Tesla stock was massively over-valued, and Musk took a load of personal loans against his Tesla holdings, to enable the Twitter purchase.
So, as the Tesla stock falls (it’s been behaving more like a tech company stock than a car company stock, both on the way up and on the way down), he’ll be facing margin calls on the loans, hence the need to sell the stocks and dilute his holding in Tesla.
There’s also rumours of Starlink being floated out of SpaceX, or even SpaceX itself going public next year once Starship is flying.
Musk is rapidly Ratnering his portfolio through his erratic behaviour at the helm of Twitter. Alongside the political bad taste in the mouth I expect it's going to undermine markets' already somewhat shaky faith in his ability to manage large companies.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
England in main play teh diddy teams and win big , making the fans think they are a good team. They need to be playing eth big teams often to be improving. We see every tournament , when they get to a big team they get humped.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
I take your point. But nevertheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare England with our three major European rivals - France, Germany and Italy. In such a comparison, we are well behind all three since 1966.
Yes. But we're not now - and for me this is the real measure of progress under Southgate. If we maintain this level and attitude we're bang in the frame and just need the big performances at the right time and things to fall our way. But will we maintain this level and attitude? I hope so but it's not a given.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
The opposite end of the spectrum being the cricket world cup which carries less weight and is less exciting than the major test series.
Strongly disagree to the "carries less weight" ("is less exciting" is in the eye of the beholder). To England and Australia, the Cricket World Cup is more important than anything except The Ashes. I'd argue that even the T20 WC is probably more significant than any single bilateral Test series outside of The Ashes too. To all other cricket playing nations, I strongly suspect that the CWC is more important than any bilateral series.
Interesting perspective. I suppose it depends on whether you're a fan of limited overs cricket or not.
Nearly all cricket fans are now.
If you ask most England fans if they'd rather win a Test series against India or a(nother) World Cup, I'm convinced there would be a strong majority for the latter.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
I take your point. But nevertheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare England with our three major European rivals - France, Germany and Italy. In such a comparison, we are well behind all three since 1966.
"Since 1966" covers much more than the modern era. And those three are only our "major European rivals" because they have won the most, so it's a little bit of a circular argument.
We are like a handful of other very good but usually frustrated teams - the Netherlands, Belgium and Portugal (and Croatia given recent history?). That's the way I see it:
- The big 6: France, Germany, Italy, Spain (just), Brazil, Argentina - The next lot: Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal, England, Croatia
I think that's generous to Argentina. They went 28 years without winning a trophy and I'd say the Copa America is easier for them to win than the Euros is for us to win (not least because it's been played more often than the Euros in that time).
I had them there for their all time record as well as the fear they strike into teams, but happy to relegate them to the championship if that's the consensus.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
England in main play teh diddy teams and win big , making the fans think they are a good team. They need to be playing eth big teams often to be improving. We see every tournament , when they get to a big team they get humped.
Scotland, on the other hand, mostly play the diddy teams and get humped.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
England in main play teh diddy teams and win big , making the fans think they are a good team. They need to be playing eth big teams often to be improving. We see every tournament , when they get to a big team they get humped.
Scotland, on the other hand, mostly play the diddy teams and get humped.
Not bad for a country with a slightly larger population than, err, Croatia.
Constituency: SNP 50% (+1) Lab 25% (-1) Con 13% (nc) LD 7% (-1)
List: SNP 40% (+2) Lab 24% (nc) Con 13% (-1) Grn 11% (-1) LD 6% (-2)
(YouGov, 6-9 Dec; changes from 30 Sep - 4 Oct)
Interesting for Scottish domestic policy, irrelevant for indyref2 now the SC has ruled the UK government and Westminster can refuse it indefinitely. It will likely need a hung parliament and SNP balance of power at the next election for any change, otherwise even Starmer probably doesn't grant one for years
……
No, if we were going full Franco, we would abolish Holyrood altogether and remove Scottish MPs from Westminster and impose direct rule over Scotland and arrest Sturgeon for sedition a la Madrid and Catalonia
"we" ? I think such fantasies are fairly exclusively yours.
Nope. Although Scottish independence became the choice of the plurality a long time ago, and the choice of the majority recently, the gold-standard British Social Attitudes Survey still finds 8% in favour of FUDHY’s beloved Direct Rule:
Independence 52% Devolution (the status quo) 38% Direct rule (the status quo ante) 8%
Eight percent is a heck of a lot of people, so PB’s very own Mini Franco is far from alone.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
I take your point. But nevertheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare England with our three major European rivals - France, Germany and Italy. In such a comparison, we are well behind all three since 1966.
"Since 1966" covers much more than the modern era. And those three are only our "major European rivals" because they have won the most, so it's a little bit of a circular argument.
At the next World Cup, the song lyric “30 years of hurt” (from Three Lions), will itself be 30 years old!
That song was written for a Euro tournament being held in England. The "fifty six years of hurt" ended on 31st July.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
England in main play teh diddy teams and win big , making the fans think they are a good team. They need to be playing eth big teams often to be improving. We see every tournament , when they get to a big team they get humped.
Well at the last tournament we beat Germany in the knockout stages, as well as beating Croatia in the group and drawing with Italy in the final. So getting humped by the big teams might be a tad on the downbeat side.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
I take your point. But nevertheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare England with our three major European rivals - France, Germany and Italy. In such a comparison, we are well behind all three since 1966.
"Since 1966" covers much more than the modern era. And those three are only our "major European rivals" because they have won the most, so it's a little bit of a circular argument.
We are like a handful of other very good but usually frustrated teams - the Netherlands, Belgium and Portugal (and Croatia given recent history?). That's the way I see it:
- The big 6: France, Germany, Italy, Spain (just), Brazil, Argentina - The next lot: Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal, England, Croatia
I think that's generous to Argentina. They went 28 years without winning a trophy and I'd say the Copa America is easier for them to win than the Euros is for us to win (not least because it's been played more often than the Euros in that time).
I had them there for their all time record as well as the fear they strike into teams, but happy to relegate them to the championship if that's the consensus.
Sunday will be their sixth WC final, behind only Brazil and Germany and level with Italy. Based on that alone they have to be top tier.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
I take your point. But nevertheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare England with our three major European rivals - France, Germany and Italy. In such a comparison, we are well behind all three since 1966.
"Since 1966" covers much more than the modern era. And those three are only our "major European rivals" because they have won the most, so it's a little bit of a circular argument.
At the next World Cup, the song lyric “30 years of hurt” (from Three Lions), will itself be 30 years old!
That song was written for a Euro tournament being held in England. The "fifty six years of hurt" ended on 31st July.
Not remotely the same thing, I'm afraid (whether it should be or not is an entirely different question).
No way this guy doesn't run now. DeSantis is not the bravest of politicians, but if both the party establishment and the polls tell him he'll win, that should be enough. He's ambitious, and he's not stupid.
The question is now whether there's another Republican who can beat him.
In Iowa Pence can beat both Trump and DeSantis if he wins over evangelicals in the evangelical heavy first caucus. That would then give him big momentum.
Morning Consult still has Trump ahead with Republicans, then DeSantis with Pence 3rd
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/iowa-ap-democratic-barack-obama-des-moines-b2238253.html That Iowa, an overwhelmingly white state, would propel Barack Obama's rise to become America's first Black president seemed to ratify its first-in-the-nation position in the presidential nominating process. But in the half-century arc of the state's quirky caucuses, Obama's victory proved to be an outlier. All other Democratic winners turned out to be also-rans…
A candidate whose unfavourables are higher than his favourables in his own party is not going to miraculously improve because of illusory 'momentum' from a minor state, which is any way irrelevant in the general election.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
I take your point. But nevertheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare England with our three major European rivals - France, Germany and Italy. In such a comparison, we are well behind all three since 1966.
"Since 1966" covers much more than the modern era. And those three are only our "major European rivals" because they have won the most, so it's a little bit of a circular argument.
At the next World Cup, the song lyric “30 years of hurt” (from Three Lions), will itself be 30 years old!
That song was written for a Euro tournament being held in England. The "fifty six years of hurt" ended on 31st July.
For a nation that’s no longer hurting they’re still exhibiting a lot of pain.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
I take your point. But nevertheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare England with our three major European rivals - France, Germany and Italy. In such a comparison, we are well behind all three since 1966.
"Since 1966" covers much more than the modern era. And those three are only our "major European rivals" because they have won the most, so it's a little bit of a circular argument.
Interesting to consider when the Modern Era starts. I'd say the 80s but that could be just talking my age. Maybe a bit later would be more accurate. Certainly 66 was another world. It's part of our national dna, which I buy into, they think it's all over, Hurst's hattrick, Russian linesman, "you've won it once now go out and win it again", Nobby's toothless jig, Mooro wiping his hands on his shorts before shaking the Queen's hand and being handed the Rimet - brings a lump it really does - but compared to now it was jumpers for goalposts, Winning then was easier than getting to the semis these days.
Constituency: SNP 50% (+1) Lab 25% (-1) Con 13% (nc) LD 7% (-1)
List: SNP 40% (+2) Lab 24% (nc) Con 13% (-1) Grn 11% (-1) LD 6% (-2)
(YouGov, 6-9 Dec; changes from 30 Sep - 4 Oct)
Interesting for Scottish domestic policy, irrelevant for indyref2 now the SC has ruled the UK government and Westminster can refuse it indefinitely. It will likely need a hung parliament and SNP balance of power at the next election for any change, otherwise even Starmer probably doesn't grant one for years
Deleted picture of Franco
If you know anything about Franco's time ruling Spain you would know that worse than just an insult to insunuate that Starmer or HYUFD* is similar to Franco.
*(it is unclear to me which you were referring to)
No way this guy doesn't run now. DeSantis is not the bravest of politicians, but if both the party establishment and the polls tell him he'll win, that should be enough. He's ambitious, and he's not stupid.
The question is now whether there's another Republican who can beat him.
In Iowa Pence can beat both Trump and DeSantis if he wins over evangelicals in the evangelical heavy first caucus. That would then give him big momentum.
Morning Consult still has Trump ahead with Republicans, then DeSantis with Pence 3rd
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/iowa-ap-democratic-barack-obama-des-moines-b2238253.html That Iowa, an overwhelmingly white state, would propel Barack Obama's rise to become America's first Black president seemed to ratify its first-in-the-nation position in the presidential nominating process. But in the half-century arc of the state's quirky caucuses, Obama's victory proved to be an outlier. All other Democratic winners turned out to be also-rans…
A candidate whose unfavourables are higher than his favourables in his own party is not going to miraculously improve because of illusory 'momentum' from a minor state, which is any way irrelevant in the general election.
Huckabee was McCain's main rival in 2008, Santorum was Romney's main rival in the 2012 primaries too and Cruz Trump's main rival in 2016 all after winning Iowa.
Obama as you said beat Hillary after trailing her nationally following his Iowa win in 2008 and went on to be President. George W Bush won the nomination in 2000 after winning Iowa even despite McCain winning NH. Kerry won Iowa in 2004 and the nomination despite trailing Howard Dean nationally before.
