World Cup 2018

[Rhiannon]

Can you have a conspiracy theory about the actions of someone when that someone doesn't exist and neither does the imagined scenario?

[ProfessorDavey]

Any player not trying to qualify would do damage to their own chance of selection so your argument is specious as well as a bizarre piece of conspiracy theory.

No they wouldn't.

Arguably (certainly many Wales fans think so) Ryan Giggs never really fully contributed to the Welsh national side - indeed he seemed to find himself unavailable through injury regularly and then managed to turn out fine for Man U, presumably as that represented his best chance of winning medals. In your world why on earth would he not be one of the first names selected for a 'best of the rest' team - that he couldn't be bothered to play at his best for Wales (a team never likely to gain him a winners medal) wouldn't be an issue as he  was obviously a world beater, and were the 'best of the rest' team competitive as tournament winners, and there is no reason why they wouldn't be, then the Man U Ryan Giggs would turn up rather than the Wales Ryan Giggs.

What you would be doing would be giving players from teams that had effectively failed (in the qualifying tournament) a bye into the finals.

[ProfessorDavey]

Can you have a conspiracy theory about the actions of someone when that someone doesn't exist and neither does the imagined scenario?

I'm not sure you can.

However I don't think it beyond comprehension to think that a truly great player in a mediocre national team might prefer the chance of winning the world cup with a bunch of similarly truly great players from mediocre national teams rather than help their national team qualify and then go out in the group stages.

[Nearly Sane]

In my world, it's an alternative approach to nationalism. It seems you think that  even with the flag based approach that happened could be accused of not making an effort. So the idea that if my idea was introduced would affect people's efgort, you are arguing against already

[ProfessorDavey]

In my world, it's an alternative approach to nationalism.

But a perfectly acceptable alternative approach already exists - it is called club football. But even there players are declared cup tied if they have already played for one club in a tournament and therefore cannot then play for a different club at a later stage in the competition. You are arguing that players should have two bites at the cherry, effectively being able to play for a different team later in the competition if the team they played for earlier hasn't progressed.

[Rhiannon]

I'm not sure you can.

However I don't think it beyond comprehension to think that a truly great player in a mediocre national team might prefer the chance of winning the world cup with a bunch of similarly truly great players from mediocre national teams rather than help their national team qualify and then go out in the group stages.

The whole 'national team' thing is a bit odd anyway though. The French, for example, have a big problem losing their home-grown players to Senegal, and as you've noted Giggs had a choice. It is something that's been exploited for ages.

[Nearly Sane]

But a perfectly acceptable alternative approach already exists - it is called club football. But even there players are declared cup tied if they have already played for one club in a tournament and therefore cannot then play for a different club at a later stage in the competition. You are arguing that players should have two bites at the cherry, effectively being able to play for a different team later in the competition if the team they played for earlier hasn't progressed.

That's nice but entirely irrelevant to the didvusdion. National football hapoens, and I am talking about a different take on that. I'm just pondering nationality is that important here. You seem to argue that it is.

[ProfessorDavey]

The whole 'national team' thing is a bit odd anyway though. The French, for example, have a big problem losing their home-grown players to Senegal, and as you've noted Giggs had a choice. It is something that's been exploited for ages.

And would certainly be if players whose national team failed to qualify just got a back door route into the finals.

To try to get NS to recognise that my objections aren't to do with nationalism, we should look at an analogy in club football. What NS is effectively arguing for is the equivalent of the Champions league allowing a new team to join the tournament at the knockout stages made up of players from teams that failed to progress at the group stages - and indeed presumably never even qualified for the champions league at all. That would make a mockery of the whole event. In BBC parlance on the FA Cup, it is winner stays on, not winner stays on unless you lose and then are readmitted as a member of another team.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's nice but entirely irrelevant to the didvusdion. National football hapoens, and I am talking about a different take on that. I'm just pondering nationality is that important here. You seem to argue that it is.

