Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
The problem England have suffered for years, we lack creativity in the middle of the park. And nowadays, all international teams (even tiny nations) are well drilled to play a solid system (plus all England's players pros/ cons are well known as they are seen around the world every week in the EPL).
The likely WC starting England midfield will include at least Dier and Henderson...no international team is going shit their load over those two on the ball.
One plus point, watching some highlights of England U21 over the weekend, like the other youth teams they play with some real excitement (but of course hardly any of them get any time in the EPL).
Very good assessment .The England world cup squad lacks a 1990 , Paul Gascoigne type player, who broke through late to get into the world cup squad.
Jesse Lingard shows some promise.
I went to the England vs Italy friendly and I was very impressed with Lingard. Much improved player.
But then 4 years ago, we all thought Ross Barkley and Jack Wilshire were the future...
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
The problem England have suffered for years, we lack creativity in the middle of the park. And nowadays, all international teams (even tiny nations) are well drilled to play a solid system (plus all England's players pros/ cons are well known as they are seen around the world every week in the EPL).
The likely WC starting England midfield will include at least Dier and Henderson...no international team is going shit their load over those two on the ball.
One plus point, watching some highlights of England U21 over the weekend, like the other youth teams they play with some real excitement (but of course hardly any of them get any time in the EPL).
Very good assessment .The England world cup squad lacks a 1990 , Paul Gascoigne type player, who broke through late to get into the world cup squad.
Jesse Lingard shows some promise.
Alli is a better bet than Lingard. The issue will be temperament.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
Absolutely this!
If we had turned up against Nigeria in 2002, we'd have had a relatively easy route to the final
Instead we got Brazil in the QF
Never gets mentioned, but one of the most important results in recent years
Indeed. It was difference between playing Brazil in the afternoon heat and playing them at night as we would have done in the semi final. Of course, Senegal in the last 16 would probably have been harder than Denmark. And Turkey had a useful team back then so the quarters would not have been a gimme either.
True enough but Brazil in the heat of the day (it was 35c on match day) is almost a certain defeat for an English team.
I remember Michael Owen saying on TV a few days before the game "we'll all be praying for rain –– otherwise it's going to be another really hot game, which obviously will suit them".
He was right, unfortunately.
The worst part about that game is that we didn't even play badly despite the heat. It all went south because of a rubbish bit of goalkeeping.
Wrong on both counts. Seaman did nothing wrong and we were utterly abject against 10 men.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
I would say the last WC was probably one of the best I can remember for the high quality exciting games with stunning goals. The likes of Columbia were excellent.
I think this WC isn't going to be as good as last time. The Brazilian fans were part of what made 2014 such a great tournament. It does represent an opportunity for England though, with such a young squad and no pressure they could get the QF and really surprise everyone.
Just looking at the teams / groups, what I think is also interesting is the past 2-3 WC in the lead up there has been all the talk of if a big African nation really has a shot. And a number of small nations like Belgium had strong squads.
Nigeria were piss poor at the weekend (should have been 5-0 at half time against England), and the likes of Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Ghana and Algeria haven't made it, and lots of the squads look significantly weaker e.g. Belgium have selected Chadli who doesn't even set the world on fire with West Brom, France selected Giroud, etc
Giroud is very much a worthy selection for France.
But I tend to agree that it looks quite predictable. I've taken 23.5/1 on Spain, Portugal, Germany, Brazil, Belgium and England making the quarter finals.
Teams I think could cause a bit of shock are Morocco (Renard is a very good coach), Denmark and Senegal.
That's a nice bet. Who has that market? I'd be interested in taking a look.
It's just an accumulator. I got it with Boylesports.
Taking the piss out of the French is an ancient English pastime. And they do the same to the rosbifs.
They really don't in my experience; I spent a year at a French university and have a house in France. I don't think I ever heard anyone talk about the British whether in disparaging terms or not. They think about us a lot less than we think about them. A similar situation prevails in the opposite direction with the Scottish and English.
The Germans on the other hand... I've heard the term "Inselaffe" more than once...
In all my 10 years in Germany, I don't think anyone ever said the word "Inselaffe" within my earshot. It is regarded as a pretty offensive insult, and it is certainly not a word that anyone would use in polite company, even in jest. Granted, your company may not have been quite as refined as mine :-)
Given google translate won’t do it’s job... you can’t just leave us hanging...
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
Absolutely this!
If we had turned up against Nigeria in 2002, we'd have had a relatively easy route to the final
Instead we got Brazil in the QF
Never gets mentioned, but one of the most important results in recent years
Indeed. It was difference between playing Brazil in the afternoon heat and playing them at night as we would have done in the semi final. Of course, Senegal in the last 16 would probably have been harder than Denmark. And Turkey had a useful team back then so the quarters would not have been a gimme either.
True enough but Brazil in the heat of the day (it was 35c on match day) is almost a certain defeat for an English team.
I remember Michael Owen saying on TV a few days before the game "we'll all be praying for rain –– otherwise it's going to be another really hot game, which obviously will suit them".
He was right, unfortunately.
The worst part about that game is that we didn't even play badly despite the heat. It all went south because of a rubbish bit of goalkeeping.
That's true but we wilted in the second half after they equalised at the end of the first.
Ironically, it was Owen himself who scored the opener after publicly worrying about the weather.
Taking the piss out of the French is an ancient English pastime. And they do the same to the rosbifs.
They really don't in my experience; I spent a year at a French university and have a house in France. I don't think I ever heard anyone talk about the British whether in disparaging terms or not. They think about us a lot less than we think about them. A similar situation prevails in the opposite direction with the Scottish and English.
The Germans on the other hand... I've heard the term "Inselaffe" more than once...
In all my 10 years in Germany, I don't think anyone ever said the word "Inselaffe" within my earshot. It is regarded as a pretty offensive insult, and it is certainly not a word that anyone would use in polite company, even in jest. Granted, your company may not have been quite as refined as mine :-)
Given google translate won’t do it’s job... you can’t just leave us hanging...
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
Absolutely this!
If we had turned up against Nigeria in 2002, we'd have had a relatively easy route to the final
Instead we got Brazil in the QF
Never gets mentioned, but one of the most important results in recent years
Indeed. It was difference between playing Brazil in the afternoon heat and playing them at night as we would have done in the semi final. Of course, Senegal in the last 16 would probably have been harder than Denmark. And Turkey had a useful team back then so the quarters would not have been a gimme either.
True enough but Brazil in the heat of the day (it was 35c on match day) is almost a certain defeat for an English team.
I remember Michael Owen saying on TV a few days before the game "we'll all be praying for rain –– otherwise it's going to be another really hot game, which obviously will suit them".
He was right, unfortunately.
The worst part about that game is that we didn't even play badly despite the heat. It all went south because of a rubbish bit of goalkeeping.
Wrong on both counts. Seaman did nothing wrong and we were utterly abject against 10 men.
Just like all the other Arsenal supporters said in the following days lol!
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
Absolutely this!