Bob Dole won Iowa in 1996 and the nomination. Carter came from nowhere to win Iowa in 1976 and the nomination and Presidency.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
When you put it like that, it's a wonder that anyone ever wins the world cup!
That's a good way of looking at it actually! It needs great performances at the right time AND the stars to align, all in all an event worthy of wonder.
Tesla stock was massively over-valued, and Musk took a load of personal loans against his Tesla holdings, to enable the Twitter purchase.
So, as the Tesla stock falls (it’s been behaving more like a tech company stock than a car company stock, both on the way up and on the way down), he’ll be facing margin calls on the loans, hence the need to sell the stocks and dilute his holding in Tesla.
There’s also rumours of Starlink being floated out of SpaceX, or even SpaceX itself going public next year once Starship is flying.
Musk is rapidly Ratnering his portfolio through his erratic behaviour at the helm of Twitter. Alongside the political bad taste in the mouth I expect it's going to undermine markets' already somewhat shaky faith in his ability to manage large companies.
Another possible analogy is Henry Ford, who similarly trashed his reputation with his forays into political discourse in the 1920s, without destroying the company that made him rich.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
I take your point. But nevertheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare England with our three major European rivals - France, Germany and Italy. In such a comparison, we are well behind all three since 1966.
"Since 1966" covers much more than the modern era. And those three are only our "major European rivals" because they have won the most, so it's a little bit of a circular argument.
Interesting to consider when the Modern Era starts. I'd say the 80s but that could be just talking my age. Maybe a bit later would be more accurate. Certainly 66 was another world. It's part of our national dna, which I buy into, they think it's all over, Hurst's hattrick, Russian linesman, "you've won it once now go out and win it again", Nobby's toothless jig, Mooro wiping his hands on his shorts before shaking the Queen's hand and being handed the Rimet - brings a lump it really does - but compared to now it was jumpers for goalposts, Winning then was easier than getting to the semis these days.
I think there's a good case for Jules Rimet Years and FIFA Trophy years being the main division between "eras" . Not least because it's the difference between B/W and colour TV coverage.
Tesla stock was massively over-valued, and Musk took a load of personal loans against his Tesla holdings, to enable the Twitter purchase.
So, as the Tesla stock falls (it’s been behaving more like a tech company stock than a car company stock, both on the way up and on the way down), he’ll be facing margin calls on the loans, hence the need to sell the stocks and dilute his holding in Tesla.
There’s also rumours of Starlink being floated out of SpaceX, or even SpaceX itself going public next year once Starship is flying.
Musk is rapidly Ratnering his portfolio through his erratic behaviour at the helm of Twitter. Alongside the political bad taste in the mouth I expect it's going to undermine markets' already somewhat shaky faith in his ability to manage large companies.
I think he overpaid financially for Twitter, right at the top of a peak bull run, and he’s going to have an awful lot of work to do to see the company to profitability.
It’s an interesting exercise to watch someone take an already-existing company and treat it like a startup though, moving fast and breaking things. Doubly so for a company so political and divisive in nature. With the benefit of future hindsight, that may turn out to be a good or a bad thing. What’s certain is that he’s cut costs dramatically, and is encouraging a much broader ‘conversation’ than previously, especially among US commentators. It’s also worth noting that the “Twitter Files” revelations are receiving no coverage whatsoever on the US mainstream TV news (except Fox), only from online channels and independent voices.
Tasla and SpaceX both have good management teams in place for day-to-day operations, which Musk is planning to also do with Twitter.
Tesla stock was massively over-valued, and Musk took a load of personal loans against his Tesla holdings, to enable the Twitter purchase.
So, as the Tesla stock falls (it’s been behaving more like a tech company stock than a car company stock, both on the way up and on the way down), he’ll be facing margin calls on the loans, hence the need to sell the stocks and dilute his holding in Tesla.
There’s also rumours of Starlink being floated out of SpaceX, or even SpaceX itself going public next year once Starship is flying.
Musk is rapidly Ratnering his portfolio through his erratic behaviour at the helm of Twitter. Alongside the political bad taste in the mouth I expect it's going to undermine markets' already somewhat shaky faith in his ability to manage large companies.
Another possible analogy is Henry Ford, who similarly trashed his reputation with his forays into political discourse in the 1920s, without destroying the company that made him rich.
VW seems to have survived a somewhat worse political association.
Should be pointed out though that unlike corporate lawyers and commercial barristers, who start off on £50k plus before soon rising to 6 figures, legal aid and criminal lawyers as pupils earn minimum wage and in the early years only about £20 to £30k.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
When you put it like that, it's a wonder that anyone ever wins the world cup!
32 teams turn up and for 31 teams it ends in (often bitter) disappointment.
That's where leagues are better: in a league of 20 clubs, maybe half a dozen maximum end the season bitterly disappointed (3 relegated plus those who just miss coming top or qualifying for Europe).
(I'm not suggesting the WC could be run as a league of course.)
To go a bit Love Actually, the World Cup as it is perfect to me. I'm dubious about the change of format for next time.
Paywalled, but basically how does that work, please?
The Telegraph paywall is easily bypassed by turning off javascript or, even more easily, by putting the link into https://12ft.io (e.g. entering the address at 12ft.io gives you this (I don't have any scruples about 'paywalls' that are so trivially bypassed. The Times, by contrast, does a proper server-side job and also only provides an abridged version for search engines (and so, also, only an abridged version via 12ft.io).
Wonder whethre archive.org has them too... Thanks, but I'm not really bothered to find creative ways around proper paywalls. If I wanted to read the Times articles then I'd pay. For the half-arsed ones, e.g. DT, even FT where they'll serve the article to you if you come straight from a Google search on the headline, I'll sometimes do it if mildly interested.
The Times is £5 per month if you sign up when abroad (maybe you have to be seriously abroad, not just in europe?). I signed up in the US and have been paying £5 a month for years. They don't seem to care I'm in the UK. It's called "the international pack" on my account.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
I take your point. But nevertheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare England with our three major European rivals - France, Germany and Italy. In such a comparison, we are well behind all three since 1966.
"Since 1966" covers much more than the modern era. And those three are only our "major European rivals" because they have won the most, so it's a little bit of a circular argument.
Interesting to consider when the Modern Era starts. I'd say the 80s but that could be just talking my age. Maybe a bit later would be more accurate. Certainly 66 was another world. It's part of our national dna, which I buy into, they think it's all over, Hurst's hattrick, Russian linesman, "you've won it once now go out and win it again", Nobby's toothless jig, Mooro wiping his hands on his shorts before shaking the Queen's hand and being handed the Rimet - brings a lump it really does - but compared to now it was jumpers for goalposts, Winning then was easier than getting to the semis these days.
Modern era starts from the WC when you first paid proper attention to the games. For me that was Mexico 86 or at a push Spain 82. For a Gen Z youth though the 1980s is very much the olden days.
Interesting decade the 80s. Across many walks of life - economics, pop culture, sport, working life, technology - it's the transitional decade, between the definitely old school 1970s and the definitely modern 1990s.
At the start of the 80s there was no Neighbours or Home and Away, our economy was still in the pre-Thatcher phase, the Berlin Wall was resolutely upright, people didn't have home computers. By the end we'd had the big bang, globalisation was getting into gear, electronic music was dominant, everyone had a computer or games console and the internet and email were just around the corner.
Sure, I’m Donald John Trump. Whatever you want, just name it and it’s yours. But you’ve got to love me!
Looks like Americans are going to cheerfully fling Rosebud on the bonfire. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
56% or registered Republicans still support him though.
Three scenarios seem possible:
1. Trump wins the nomination and flunks the GE. 2. Trump loses the nomination but stands anyway, splitting the GOP vote. 3. Trump slinks away saying he has successfully Made America Great Again and now has 'other priorities'.
None look great for Republicans.
This is why I like the Dems for WH24 at current prices. Although not quite enough to actually do the bet.
No way this guy doesn't run now. DeSantis is not the bravest of politicians, but if both the party establishment and the polls tell him he'll win, that should be enough. He's ambitious, and he's not stupid.
The question is now whether there's another Republican who can beat him.
In Iowa Pence can beat both Trump and DeSantis if he wins over evangelicals in the evangelical heavy first caucus. That would then give him big momentum.
Morning Consult still has Trump ahead with Republicans, then DeSantis with Pence 3rd
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/iowa-ap-democratic-barack-obama-des-moines-b2238253.html That Iowa, an overwhelmingly white state, would propel Barack Obama's rise to become America's first Black president seemed to ratify its first-in-the-nation position in the presidential nominating process. But in the half-century arc of the state's quirky caucuses, Obama's victory proved to be an outlier. All other Democratic winners turned out to be also-rans…
A candidate whose unfavourables are higher than his favourables in his own party is not going to miraculously improve because of illusory 'momentum' from a minor state, which is any way irrelevant in the general election.
Huckabee was McCain's main rival in 2008, Santorum was Romney's main rival in the 2012 primaries too and Cruz Trump's main rival in 2016 all after winning Iowa.
Obama as you said beat Hillary after trailing her nationally following his Iowa win in 2008 and went on to be President. George W Bush won the nomination in 2000 after winning Iowa even despite McCain winning NH. Kerry won Iowa in 2004 and the nomination despite trailing Howard Dean nationally before.
Bob Dole won Iowa in 1996 and the nomination. Carter came from nowhere to win Iowa in 1976 and the nomination and Presidency.
So what ? Pence is a weaker candidate than any of those nomination winners, and a well known quantity who is disliked by the majority of his party and likely primary voters.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
I take your point. But nevertheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare England with our three major European rivals - France, Germany and Italy. In such a comparison, we are well behind all three since 1966.
"Since 1966" covers much more than the modern era. And those three are only our "major European rivals" because they have won the most, so it's a little bit of a circular argument.
Interesting to consider when the Modern Era starts. I'd say the 80s but that could be just talking my age. Maybe a bit later would be more accurate. Certainly 66 was another world. It's part of our national dna, which I buy into, they think it's all over, Hurst's hattrick, Russian linesman, "you've won it once now go out and win it again", Nobby's toothless jig, Mooro wiping his hands on his shorts before shaking the Queen's hand and being handed the Rimet - brings a lump it really does - but compared to now it was jumpers for goalposts, Winning then was easier than getting to the semis these days.
Certainly no later than 1990, I would say. Even that preceded the TV era and all its effects (not least the domination of the big few European leagues in hoovering up talent from all over the world). There's an argument that 1993 (CL won by Marseille) and 1995 (Ajax) were a different era too.
Tesla stock was massively over-valued, and Musk took a load of personal loans against his Tesla holdings, to enable the Twitter purchase.
So, as the Tesla stock falls (it’s been behaving more like a tech company stock than a car company stock, both on the way up and on the way down), he’ll be facing margin calls on the loans, hence the need to sell the stocks and dilute his holding in Tesla.
There’s also rumours of Starlink being floated out of SpaceX, or even SpaceX itself going public next year once Starship is flying.