I'm not arguing that it is (see my champions league example, and comments on players being cup tied). My point is regardless of how you define teams you need to be consistent and not allow some players the ability to lose, and then be allowed back in.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not arguing that it is (see my champions league example, and comments on players being cup tied). My point is regardless of how you define teams you need to be consistent and not allow some players the ability to lose, and then be allowed back in.

Why?

[Nearly Sane]

And would certainly be if players whose national team failed to qualify just got a back door route into the finals.

To try to get NS to recognise that my objections aren't to do with nationalism, we should look at an analogy in club football. What NS is effectively arguing for is the equivalent of the Champions league allowing a new team to join the tournament at the knockout stages made up of players from teams that failed to progress at the group stages - and indeed presumably never even qualified for the champions league at all. That would make a mockery of the whole event. In BBC parlance on the FA Cup, it is winner stays on, not winner stays on unless you lose and then are readmitted as a member of another team.

Except that wouldn't make sense since players would still be playing for clubs unlike players not playing for countries at the time of the World Cup.

[Rhiannon]

Of course the WC is about nationalism. Among other things.

I'm not convinced it necessarily showcases the best players in the world though, and I don't think that is what it is for.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course the WC is about nationalism. Among other things.

I'm not convinced it necessarily showcases the best players in the world though, and I don't think that is what it is for.

Which is what my random idea was for. A way to challenge the flags!

[Rhiannon]

Which is what my random idea was for. A way to challenge the flags!

I get it, but it is what it is. TBH I'd like to see the whole sorry mess swept away and something else in its place.

[ProfessorDavey]

Except that wouldn't make sense since players would still be playing for clubs unlike players not playing for countries at the time of the World Cup.

But that's purely about logistics rather than principle.

Try it another way - imagine a completely new approach to defining eligibility for teams for a tournament (which has nothing to do with nationalism) - that eligibility if defined by birth week, so there are 52 teams, the first with people born in the 1st week in January eligible etc. There is a qualifying tournament to select the 32 teams to play in the finals tournament. But rather than pick the top 32 teams, they only pick the top 31 and allow a 32nd team to enter made up of the best players from the other 21 teams. If you are a player which is better to enhance your chances of winning - to be part of one of the 31 teams that actually qualifies or to be part of the team made up of the best players from 21 other teams. I'd suggest the latter, which would incentivise a great player to ensure that his birth week team does not qualify to maximise his chance of winning the trophy.

So it would incentive players to throw games in order to maximise chances of winning the tournament, plus also it is fundamentally wrong on the basis that some players who have lost suddenly reappear in the tournament while others have to win in order to be in the finals.

[Rhiannon]

Maybe in NS’s idea the ‘rest of the world’ players can only come from national sides who have consistently low FIFA rankings and/or a low population? I don’t see why anyone would object to gifted players from no-hope nations re-entering at the finals. And realistically, without the structure of regular coaching together, playing together in the same leagues etc, they aren’t that likely to progress far.

[Nearly Sane]

Maybe in NS’s idea the ‘rest of the world’ players can only come from national sides who have consistently low FIFA rankings and/or a low population? I don’t see why anyone would object to gifted players from no-hope nations re-entering at the finals. And realistically, without the structure of regular coaching together, playing together in the same leagues etc, they aren’t that likely to progress far.

Agree, I don't think it would necessarily do well as a team at all. I also think that someone throwing a football match in order to try to get selected for another team selected by someone they would at stage be unaware of would be very arrogant and very dumb, even by the standards of football players. 

[Rhiannon]

Agree, I don't think it would necessarily do well as a team at all. I also think that someone throwing a football match in order to try to get selected for another team selected by someone they would at stage be unaware of would be very arrogant and very dumb, even by the standards of football players.

