This government is desperate to be photographed in front of vote winning things. The PM has decided not to bother with this one. Because it isn't seen as vote winning when they think about the knuckle-dragger vote. It's not proper football is it? Just the lasses having a kick-about. Why bother? Now if it was proper football with manly men, that would be different...
Just a thought, but if the women's team is more successful than the men's team, shouldn't they get paid more...?
Not this again. They're not playing the same opposition. Shouldn't Oxford City be paid more than Oxford United? After all, Oxford City got promoted last year, United only finished 8th. They should get paid what the market will bear. Which is a lot more than it would have done 20 years ago, but still a lot less than men's football. Because the level of interest is a lot less.
Viewing figures are increasing though, especially for international tournaments if not through the turnstiles on a wet Tuesday in Stoke. It might end up like tennis in that regard where Wimbledon pays the same because they both put bums on seats and sponsors shower sacks of gold on the top stars.
This government is desperate to be photographed in front of vote winning things. The PM has decided not to bother with this one. Because it isn't seen as vote winning when they think about the knuckle-dragger vote. It's not proper football is it? Just the lasses having a kick-about. Why bother? Now if it was proper football with manly men, that would be different...
Just a thought, but if the women's team is more successful than the men's team, shouldn't they get paid more...?
Not this again. They're not playing the same opposition. Shouldn't Oxford City be paid more than Oxford United? After all, Oxford City got promoted last year, United only finished 8th. They should get paid what the market will bear. Which is a lot more than it would have done 20 years ago, but still a lot less than men's football. Because the level of interest is a lot less.
All I am saying is that perhaps the interest should be a lot less on the mens game - especially at national level - and a lot more on the more successful women.
TBH I'm just trying to parody the men who find the success of the women to be threatening to their definition of who they are.
Who are these men ?
Do they even exist, or exist in great numbers ?
I’ve not seen or heard, either in RL or online, any negativity about the England womens team. The only possible negative was comparative standards.
This government is desperate to be photographed in front of vote winning things. The PM has decided not to bother with this one. Because it isn't seen as vote winning when they think about the knuckle-dragger vote. It's not proper football is it? Just the lasses having a kick-about. Why bother? Now if it was proper football with manly men, that would be different...
Just a thought, but if the women's team is more successful than the men's team, shouldn't they get paid more...?
Not this again. They're not playing the same opposition. Shouldn't Oxford City be paid more than Oxford United? After all, Oxford City got promoted last year, United only finished 8th. They should get paid what the market will bear. Which is a lot more than it would have done 20 years ago, but still a lot less than men's football. Because the level of interest is a lot less.
All I am saying is that perhaps the interest should be a lot less on the mens game - especially at national level - and a lot more on the more successful women.
TBH I'm just trying to parody the men who find the success of the women to be threatening to their definition of who they are.
But by thst logic more people should go to watch Oxford City than Oxford United.
Do Oxford City threaten the world view of Oxford United fans? If the women win the world cup today, that puts a whole new spin on the worldview of the "two world wars and one world cup" brigade.
A pointless chart as it takes no respective account of the size or population of each nation.
Vorderman is someone I have had to block on Twitter. At first her critiques of the govt were pretty much on the nail but I suspect she’s got carried away with her own twitter persona and comes across as slightly obsessive even deranged. Posting endless bilge for likes and retweets. The core message gets somewhat lost and she ends up preaching to the converted.
Bet she’s gutted.
I doubt she cares at all. She’s there for likes and retweets and maintains/raising her profile like many C listers and daytime TV talking heads. It’s all about the brand. Doesn’t make my observation invalid.
I suspect she doesn’t give a flying fuck about her profile. If her pronouncements chimed more with your worldview I suspect you wouldn’t be so dismissive.
It’s going to be great when Musk disables the block function. You’ll be exposed to endless tweets pointing out the irrefutable, ever mounting evidence of the huge harm Brexit is doing, and I’ll be force-fed endless bullshit from blue-ticked flag shaggers. Wonderful.