Musk is rapidly Ratnering his portfolio through his erratic behaviour at the helm of Twitter. Alongside the political bad taste in the mouth I expect it's going to undermine markets' already somewhat shaky faith in his ability to manage large companies.
Another possible analogy is Henry Ford, who similarly trashed his reputation with his forays into political discourse in the 1920s, without destroying the company that made him rich.
I think the big difference is Ford didn't preside over the financial collapse of a major company, which Musk seems to be doing with Twitter. The incredible step change brought about by SpaceX (more than Tesla) does probably buy him a bit of lingering goodwill though.
No way this guy doesn't run now. DeSantis is not the bravest of politicians, but if both the party establishment and the polls tell him he'll win, that should be enough. He's ambitious, and he's not stupid.
The question is now whether there's another Republican who can beat him.
In Iowa Pence can beat both Trump and DeSantis if he wins over evangelicals in the evangelical heavy first caucus. That would then give him big momentum.
Morning Consult still has Trump ahead with Republicans, then DeSantis with Pence 3rd
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/iowa-ap-democratic-barack-obama-des-moines-b2238253.html That Iowa, an overwhelmingly white state, would propel Barack Obama's rise to become America's first Black president seemed to ratify its first-in-the-nation position in the presidential nominating process. But in the half-century arc of the state's quirky caucuses, Obama's victory proved to be an outlier. All other Democratic winners turned out to be also-rans…
A candidate whose unfavourables are higher than his favourables in his own party is not going to miraculously improve because of illusory 'momentum' from a minor state, which is any way irrelevant in the general election.
Huckabee was McCain's main rival in 2008, Santorum was Romney's main rival in the 2012 primaries too and Cruz Trump's main rival in 2016 all after winning Iowa.
Obama as you said beat Hillary after trailing her nationally following his Iowa win in 2008 and went on to be President. George W Bush won the nomination in 2000 after winning Iowa even despite McCain winning NH. Kerry won Iowa in 2004 and the nomination despite trailing Howard Dean nationally before.
Bob Dole won Iowa in 1996 and the nomination. Carter came from nowhere to win Iowa in 1976 and the nomination and Presidency.
So what ? Pence is a weaker candidate than any of those nomination winners, and a well known quantity who is disliked by the majority of his party and likely primary voters.
Feel free to back him.
No he isn't, he is the former Vice President.
About 49% of Republicans give him a favourable rating, evangelicals make up at least 40% of Republican primary voters.
If Pence as a born again evangelical Christian gets that 40%, if Trump and DeSantis split the remaining 60% equally between them, Pence wins in the end.
I think it really depends on how many people stand against Trump in the primary - Trump did not win the majority of primary voters in 2020, and the only real path he has to winning in 2024 is if the GOP don't rally around DeSantis early and make it a head to head. I imagine that will be easy for some - the Ted Cruz's and Marco Rubio's of the world will stand aside for DeSantis. I assume Mike Pence would stand aside as well - his job should be to tell stories of being in the Trump WH, how dysfunctional it was, and how Trump can bow out now and still be liked without losing a second time, but also drop out of the primary before any votes are cast. Gods only know if Ye will actually run, and whether he will do so in the GOP primary or as an independent. If it were up to his handlers, I imagine it would be in the GOP primary, as that's the people Fuentes and his ilk want to further radicalise. Outside of that I can't see many others throwing their hat into the ring - none of those who are Trumpy want to run against Trump, and none of those who hate Trump would be willing to split the field too much.
As for what Trump does if he loses the primary - I assume he will scream fraud, and try to convince some of his supporters to boycott the GE without running as an independent (as some states have sore loser laws meaning if you lose a primary you can't be on the GE ticket as an independent, the path to winning as an independent is very hard). That is probably the scariest position for the GOP - even if he only convinced 5-10% of his support, that could make a difference in swing states and in the senate.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
I take your point. But nevertheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare England with our three major European rivals - France, Germany and Italy. In such a comparison, we are well behind all three since 1966.
"Since 1966" covers much more than the modern era. And those three are only our "major European rivals" because they have won the most, so it's a little bit of a circular argument.
Interesting to consider when the Modern Era starts. I'd say the 80s but that could be just talking my age. Maybe a bit later would be more accurate. Certainly 66 was another world. It's part of our national dna, which I buy into, they think it's all over, Hurst's hattrick, Russian linesman, "you've won it once now go out and win it again", Nobby's toothless jig, Mooro wiping his hands on his shorts before shaking the Queen's hand and being handed the Rimet - brings a lump it really does - but compared to now it was jumpers for goalposts, Winning then was easier than getting to the semis these days.
Certainly no later than 1990, I would say. Even that preceded the TV era and all its effects (not least the domination of the big few European leagues in hoovering up talent from all over the world). There's an argument that 1993 (CL won by Marseille) and 1995 (Ajax) were a different era too.
The real “Big Bang” moment in European football, was the founding of the Premier League in 1992, and the start of the massive influx of TV money seen since then, enabled by satellite pay-TV and the ability to show increasingly more live matches. Not long for the 3pm rule now, else they’ll start to schedule every PM match around it.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
I take your point. But nevertheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare England with our three major European rivals - France, Germany and Italy. In such a comparison, we are well behind all three since 1966.
"Since 1966" covers much more than the modern era. And those three are only our "major European rivals" because they have won the most, so it's a little bit of a circular argument.
Interesting to consider when the Modern Era starts. I'd say the 80s but that could be just talking my age. Maybe a bit later would be more accurate. Certainly 66 was another world. It's part of our national dna, which I buy into, they think it's all over, Hurst's hattrick, Russian linesman, "you've won it once now go out and win it again", Nobby's toothless jig, Mooro wiping his hands on his shorts before shaking the Queen's hand and being handed the Rimet - brings a lump it really does - but compared to now it was jumpers for goalposts, Winning then was easier than getting to the semis these days.
Certainly no later than 1990, I would say. Even that preceded the TV era and all its effects (not least the domination of the big few European leagues in hoovering up talent from all over the world). There's an argument that 1993 (CL won by Marseille) and 1995 (Ajax) were a different era too.
The real “Big Bang” moment in European football, was the founding of the Premier League in 1992, and the start of the massive influx of TV money seen since then.
Yes - especially with the European Cup becoming the Champions League at the same time.
Tesla stock was massively over-valued, and Musk took a load of personal loans against his Tesla holdings, to enable the Twitter purchase.
So, as the Tesla stock falls (it’s been behaving more like a tech company stock than a car company stock, both on the way up and on the way down), he’ll be facing margin calls on the loans, hence the need to sell the stocks and dilute his holding in Tesla.
There’s also rumours of Starlink being floated out of SpaceX, or even SpaceX itself going public next year once Starship is flying.
Musk is rapidly Ratnering his portfolio through his erratic behaviour at the helm of Twitter. Alongside the political bad taste in the mouth I expect it's going to undermine markets' already somewhat shaky faith in his ability to manage large companies.
I think he overpaid financially for Twitter, right at the top of a peak bull run, and he’s going to have an awful lot of work to do to see the company to profitability.
It’s an interesting exercise to watch someone take an already-existing company and treat it like a startup though, moving fast and breaking things. Doubly so for a company so political and divisive in nature. With the benefit of future hindsight, that may turn out to be a good or a bad thing. What’s certain is that he’s cut costs dramatically, and is encouraging a much broader ‘conversation’ than previously, especially among US commentators...
What's also fairly certain is that he's also cut advertising revenue fairly sharply, and is obsessing over technical features (eg video improvements) which even if implemented quickly, aren't likely to have much impact on revenue.
And he's added a recurring billion a year to costs, with the bid financing.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
I take your point. But nevertheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare England with our three major European rivals - France, Germany and Italy. In such a comparison, we are well behind all three since 1966.
"Since 1966" covers much more than the modern era. And those three are only our "major European rivals" because they have won the most, so it's a little bit of a circular argument.
Interesting to consider when the Modern Era starts. I'd say the 80s but that could be just talking my age. Maybe a bit later would be more accurate. Certainly 66 was another world. It's part of our national dna, which I buy into, they think it's all over, Hurst's hattrick, Russian linesman, "you've won it once now go out and win it again", Nobby's toothless jig, Mooro wiping his hands on his shorts before shaking the Queen's hand and being handed the Rimet - brings a lump it really does - but compared to now it was jumpers for goalposts, Winning then was easier than getting to the semis these days.
Certainly no later than 1990, I would say. Even that preceded the TV era and all its effects (not least the domination of the big few European leagues in hoovering up talent from all over the world). There's an argument that 1993 (CL won by Marseille) and 1995 (Ajax) were a different era too.
Porto 2004? But, yes, whilst the Premier League has turned into the de facto Super League, competition in continental football has deteriorated considerably over the last 20 years. Where are the Leverkusens and Valencias?
A little research indicates that the figures for European countries are mostly monthly figures for high consuming households, while ours is annualised for the average household. For example, the average monthly bill in Austria for a two-bed flat is around €197 (although that includes water as well) which if annualised works out at only slightly cheaper than the UK bill for an average family.
As I suggested some weeks ago, if you're going to tell lies to support your rampaging anti-English xenophobia, at least try to make them intelligent ones. I appreciate your distinct lack of intelligence (or perhaps, lack of rationality which means you can't properly use what intelligence you have) may make this hard for you.
Tesla stock was massively over-valued, and Musk took a load of personal loans against his Tesla holdings, to enable the Twitter purchase.
So, as the Tesla stock falls (it’s been behaving more like a tech company stock than a car company stock, both on the way up and on the way down), he’ll be facing margin calls on the loans, hence the need to sell the stocks and dilute his holding in Tesla.
There’s also rumours of Starlink being floated out of SpaceX, or even SpaceX itself going public next year once Starship is flying.
Musk is rapidly Ratnering his portfolio through his erratic behaviour at the helm of Twitter. Alongside the political bad taste in the mouth I expect it's going to undermine markets' already somewhat shaky faith in his ability to manage large companies.
Another possible analogy is Henry Ford, who similarly trashed his reputation with his forays into political discourse in the 1920s, without destroying the company that made him rich.
I think the big difference is Ford didn't preside over the financial collapse of a major company, which Musk seems to be doing with Twitter. The incredible step change brought about by SpaceX (more than Tesla) does probably buy him a bit of lingering goodwill though.
Indeed. Ford didn't put a significant part of his liquidity into a vanity project.
Tesla or SpaceX will only face problems when they need to raise significant cash. That's probably not a problem for the former, which is quite cash generative. SpaceX is a different matter, as its ambitions for growth aren't really fundable purely from cashflow - as Musk himself has often stated.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
The opposite end of the spectrum being the cricket world cup which carries less weight and is less exciting than the major test series.
Strongly disagree to the "carries less weight" ("is less exciting" is in the eye of the beholder). To England and Australia, the Cricket World Cup is more important than anything except The Ashes. I'd argue that even the T20 WC is probably more significant than any single bilateral Test series outside of The Ashes too. To all other cricket playing nations, I strongly suspect that the CWC is more important than any bilateral series.
