FootballNews

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:Eg, Australia good at AFL, Rugby League, Rugby Union (albeit arguable these days :wink: ), not as good with football.

How do you know they're good at afl? After all, when was the last time they won the "world cup"?

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".

Slinky_Pete wrote:

zzz wrote:

Slinky_Pete wrote: Give reasons why rankings are accurate in Rugby but not Football.

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.

Rugby is a major sport in Uruguay is the point here but you've become fixated on rankings.
Australia isn't the only country in the world that plays multiple team ball sports.

Your point was that Uruguay are "pretty good" at rugby.

Your only retort to prove as such is their ranking.

What else do you have that proves that Uruguay are "pretty good" at rugby?

Is it their recent 61-19 loss to the USA?

Could it be how they qualified for the last World Cup via the repechage, beating Hong Kong, & Russia (going 1-1 over the 2 leg final)?
Or their 30-226 points record in said WC?

zzz wrote:You should familiarise yourself with the history of this discussion.

You should also familiarise yourself with history.

1993 was a loss.
1988 was against a 'C' team and was a faux friendly. What competition were those 1988 players playing in?

Slinky_Pete wrote:

zzz wrote:You should familiarise yourself with the history of this discussion.

You should also familiarise yourself with history.

1993 was a loss.
1988 was against a 'C' team and was a faux friendly. What competition were those 1988 players playing in?

You might notice I wrote 0-1. Usually that means a loss.

Not entirely sure that a game 30 years ago holds much relevance anyway.

Question: why did you move to conversation away from Uruguay?

zzz wrote:

Slinky_Pete wrote:

zzz wrote:You should familiarise yourself with the history of this discussion.

You should also familiarise yourself with history.

1993 was a loss.
1988 was against a 'C' team and was a faux friendly. What competition were those 1988 players playing in?

You might notice I wrote 0-1. Usually that means a loss.

Not entirely sure that a game 30 years ago holds much relevance anyway.

Question: why did you move to conversation away from Uruguay?

it holds relevance because I asked you when was the last time Australia defeated Argentina as a point that Argentina is better at rugby than Australia is at football

zzz wrote: it holds relevance because I asked you when was the last time Australia defeated Argentina as a point that Argentina is better at rugby than Australia is at football

Slinky_Pete wrote:

zzz wrote: it holds relevance because I asked you when was the last time Australia defeated Argentina as a point that Argentina is better at rugby than Australia is at football

They are ranked #10 after all - I mean that's the only metric you've used to display "goodness" in rugby.

But it's Uruguay that you claimed to be "pretty good" at rugby.

What happened when Uruguay played Australia in a rugby match?

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.

zzz wrote:

Slinky_Pete wrote:

zzz wrote: it holds relevance because I asked you when was the last time Australia defeated Argentina as a point that Argentina is better at rugby than Australia is at football

They are ranked #10 after all - I mean that's the only metric you've used to display "goodness" in rugby.

But it's Uruguay that you claimed to be "pretty good" at rugby.

What happened when Uruguay played Australia in a rugby match?

Uruguay is a country of 3 million people. They've won 2 world cups.
Australia has 25 million and you make excuses because ALF and Rugby.

God is an Englishman wrote:England will make the final 3 teams with a chance of winning the world cup.

God is an Englishman wrote:England will make the final 3 teams with a chance of winning the world cup. Even I didn't think we'd do that well.

Ozzie Owl must be gutted.

Dry July wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:England will make the final 3 teams with a chance of winning the world cup.

zzz wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:England will make the final 3 teams with a chance of winning the world cup. Even I didn't think we'd do that well.

Ozzie Owl must be gutted.

God is an Englishman wrote:England will make the final 3 teams with a chance of winning the world cup. Even I didn't think we'd do that well.

Ozzie Owl must be gutted.

Dry July wrote:Above italy then.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Dry July wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:England will make the final 3 teams with a chance of winning the world cup.

What's funny?

God is an Englishman wrote:In my predictions, I had us coming 2nd in the group and losing in the QF's to germany.

zzz wrote:hahaha England

Hrvatska!!!

zzz wrote:hahaha England

Hrvatska!!!