Re: Australia v Peru
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 10:03 am
I like that new nickname for them, well played.Bomber wrote:hole nation
I like that new nickname for them, well played.Bomber wrote:hole nation
Well it has been referred to as such since your arrival. :wink:God is an Englishman wrote:I like that new nickname for them, well played.Bomber wrote:hole nation
I raised the average IQ of both countries when I emigrated.Bomber wrote:Well it has been referred to as such since your arrival. :wink:God is an Englishman wrote:I like that new nickname for them, well played.Bomber wrote:hole nation
oh right didn't know it had changed, I stand corrected.God is an Englishman wrote:The Kop wrote::? :?God is an Englishman wrote: It was played by an australian defender.
That's not a correct interpretation of the rule.
Did attacker gain advantage from being in offside position when ball was played? Yes, then it's offside irrelevant of who "plays the ball".
I thought that as well but was set straight on the interpretation by one of Old Master's best mates when he informed me the interpretation has changed.
gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
been deliberately saved by any opponent
Neither did I. Neither did Foster, neither did most people. Seems stupid to me because the only reason the defender plays the ball is because the defender is offside.The Kop wrote:oh right didn't know it had changed, I stand corrected.
So then.....theoretically you could be miles offside, you're teammate cannons ball into a defender, deflects in your path, go on and score - no offside?
Never took you for an AFL fanzzz wrote:You were very lucky to be there in the first place. Syria hit the upright in dying minutes of qualifier. A few inches to the left and you're not even in Russia.
Didn't realise ALF had crossbars. Learn something new every day.Clem Fandango wrote:Never took you for an AFL fanzzz wrote:You were very lucky to be there in the first place. Syria hit the upright in dying minutes of qualifier. A few inches to the left and you're not even in Russia.
Did you mention a crossbar?zzz wrote:Didn't realise ALF had crossbars. Learn something new every day.Clem Fandango wrote:Never took you for an AFL fanzzz wrote:You were very lucky to be there in the first place. Syria hit the upright in dying minutes of qualifier. A few inches to the left and you're not even in Russia.
Do you require further education of this sport?Ofor Fuxake wrote:Did you mention a crossbar?zzz wrote:Didn't realise ALF had crossbars. Learn something new every day.Clem Fandango wrote: Never took you for an AFL fan
Scoring in association football
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
A goal being scored
In games of association football teams compete to score the most goals during the match. A goal is scored when the ball passes completely over a goal line at each end of the field of play between two centrally positioned upright goal posts 24 feet (7.32 m) apart and underneath a horizontal crossbar at a height of 8 feet (2.44 m).
You're a waste of time keyboard warrior.Ofor Fuxake wrote:Avoiding the question I see.
Your argument is destroyed by Uruguay who are also pretty good at rugby. Then you have nations like Croatia who excel in sports like handball, basketball and tennis. Then you have Iceland.Con M wrote:Bit of perspective here wouldn’t go astray for the naysayers.
Australia 24 million people, the talent spread among FOUR football codes.
Peru 32 million population, ONE football code.
And I bet the Peruvians’ ball skills are honed by more street football and pickup games on village waste grounds. In Australia many youngsters are pampered and driven to training twice per week. IMO they need more time playing. They should also train and play for their school on Saturdays as well as playing expensive club football on Sundays, so in total they spend more time on the ball.
ps, as an aside though, Australia lost to ONE fortuitous goal 1 centimetre over the line by France.
Argentina with an immensely greater football pedigree also lost by ONE goal to France.
Not disputing all of this post BUT Uruguay good at Rugby?zzz wrote:Your argument is destroyed by Uruguay who are also pretty good at rugby. Then you have nations like Croatia who excel in sports like handball, basketball and tennis. Then you have Iceland.Con M wrote:Bit of perspective here wouldn’t go astray for the naysayers.
Australia 24 million people, the talent spread among FOUR football codes.
Peru 32 million population, ONE football code.
And I bet the Peruvians’ ball skills are honed by more street football and pickup games on village waste grounds. In Australia many youngsters are pampered and driven to training twice per week. IMO they need more time playing. They should also train and play for their school on Saturdays as well as playing expensive club football on Sundays, so in total they spend more time on the ball.
ps, as an aside though, Australia lost to ONE fortuitous goal 1 centimetre over the line by France.
Argentina with an immensely greater football pedigree also lost by ONE goal to France.
You struggled to defeat Syria and lost to Iraq numerous times. These nations players can't even play home matches and spend much of their lives dodging bombs.
Lets not forget the youth team losing to El Salvador. Australia has more registered players than the entire populations of some of these countries.
ranked 18Bomber wrote:Not disputing all of this post BUT Uruguay good at Rugby?zzz wrote:Your argument is destroyed by Uruguay who are also pretty good at rugby. Then you have nations like Croatia who excel in sports like handball, basketball and tennis. Then you have Iceland.Con M wrote:Bit of perspective here wouldn’t go astray for the naysayers.
Australia 24 million people, the talent spread among FOUR football codes.
Peru 32 million population, ONE football code.
And I bet the Peruvians’ ball skills are honed by more street football and pickup games on village waste grounds. In Australia many youngsters are pampered and driven to training twice per week. IMO they need more time playing. They should also train and play for their school on Saturdays as well as playing expensive club football on Sundays, so in total they spend more time on the ball.
ps, as an aside though, Australia lost to ONE fortuitous goal 1 centimetre over the line by France.