Interesting perspective. I suppose it depends on whether you're a fan of limited overs cricket or not.
Nearly all cricket fans are now.
If you ask most England fans if they'd rather win a Test series against India or a(nother) World Cup, I'm convinced there would be a strong majority for the latter.
Maybe, but what about Ashes (down under) vs a WC? I'd go for the former.
Tesla stock was massively over-valued, and Musk took a load of personal loans against his Tesla holdings, to enable the Twitter purchase.
So, as the Tesla stock falls (it’s been behaving more like a tech company stock than a car company stock, both on the way up and on the way down), he’ll be facing margin calls on the loans, hence the need to sell the stocks and dilute his holding in Tesla.
There’s also rumours of Starlink being floated out of SpaceX, or even SpaceX itself going public next year once Starship is flying.
Musk is rapidly Ratnering his portfolio through his erratic behaviour at the helm of Twitter. Alongside the political bad taste in the mouth I expect it's going to undermine markets' already somewhat shaky faith in his ability to manage large companies.
Another possible analogy is Henry Ford, who similarly trashed his reputation with his forays into political discourse in the 1920s, without destroying the company that made him rich.
VW seems to have survived a somewhat worse political association.
Tesla stock was massively over-valued, and Musk took a load of personal loans against his Tesla holdings, to enable the Twitter purchase.
So, as the Tesla stock falls (it’s been behaving more like a tech company stock than a car company stock, both on the way up and on the way down), he’ll be facing margin calls on the loans, hence the need to sell the stocks and dilute his holding in Tesla.
There’s also rumours of Starlink being floated out of SpaceX, or even SpaceX itself going public next year once Starship is flying.
Musk is rapidly Ratnering his portfolio through his erratic behaviour at the helm of Twitter. Alongside the political bad taste in the mouth I expect it's going to undermine markets' already somewhat shaky faith in his ability to manage large companies.
Another possible analogy is Henry Ford, who similarly trashed his reputation with his forays into political discourse in the 1920s, without destroying the company that made him rich.
I think the big difference is Ford didn't preside over the financial collapse of a major company, which Musk seems to be doing with Twitter. The incredible step change brought about by SpaceX (more than Tesla) does probably buy him a bit of lingering goodwill though.
Indeed. Ford didn't put a significant part of his liquidity into a vanity project.
Tesla or SpaceX will only face problems when they need to raise significant cash. That's probably not a problem for the former, which is quite cash generative. SpaceX is a different matter, as its ambitions for growth aren't really fundable purely from cashflow - as Musk himself has often stated.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
The opposite end of the spectrum being the cricket world cup which carries less weight and is less exciting than the major test series.
Strongly disagree to the "carries less weight" ("is less exciting" is in the eye of the beholder). To England and Australia, the Cricket World Cup is more important than anything except The Ashes. I'd argue that even the T20 WC is probably more significant than any single bilateral Test series outside of The Ashes too. To all other cricket playing nations, I strongly suspect that the CWC is more important than any bilateral series.
Interesting perspective. I suppose it depends on whether you're a fan of limited overs cricket or not.
Nearly all cricket fans are now.
If you ask most England fans if they'd rather win a Test series against India or a(nother) World Cup, I'm convinced there would be a strong majority for the latter.
Maybe, but what about Ashes (down under) vs a WC? I'd go for the former.
Right, yes. Like I said a couple of posts earlier in the discussion - for most English and Aussie fans, The Ashes trumps the World Cup but nothing else does.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
I take your point. But nevertheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare England with our three major European rivals - France, Germany and Italy. In such a comparison, we are well behind all three since 1966.
"Since 1966" covers much more than the modern era. And those three are only our "major European rivals" because they have won the most, so it's a little bit of a circular argument.
Interesting to consider when the Modern Era starts. I'd say the 80s but that could be just talking my age. Maybe a bit later would be more accurate. Certainly 66 was another world. It's part of our national dna, which I buy into, they think it's all over, Hurst's hattrick, Russian linesman, "you've won it once now go out and win it again", Nobby's toothless jig, Mooro wiping his hands on his shorts before shaking the Queen's hand and being handed the Rimet - brings a lump it really does - but compared to now it was jumpers for goalposts, Winning then was easier than getting to the semis these days.
Modern era starts from the WC when you first paid proper attention to the games. For me that was Mexico 86 or at a push Spain 82. For a Gen Z youth though the 1980s is very much the olden days.
Interesting decade the 80s. Across many walks of life - economics, pop culture, sport, working life, technology - it's the transitional decade, between the definitely old school 1970s and the definitely modern 1990s.
At the start of the 80s there was no Neighbours or Home and Away, our economy was still in the pre-Thatcher phase, the Berlin Wall was resolutely upright, people didn't have home computers. By the end we'd had the big bang, globalisation was getting into gear, electronic music was dominant, everyone had a computer or games console and the internet and email were just around the corner.
Argentina 78 then for me. I remember rooting strongly for the hosts to win. Kempes and Luque. Such an atmospheric WC that was. No England but there was the enjoyable Scotland cameo. We're on the march with Ally's army, we're going to the Argentine, and we'll really shake them up, when we win the World Cup, cos Scotland are the greatest football team. They didn't of course, since they weren't, but there was the Gemmill goal, their equivalent of 66 in a sense.
No way this guy doesn't run now. DeSantis is not the bravest of politicians, but if both the party establishment and the polls tell him he'll win, that should be enough. He's ambitious, and he's not stupid.
The question is now whether there's another Republican who can beat him.
In Iowa Pence can beat both Trump and DeSantis if he wins over evangelicals in the evangelical heavy first caucus. That would then give him big momentum.
Morning Consult still has Trump ahead with Republicans, then DeSantis with Pence 3rd
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/iowa-ap-democratic-barack-obama-des-moines-b2238253.html That Iowa, an overwhelmingly white state, would propel Barack Obama's rise to become America's first Black president seemed to ratify its first-in-the-nation position in the presidential nominating process. But in the half-century arc of the state's quirky caucuses, Obama's victory proved to be an outlier. All other Democratic winners turned out to be also-rans…
A candidate whose unfavourables are higher than his favourables in his own party is not going to miraculously improve because of illusory 'momentum' from a minor state, which is any way irrelevant in the general election.
Huckabee was McCain's main rival in 2008, Santorum was Romney's main rival in the 2012 primaries too and Cruz Trump's main rival in 2016 all after winning Iowa.
Obama as you said beat Hillary after trailing her nationally following his Iowa win in 2008 and went on to be President. George W Bush won the nomination in 2000 after winning Iowa even despite McCain winning NH. Kerry won Iowa in 2004 and the nomination despite trailing Howard Dean nationally before.
Bob Dole won Iowa in 1996 and the nomination. Carter came from nowhere to win Iowa in 1976 and the nomination and Presidency.
So what ? Pence is a weaker candidate than any of those nomination winners, and a well known quantity who is disliked by the majority of his party and likely primary voters.
Tesla stock was massively over-valued, and Musk took a load of personal loans against his Tesla holdings, to enable the Twitter purchase.
So, as the Tesla stock falls (it’s been behaving more like a tech company stock than a car company stock, both on the way up and on the way down), he’ll be facing margin calls on the loans, hence the need to sell the stocks and dilute his holding in Tesla.
There’s also rumours of Starlink being floated out of SpaceX, or even SpaceX itself going public next year once Starship is flying.
Musk is rapidly Ratnering his portfolio through his erratic behaviour at the helm of Twitter. Alongside the political bad taste in the mouth I expect it's going to undermine markets' already somewhat shaky faith in his ability to manage large companies.
I think he overpaid financially for Twitter, right at the top of a peak bull run, and he’s going to have an awful lot of work to do to see the company to profitability.
It’s an interesting exercise to watch someone take an already-existing company and treat it like a startup though, moving fast and breaking things. Doubly so for a company so political and divisive in nature. With the benefit of future hindsight, that may turn out to be a good or a bad thing. What’s certain is that he’s cut costs dramatically, and is encouraging a much broader ‘conversation’ than previously, especially among US commentators...
What's also fairly certain is that he's also cut advertising revenue fairly sharply, and is obsessing over technical features (eg video improvements) which even if implemented quickly, aren't likely to have much impact on revenue.
And he's added a recurring billion a year to costs, with the bid financing.
Yes, the new business model is going to look quite different to the old one, with a significantly larger percentage coming from subscriptions rather than advertising, the latter being increasingly susceptible (in the US at least) to both activist boycotts and a generally declining economy. The key will be if it’s possible for Twitter to extract five-figure, or even six-figure, monthly subscriptions from large companies and news organisations.
What’s also true, is that, despite a lot of prominent people saying they’re leaving the platform, very few have actually done so for more than a few days.
I think it will be okay in the end, but Musk is usually somewhat over-optimistic about timelines on his projects, but he overpaid and it wil cost him money in the meantime.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
I take your point. But nevertheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare England with our three major European rivals - France, Germany and Italy. In such a comparison, we are well behind all three since 1966.
"Since 1966" covers much more than the modern era. And those three are only our "major European rivals" because they have won the most, so it's a little bit of a circular argument.
Interesting to consider when the Modern Era starts. I'd say the 80s but that could be just talking my age. Maybe a bit later would be more accurate. Certainly 66 was another world. It's part of our national dna, which I buy into, they think it's all over, Hurst's hattrick, Russian linesman, "you've won it once now go out and win it again", Nobby's toothless jig, Mooro wiping his hands on his shorts before shaking the Queen's hand and being handed the Rimet - brings a lump it really does - but compared to now it was jumpers for goalposts, Winning then was easier than getting to the semis these days.
Certainly no later than 1990, I would say. Even that preceded the TV era and all its effects (not least the domination of the big few European leagues in hoovering up talent from all over the world). There's an argument that 1993 (CL won by Marseille) and 1995 (Ajax) were a different era too.
The real “Big Bang” moment in European football, was the founding of the Premier League in 1992, and the start of the massive influx of TV money seen since then, enabled by satellite pay-TV and the ability to show increasingly more live matches. Not long for the 3pm rule now, else they’ll start to schedule every PM match around it.
Kicked off the Big Money era, yes. No more 'running a pub' or 'match day hosting' post retirement after that.
Tesla stock was massively over-valued, and Musk took a load of personal loans against his Tesla holdings, to enable the Twitter purchase.
So, as the Tesla stock falls (it’s been behaving more like a tech company stock than a car company stock, both on the way up and on the way down), he’ll be facing margin calls on the loans, hence the need to sell the stocks and dilute his holding in Tesla.
There’s also rumours of Starlink being floated out of SpaceX, or even SpaceX itself going public next year once Starship is flying.
Musk is rapidly Ratnering his portfolio through his erratic behaviour at the helm of Twitter. Alongside the political bad taste in the mouth I expect it's going to undermine markets' already somewhat shaky faith in his ability to manage large companies.
Another possible analogy is Henry Ford, who similarly trashed his reputation with his forays into political discourse in the 1920s, without destroying the company that made him rich.