If we had turned up against Nigeria in 2002, we'd have had a relatively easy route to the final
Instead we got Brazil in the QF
Never gets mentioned, but one of the most important results in recent years
Indeed. It was difference between playing Brazil in the afternoon heat and playing them at night as we would have done in the semi final. Of course, Senegal in the last 16 would probably have been harder than Denmark. And Turkey had a useful team back then so the quarters would not have been a gimme either.
True enough but Brazil in the heat of the day (it was 35c on match day) is almost a certain defeat for an English team.
I remember Michael Owen saying on TV a few days before the game "we'll all be praying for rain –– otherwise it's going to be another really hot game, which obviously will suit them".
He was right, unfortunately.
The worst part about that game is that we didn't even play badly despite the heat. It all went south because of a rubbish bit of goalkeeping.
Wrong on both counts. Seaman did nothing wrong and we were utterly abject against 10 men.
Agree with the latter point. No sure I agree that Seaman did nothing wrong! He was about seven yards off his line! That all said, it was still an absolute wonder strike by Ronaldinho. It wouldn't have seemed likely that he would try to shoot from that position.
"Richard Nixon and his legal team would have been interested in the arguments espoused by the Trump legal team"
I'm not sure they would. Nixon resigned because he would almost certainly have otherwise have been impeached, against which there is no presidential power to pardon. And that's the constitutional backstop. It doesn't really matter whether or not a president can pardon himself. If one ever tried to do so, Congress could (and very likely would) kick him out.
I think the difference between 1974 and now is Trump's base. Whilst the base does not guarantee that Trump will win a Presidential election [ After all some of the states were won very narrowly ], it certainly will dominate the primaries.
That is why the Republican House members who are re-selected every two years in a primary [ the word "re-selection" is emotive in the UK ] and one-third of the Senate seats are up for re-election this November [ some of them Republican ] are scared stiff.
Senators like Collins, Murkowski etc. don't give a damn as they are not up for re-election.
Yep, that's true, although how Trump's core vote - the 25-35% of Republican primary voters who backed him before other candidates started dropping out - would react were he to be impeached after self-pardoning a federal offence is very much an open question. After all, while those congressmen and senators might face the wrath of Trump, how would he actively go about fighting back? To have them fail in a re-selection bid, he'd need proxies who not only toed his line but were credible in their own right. In effect, he'd need a party within a party - and I don't think that building a machine of that nature interests him. Too much hard work.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
Absolutely this!
If we had turned up against Nigeria in 2002, we'd have had a relatively easy route to the final
Instead we got Brazil in the QF
Never gets mentioned, but one of the most important results in recent years
Indeed. It was difference between playing Brazil in the afternoon heat and playing them at night as we would have done in the semi final. Of course, Senegal in the last 16 would probably have been harder than Denmark. And Turkey had a useful team back then so the quarters would not have been a gimme either.
True enough but Brazil in the heat of the day (it was 35c on match day) is almost a certain defeat for an English team.
I remember Michael Owen saying on TV a few days before the game "we'll all be praying for rain –– otherwise it's going to be another really hot game, which obviously will suit them".
He was right, unfortunately.
The worst part about that game is that we didn't even play badly despite the heat. It all went south because of a rubbish bit of goalkeeping.
Didn't Gareth Southgate blame Sven's lack of motivational skills at half time? ('We needed Churchill but we got Iain Duncan Smith'.)
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
I would say the last WC was probably one of the best I can remember for the high quality exciting games with stunning goals. The likes of Columbia were excellent.
I think this WC isn't going to be as good as last time. The Brazilian fans were part of what made 2014 such a great tournament. It does represent an opportunity for England though, with such a young squad and no pressure they could get the QF and really surprise everyone.
Just looking at the teams / groups, what I think is also interesting is the past 2-3 WC in the lead up there has been all the talk of if a big African nation really has a shot. And a number of small nations like Belgium had strong squads.
Nigeria were piss poor at the weekend (should have been 5-0 at half time against England), and the likes of Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Ghana and Algeria haven't made it, and lots of the squads look significantly weaker e.g. Belgium have selected Chadli who doesn't even set the world on fire with West Brom, France selected Giroud, etc
Giroud is very much a worthy selection for France.
But I tend to agree that it looks quite predictable. I've taken 23.5/1 on Spain, Portugal, Germany, Brazil, Belgium and England making the quarter finals.
Teams I think could cause a bit of shock are Morocco (Renard is a very good coach), Denmark and Senegal.
That's a nice bet. Who has that market? I'd be interested in taking a look.
It's just an accumulator. I got it with Boylesports.
Lower-level US-North Korean talks to prepare for the summit are continuing but have made only “halting progress,” according to a second US official briefed on the discussions.
That official said US negotiators’ efforts to press for definitions of immediate, comprehensive, verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation by North Korea had run into opposition from the White House.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
Absolutely this!
If we had turned up against Nigeria in 2002, we'd have had a relatively easy route to the final
Instead we got Brazil in the QF
Never gets mentioned, but one of the most important results in recent years
Indeed. It was difference between playing Brazil in the afternoon heat and playing them at night as we would have done in the semi final. Of course, Senegal in the last 16 would probably have been harder than Denmark. And Turkey had a useful team back then so the quarters would not have been a gimme either.
True enough but Brazil in the heat of the day (it was 35c on match day) is almost a certain defeat for an English team.
I remember Michael Owen saying on TV a few days before the game "we'll all be praying for rain –– otherwise it's going to be another really hot game, which obviously will suit them".
He was right, unfortunately.
The worst part about that game is that we didn't even play badly despite the heat. It all went south because of a rubbish bit of goalkeeping.
Didn't Gareth Southgate blames Sven's lack of motivational skills at half time? ('We needed Churchill but we got Iain Duncan Smith'.)
Ha! That sounds about right – I remember something like that.
The worst part about that game is that we didn't even play badly despite the heat. It all went south because of a rubbish bit of goalkeeping.
Wrong on both counts. Seaman did nothing wrong and we were utterly abject against 10 men.
Agree with the latter point. No sure I agree that Seaman did nothing wrong! He was about seven yards off his line! That all said, it was still an absolute wonder strike by Ronaldinho. It wouldn't have seemed likely that he would try to shoot from that position.
Hopefully with Brexit the foreign players rules can be modified to require 5 Brits in the starting eleven.
No thank you. The Premier League already has rules on academy players. What we need is to give the Premier League a much bigger role in nurturing talent. Until recently I was against Premier League B teams playing in the Football League, but I think they should allow it and enforce a "75% of the squad must be British" requirement for those that pursue the idea. That way young English players will get to play every week and if they impress then they can get promoted into the senior Premier League side. It's literally how Spain has such an amazing talent factory of young Spanish players.
Seconded.
It's always been one of the worst protectionist arguments that 'foreigners are damaging the English players'. No, they're driving up the standard of the game, which is not only good for those playing in the PL but also make the PL a more saleable asset internationally. England doesn't need 300 mediocre PL players to choose from; it needs 23 who can win a world cup. If they're good enough, they'll get to the top anyway; the trick is getting them good enough.
Mr. Pointer, in my defence, that's a bloody weird thing to ask, when the news report was just yes/no [unsure if there was a third option] on whether someone felt proud to be English.