WTF are you burbling on about ? Are you on an E ? I voted remain. I’m no brexiteer and have not even once extolled the virtues of it.
Old news. The tweets where he has said that have been removed by him.
Ah, thanks. It did surprise me.
Someone probably took him to one side and explained that this would mean both the App Store and Google Play would remove Twitter X from their stores, as the ability to block people is a required function for social media apps on their platforms.
Like @Leon has said in the past, this inferiority complex is really weird.
What inferiority? I don't slavishly follow any football team, let alone some other country's, and I certainly don't go around claiming that the bloated cost of the RF is justified by the height of some numinous profile. 90% of which is the Ruritanian family soap opera element anyway.
You (and @Theuniondivvie did so a couple of weeks ago) get triggered by any mention or putative celebration of English success in sport.
It stirs something deep within the Nat psyche; hence comments like this.
I think what really riles them is when a non-English home nation sports team/person does well and the English take pleasure in supporting them too. They just can't abide that their hostility isn't reciprocated.
Scotland will probably do better than England in the Rugby World Cup for example. Seeing English rugby supporters cheer for them in the latter stages is likely to leave Scot Nats fuming.
That said I can't cheer on McIlroy in the golf because my mother-in-law hasn't forgiven him for dumping his girlfriend as soon as he became famous.
This government is desperate to be photographed in front of vote winning things. The PM has decided not to bother with this one. Because it isn't seen as vote winning when they think about the knuckle-dragger vote. It's not proper football is it? Just the lasses having a kick-about. Why bother? Now if it was proper football with manly men, that would be different...
Just a thought, but if the women's team is more successful than the men's team, shouldn't they get paid more...?
Payment for womens football will rise rapidly according to crowds in the WPL. But at the moment the ticket prices are very low c.f. to the mens game, and the TV and advertising is vastly less. That can and may change. I’d argue the money for international appearances etc should be the same, if it isn’t already.
It doesn't matter what they think, that's the whole point of a monarchy. If they let Charles be king they're not going to have a revolution over William.
Also this is the kind of "topics nobody really gives a fuck about" polling that will give you wildly different results depending how you ask the question. Remind the voters about the CO2 and the cost of the security and they'd be telling him to stay at home. Ignore it.
So the defence about carbon footprints is clearly spurious if we are sending two cabinet ministers down under. I'm sure they could have found room for the prince on the plane.
One might also ask why the Prime Minister himself will not be there. He has been happy to be photographed on holiday in California so it is not as if he is too busy.
Surely the truth is the men who arrange these things do not take women's sport seriously and had not noticed that after winning the Euros, the Lionesses had a leading chance in the World Cup.
I couldn’t give a crap, either - but government really ought to.
Just over a decade back there were some excellent programs in primary schools - I recall my wife, who has less interest in sport than I do, being very enthusiastic about a beginners cricket coaching scheme, for example.
We had a local twat*, composing about elitist sport. The rowing club I’m a member of offers rowing to all the local state schools. Good take up as well.
*One of the NIMBY, angry at everything, at every local meeting types
This government is desperate to be photographed in front of vote winning things. The PM has decided not to bother with this one. Because it isn't seen as vote winning when they think about the knuckle-dragger vote. It's not proper football is it? Just the lasses having a kick-about. Why bother? Now if it was proper football with manly men, that would be different...
Just a thought, but if the women's team is more successful than the men's team, shouldn't they get paid more...?
Payment for womens football will rise rapidly according to crowds in the WPL. But at the moment the ticket prices are very low c.f. to the mens game, and the TV and advertising is vastly less. That can and may change. I’d argue the money for international appearances etc should be the same, if it isn’t already.
They do for England, but appearance fees for internationals are something like £2k per match, which the men have traditionally donated to charity.
The big money comes from the professional leagues, with TV revenues and gate receipts.