I think the big difference is Ford didn't preside over the financial collapse of a major company, which Musk seems to be doing with Twitter. The incredible step change brought about by SpaceX (more than Tesla) does probably buy him a bit of lingering goodwill though.
Indeed. Ford didn't put a significant part of his liquidity into a vanity project.
Tesla or SpaceX will only face problems when they need to raise significant cash. That's probably not a problem for the former, which is quite cash generative. SpaceX is a different matter, as its ambitions for growth aren't really fundable purely from cashflow - as Musk himself has often stated.
He was a better Model T follow than Musk.
He was a raging anti-semite, who appears to have been some kind of inspiration for some of the early Nazis. But other than that...
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
I take your point. But nevertheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare England with our three major European rivals - France, Germany and Italy. In such a comparison, we are well behind all three since 1966.
"Since 1966" covers much more than the modern era. And those three are only our "major European rivals" because they have won the most, so it's a little bit of a circular argument.
We are like a handful of other very good but usually frustrated teams - the Netherlands, Belgium and Portugal (and Croatia given recent history?). That's the way I see it:
- The big 6: France, Germany, Italy, Spain (just), Brazil, Argentina - The next lot: Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal, England, Croatia
I think that's generous to Argentina. They went 28 years without winning a trophy and I'd say the Copa America is easier for them to win than the Euros is for us to win (not least because it's been played more often than the Euros in that time).
I had them there for their all time record as well as the fear they strike into teams, but happy to relegate them to the championship if that's the consensus.
Sunday will be their sixth WC final, behind only Brazil and Germany and level with Italy. Based on that alone they have to be top tier.
Tesla stock was massively over-valued, and Musk took a load of personal loans against his Tesla holdings, to enable the Twitter purchase.
So, as the Tesla stock falls (it’s been behaving more like a tech company stock than a car company stock, both on the way up and on the way down), he’ll be facing margin calls on the loans, hence the need to sell the stocks and dilute his holding in Tesla.
There’s also rumours of Starlink being floated out of SpaceX, or even SpaceX itself going public next year once Starship is flying.
Musk is rapidly Ratnering his portfolio through his erratic behaviour at the helm of Twitter. Alongside the political bad taste in the mouth I expect it's going to undermine markets' already somewhat shaky faith in his ability to manage large companies.
I think he overpaid financially for Twitter, right at the top of a peak bull run, and he’s going to have an awful lot of work to do to see the company to profitability.
It’s an interesting exercise to watch someone take an already-existing company and treat it like a startup though, moving fast and breaking things. Doubly so for a company so political and divisive in nature. With the benefit of future hindsight, that may turn out to be a good or a bad thing. What’s certain is that he’s cut costs dramatically, and is encouraging a much broader ‘conversation’ than previously, especially among US commentators...
What's also fairly certain is that he's also cut advertising revenue fairly sharply, and is obsessing over technical features (eg video improvements) which even if implemented quickly, aren't likely to have much impact on revenue.
And he's added a recurring billion a year to costs, with the bid financing.
Yes, the new business model is going to look quite different to the old one, with a significantly larger percentage coming from subscriptions rather than advertising, the latter being increasingly susceptible (in the US at least) to both activist boycotts and a generally declining economy. The key will be if it’s possible for Twitter to extract five-figure, or even six-figure, monthly subscriptions from large companies and news organisations.
What’s also true, is that, despite a lot of prominent people saying they’re leaving the platform, very few have actually done so for more than a few days.
I think it will be okay in the end, but Musk is usually somewhat over-optimistic about timelines on his projects, but he overpaid and it wil cost him money in the meantime.
It's a bit like Brexit - an enormous and pointless, though survivable distraction, whose biggest cost is to all the more important things it robbed of attention.
Tesla stock was massively over-valued, and Musk took a load of personal loans against his Tesla holdings, to enable the Twitter purchase.
So, as the Tesla stock falls (it’s been behaving more like a tech company stock than a car company stock, both on the way up and on the way down), he’ll be facing margin calls on the loans, hence the need to sell the stocks and dilute his holding in Tesla.
There’s also rumours of Starlink being floated out of SpaceX, or even SpaceX itself going public next year once Starship is flying.
Musk is rapidly Ratnering his portfolio through his erratic behaviour at the helm of Twitter. Alongside the political bad taste in the mouth I expect it's going to undermine markets' already somewhat shaky faith in his ability to manage large companies.
I think he overpaid financially for Twitter, right at the top of a peak bull run, and he’s going to have an awful lot of work to do to see the company to profitability.
It’s an interesting exercise to watch someone take an already-existing company and treat it like a startup though, moving fast and breaking things. Doubly so for a company so political and divisive in nature. With the benefit of future hindsight, that may turn out to be a good or a bad thing. What’s certain is that he’s cut costs dramatically, and is encouraging a much broader ‘conversation’ than previously, especially among US commentators...
What's also fairly certain is that he's also cut advertising revenue fairly sharply, and is obsessing over technical features (eg video improvements) which even if implemented quickly, aren't likely to have much impact on revenue.
And he's added a recurring billion a year to costs, with the bid financing.
Yes, the new business model is going to look quite different to the old one, with a significantly larger percentage coming from subscriptions rather than advertising, the latter being increasingly susceptible (in the US at least) to both activist boycotts and a generally declining economy. The key will be if it’s possible for Twitter to extract five-figure, or even six-figure, monthly subscriptions from large companies and news organisations.
What’s also true, is that, despite a lot of prominent people saying they’re leaving the platform, very few have actually done so for more than a few days.
I think it will be okay in the end, but Musk is usually somewhat over-optimistic about timelines on his projects, but he overpaid and it wil cost him money in the meantime.
It's a bit like Brexit - an enormous and pointless, though survivable distraction, whose biggest cost is to all the more important things it robbed of attention.
Tesla stock was massively over-valued, and Musk took a load of personal loans against his Tesla holdings, to enable the Twitter purchase.
So, as the Tesla stock falls (it’s been behaving more like a tech company stock than a car company stock, both on the way up and on the way down), he’ll be facing margin calls on the loans, hence the need to sell the stocks and dilute his holding in Tesla.
There’s also rumours of Starlink being floated out of SpaceX, or even SpaceX itself going public next year once Starship is flying.
Musk is rapidly Ratnering his portfolio through his erratic behaviour at the helm of Twitter. Alongside the political bad taste in the mouth I expect it's going to undermine markets' already somewhat shaky faith in his ability to manage large companies.
I think he overpaid financially for Twitter, right at the top of a peak bull run, and he’s going to have an awful lot of work to do to see the company to profitability.
It’s an interesting exercise to watch someone take an already-existing company and treat it like a startup though, moving fast and breaking things. Doubly so for a company so political and divisive in nature. With the benefit of future hindsight, that may turn out to be a good or a bad thing. What’s certain is that he’s cut costs dramatically, and is encouraging a much broader ‘conversation’ than previously, especially among US commentators...
What's also fairly certain is that he's also cut advertising revenue fairly sharply, and is obsessing over technical features (eg video improvements) which even if implemented quickly, aren't likely to have much impact on revenue.
And he's added a recurring billion a year to costs, with the bid financing.
Yes, the new business model is going to look quite different to the old one, with a significantly larger percentage coming from subscriptions rather than advertising, the latter being increasingly susceptible (in the US at least) to both activist boycotts and a generally declining economy. The key will be if it’s possible for Twitter to extract five-figure, or even six-figure, monthly subscriptions from large companies and news organisations.
What’s also true, is that, despite a lot of prominent people saying they’re leaving the platform, very few have actually done so for more than a few days.
I think it will be okay in the end, but Musk is usually somewhat over-optimistic about timelines on his projects, but he overpaid and it wil cost him money in the meantime.
It's a bit like Brexit - an enormous and pointless, though survivable distraction, whose biggest cost is to all the more important things it robbed of attention.
So it’s like having a baby?
LOL. Only if you think children utterly unimportant.
A little research indicates that the figures for European countries are mostly monthly figures for high consuming households, while ours is annualised for the average household. For example, the average monthly bill in Austria for a two-bed flat is around €197 (although that includes water as well) which if annualised works out at only slightly cheaper than the UK bill for an average family.
As I suggested some weeks ago, if you're going to tell lies to support your rampaging anti-English xenophobia, at least try to make them intelligent ones. I appreciate your distinct lack of intelligence (or perhaps, lack of rationality which means you can't properly use what intelligence you have) may make this hard for you.
In fact, having finally run them to earth via a different tweet, they are the baseload charges for electricity generation per MWH across Europe. Except in the U.K., where it's the average annual household bill (which is a meaningless figure anyway, of course).
The figure for the UK should therefore be €359.47 which is somewhat below the average.
A little research indicates that the figures for European countries are mostly monthly figures for high consuming households, while ours is annualised for the average household. For example, the average monthly bill in Austria for a two-bed flat is around €197 (although that includes water as well) which if annualised works out at only slightly cheaper than the UK bill for an average family.
As I suggested some weeks ago, if you're going to tell lies to support your rampaging anti-English xenophobia, at least try to make them intelligent ones. I appreciate your distinct lack of intelligence (or perhaps, lack of rationality which means you can't properly use what intelligence you have) may make this hard for you.
Other teams are far more fluid than we are, most noticeable against La France.
When we got the ball we stopped, thought about it, stood still, passed, stood still, passed again.
It seems that many/most other teams are constantly moving and each individual player is never static.
I'm not sure we're going to win too much against the Top 10 if that style of play continues.
Get back to your dressage, Captain.
Let's try to move on from your "my one big idea" fiasco shall we - you can answer the comment if you want or are able.
Ok. But before we 'move on' it I do think it deserves an encore -
"When we got the ball we stopped, thought about it, stood still, passed, stood still, passed again. It seems that many/most other teams are constantly moving and each individual player is never static. I'm not sure we're going to win too much against the Top 10 if that style of play continues."
A little research indicates that the figures for European countries are mostly monthly figures for high consuming households, while ours is annualised for the average household. For example, the average monthly bill in Austria for a two-bed flat is around €197 (although that includes water as well) which if annualised works out at only slightly cheaper than the UK bill for an average family.
As I suggested some weeks ago, if you're going to tell lies to support your rampaging anti-English xenophobia, at least try to make them intelligent ones. I appreciate your distinct lack of intelligence (or perhaps, lack of rationality which means you can't properly use what intelligence you have) may make this hard for you.
In fact, having finally run them to earth via a different tweet, they are the baseload charges for electricity generation per MWH across Europe. Except in the U.K., where it's the average annual household bill (which is a meaningless figure anyway, of course).
The figure for the UK should therefore be €359.47 which is somewhat below the average.
A little research indicates that the figures for European countries are mostly monthly figures for high consuming households, while ours is annualised for the average household. For example, the average monthly bill in Austria for a two-bed flat is around €197 (although that includes water as well) which if annualised works out at only slightly cheaper than the UK bill for an average family.