As an aside, I dislike the term 'pride' when it's associated with something one's done nothing to earn. I certainly don't feel ashamed to be English, and I like being English, but I wouldn't go out of my way to describe myself as proud (in a forced yes/no, I'd say yes).
No defence needed - the BBC article is typically muddled. I bet it gave the people at YouGov cause for some eye-rolling.
If asked, I would say yes to an afinity with my adopted county (Dorset), the south-west region, England, Britain and Europe. Do I feel more English than British or European? No, about the same for all three I'd say.
It's a silly season survey really.
My guess is that the survey responses will correlate strongly with the proportion or residents who were brought up in the same county that they now live. Which means it isn't telling us that much.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
The problem England have suffered for years, we lack creativity in the middle of the park. And nowadays, all international teams (even tiny nations) are well drilled to play a solid system (plus all England's players pros/ cons are well known as they are seen around the world every week in the EPL).
The likely WC starting England midfield will include at least Dier and Henderson...no international team is going shit their load over those two on the ball.
One plus point, watching some highlights of England U21 over the weekend, like the other youth teams they play with some real excitement (but of course hardly any of them get any time in the EPL).
Very good assessment .The England world cup squad lacks a 1990 , Paul Gascoigne type player, who broke through late to get into the world cup squad.
Jesse Lingard shows some promise.
Alli is a better bet than Lingard. The issue will be temperament.
Lingard is technically not so good as Alli, but much more direct and a team player. I would favour Lingard over Alli.
Hopefully with Brexit the foreign players rules can be modified to require 5 Brits in the starting eleven.
No thank you. The Premier League already has rules on academy players. What we need is to give the Premier League a much bigger role in nurturing talent. Until recently I was against Premier League B teams playing in the Football League, but I think they should allow it and enforce a "75% of the squad must be British" requirement for those that pursue the idea. That way young English players will get to play every week and if they impress then they can get promoted into the senior Premier League side. It's literally how Spain has such an amazing talent factory of young Spanish players.
Seconded.
It's always been one of the worst protectionist arguments that 'foreigners are damaging the English players'. No, they're driving up the standard of the game, which is not only good for those playing in the PL but also make the PL a more saleable asset internationally. England doesn't need 300 mediocre PL players to choose from; it needs 23 who can win a world cup. If they're good enough, they'll get to the top anyway; the trick is getting them good enough.
Getting them good enough and giving them a stage on which to perform where their talent can be spotted.
The worst part about that game is that we didn't even play badly despite the heat. It all went south because of a rubbish bit of goalkeeping.
Wrong on both counts. Seaman did nothing wrong and we were utterly abject against 10 men.
Agree with the latter point. No sure I agree that Seaman did nothing wrong! He was about seven yards off his line! That all said, it was still an absolute wonder strike by Ronaldinho. It wouldn't have seemed likely that he would try to shoot from that position.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
Absolutely this!
If we had turned up against Nigeria in 2002, we'd have had a relatively easy route to the final
Instead we got Brazil in the QF
Never gets mentioned, but one of the most important results in recent years
Indeed. It was difference between playing Brazil in the afternoon heat and playing them at night as we would have done in the semi final. Of course, Senegal in the last 16 would probably have been harder than Denmark. And Turkey had a useful team back then so the quarters would not have been a gimme either.
True enough but Brazil in the heat of the day (it was 35c on match day) is almost a certain defeat for an English team.
I remember Michael Owen saying on TV a few days before the game "we'll all be praying for rain –– otherwise it's going to be another really hot game, which obviously will suit them".
He was right, unfortunately.
The worst part about that game is that we didn't even play badly despite the heat. It all went south because of a rubbish bit of goalkeeping.
Didn't Gareth Southgate blame Sven's lack of motivational skills at half time? ('We needed Churchill but we got Iain Duncan Smith'.)
I seem to remember something like that, but I don't know if it was Southgate.
The worst part about that game is that we didn't even play badly despite the heat. It all went south because of a rubbish bit of goalkeeping.
Wrong on both counts. Seaman did nothing wrong and we were utterly abject against 10 men.
Agree with the latter point. No sure I agree that Seaman did nothing wrong! He was about seven yards off his line! That all said, it was still an absolute wonder strike by Ronaldinho. It wouldn't have seemed likely that he would try to shoot from that position.
That's where a goal keeper should start from.
Well off his line?
Just looking at it again he was actually only four yards off his line. If he made a mistake it was that his first movement was forward and he couldn't move back quickly enough when he realised where it was going. But it went in like an arrow and I think most keepers would have been done by that.
Ironically, this could be the one tournament where it is better to come second in the group.
Brazil look pretty certain to win their group (which would mean the winners of our group play them in the quarters) whereas Germany are in a group with Mexico and Sweden.
They should win the group, but it it's less certain. If Brazil win their group and Germany come runners-up in theirs, we will be better placed being runner-up in ours!
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
The problem England have suffered for years, we lack creativity in the middle of the park. And nowadays, all international teams (even tiny nations) are well drilled to play a solid system (plus all England's players pros/ cons are well known as they are seen around the world every week in the EPL).
The likely WC starting England midfield will include at least Dier and Henderson...no international team is going shit their load over those two on the ball.
One plus point, watching some highlights of England U21 over the weekend, like the other youth teams they play with some real excitement (but of course hardly any of them get any time in the EPL).
Very good assessment .The England world cup squad lacks a 1990 , Paul Gascoigne type player, who broke through late to get into the world cup squad.
Jesse Lingard shows some promise.
I went to the England vs Italy friendly and I was very impressed with Lingard. Much improved player.
But then 4 years ago, we all thought Ross Barkley and Jack Wilshire were the future...
Yes very true.Both now struggling to get a game in the EPL.
Ms. Anazina, no. You're inventing an obsession then railing against the strawman you've created, not unlike ardent Remainers wibbling about the empire.
Taking the piss out of the French is an ancient English pastime. And they do the same to the rosbifs. Only the professionally offended care. And the person here who raised France/the French is you.
As an aside, it'd be interesting to compare differences between Englishness prevalence and the Leave vote. Not perfect, but the Leeds result (for Englishness) is 60%. The city region (which was oddly massive, third largest) in the referendum was 50.2% Remain.
The map shows the percentage identifying with an English county or region - not necessarily the same thing as identifing Englishness.
So Londoners aren't proudly Londoners?
The map annotation doesn't mention "or region".
Tweet under it does "This map shows where people most strongly identify with a region or county. It's clear throughout the data that Yorkshire, Northumberland, Cumbria and Cornwall identify very powerfully on this measure #englishquestion"
Presumably Londoners weren't asked if they identified with a county, though?
There's a question "How strongly, if at all, do you identify yourself as being... From a county in England?" and another one "From a region or part of England?" I'd assume the map is based, as stated, on the County question.
In any event, Morris was wrong to deduce from the map that people feel less English the closer one is to London. (He might be right in assuming it but the map doesn't prove it.)
It's hard to overtly identify with a county (cumbria) that has only existed since 1974. Not old enough to have traditions, but instead habits, most of them bad.
