see you tested just a little. 

[ProfessorDavey]

And me!

Why thank you Maeght.

[Hope]

But we don't - my line, both on England being perennial underachievers and there being no evidence that football is more 'diluted' by other sports in England than other comparable countries, is supported by loads of evidence (see above) and also seems to be supported by others here, e.g. Hope, Jeremy P and AdO.

PD, I've seen evidence - very compelling evidence - for jakswan's POV.  However, once you realsie that it has been produced by people who seem to think that football is the only sport that ought to be allowed to be played, that compelling-ness seems to fade. 

After all, one could equally argue that England's poor performances in Rugby Football World Cups and 4-, 5- and 6 Nations' tournaments is because the talent pool is diluted by the existence of Association Football.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear me I gave the last Olympics medal table, you said Russia underachieved because it invested its talent in the Olympics.

Frankly your approach of providing the medal table for a single tournament to refute my claim that:

'Russia have historically focussed resource and infrastructure on sports with Olympic profile'

really didn't need comment as it is so obviously nonsense to based a long range historical perspective on a single tournament. But given that you are still digging, let's nail it, shall we.

So even fro 2012 Russia came 4th out of 204 countries, and that is not really because they under performed, but because the top 2 (USA and China) have massively greater resource in terms of population and ability to invest in success. Also GB who came 3rd (but actually won less medals than Russia) massively invested to ensure that their games on home soil were a success - which they were, but of course being on home soil gave GB a great advantage.

But that's a single tournament. Given that we've been looking at the last 10 tournaments in football, lets look at the last 10 Olympic games and Russia's record:

1st in medals table - 4 times
2nd in medals table - 2 times
3rd in medals table - 2 times
4th in medals table - 1 time

Of course we are missing one from the 10 - that's because USSR (as it was then) boycotted the 1984 games in Los Angeles. So if you look at the last 10 they competed in there would be a further 1st place.

So there you go - some evidence for you. And I think it ably backs up my view that:

'Russia have historically focussed resource and infrastructure on sports with Olympic profile'

[ProfessorDavey]

PD, I've seen evidence - very compelling evidence - for jakswan's POV.  However, once you realsie that it has been produced by people who seem to think that football is the only sport that ought to be allowed to be played, that compelling-ness seems to fade. 

After all, one could equally argue that England's poor performances in Rugby Football World Cups and 4-, 5- and 6 Nations' tournaments is because the talent pool is diluted by the existence of Association Football.

I think Jaswan's line, which is of course non-sense, is that the presence of rugby and cricket in England dilutes the talent pool for football, but in other countries there are no other sports competing with football for the talent pool.

That there are more registered basketball players in Spain than there are registered rugby players in England and France combined rather destroys that view.

[jakswan]

I think Jaswan's line, which is of course non-sense, is that the presence of rugby and cricket in England dilutes the talent pool for football, but in other countries there are no other sports competing with football for the talent pool.

That there are more registered basketball players in Spain than there are registered rugby players in England and France combined rather destroys that view.

Source of data?

[jeremyp]

I'm getting bored with your rhetoric, you become more like Sass every day, we will agree to disagree.

He's providing rational argument and statistics to back up his point. You are trotting out unsubstantiated assertions.

Who is the more like Sassy?

[ProfessorDavey]

Source of data?

Spanish Basketball Federation and International Rugby Board.

[ProfessorDavey]

Back on Russia and their focus on other sports other than football.

They do not have a strong club league either.

So a Russian club has never made it to the final of the European Cup or its successor the Champions League since its inception in 1955.

Russia puts it sporting effort and focus into sports other than football.

[ProfessorDavey]

After all, one could equally argue that England's poor performances in Rugby Football World Cups and 4-, 5- and 6 Nations' tournaments is because the talent pool is diluted by the existence of Association Football.

That's clearly a more significant factor.

Minor sports of all types suffer when there is a very dominant sport sucking up the talent. But what this does mean is that very tiny countries, by population, can be dominant in that sport despite their population if that sport really is their top one.

So on rugby there is no way, on a purely population basis, that New Zealand (population just 4 million) should be able to compete with England (54 million), France (60 million) or South Africa (54 million) - but they do. Why, because rugby is the dominant sport in New Zealand, while in England, France and South Africa it is a minor sport in terms of participation with about 10 times as many people choosing to play football than opt for rugby.

[ad_orientem]

Good news for West Ham. Payet is staying.

[ProfessorDavey]

Good news for West Ham. Payet is staying.

Indeed - he was excellent in the Euros, albeit a bit quiet in the final. Really surprised he was substituted so early in the match.

[jakswan]

Spanish Basketball Federation and International Rugby Board.

Links please.

[ProfessorDavey]

Steve Bruce being suggested as England manager!!!!

I mean what planet are these people on. Sure he had a great club career, but he never played international football and his managerial record is limited to say the least - highest accolade being winning the championship play off final. In other words he has won nothing.

[jeremyp]

Steve Bruce being suggested as England manager!!!!

I mean what planet are these people on. Sure he had a great club career, but he never played international football and his managerial record is limited to say the least - highest accolade being winning the championship play off final. In other words he has won nothing.

Minor nitpick: he's three times achieved automatic promotion to the EPL which beats play-off final winner.

Anyway, if you are looking for an English manager to manage England, options are limited at the moment. If they have to have won something at top flight club level as a manager and played for England, I can't think of anybody.

[ekim]

....... sounds like the perfect sacrificial victim.

[jakswan]

What good manager would want to manage England, they have one of the top 16 squads in the world and when you finish in the top 16 in the world you fail.

[jeremyp]

What good manager would want to manage England, they have one of the top 16 squads in the world and when you finish in the top 16 in the world you fail.

When did England last finish in the top 16 in the World?