Argentina with an immensely greater football pedigree also lost by ONE goal to France.
You struggled to defeat Syria and lost to Iraq numerous times. These nations players can't even play home matches and spend much of their lives dodging bombs.
Lets not forget the youth team losing to El Salvador. Australia has more registered players than the entire populations of some of these countries.
So ranked 18/105 is good but ranked 36/211 is a terrible side.zzz wrote:ranked 18Bomber wrote:Not disputing all of this post BUT Uruguay good at Rugby?zzz wrote:
Your argument is destroyed by Uruguay who are also pretty good at rugby. Then you have nations like Croatia who excel in sports like handball, basketball and tennis. Then you have Iceland.
You struggled to defeat Syria and lost to Iraq numerous times. These nations players can't even play home matches and spend much of their lives dodging bombs.
Lets not forget the youth team losing to El Salvador. Australia has more registered players than the entire populations of some of these countries.
If you think Australia is the 36th best national football team on the planet this discussion will fly way over your head.Slinky_Pete wrote:So ranked 18/105 is good but ranked 36/211 is a terrible side.zzz wrote:ranked 18Bomber wrote: Not disputing all of this post BUT Uruguay good at Rugby?
Well said!zzz wrote:Your argument is destroyed by Uruguay who are also pretty good at rugby. Then you have nations like Croatia who excel in sports like handball, basketball and tennis. Then you have Iceland.Con M wrote:Bit of perspective here wouldn’t go astray for the naysayers.
Australia 24 million people, the talent spread among FOUR football codes.
Peru 32 million population, ONE football code.
And I bet the Peruvians’ ball skills are honed by more street football and pickup games on village waste grounds. In Australia many youngsters are pampered and driven to training twice per week. IMO they need more time playing. They should also train and play for their school on Saturdays as well as playing expensive club football on Sundays, so in total they spend more time on the ball.
ps, as an aside though, Australia lost to ONE fortuitous goal 1 centimetre over the line by France.
Argentina with an immensely greater football pedigree also lost by ONE goal to France.
You struggled to defeat Syria and lost to Iraq numerous times. These nations players can't even play home matches and spend much of their lives dodging bombs.
Lets not forget the youth team losing to El Salvador. Australia has more registered players than the entire populations of some of these countries.
Give reasons why rankings are accurate in Rugby but not Football.zzz wrote:If you think Australia is the 36th best national football team on the planet this discussion will fly way over your head.Slinky_Pete wrote:So ranked 18/105 is good but ranked 36/211 is a terrible side.zzz wrote:
ranked 18
Exactly. Eg a team ranked say 9th or 10th (like a Scotland or Tonga) would wipe the floor with Uruguay in Rugby - 50 plus points would be a predictable margin.God is an Englishman wrote:36 in world football is reasonable, 18th in rugby and you're pretty cabernet.
The USA beat Uruguay 61-19 in their last match.Bomber wrote:Exactly. Eg a team ranked say 9th or 10th (like a Scotland or Tonga) would wipe the floor with Uruguay in Rugby - 50 plus points would be a predictable margin.God is an Englishman wrote:36 in world football is reasonable, 18th in rugby and you're pretty cabernet.
USA also beat scotland recentlySlinky_Pete wrote:The USA beat Uruguay 61-19 in their last match.Bomber wrote:Exactly. Eg a team ranked say 9th or 10th (like a Scotland or Tonga) would wipe the floor with Uruguay in Rugby - 50 plus points would be a predictable margin.God is an Englishman wrote:36 in world football is reasonable, 18th in rugby and you're pretty cabernet.
USA are ranked 15th
Rugby is a major sport in Uruguay is the point here but you've become fixated on rankings.Slinky_Pete wrote:Give reasons why rankings are accurate in Rugby but not Football.zzz wrote:If you think Australia is the 36th best national football team on the planet this discussion will fly way over your head.Slinky_Pete wrote:
So ranked 18/105 is good but ranked 36/211 is a terrible side.
I haven't claimed Australia to be "very good" either.
Given the sole metric youve used to back your claim, its tough to now claim world rankings are flawed.
Your point was that Uruguay are "pretty good" at rugby.zzz wrote:Rugby is a major sport in Uruguay is the point here but you've become fixated on rankings.Slinky_Pete wrote:Give reasons why rankings are accurate in Rugby but not Football.zzz wrote:
If you think Australia is the 36th best national football team on the planet this discussion will fly way over your head.
I haven't claimed Australia to be "very good" either.
Given the sole metric you've used to back your claim, its tough to now claim world rankings are flawed.
Australia isn't the only country in the world that plays multiple team ball sports.
How do you know they're good at afl? After all, when was the last time they won the "world cup"?Bomber wrote:Eg, Australia good at AFL, Rugby League, Rugby Union (albeit arguable these days :wink: ), not as good with football.
I'm using same analogy of USA being the best at Gridiron. I don't think they've won any World Cups either, but its clear you'll be the most dominant when its your nation's main sport that is only played by a handful (most likely ex-pats) elsewhere. I'd say Ireland would beat anyone in Gaelic football and Hurling as well, without having won "World Cups".God is an Englishman wrote:How do you know they're good at afl? After all, when was the last time they won the "world cup"?Bomber wrote:Eg, Australia good at AFL, Rugby League, Rugby Union (albeit arguable these days :wink: ), not as good with football.