As I suggested some weeks ago, if you're going to tell lies to support your rampaging anti-English xenophobia, at least try to make them intelligent ones. I appreciate your distinct lack of intelligence (or perhaps, lack of rationality which means you can't properly use what intelligence you have) may make this hard for you.
In fact, having finally run them to earth via a different tweet, they are the baseload charges for electricity generation per MWH across Europe. Except in the U.K., where it's the average annual household bill (which is a meaningless figure anyway, of course).
The figure for the UK should therefore be €359.47 which is somewhat below the average.
The original tweeter, needless to say, is a Corbynite loon who like her admirer on here thinks it's OK to lie if it shows the English in a bad light.
So the image is 'shopped?
Presumably. Key thing is, it's wrong.
What's dafter is that it just looks wrong. Even if domestic energy bills were higher in the UK than elsewhere (which they don't seem to be from what I've been looking at) they certainly aren't higher by a factor of five or ten.
Anyone with a functioning brain would look at that and get a stink of bullshit strong enough to knock them over.
A little research indicates that the figures for European countries are mostly monthly figures for high consuming households, while ours is annualised for the average household. For example, the average monthly bill in Austria for a two-bed flat is around €197 (although that includes water as well) which if annualised works out at only slightly cheaper than the UK bill for an average family.
As I suggested some weeks ago, if you're going to tell lies to support your rampaging anti-English xenophobia, at least try to make them intelligent ones. I appreciate your distinct lack of intelligence (or perhaps, lack of rationality which means you can't properly use what intelligence you have) may make this hard for you.
In fact, having finally run them to earth via a different tweet, they are the baseload charges for electricity generation per MWH across Europe. Except in the U.K., where it's the average annual household bill (which is a meaningless figure anyway, of course).
The figure for the UK should therefore be €359.47 which is somewhat below the average.
The original tweeter, needless to say, is a Corbynite loon who like her admirer on here thinks it's OK to lie if it shows the English in a bad light.
So the image is 'shopped?
One of the standout ways to distinguish types online - Twitter or elsewhere - is what they do when caught sharing incorrect information.
Plenty acknowledge the error, delete the tweet / post or add a correction. Others ignore or double down. I’m guessing the Corbynista is probably doing some ignoring.
Of course sometimes people post then log off so aren’t around to correct the error. But if it happens repeatedly it’s a tell.
A useful general guide as to good/bad faith on the internet.
A little research indicates that the figures for European countries are mostly monthly figures for high consuming households, while ours is annualised for the average household. For example, the average monthly bill in Austria for a two-bed flat is around €197 (although that includes water as well) which if annualised works out at only slightly cheaper than the UK bill for an average family.
As I suggested some weeks ago, if you're going to tell lies to support your rampaging anti-English xenophobia, at least try to make them intelligent ones. I appreciate your distinct lack of intelligence (or perhaps, lack of rationality which means you can't properly use what intelligence you have) may make this hard for you.
In fact, having finally run them to earth via a different tweet, they are the baseload charges for electricity generation per MWH across Europe. Except in the U.K., where it's the average annual household bill (which is a meaningless figure anyway, of course).
The figure for the UK should therefore be €359.47 which is somewhat below the average.
The original tweeter, needless to say, is a Corbynite loon who like her admirer on here thinks it's OK to lie if it shows the English in a bad light.
So the image is 'shopped?
Presumably. Key thing is, it's wrong.
What's dafter is that it just looks wrong. Even if domestic energy bills were higher in the UK than elsewhere (which they don't seem to be from what I've been looking at) they certainly aren't higher by a factor of five or ten.
Anyone with a functioning brain would look at that and get a stink of bullshit strong enough to knock them over.
"Functioning brain" is the issue here. Loads of people just want to believe that the UK is worse than everywhere in Europe so will blindly accept any old bullshit if it reinforces their feelings.
A little research indicates that the figures for European countries are mostly monthly figures for high consuming households, while ours is annualised for the average household. For example, the average monthly bill in Austria for a two-bed flat is around €197 (although that includes water as well) which if annualised works out at only slightly cheaper than the UK bill for an average family.
As I suggested some weeks ago, if you're going to tell lies to support your rampaging anti-English xenophobia, at least try to make them intelligent ones. I appreciate your distinct lack of intelligence (or perhaps, lack of rationality which means you can't properly use what intelligence you have) may make this hard for you.
All the SNP have is lies.
16 posts and almost all of them anti SNP. It's good to have a purpose in life.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
I take your point. But nevertheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare England with our three major European rivals - France, Germany and Italy. In such a comparison, we are well behind all three since 1966.
"Since 1966" covers much more than the modern era. And those three are only our "major European rivals" because they have won the most, so it's a little bit of a circular argument.
Interesting to consider when the Modern Era starts. I'd say the 80s but that could be just talking my age. Maybe a bit later would be more accurate. Certainly 66 was another world. It's part of our national dna, which I buy into, they think it's all over, Hurst's hattrick, Russian linesman, "you've won it once now go out and win it again", Nobby's toothless jig, Mooro wiping his hands on his shorts before shaking the Queen's hand and being handed the Rimet - brings a lump it really does - but compared to now it was jumpers for goalposts, Winning then was easier than getting to the semis these days.
Modern era starts from the WC when you first paid proper attention to the games. For me that was Mexico 86 or at a push Spain 82. For a Gen Z youth though the 1980s is very much the olden days.
Interesting decade the 80s. Across many walks of life - economics, pop culture, sport, working life, technology - it's the transitional decade, between the definitely old school 1970s and the definitely modern 1990s.
At the start of the 80s there was no Neighbours or Home and Away, our economy was still in the pre-Thatcher phase, the Berlin Wall was resolutely upright, people didn't have home computers. By the end we'd had the big bang, globalisation was getting into gear, electronic music was dominant, everyone had a computer or games console and the internet and email were just around the corner.
Showing your age there though. Who knows what Neighbours or Home and Away is nowadays?
To my kids, the idea of the 90s may as well be black and white when you speak about it. Couldn't pause or rewind the TV, no streaming or choosing what you wanted to watch rather than watching whatever was scheduled on TV at that time, no online deliveries, if we wanted to speak to a friend on the phone we'd have to use the landline and call their landline. The internet while it existed was rarely used and required dial up modems that couldn't be used if anyone was on the phone..
The 90s are already getting dated. For me the millennium was a transition - not just from the 20th century, to the 21st, not just from childhood to adulthood, but to the modern handheld/digital/detached/on-demand world that we live in now.
Re; people wanting to think everything is better in Continental Europe, the unfortunate and inescapable reality is that many things currently *are* better, particularly by social and economic metrics, in the rest of northwestern Europe beyond our shores. Not necessarily in terms of cultural and ethnic integration, and general toleration, which is a key metric, but certainly in many other areas.
No way this guy doesn't run now. DeSantis is not the bravest of politicians, but if both the party establishment and the polls tell him he'll win, that should be enough. He's ambitious, and he's not stupid.
The question is now whether there's another Republican who can beat him.
In Iowa Pence can beat both Trump and DeSantis if he wins over evangelicals in the evangelical heavy first caucus. That would then give him big momentum.
Morning Consult still has Trump ahead with Republicans, then DeSantis with Pence 3rd
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/iowa-ap-democratic-barack-obama-des-moines-b2238253.html That Iowa, an overwhelmingly white state, would propel Barack Obama's rise to become America's first Black president seemed to ratify its first-in-the-nation position in the presidential nominating process. But in the half-century arc of the state's quirky caucuses, Obama's victory proved to be an outlier. All other Democratic winners turned out to be also-rans…
A candidate whose unfavourables are higher than his favourables in his own party is not going to miraculously improve because of illusory 'momentum' from a minor state, which is any way irrelevant in the general election.
Huckabee was McCain's main rival in 2008, Santorum was Romney's main rival in the 2012 primaries too and Cruz Trump's main rival in 2016 all after winning Iowa.
Obama as you said beat Hillary after trailing her nationally following his Iowa win in 2008 and went on to be President. George W Bush won the nomination in 2000 after winning Iowa even despite McCain winning NH. Kerry won Iowa in 2004 and the nomination despite trailing Howard Dean nationally before.
Bob Dole won Iowa in 1996 and the nomination. Carter came from nowhere to win Iowa in 1976 and the nomination and Presidency.
So what ? Pence is a weaker candidate than any of those nomination winners, and a well known quantity who is disliked by the majority of his party and likely primary voters.
Particularly if you look at the VPs to losing Presidential candidates. Only the winners went on to win.
Pence is not going to make history in that respect.
Much better in terms of winning the nomination though. Biden, Gore, Bush 41, Mondale, Humphrey, Nixon all won their party's nomination as former VPs since WW2. (Plus Ford also did but he was President by 1976 after Nixon resigned).
My main point was Pence is well placed still to be GOP nominee in 2024, not that he would actually beat Biden (or Buttigieg)
2 MPC members vote for no rate hike. What planet are they living on?!
Last month I'd have agreed with you, but they [finally] took serious action last month and no time has been given yet to see it through, and inflation has already peaked and is forecast to come down potentially rapidly now.
Petrol is soon going to be recording serious deflation not inflation.
They were very late to start raising rates, but there's a real risk they'll again soon be fighting the last war again.
Other teams are far more fluid than we are, most noticeable against La France.
When we got the ball we stopped, thought about it, stood still, passed, stood still, passed again.
It seems that many/most other teams are constantly moving and each individual player is never static.
I'm not sure we're going to win too much against the Top 10 if that style of play continues.
Get back to your dressage, Captain.
Let's try to move on from your "my one big idea" fiasco shall we - you can answer the comment if you want or are able.
Ok. But before we 'move on' it I do think it deserves an encore -
"When we got the ball we stopped, thought about it, stood still, passed, stood still, passed again. It seems that many/most other teams are constantly moving and each individual player is never static. I'm not sure we're going to win too much against the Top 10 if that style of play continues."
Awww.
Absolutely true. It's what marks us out from the opposition. Plain as day vs France.
I know you're upset about the Lab's Big Idea thread but as I said let's try to move on.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
I take your point. But nevertheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare England with our three major European rivals - France, Germany and Italy. In such a comparison, we are well behind all three since 1966.
"Since 1966" covers much more than the modern era. And those three are only our "major European rivals" because they have won the most, so it's a little bit of a circular argument.
Interesting to consider when the Modern Era starts. I'd say the 80s but that could be just talking my age. Maybe a bit later would be more accurate. Certainly 66 was another world. It's part of our national dna, which I buy into, they think it's all over, Hurst's hattrick, Russian linesman, "you've won it once now go out and win it again", Nobby's toothless jig, Mooro wiping his hands on his shorts before shaking the Queen's hand and being handed the Rimet - brings a lump it really does - but compared to now it was jumpers for goalposts, Winning then was easier than getting to the semis these days.
Modern era starts from the WC when you first paid proper attention to the games. For me that was Mexico 86 or at a push Spain 82. For a Gen Z youth though the 1980s is very much the olden days.
Interesting decade the 80s. Across many walks of life - economics, pop culture, sport, working life, technology - it's the transitional decade, between the definitely old school 1970s and the definitely modern 1990s.