Lower-level US-North Korean talks to prepare for the summit are continuing but have made only “halting progress,” according to a second US official briefed on the discussions.
That official said US negotiators’ efforts to press for definitions of immediate, comprehensive, verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation by North Korea had run into opposition from the White House.
Trump only wants a photo opportunity and some weird long term "commitment" and that will be enough to tell his base he has solved the problem Obama and others couldn't.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
The problem England have suffered for years, we lack creativity in the middle of the park. And nowadays, all international teams (even tiny nations) are well drilled to play a solid system (plus all England's players pros/ cons are well known as they are seen around the world every week in the EPL).
The likely WC starting England midfield will include at least Dier and Henderson...no international team is going shit their load over those two on the ball.
One plus point, watching some highlights of England U21 over the weekend, like the other youth teams they play with some real excitement (but of course hardly any of them get any time in the EPL).
Very good assessment .The England world cup squad lacks a 1990 , Paul Gascoigne type player, who broke through late to get into the world cup squad.
Jesse Lingard shows some promise.
I went to the England vs Italy friendly and I was very impressed with Lingard. Much improved player.
But then 4 years ago, we all thought Ross Barkley and Jack Wilshire were the future...
Yes very true.Both now struggling to get a game in the EPL.
I'm glad Barkely went to Chelsea and blocked up their wage bill. Complete waste of space.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
Absolutely this!
If we had turned up against Nigeria in 2002, we'd have had a relatively easy route to the final
Instead we got Brazil in the QF
Never gets mentioned, but one of the most important results in recent years
Indeed. It was difference between playing Brazil in the afternoon heat and playing them at night as we would have done in the semi final. Of course, Senegal in the last 16 would probably have been harder than Denmark. And Turkey had a useful team back then so the quarters would not have been a gimme either.
True enough but Brazil in the heat of the day (it was 35c on match day) is almost a certain defeat for an English team.
I remember Michael Owen saying on TV a few days before the game "we'll all be praying for rain –– otherwise it's going to be another really hot game, which obviously will suit them".
He was right, unfortunately.
The worst part about that game is that we didn't even play badly despite the heat. It all went south because of a rubbish bit of goalkeeping.
Wrong on both counts. Seaman did nothing wrong and we were utterly abject against 10 men.
Beckham losing his bottle and jumping out of a tackle led directly to Brazil's first goal:
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
The problem England have suffered for years, we lack creativity in the middle of the park. And nowadays, all international teams (even tiny nations) are well drilled to play a solid system (plus all England's players pros/ cons are well known as they are seen around the world every week in the EPL).
The likely WC starting England midfield will include at least Dier and Henderson...no international team is going shit their load over those two on the ball.
One plus point, watching some highlights of England U21 over the weekend, like the other youth teams they play with some real excitement (but of course hardly any of them get any time in the EPL).
Very good assessment .The England world cup squad lacks a 1990 , Paul Gascoigne type player, who broke through late to get into the world cup squad.
Jesse Lingard shows some promise.
David Platt was the big breakthrough in 1990.
Gascoigne's most noteworthy contributions came were from his inability to tackle - giving away a penalty against Cameroon and then crying against the Germans.
"Richard Nixon and his legal team would have been interested in the arguments espoused by the Trump legal team"
I'm not sure they would. Nixon resigned because he would almost certainly have otherwise have been impeached, against which there is no presidential power to pardon. And that's the constitutional backstop. It doesn't really matter whether or not a president can pardon himself. If one ever tried to do so, Congress could (and very likely would) kick him out.
I think the difference between 1974 and now is Trump's base. Whilst the base does not guarantee that Trump will win a Presidential election [ After all some of the states were won very narrowly ], it certainly will dominate the primaries.
That is why the Republican House members who are re-selected every two years in a primary [ the word "re-selection" is emotive in the UK ] and one-third of the Senate seats are up for re-election this November [ some of them Republican ] are scared stiff.
Senators like Collins, Murkowski etc. don't give a damn as they are not up for re-election.
Yep, that's true, although how Trump's core vote - the 25-35% of Republican primary voters who backed him before other candidates started dropping out - would react were he to be impeached after self-pardoning a federal offence is very much an open question. After all, while those congressmen and senators might face the wrath of Trump, how would he actively go about fighting back? To have them fail in a re-selection bid, he'd need proxies who not only toed his line but were credible in their own right. In effect, he'd need a party within a party - and I don't think that building a machine of that nature interests him. Too much hard work.
I accept the moment he starts pardoning Manafort, Flynn etc. the support will begin to ebb. Pardoning his son and son-in-law will be too much.
As the base starts to shrink the House members and moderate Republican senators will also start to flex their muscles. After all, Trump is not personally popular with them.
The reason Clinton's impeachment lost in the Senate was because Democrat Senators could not be persuaded that any shenanigans with an intern [ and lying about it ] was definitely not a removal offence.
Trump's possible charge would be in a par with what Nixon faced.
The worst part about that game is that we didn't even play badly despite the heat. It all went south because of a rubbish bit of goalkeeping.
Wrong on both counts. Seaman did nothing wrong and we were utterly abject against 10 men.
Agree with the latter point. No sure I agree that Seaman did nothing wrong! He was about seven yards off his line! That all said, it was still an absolute wonder strike by Ronaldinho. It wouldn't have seemed likely that he would try to shoot from that position.
That's where a goal keeper should start from.
Well off his line?
Just looking at it again he was actually only four yards off his line. If he made a mistake it was that his first movement was forward and he couldn't move back quickly enough when he realised where it was going. But it went in like an arrow and I think most keepers would have been done by that.
Whether Ronaldinho meant it is another matter.
Plus every yard off the line means the angle is cut down significantly. He would have got more stick if he'd been on the line, they'd played forward and he hadn't closed down the angles.
Mr. L, people say the gender pay gap is proof of discrimination and undervaluing of women. That's clearly misunderstanding both statistics and the reality.
It turns out taking years off work to have and raise kids (mostly women) puts you at a disadvantage against people (mostly men) who do not do that. My gast was flabbered to discover that.
Part of it is also in the "hours worked" section of the ONS release every month. IIRC the average man works around 40h per week in a full time job while the average woman works around 35h per week in a full time job. A huge chunk of the earnings gap comes from men simply working more hours than women.
I fully support men and women being paid equally. I look forward to the Women Singles in Wimbledon and other GS tournaments being a best of 5 sets rather than best of 3 sets as it is now.
Didn't the ATP propose the opposite and say the men's tournaments should be best of 3?
Not that I would agree, I think you are right, the women should play best of 5 if they want equal prize money.
Also, seriously, I am not sure why it can't be. Women run the marathon, do the triathlon. A 5 setter should be easy. And I believe it is only in the grand slams that men play 5 setters.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
The problem England have suffered for years, we lack creativity in the middle of the park. And nowadays, all international teams (even tiny nations) are well drilled to play a solid system (plus all England's players pros/ cons are well known as they are seen around the world every week in the EPL).
The likely WC starting England midfield will include at least Dier and Henderson...no international team is going shit their load over those two on the ball.