I just don’t see how one player can throw matches to the extent that they go out of a tournament without it being blindingly obvious. So long as the only players that can qualify are from the no-hope sides I don’t see the problem. The whole argument in favour of this is that the likes of Best couldn’t win matches on their own if they were in an otherwise poor team. He couldn’t throw one on his own either.

[Nearly Sane]

I just don’t see how one player can throw matches to the extent that they go out of a tournament without it being blindingly obvious. So long as the only players that can qualify are from the no-hope sides I don’t see the problem. The whole argument in favour of this is that the likes of Best couldn’t win matches on their own if they were in an otherwise poor team. He couldn’t throw one on his own either.

And not being able to play well in such important matches would make it less likely that they would be selected for their own team and any RoW team.


I see that Ruth Davidson has suggested that a joint world cup bid would help the Union.


https://stv.tv/news/politics/1415657-ruth-davidson-calls-for-joint-uk-wide-world-cup-bid/

[ProfessorDavey]

I just don’t see how one player can throw matches to the extent that they go out of a tournament without it being blindingly obvious.

Perhaps throwing a match was too strong, perhaps better to think of it as constructive lack of commitment. We see this all the time in clubs where a top player wants a move and effectively stops committing to their current team, often to the point of being dropped. By definition we are talking about international sides involving a world class player (or they wouldn't be likely to get into a 'best of the rest' side) in an uncompetitive team. In those cases success or failure is often defined by whether their star players 'turns up' so to speak. If they declare themselves injured or aren't 100% committed their team fails. That might not be throwing a match, but it has the same overall effect.

[Rhiannon]

In all seriousness, what can be done about the WC? Fifa is a toxic brand and this and the following WC, stand as testimony to its corruption. Nationalism is a global stain. Can the WC be redeemed?

[ProfessorDavey]

In all seriousness, what can be done about the WC? Fifa is a toxic brand and this and the following WC, stand as testimony to its corruption. Nationalism is a global stain. Can the WC be redeemed?

I agree that there is a problem with FIFA and in particular the awarding of the tournament - but they aren't alone in this in terms of venue for big sporting events.

But beyond that I think the World Cup is a great sporting tournament. Don't forget football is a team sport and you need some way to define teams. I've got no problem with, at time, defining teams in terms of nations, and at other times as clubs.

But while I agree in broad terms on nationalism, I really don't see it as a big issue here. The world cup has never been a focus for rampant nationalism and overt politicisation (in the way that the olympics has) - it is a celebration of football. Unlike the olympics a big proportion of the people glued to the world cup for the month are regular fans of football, at all levels.

They know and love the game, they know the players (many of whom will play for clubs who they watch regularly) - while many will have an added sense of excitement when watching England play (and probably added level of disappointment) they will be relishing watching Spain vs Portugal in the group stage and many, many other games that don't involve England. Worth noting that at the last world cup the most watched match (and indeed the most watched tv programme of 2014) didn't involve England - of the four most watched matches, 2 didn't involve England.

It is interesting to note that although national anthems are played before the games, as far as I am aware there is no 'nationalism' for the winners - no playing of the national anthem then, no raising of the national flag - again unlike the olympics.

First and foremost the world cup is a proper sporting event for the regular fans of that sport - it isn't like the olympics which is overtly nationalistic, involving competitors in non-team sports competing for a country (why, they could just compete as themselves) with fans of the 'event' (rather than the sport) glued to a sport they don't understand, would never watch on tv, let alone pay to go to at any other time and largely only interested (and only shown in coverage) brits competing with all other competitors ignored and largely unknown to the audience.

Sure the world cup has its faults, but for me it remains the best one off sporting event in the world - not least because it is watched by knowledgeable fans who are passionate about that sport week in week out.

[ad_orientem]

I rarely watch any ither teams apart from the ones I support (West Ham and England).

[Nearly Sane]

It's all the Olympic hooligans that get me.

[Nearly Sane]

I rarely watch any ither teams apart from the ones I support (West Ham and England).

In general I prefer watching stuff where I don't really support either team but they play well.