At the start of the 80s there was no Neighbours or Home and Away, our economy was still in the pre-Thatcher phase, the Berlin Wall was resolutely upright, people didn't have home computers. By the end we'd had the big bang, globalisation was getting into gear, electronic music was dominant, everyone had a computer or games console and the internet and email were just around the corner.
Showing your age there though. Who knows what Neighbours or Home and Away is nowadays?
To my kids, the idea of the 90s may as well be black and white when you speak about it. Couldn't pause or rewind the TV, no streaming or choosing what you wanted to watch, no online deliveries, if we wanted to speak to a friend on the phone we'd have to use the landline and call their landline. The internet while it existed was rarely used and required dial up modems that couldn't be used if anyone was on the phone..
The 90s are already getting dated. For me the millennium was a transition - not just from the 20th century, to the 21st, not just from childhood to adulthood, but to the modern handheld/digital/detached/on-demand world that we live in now.
Time does play its tricks. I watched something the other day set in the 80s that was categorized in the tv menu as a "period drama". No way, I said to myself. An 80s prog isn't period drama. But then I watched it and, yep, that's exactly how it looked and felt. Unfamiliar and distant.
Tesla stock was massively over-valued, and Musk took a load of personal loans against his Tesla holdings, to enable the Twitter purchase.
So, as the Tesla stock falls (it’s been behaving more like a tech company stock than a car company stock, both on the way up and on the way down), he’ll be facing margin calls on the loans, hence the need to sell the stocks and dilute his holding in Tesla.
There’s also rumours of Starlink being floated out of SpaceX, or even SpaceX itself going public next year once Starship is flying.
Musk is rapidly Ratnering his portfolio through his erratic behaviour at the helm of Twitter. Alongside the political bad taste in the mouth I expect it's going to undermine markets' already somewhat shaky faith in his ability to manage large companies.
I think he overpaid financially for Twitter, right at the top of a peak bull run, and he’s going to have an awful lot of work to do to see the company to profitability.
It’s an interesting exercise to watch someone take an already-existing company and treat it like a startup though, moving fast and breaking things. Doubly so for a company so political and divisive in nature. With the benefit of future hindsight, that may turn out to be a good or a bad thing. What’s certain is that he’s cut costs dramatically, and is encouraging a much broader ‘conversation’ than previously, especially among US commentators. It’s also worth noting that the “Twitter Files” revelations are receiving no coverage whatsoever on the US mainstream TV news (except Fox), only from online channels and independent voices.
Tasla and SpaceX both have good management teams in place for day-to-day operations, which Musk is planning to also do with Twitter.
That's certainly true of SpaceX, where Gwynne Shotwell has been in charge of day to day for a decade. I'm less sure it's true of Tesla.
I must admit to being increasingly saddened by Musk: banning the guy who tweeted his private jet's location (while leaving accounts that did the same for Bezos and Musk), and only waving the ban hammer on Ye when he posted a picture of Musk topless, suggests a commitment to free speech that is less than full throated.
Other teams are far more fluid than we are, most noticeable against La France.
When we got the ball we stopped, thought about it, stood still, passed, stood still, passed again.
It seems that many/most other teams are constantly moving and each individual player is never static.
I'm not sure we're going to win too much against the Top 10 if that style of play continues.
Get back to your dressage, Captain.
Let's try to move on from your "my one big idea" fiasco shall we - you can answer the comment if you want or are able.
Ok. But before we 'move on' it I do think it deserves an encore -
"When we got the ball we stopped, thought about it, stood still, passed, stood still, passed again. It seems that many/most other teams are constantly moving and each individual player is never static. I'm not sure we're going to win too much against the Top 10 if that style of play continues."
2 MPC members vote for no rate hike. What planet are they living on?!
Last month I'd have agreed with you, but they [finally] took serious action last month and no time has been given yet to see it through, and inflation has already peaked and is forecast to come down potentially rapidly now.
Petrol is soon going to be recording serious deflation not inflation.
They were very late to start raising rates, but there's a real risk they'll again soon be fighting the last war again.
2 MPC members vote for no rate hike. What planet are they living on?!
Last month I'd have agreed with you, but they [finally] took serious action last month and no time has been given yet to see it through, and inflation has already peaked and is forecast to come down potentially rapidly now.
Petrol is soon going to be recording serious deflation not inflation.
They were very late to start raising rates, but there's a real risk they'll again soon be fighting the last war again.
The problem with that is that the Fed (which also increased rates by 0.5%) was pretty hawkish in doing so yesterday and made it clear that there was more to come. Last month we had a problem because the BoE had fallen behind the curve that the Fed is creating. The risk now is that even although we have matched their increase the perception is that we are still not as focused on bringing inflation down sharply as the Fed is with a consequential weakening of Sterling and (ironically) more inflation from dollar rated products.
For a lot of reasons we need to get back to real interest rates. 3.5% when inflation is at 10.7% is frankly absurdly low and we need to fix this as fast as the economy can bear.
Other teams are far more fluid than we are, most noticeable against La France.
When we got the ball we stopped, thought about it, stood still, passed, stood still, passed again.
It seems that many/most other teams are constantly moving and each individual player is never static.
I'm not sure we're going to win too much against the Top 10 if that style of play continues.
Get back to your dressage, Captain.
Let's try to move on from your "my one big idea" fiasco shall we - you can answer the comment if you want or are able.
Ok. But before we 'move on' it I do think it deserves an encore -
"When we got the ball we stopped, thought about it, stood still, passed, stood still, passed again. It seems that many/most other teams are constantly moving and each individual player is never static. I'm not sure we're going to win too much against the Top 10 if that style of play continues."
So actually we're better off in this regard than most of Europe? Really? I must admit, I'm surprised. This is very, very different from the narrative we're getting.
EDIT: Just spotted we're in £ and everyone else is in Euros. So not actually better off. But nor that much worse.
Tesla stock was massively over-valued, and Musk took a load of personal loans against his Tesla holdings, to enable the Twitter purchase.
So, as the Tesla stock falls (it’s been behaving more like a tech company stock than a car company stock, both on the way up and on the way down), he’ll be facing margin calls on the loans, hence the need to sell the stocks and dilute his holding in Tesla.
There’s also rumours of Starlink being floated out of SpaceX, or even SpaceX itself going public next year once Starship is flying.
Musk is rapidly Ratnering his portfolio through his erratic behaviour at the helm of Twitter. Alongside the political bad taste in the mouth I expect it's going to undermine markets' already somewhat shaky faith in his ability to manage large companies.
I think he overpaid financially for Twitter, right at the top of a peak bull run, and he’s going to have an awful lot of work to do to see the company to profitability.
It’s an interesting exercise to watch someone take an already-existing company and treat it like a startup though, moving fast and breaking things. Doubly so for a company so political and divisive in nature. With the benefit of future hindsight, that may turn out to be a good or a bad thing. What’s certain is that he’s cut costs dramatically, and is encouraging a much broader ‘conversation’ than previously, especially among US commentators. It’s also worth noting that the “Twitter Files” revelations are receiving no coverage whatsoever on the US mainstream TV news (except Fox), only from online channels and independent voices.
Tasla and SpaceX both have good management teams in place for day-to-day operations, which Musk is planning to also do with Twitter.
That's certainly true of SpaceX, where Gwynne Shotwell has been in charge of day to day for a decade. I'm less sure it's true of Tesla.
I must admit to being increasingly saddened by Musk: banning the guy who tweeted his private jet's location (while leaving accounts that did the same for Bezos and Musk), and only waving the ban hammer on Ye when he posted a picture of Musk topless, suggests a commitment to free speech that is less than full throated.
I need to do more research on the plane guy, but it does appear that the account was an automated bot Tweeting an ADS-B source rather than a human Tweeter.
His argument was that Tweeting real-time locations of people amounted to doxing, in which case they’ll also be deleting the guy following Taylor Swift’s plane and the guy following Jeff Bezos’ planes around.
Musk has said that he’s had to seriously step his security in recent weeks, but ‘plane guy’ is an interesting test of freedom-of-speech vs public information vs trolling vs harrasment. The account was re-instated last night though.
On the subject of several things being better in Northwestern Continental Europe, a good article from Martin Kettle here today, on the need to go in what is actually a more German direction in industrial relations. I knew little about how far Britain had actually already attempted to do this, in fact before the Germans, between 1926 and 1929, knowing only the failures both of feudally-minded management and obstreperous unions in the 1970's, "solved" by Thatcher one-sidedly in favour of management ; and with the increasingly obvious economic and social costs we're i seeing all around us today .
A little research indicates that the figures for European countries are mostly monthly figures for high consuming households, while ours is annualised for the average household. For example, the average monthly bill in Austria for a two-bed flat is around €197 (although that includes water as well) which if annualised works out at only slightly cheaper than the UK bill for an average family.
As I suggested some weeks ago, if you're going to tell lies to support your rampaging anti-English xenophobia, at least try to make them intelligent ones. I appreciate your distinct lack of intelligence (or perhaps, lack of rationality which means you can't properly use what intelligence you have) may make this hard for you.
In fact, having finally run them to earth via a different tweet, they are the baseload charges for electricity generation per MWH across Europe. Except in the U.K., where it's the average annual household bill (which is a meaningless figure anyway, of course).
The figure for the UK should therefore be €359.47 which is somewhat below the average.
Tesla stock was massively over-valued, and Musk took a load of personal loans against his Tesla holdings, to enable the Twitter purchase.
So, as the Tesla stock falls (it’s been behaving more like a tech company stock than a car company stock, both on the way up and on the way down), he’ll be facing margin calls on the loans, hence the need to sell the stocks and dilute his holding in Tesla.
There’s also rumours of Starlink being floated out of SpaceX, or even SpaceX itself going public next year once Starship is flying.
Musk is rapidly Ratnering his portfolio through his erratic behaviour at the helm of Twitter. Alongside the political bad taste in the mouth I expect it's going to undermine markets' already somewhat shaky faith in his ability to manage large companies.
I think he overpaid financially for Twitter, right at the top of a peak bull run, and he’s going to have an awful lot of work to do to see the company to profitability.
It’s an interesting exercise to watch someone take an already-existing company and treat it like a startup though, moving fast and breaking things. Doubly so for a company so political and divisive in nature. With the benefit of future hindsight, that may turn out to be a good or a bad thing. What’s certain is that he’s cut costs dramatically, and is encouraging a much broader ‘conversation’ than previously, especially among US commentators. It’s also worth noting that the “Twitter Files” revelations are receiving no coverage whatsoever on the US mainstream TV news (except Fox), only from online channels and independent voices.
Tasla and SpaceX both have good management teams in place for day-to-day operations, which Musk is planning to also do with Twitter.
That's certainly true of SpaceX, where Gwynne Shotwell has been in charge of day to day for a decade. I'm less sure it's true of Tesla.
I must admit to being increasingly saddened by Musk: banning the guy who tweeted his private jet's location (while leaving accounts that did the same for Bezos and Musk), and only waving the ban hammer on Ye when he posted a picture of Musk topless, suggests a commitment to free speech that is less than full throated.