One plus point, watching some highlights of England U21 over the weekend, like the other youth teams they play with some real excitement (but of course hardly any of them get any time in the EPL).
Very good assessment .The England world cup squad lacks a 1990 , Paul Gascoigne type player, who broke through late to get into the world cup squad.
Jesse Lingard shows some promise.
David Platt was the big breakthrough in 1990.
Gascoigne's most noteworthy contributions came were from his inability to tackle - giving away a penalty against Cameroon and then crying against the Germans.
Hmm. Folk memory has it that Gazza performed great deeds at that tournament, but apart from dribbling on occasions what did he actually contribute?
It isn't surprising that county identity is stronger in the larger more historic counties like Yorkshire or Cornwall (or indeed parts of Kent, looking at the map) than the likes of Middlesex or Hertfordshire.
Yes, I've never met ANYONE who said "I'm from Middlesex". The whole county system is an odd relic of feudalism, though for some like Yorkshire it has really dug into the sense of identity. Having an identifiable regional dialect seems to be part of it - in the Nottingham area most people don't IMO feel much link to Notts in general, except for the accent and a bit about food (mushy peas).
It probably varies how much people care about being "from" anywhere, as Mrs May notoriously observed. Nowadays a lot of people have knocked around a bit and are no longer tied especially to one place.
Taking the piss out of the French is an ancient English pastime. And they do the same to the rosbifs.
They really don't in my experience; I spent a year at a French university and have a house in France. I don't think I ever heard anyone talk about the British whether in disparaging terms or not. They think about us a lot less than we think about them. A similar situation prevails in the opposite direction with the Scottish and English.
The Germans on the other hand... I've heard the term "Inselaffe" more than once...
In all my 10 years in Germany, I don't think anyone ever said the word "Inselaffe" within my earshot. It is regarded as a pretty offensive insult, and it is certainly not a word that anyone would use in polite company, even in jest. Granted, your company may not have been quite as refined as mine :-)
Is there any historical reason why Inselaffe is considered so offensive? On straight translation it seems pretty mild.
When I first came across the word (in print), I too thought that "island-monkey" didn't sound bad at all, cute even. But when I mentioned it to my German wife, she went bright red and told me never to say it around her friends or family. I don't know about its origin, but as OldKingCole mentioned, it tends to be aimed mostly at British soldiers.
It's sometimes difficult to judge the offensiveness of foreign derogatory terms or swear words. My otherwise genteel German mother-in-law was in the habit of exclaiming "shit!" at the most minor inconvenience. She didn't like saying "Scheisse!" and thought "shit!" was a cute replacement. It always made me jump slightly when she used it!
Mr. L, people say the gender pay gap is proof of discrimination and undervaluing of women. That's clearly misunderstanding both statistics and the reality.
It turns out taking years off work to have and raise kids (mostly women) puts you at a disadvantage against people (mostly men) who do not do that. My gast was flabbered to discover that.
Part of it is also in the "hours worked" section of the ONS release every month. IIRC the average man works around 40h per week in a full time job while the average woman works around 35h per week in a full time job. A huge chunk of the earnings gap comes from men simply working more hours than women.
I fully support men and women being paid equally. I look forward to the Women Singles in Wimbledon and other GS tournaments being a best of 5 sets rather than best of 3 sets as it is now.
Didn't the ATP propose the opposite and say the men's tournaments should be best of 3?
Not that I would agree, I think you are right, the women should play best of 5 if they want equal prize money.
Also, seriously, I am not sure why it can't be. Women run the marathon, do the triathlon. A 5 setter should be easy. And I believe it is only in the grand slams that men play 5 setters.
Scheduling. The current set up works nicely. If the slams had to schedule five set matches for the women there would be issues - especially at Wimbledon.
"With five months to go until Election Day, a majority of voters in battleground districts say their midterm vote this year matters just as much as in a presidential election. But Democrats (28 percent) are twice as likely as Republicans (14 percent) to say their midterm vote is more important than in a presidential election."
Mr. L, people say the gender pay gap is proof of discrimination and undervaluing of women. That's clearly misunderstanding both statistics and the reality.
It turns out taking years off work to have and raise kids (mostly women) puts you at a disadvantage against people (mostly men) who do not do that. My gast was flabbered to discover that.
Part of it is also in the "hours worked" section of the ONS release every month. IIRC the average man works around 40h per week in a full time job while the average woman works around 35h per week in a full time job. A huge chunk of the earnings gap comes from men simply working more hours than women.
I fully support men and women being paid equally. I look forward to the Women Singles in Wimbledon and other GS tournaments being a best of 5 sets rather than best of 3 sets as it is now.
Didn't the ATP propose the opposite and say the men's tournaments should be best of 3?
Not that I would agree, I think you are right, the women should play best of 5 if they want equal prize money.
Also, seriously, I am not sure why it can't be. Women run the marathon, do the triathlon. A 5 setter should be easy. And I believe it is only in the grand slams that men play 5 setters.
Scheduling. The current set up works nicely. If the slams had to schedule five set matches for the women there would be issues - especially at Wimbledon.
Mr. L, people say the gender pay gap is proof of discrimination and undervaluing of women. That's clearly misunderstanding both statistics and the reality.
It turns out taking years off work to have and raise kids (mostly women) puts you at a disadvantage against people (mostly men) who do not do that. My gast was flabbered to discover that.
Part of it is also in the "hours worked" section of the ONS release every month. IIRC the average man works around 40h per week in a full time job while the average woman works around 35h per week in a full time job. A huge chunk of the earnings gap comes from men simply working more hours than women.
I fully support men and women being paid equally. I look forward to the Women Singles in Wimbledon and other GS tournaments being a best of 5 sets rather than best of 3 sets as it is now.
Didn't the ATP propose the opposite and say the men's tournaments should be best of 3?
Not that I would agree, I think you are right, the women should play best of 5 if they want equal prize money.
Also, seriously, I am not sure why it can't be. Women run the marathon, do the triathlon. A 5 setter should be easy. And I believe it is only in the grand slams that men play 5 setters.
Scheduling. The current set up works nicely. If the slams had to schedule five set matches for the women there would be issues - especially at Wimbledon.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
The problem England have suffered for years, we lack creativity in the middle of the park. And nowadays, all international teams (even tiny nations) are well drilled to play a solid system (plus all England's players pros/ cons are well known as they are seen around the world every week in the EPL).
The likely WC starting England midfield will include at least Dier and Henderson...no international team is going shit their load over those two on the ball.
One plus point, watching some highlights of England U21 over the weekend, like the other youth teams they play with some real excitement (but of course hardly any of them get any time in the EPL).
Very good assessment .The England world cup squad lacks a 1990 , Paul Gascoigne type player, who broke through late to get into the world cup squad.
Jesse Lingard shows some promise.
David Platt was the big breakthrough in 1990.
Gascoigne's most noteworthy contributions came were from his inability to tackle - giving away a penalty against Cameroon and then crying against the Germans.
Hmm. Folk memory has it that Gazza performed great deeds at that tournament, but apart from dribbling on occasions what did he actually contribute?
I wonder whether any pollster will ask (or whether anyone has the guts to commission a pollster to ask) the following question of Leavers:
Which is more important to you, full Brexit or peace in Ireland?
If (Spartan) Tory Leavers had a workable majority, they might tell the DUP as follows:
"All you NI types will retain your EU citizenship anyway, and yet you still want to hold us to ransom over the border. Either STFU or run to Dublin and ask for reunification before they go bankrupt."
Mr. L, people say the gender pay gap is proof of discrimination and undervaluing of women. That's clearly misunderstanding both statistics and the reality.
It turns out taking years off work to have and raise kids (mostly women) puts you at a disadvantage against people (mostly men) who do not do that. My gast was flabbered to discover that.
Part of it is also in the "hours worked" section of the ONS release every month. IIRC the average man works around 40h per week in a full time job while the average woman works around 35h per week in a full time job. A huge chunk of the earnings gap comes from men simply working more hours than women.
I fully support men and women being paid equally. I look forward to the Women Singles in Wimbledon and other GS tournaments being a best of 5 sets rather than best of 3 sets as it is now.
Didn't the ATP propose the opposite and say the men's tournaments should be best of 3?
Not that I would agree, I think you are right, the women should play best of 5 if they want equal prize money.
Also, seriously, I am not sure why it can't be. Women run the marathon, do the triathlon. A 5 setter should be easy. And I believe it is only in the grand slams that men play 5 setters.
Completely agree, women don't run 3/5ths of a marathon, for example.
Mo Salah is in Egypt's WC squad and they have selected just one other striker (who has only scored 2 goals in 2 years of club football). I think we all know Egypt's tactic...it will be like the Cleveland Cavs approach to basketball.
Mr. L, people say the gender pay gap is proof of discrimination and undervaluing of women. That's clearly misunderstanding both statistics and the reality.
It turns out taking years off work to have and raise kids (mostly women) puts you at a disadvantage against people (mostly men) who do not do that. My gast was flabbered to discover that.
Part of it is also in the "hours worked" section of the ONS release every month. IIRC the average man works around 40h per week in a full time job while the average woman works around 35h per week in a full time job. A huge chunk of the earnings gap comes from men simply working more hours than women.
I fully support men and women being paid equally. I look forward to the Women Singles in Wimbledon and other GS tournaments being a best of 5 sets rather than best of 3 sets as it is now.
Didn't the ATP propose the opposite and say the men's tournaments should be best of 3?
Not that I would agree, I think you are right, the women should play best of 5 if they want equal prize money.
Also, seriously, I am not sure why it can't be. Women run the marathon, do the triathlon. A 5 setter should be easy. And I believe it is only in the grand slams that men play 5 setters.
Completely agree, women don't run 3/5ths of a marathon, for example.
I have no problem with women playing 5 sets of tennis, as long as they clamp down on the bloody grunting...
Mr. L, people say the gender pay gap is proof of discrimination and undervaluing of women. That's clearly misunderstanding both statistics and the reality.
It turns out taking years off work to have and raise kids (mostly women) puts you at a disadvantage against people (mostly men) who do not do that. My gast was flabbered to discover that.
Part of it is also in the "hours worked" section of the ONS release every month. IIRC the average man works around 40h per week in a full time job while the average woman works around 35h per week in a full time job. A huge chunk of the earnings gap comes from men simply working more hours than women.
I fully support men and women being paid equally. I look forward to the Women Singles in Wimbledon and other GS tournaments being a best of 5 sets rather than best of 3 sets as it is now.
Didn't the ATP propose the opposite and say the men's tournaments should be best of 3?
Not that I would agree, I think you are right, the women should play best of 5 if they want equal prize money.
Also, seriously, I am not sure why it can't be. Women run the marathon, do the triathlon. A 5 setter should be easy. And I believe it is only in the grand slams that men play 5 setters.
Completely agree, women don't run 3/5ths of a marathon, for example.
Mr. L, people say the gender pay gap is proof of discrimination and undervaluing of women. That's clearly misunderstanding both statistics and the reality.
It turns out taking years off work to have and raise kids (mostly women) puts you at a disadvantage against people (mostly men) who do not do that. My gast was flabbered to discover that.
Part of it is also in the "hours worked" section of the ONS release every month. IIRC the average man works around 40h per week in a full time job while the average woman works around 35h per week in a full time job. A huge chunk of the earnings gap comes from men simply working more hours than women.
I fully support men and women being paid equally. I look forward to the Women Singles in Wimbledon and other GS tournaments being a best of 5 sets rather than best of 3 sets as it is now.
Didn't the ATP propose the opposite and say the men's tournaments should be best of 3?
Not that I would agree, I think you are right, the women should play best of 5 if they want equal prize money.
Also, seriously, I am not sure why it can't be. Women run the marathon, do the triathlon. A 5 setter should be easy. And I believe it is only in the grand slams that men play 5 setters.
Completely agree, women don't run 3/5ths of a marathon, for example.
Mr. L, people say the gender pay gap is proof of discrimination and undervaluing of women. That's clearly misunderstanding both statistics and the reality.
It turns out taking years off work to have and raise kids (mostly women) puts you at a disadvantage against people (mostly men) who do not do that. My gast was flabbered to discover that.
Part of it is also in the "hours worked" section of the ONS release every month. IIRC the average man works around 40h per week in a full time job while the average woman works around 35h per week in a full time job. A huge chunk of the earnings gap comes from men simply working more hours than women.
I fully support men and women being paid equally. I look forward to the Women Singles in Wimbledon and other GS tournaments being a best of 5 sets rather than best of 3 sets as it is now.
Didn't the ATP propose the opposite and say the men's tournaments should be best of 3?
Not that I would agree, I think you are right, the women should play best of 5 if they want equal prize money.
Also, seriously, I am not sure why it can't be. Women run the marathon, do the triathlon. A 5 setter should be easy. And I believe it is only in the grand slams that men play 5 setters.
Part of it will be logistics. Even allowing for the lesser strength in depth in the women's game (which results in fewer games-per-set and fewer sets-per-match, on a like for like basis), you'd probably increase the number of sets per match if you increased from best-of-3 to best-of-5 from about 2.35 to maybe 3.8. If you average 40 minutes per set, then that'd be an extra 120 hours of court time to find, meaning that you'd need at least one and probably more than one additional court, given that the bulk of the extra time would be necessitated in the early rounds. Some of that could be compensated for by reducing the men's doubles to best-of-three but you'd still risk playing first- and second-round matches for 5-6 days over the two competitions.
That said, it should still be done, even if that means extending the tournament into the previous weekend (which the French Open does anyway).
Hmm. With Fortnite starting out with a $100m prize fund, I wonder if there's any difference between male and female gamer. It'd be quite interesting if male gamers were better at front line fighters, and female gamers better at sniping and flying aircraft.
New Opinium poll on Brexit scenarios, EEA with restrictions is the only option with more than 50% support, WTO terms and regulatory alignment the least popular
I wonder whether any pollster will ask (or whether anyone has the guts to commission a pollster to ask) the following question of Leavers:
Which is more important to you, full Brexit or peace in Ireland?