Surely everyone can agree that a picture of Musk topless would be an obscene image?
Tensions between France and Morocco supporters briefly spilled over in the centre of the city as flares were lit and police responded with tear gas. France has a large Moroccan community of some 1.5 million people.
Celebrations in cities across France were largely peaceful, although police used tear gas to halt trouble involving far-right youths in the centre of Lyon.
There has been rioting across numerous cities in France, Belgium and Holland after every Morocco game, but the BBC highlight the far right. CNN levels "mostly peaceful" descriptors.
Of course in France, it isn't just the Moroccans, they have a bit of a culture of smashing shit up after winning or losing.
Comments
If you ask most England fans if they'd rather win a Test series against India or a(nother) World Cup, I'm convinced there would be a strong majority for the latter.
https://twitter.com/MattSunRoyal/status/1603304927593484289?s=20&t=tOz34H2EuWoXZqYl1cf23A
Independence 52%
Devolution (the status quo) 38%
Direct rule (the status quo ante) 8%
Eight percent is a heck of a lot of people, so PB’s very own Mini Franco is far from alone.
When we got the ball we stopped, thought about it, stood still, passed, stood still, passed again.
It seems that many/most other teams are constantly moving and each individual player is never static.
I'm not sure we're going to win too much against the Top 10 if that style of play continues.
Ask Huckabee, Santorum and Cruz.
Similarly for the Democrats.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/joe-biden-just-killed-momentum-theory-politics/607351/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/iowa-ap-democratic-barack-obama-des-moines-b2238253.html
That Iowa, an overwhelmingly white state, would propel Barack Obama's rise to become America's first Black president seemed to ratify its first-in-the-nation position in the presidential nominating process.
But in the half-century arc of the state's quirky caucuses, Obama's victory proved to be an outlier. All other Democratic winners turned out to be also-rans…
A candidate whose unfavourables are higher than his favourables in his own party is not going to miraculously improve because of illusory 'momentum' from a minor state, which is any way irrelevant in the general election.
Che peccato.
*(it is unclear to me which you were referring to)
Obama as you said beat Hillary after trailing her nationally following his Iowa win in 2008 and went on to be President. George W Bush won the nomination in 2000 after winning Iowa even despite McCain winning NH. Kerry won Iowa in 2004 and the nomination despite trailing Howard Dean nationally before.
Bob Dole won Iowa in 1996 and the nomination. Carter came from nowhere to win Iowa in 1976 and the nomination and Presidency.
Not least because it's the difference between B/W and colour TV coverage.
It’s an interesting exercise to watch someone take an already-existing company and treat it like a startup though, moving fast and breaking things. Doubly so for a company so political and divisive in nature. With the benefit of future hindsight, that may turn out to be a good or a bad thing. What’s certain is that he’s cut costs dramatically, and is encouraging a much broader ‘conversation’ than previously, especially among US commentators. It’s also worth noting that the “Twitter Files” revelations are receiving no coverage whatsoever on the US mainstream TV news (except Fox), only from online channels and independent voices.
Tasla and SpaceX both have good management teams in place for day-to-day operations, which Musk is planning to also do with Twitter.
The government ironically did cave in on legal aid in the end
https://www.ft.com/content/fd6d404b-3e7f-425a-a48e-9404ca0f0691
Interesting decade the 80s. Across many walks of life - economics, pop culture, sport, working life, technology - it's the transitional decade, between the definitely old school 1970s and the definitely modern 1990s.
At the start of the 80s there was no Neighbours or Home and Away, our economy was still in the pre-Thatcher phase, the Berlin Wall was resolutely upright, people didn't have home computers. By the end we'd had the big bang, globalisation was getting into gear, electronic music was dominant, everyone had a computer or games console and the internet and email were just around the corner.
Pence is a weaker candidate than any of those nomination winners, and a well known quantity who is disliked by the majority of his party and likely primary voters.
Feel free to back him.
Another Govt misinformation item, by the Lying Party
@Conservatives
…
https://twitter.com/lucywoodslucy70/status/1603058634044448769?s=46&t=8rha7ZqfQ1k0UWnXErJ6Uw
About 49% of Republicans give him a favourable rating, evangelicals make up at least 40% of Republican primary voters.
If Pence as a born again evangelical Christian gets that 40%, if Trump and DeSantis split the remaining 60% equally between them, Pence wins in the end.
Trump also now it seems hates DeSantis more than Pence, so his delegates would likely go to Pence too if Trump failed to win at a split convention. Note Trump recent remarks '“There it is, Trump at 71. Ron De-Sanctimonious at 10 percent,” said Trump. “Mike Pence at 7; oh, Mike Pence [is] doing better than I thought.”'
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-derides-gov-desantis-ron-140800012.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANOjnQ14bcx3rkf8wj54gv1Id5mhWMFqeBoIytKfSk1vx2kEkcwdgi6hJcD_9qrhciYuRsopfZp3JzbsNDATmocUgZzziXzBwmsO5HZb8eTAcH4FnlFll9T8WMYoTdnb7Uy4F_GbUlYIK9iwApsVeeppKWDDXt8CW3VjTA_xBwEs
As for what Trump does if he loses the primary - I assume he will scream fraud, and try to convince some of his supporters to boycott the GE without running as an independent (as some states have sore loser laws meaning if you lose a primary you can't be on the GE ticket as an independent, the path to winning as an independent is very hard). That is probably the scariest position for the GOP - even if he only convinced 5-10% of his support, that could make a difference in swing states and in the senate.
And he's added a recurring billion a year to costs, with the bid financing.
As I suggested some weeks ago, if you're going to tell lies to support your rampaging anti-English xenophobia, at least try to make them intelligent ones. I appreciate your distinct lack of intelligence (or perhaps, lack of rationality which means you can't properly use what intelligence you have) may make this hard for you.
Ford didn't put a significant part of his liquidity into a vanity project.
Tesla or SpaceX will only face problems when they need to raise significant cash. That's probably not a problem for the former, which is quite cash generative. SpaceX is a different matter, as its ambitions for growth aren't really fundable purely from cashflow - as Musk himself has often stated.
https://www.hagerty.com/media/automotive-history/how-major-ivan-hirst-and-the-british-government-saved-vw-after-wwii/
Sadly not FLSOJ.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/dec/15/european-super-league-legal-adviser-blow-to-project-uefa-fifa-ecj
Well, you can't say the last about Becker, who was at least a great tennis champion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_vice_presidents_who_ran_for_president
Particularly if you look at the VPs to losing Presidential candidates.
Only the winners went on to win.
Pence is not going to make history in that respect.
What’s also true, is that, despite a lot of prominent people saying they’re leaving the platform, very few have actually done so for more than a few days.
I think it will be okay in the end, but Musk is usually somewhat over-optimistic about timelines on his projects, but he overpaid and it wil cost him money in the meantime.
Only if you think children utterly unimportant.
https://twitter.com/MarinaPurkiss/status/1603132555850616835
Boris Johnson told Tory MP Jonathan Gullis that he would back his bill
A bill to to “proceed with removals” to Rwanda “regardless” of any decision by an international court
Today (yesterday) it went to a vote
And Johnson didn’t even bother to show up!
The figure for the UK should therefore be €359.47 which is somewhat below the average.
https://twitter.com/Richard75021160/status/1603318689859878912
The original tweeter, needless to say, is a Corbynite loon who like her admirer on here thinks it's OK to lie if it shows the English in a bad light.
"When we got the ball we stopped, thought about it, stood still, passed, stood still, passed again. It seems that many/most other teams are constantly moving and each individual player is never static. I'm not sure we're going to win too much against the Top 10 if that style of play continues."
Awww.
I'm happy to share real numbers when I get to my computer, but those are just completely made up.
What's dafter is that it just looks wrong. Even if domestic energy bills were higher in the UK than elsewhere (which they don't seem to be from what I've been looking at) they certainly aren't higher by a factor of five or ten.
Anyone with a functioning brain would look at that and get a stink of bullshit strong enough to knock them over.
Plenty acknowledge the error, delete the tweet / post or add a correction. Others ignore or double down. I’m guessing the Corbynista is probably doing some ignoring.
Of course sometimes people post then log off so aren’t around to correct the error. But if it happens repeatedly it’s a tell.
A useful general guide as to good/bad faith on the internet.
It's good to have a purpose in life.
To my kids, the idea of the 90s may as well be black and white when you speak about it. Couldn't pause or rewind the TV, no streaming or choosing what you wanted to watch rather than watching whatever was scheduled on TV at that time, no online deliveries, if we wanted to speak to a friend on the phone we'd have to use the landline and call their landline. The internet while it existed was rarely used and required dial up modems that couldn't be used if anyone was on the phone..
The 90s are already getting dated. For me the millennium was a transition - not just from the 20th century, to the 21st, not just from childhood to adulthood, but to the modern handheld/digital/detached/on-demand world that we live in now.
My main point was Pence is well placed still to be GOP nominee in 2024, not that he would actually beat Biden (or Buttigieg)
Petrol is soon going to be recording serious deflation not inflation.
They were very late to start raising rates, but there's a real risk they'll again soon be fighting the last war again.
I know you're upset about the Lab's Big Idea thread but as I said let's try to move on.
I must admit to being increasingly saddened by Musk: banning the guy who tweeted his private jet's location (while leaving accounts that did the same for Bezos and Musk), and only waving the ban hammer on Ye when he posted a picture of Musk topless, suggests a commitment to free speech that is less than full throated.
“How do you do, fellow kids”
https://www.epexspot.com/en/market-data
For a lot of reasons we need to get back to real interest rates. 3.5% when inflation is at 10.7% is frankly absurdly low and we need to fix this as fast as the economy can bear.
*And* I'm not convinced that a snapshot of current wholesale electricity prices is that meaningful anyway.
Really?
I must admit, I'm surprised. This is very, very different from the narrative we're getting.
EDIT: Just spotted we're in £ and everyone else is in Euros. So not actually better off. But nor that much worse.
His argument was that Tweeting real-time locations of people amounted to doxing, in which case they’ll also be deleting the guy following Taylor Swift’s plane and the guy following Jeff Bezos’ planes around.
Musk has said that he’s had to seriously step his security in recent weeks, but ‘plane guy’ is an interesting test of freedom-of-speech vs public information vs trolling vs harrasment. The account was re-instated last night though.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/15/unions-britain-strikes-pay
Tensions between France and Morocco supporters briefly spilled over in the centre of the city as flares were lit and police responded with tear gas. France has a large Moroccan community of some 1.5 million people.
Celebrations in cities across France were largely peaceful, although police used tear gas to halt trouble involving far-right youths in the centre of Lyon.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63983728
There has been rioting across numerous cities in France, Belgium and Holland after every Morocco game, but the BBC highlight the far right. CNN levels "mostly peaceful" descriptors.
Of course in France, it isn't just the Moroccans, they have a bit of a culture of smashing shit up after winning or losing.