If (Spartan) Tory Leavers had a workable majority, they might tell the DUP as follows:
"All you NI types will retain your EU citizenship anyway, and yet you still want to hold us to ransom over the border. Either STFU or run to Dublin and ask for reunification before they go bankrupt."
If the price of peace is democracy, it's not worth having.
Taking the piss out of the French is an ancient English pastime. And they do the same to the rosbifs.
They really don't in my experience; I spent a year at a French university and have a house in France. I don't think I ever heard anyone talk about the British whether in disparaging terms or not. They think about us a lot less than we think about them. A similar situation prevails in the opposite direction with the Scottish and English.
The Germans on the other hand... I've heard the term "Inselaffe" more than once...
In all my 10 years in Germany, I don't think anyone ever said the word "Inselaffe" within my earshot. It is regarded as a pretty offensive insult, and it is certainly not a word that anyone would use in polite company, even in jest. Granted, your company may not have been quite as refined as mine :-)
Is there any historical reason why Inselaffe is considered so offensive? On straight translation it seems pretty mild.
When I first came across the word (in print), I too thought that "island-monkey" didn't sound bad at all, cute even. But when I mentioned it to my German wife, she went bright red and told me never to say it around her friends or family. I don't know about its origin, but as OldKingCole mentioned, it tends to be aimed mostly at British soldiers.
It's sometimes difficult to judge the offensiveness of foreign derogatory terms or swear words. My otherwise genteel German mother-in-law was in the habit of exclaiming "shit!" at the most minor inconvenience. She didn't like saying "Scheisse!" and thought "shit!" was a cute replacement. It always made me jump slightly when she used it!
What does come across is that the Brits are a lot less bothered about animal comparisons (dog's life; horse's mouth...) than our European counterparts.
Insults only really work if you take offence.
And the German fondness for shit-compounds (e.g. scheißegal) is oddly appealing.
It isn't surprising that county identity is stronger in the larger more historic counties like Yorkshire or Cornwall (or indeed parts of Kent, looking at the map) than the likes of Middlesex or Hertfordshire.
Yes, I've never met ANYONE who said "I'm from Middlesex"....
There have been times when it seems like half the England cricket team...
Mr. Herdson, "If the price of peace is democracy, it's not worth having."
Well, quite.
Not to mention that means handing over policy-making to those most ready and willing to commit murder. I'm unpersuaded giving terrorists the whip hand over foreign policy is a terribly bright idea.
I wonder whether any pollster will ask (or whether anyone has the guts to commission a pollster to ask) the following question of Leavers:
Which is more important to you, full Brexit or peace in Ireland?
If (Spartan) Tory Leavers had a workable majority, they might tell the DUP as follows:
"All you NI types will retain your EU citizenship anyway, and yet you still want to hold us to ransom over the border. Either STFU or run to Dublin and ask for reunification before they go bankrupt."
'If the price of peace is democracy, it's not worth having.'
The Conservative and Unionist Party would never challenge Northern Ireland's position in the UK
Microsoft clearly have too much money. $7.5bn for Github!
What the f##k....did somebody add an extra zero or two by accident. GitHub works well, but it isn’t much more than a cloud implementation of a free open source protocol and their git tools are rubbish compared to the likes of gitkraken. I do like Atom, but again only because of all the free open source extensions.
"Richard Nixon and his legal team would have been interested in the arguments espoused by the Trump legal team"
I'm not sure they would. Nixon resigned because he would almost certainly have otherwise have been impeached, against which there is no presidential power to pardon. And that's the constitutional backstop. It doesn't really matter whether or not a president can pardon himself. If one ever tried to do so, Congress could (and very likely would) kick him out.
I think the difference between 1974 and now is Trump's base. Whilst the base does not guarantee that Trump will win a Presidential election [ After all some of the states were won very narrowly ], it certainly will dominate the primaries.
That is why the Republican House members who are re-selected every two years in a primary [ the word "re-selection" is emotive in the UK ] and one-third of the Senate seats are up for re-election this November [ some of them Republican ] are scared stiff.
Senators like Collins, Murkowski etc. don't give a damn as they are not up for re-election.
Yep, that's true, although how Trump's core vote - the 25-35% of Republican primary voters who backed him before other candidates started dropping out - would react were he to be impeached after self-pardoning a federal offence is very much an open question. After all, while those congressmen and senators might face the wrath of Trump, how would he actively go about fighting back? To have them fail in a re-selection bid, he'd need proxies who not only toed his line but were credible in their own right. In effect, he'd need a party within a party - and I don't think that building a machine of that nature interests him. Too much hard work.
I accept the moment he starts pardoning Manafort, Flynn etc. the support will begin to ebb. Pardoning his son and son-in-law will be too much.
As the base starts to shrink the House members and moderate Republican senators will also start to flex their muscles. After all, Trump is not personally popular with them.
The reason Clinton's impeachment lost in the Senate was because Democrat Senators could not be persuaded that any shenanigans with an intern [ and lying about it ] was definitely not a removal offence.
Trump's possible charge would be in a par with what Nixon faced.
Yep. i'd agree with all that (apart from what I think is an extraneous 'not' in your paragraph on Clinton?)
Taking the piss out of the French is an ancient English pastime. And they do the same to the rosbifs.
They really don't in my experience; I spent a year at a French university and have a house in France. I don't think I ever heard anyone talk about the British whether in disparaging terms or not. They think about us a lot less than we think about them. A similar situation prevails in the opposite direction with the Scottish and English.
The Germans on the other hand... I've heard the term "Inselaffe" more than once...
In all my 10 years in Germany, I don't think anyone ever said the word "Inselaffe" within my earshot. It is regarded as a pretty offensive insult, and it is certainly not a word that anyone would use in polite company, even in jest. Granted, your company may not have been quite as refined as mine :-)
I am sure they don’t fling it around if they know you can speak German. I can recall off the top of my head hearing it three times: ground crew at Lechfeld, cop near Koln and a Düsseldorf car dealer when I was buying yet another ratty E36 M3.
Mr. L, people say the gender pay gap is proof of discrimination and undervaluing of women. That's clearly misunderstanding both statistics and the reality.
It turns out taking years off work to have and raise kids (mostly women) puts you at a disadvantage against people (mostly men) who do not do that. My gast was flabbered to discover that.
Part of it is also in the "hours worked" section of the ONS release every month. IIRC the average man works around 40h per week in a full time job while the average woman works around 35h per week in a full time job. A huge chunk of the earnings gap comes from men simply working more hours than women.
I fully support men and women being paid equally. I look forward to the Women Singles in Wimbledon and other GS tournaments being a best of 5 sets rather than best of 3 sets as it is now.
Didn't the ATP propose the opposite and say the men's tournaments should be best of 3?
Not that I would agree, I think you are right, the women should play best of 5 if they want equal prize money.
Also, seriously, I am not sure why it can't be. Women run the marathon, do the triathlon. A 5 setter should be easy. And I believe it is only in the grand slams that men play 5 setters.
Indeed, I've never understood this divergence. It's clearly part of makes a Grand Slam event a Grand Slam event, for the men at least, that extra level of challenge. So why the women don't makes no sense, I've no doubt they can all manage it and it removes any snide commentary about equal work.
It isn't surprising that county identity is stronger in the larger more historic counties like Yorkshire or Cornwall (or indeed parts of Kent, looking at the map) than the likes of Middlesex or Hertfordshire.
Yes, I've never met ANYONE who said "I'm from Middlesex". The whole county system is an odd relic of feudalism, though for some like Yorkshire it has really dug into the sense of identity. Having an identifiable regional dialect seems to be part of it - in the Nottingham area most people don't IMO feel much link to Notts in general, except for the accent and a bit about food (mushy peas).
It probably varies how much people care about being "from" anywhere, as Mrs May notoriously observed. Nowadays a lot of people have knocked around a bit and are no longer tied especially to one place.
As I said downthread, the survey results are probably just a proxy for (inter-county) geographical mobility, which is surely less in places like Yorkshire and Cornwall than it is in the Home Counties.
It isn't surprising that county identity is stronger in the larger more historic counties like Yorkshire or Cornwall (or indeed parts of Kent, looking at the map) than the likes of Middlesex or Hertfordshire.
Yes, I've never met ANYONE who said "I'm from Middlesex". The whole county system is an odd relic of feudalism, though for some like Yorkshire it has really dug into the sense of identity. Having an identifiable regional dialect seems to be part of it - in the Nottingham area most people don't IMO feel much link to Notts in general, except for the accent and a bit about food (mushy peas).
It probably varies how much people care about being "from" anywhere, as Mrs May notoriously observed. Nowadays a lot of people have knocked around a bit and are no longer tied especially to one place.
The only people I have met who obsess about county identity are people from Yorkshire and Lancashire and – even then – it seems to be chiefly directed at each other. I find it all a bit tiresome, to be honest.
The boundaries have shifted and changed so much over the years that younger people already disagree with older people about which county they are 'from'.
Manchester hasn't been in Lancashire since the 1970s. Some places pretty much disappeared from the map completely even earlier – you mention Middlesex. That was abolished for all intents and purposes before most of the population was born (1965 I think?). No wonder no one recognises it!
New Opinium poll on Brexit scenarios, EEA with restrictions is the only option with more than 50% support, WTO terms and regulatory alignment the least popular
New Opinium poll on Brexit scenarios, EEA with restrictions is the only option with more than 50% support, WTO terms and regulatory alignment the least popular
Comments
But then 4 years ago, we all thought Ross Barkley and Jack Wilshire were the future...
Ironically, it was Owen himself who scored the opener after publicly worrying about the weather.
https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1003541337583517696
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/04/north-koreas-top-three-military-officials-sacked-as-nuclear-summit-nears
Lower-level US-North Korean talks to prepare for the summit are continuing but have made only “halting progress,” according to a second US official briefed on the discussions.
That official said US negotiators’ efforts to press for definitions of immediate, comprehensive, verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation by North Korea had run into opposition from the White House.
It's always been one of the worst protectionist arguments that 'foreigners are damaging the English players'. No, they're driving up the standard of the game, which is not only good for those playing in the PL but also make the PL a more saleable asset internationally. England doesn't need 300 mediocre PL players to choose from; it needs 23 who can win a world cup. If they're good enough, they'll get to the top anyway; the trick is getting them good enough.
Whether Ronaldinho meant it is another matter.
Brazil look pretty certain to win their group (which would mean the winners of our group play them in the quarters) whereas Germany are in a group with Mexico and Sweden.
They should win the group, but it it's less certain. If Brazil win their group and Germany come runners-up in theirs, we will be better placed being runner-up in ours!
He is not interested in anything else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNP8FY9L7g0
Gascoigne's most noteworthy contributions came were from his inability to tackle - giving away a penalty against Cameroon and then crying against the Germans.
As the base starts to shrink the House members and moderate Republican senators will also start to flex their muscles. After all, Trump is not personally popular with them.
The reason Clinton's impeachment lost in the Senate was because Democrat Senators could not be persuaded that any shenanigans with an intern [ and lying about it ] was definitely not a removal offence.
Trump's possible charge would be in a par with what Nixon faced.
EU plan to limit security cooperation with UK after Brexit could increase chance of terror attack, Javid suggests.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jun/04/javid-promises-no-safe-spaces-for-terrorists-as-he-unveils-counter-terrorism-strategy-politics-live?page=with:block-5b151ba1e4b069235b5d124f#block-5b151ba1e4b069235b5d124f
It probably varies how much people care about being "from" anywhere, as Mrs May notoriously observed. Nowadays a lot of people have knocked around a bit and are no longer tied especially to one place.
It's sometimes difficult to judge the offensiveness of foreign derogatory terms or swear words. My otherwise genteel German mother-in-law was in the habit of exclaiming "shit!" at the most minor inconvenience. She didn't like saying "Scheisse!" and thought "shit!" was a cute replacement. It always made me jump slightly when she used it!
"With five months to go until Election Day, a majority of voters in battleground districts say their midterm vote this year matters just as much as in a presidential election. But Democrats (28 percent) are twice as likely as Republicans (14 percent) to say their midterm vote is more important than in a presidential election."
"All you NI types will retain your EU citizenship anyway, and yet you still want to hold us to ransom over the border. Either STFU or run to Dublin and ask for reunification before they go bankrupt."
That said, it should still be done, even if that means extending the tournament into the previous weekend (which the French Open does anyway).
Hmm. With Fortnite starting out with a $100m prize fund, I wonder if there's any difference between male and female gamer. It'd be quite interesting if male gamers were better at front line fighters, and female gamers better at sniping and flying aircraft.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1003609386013609985
"All you NI types will retain your EU citizenship anyway, and yet you still want to hold us to ransom over the border. Either STFU or run to Dublin and ask for reunification before they go bankrupt."
If the price of peace is democracy, it's not worth having.
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/2zsh7q/til_a_pejorative_german_name_for_the_british_is/
What does come across is that the Brits are a lot less bothered about animal comparisons (dog's life; horse's mouth...) than our European counterparts.
Insults only really work if you take offence.
And the German fondness for shit-compounds (e.g. scheißegal) is oddly appealing.
https://whytepaper.wordpress.com/2018/06/04/errors-in-growth-commission-report/
Well, quite.
Not to mention that means handing over policy-making to those most ready and willing to commit murder. I'm unpersuaded giving terrorists the whip hand over foreign policy is a terribly bright idea.
The Conservative and Unionist Party would never challenge Northern Ireland's position in the UK
Serena Williams has pulled out of the French Open.
https://order-order.com/2018/06/04/labour-campaign-for-human-rights-uses-dozens-of-unpaid-interns/
£200 per ticket for good stalls seats.
FFS.
The boundaries have shifted and changed so much over the years that younger people already disagree with older people about which county they are 'from'.
Manchester hasn't been in Lancashire since the 1970s. Some places pretty much disappeared from the map completely even earlier – you mention Middlesex. That was abolished for all intents and purposes before most of the population was born (1965 I think?). No wonder no one recognises it!
But it's a poll. And we all know that polls are best ignored!!