FIFA have already complained about no TV interest in this women’s tournament, and threatened at one point to not show it on TV as the offers were so low outside the US and Australia.
This is another issue with which I'm struggling to muster a scintilla of interest.
Rishi Sunak is entitled to a holiday - he may be Prime Minister (for now) but that doesn't mean he can't have some sort of break. We could have sent Oliver Dowden (seriously) but James Cleverly is attending which is fair enough.
As for someone Royal, well, Harry's in California which is a bit nearer. Those who argue for environmental sensibility and sensitivity then have to justify William and entourage travelling halfway round the world - I mean, he only turned up to Ascot for a couple of days. The problem will be when he stands up to try and take the environmental high ground somebody will turn round and say "you flew all the way to Australia and back for a football match".
As we see with so much else, it's less what you do now than what gets dragged up 20 years on when times and attitudes have changed and gets used against you.
Look at it another way - if you want to listen to music from 50 years ago, it's quite easy to find but 50 years ago, did anyone listen to the music of the 1920s?
As Margaret Thatcher - would she have travelled to Australia for a football match? - once said "it's a funny old world".
This government is desperate to be photographed in front of vote winning things. The PM has decided not to bother with this one. Because it isn't seen as vote winning when they think about the knuckle-dragger vote. It's not proper football is it? Just the lasses having a kick-about. Why bother? Now if it was proper football with manly men, that would be different...
Just a thought, but if the women's team is more successful than the men's team, shouldn't they get paid more...?
Not this again. They're not playing the same opposition. Shouldn't Oxford City be paid more than Oxford United? After all, Oxford City got promoted last year, United only finished 8th. They should get paid what the market will bear. Which is a lot more than it would have done 20 years ago, but still a lot less than men's football. Because the level of interest is a lot less.
All I am saying is that perhaps the interest should be a lot less on the mens game - especially at national level - and a lot more on the more successful women.
TBH I'm just trying to parody the men who find the success of the women to be threatening to their definition of who they are.
But by thst logic more people should go to watch Oxford City than Oxford United.
Do Oxford City threaten the world view of Oxford United fans? If the women win the world cup today, that puts a whole new spin on the worldview of the "two world wars and one world cup" brigade.
It’ll be one armada and one World Cup if they win today.
This government is desperate to be photographed in front of vote winning things. The PM has decided not to bother with this one. Because it isn't seen as vote winning when they think about the knuckle-dragger vote. It's not proper football is it? Just the lasses having a kick-about. Why bother? Now if it was proper football with manly men, that would be different...
Just a thought, but if the women's team is more successful than the men's team, shouldn't they get paid more...?
Maybe they will be some day.
I recall an argument in the past that there weren't enough goals in men's soccer because the goalkeepers were too tall. It was argued that the size of the goals should be increased to compensate.
Well, women's soccer is, to a certain extent, the same as men's soccer except that the goalkeepers are shorter. It might be that, over time, this leads to fans of the sport concluding that women's soccer is a better spectacle than men's soccer, and it consequently receives higher levels of support, income and then pay for the players.
Like @Leon has said in the past, this inferiority complex is really weird.
What inferiority? I don't slavishly follow any football team, let alone some other country's, and I certainly don't go around claiming that the bloated cost of the RF is justified by the height of some numinous profile. 90% of which is the Ruritanian family soap opera element anyway.
You (and @Theuniondivvie did so a couple of weeks ago) get triggered by any mention or putative celebration of English success in sport.
It stirs something deep within the Nat pschy; hence comments like this.
Wrong there. It's this idea thast you *have* to support a national team to be patriotic. I don't give a monkey's about the Scottish teams either.
To be fair, as I recall, the PB righties and HMG were extremely unwilling to support England (Male) at footie because they were all woke, so it's not a required shibboleth.
Neither do I. I couldn't care less about football and am not watching it today.
But that's not what your post was about. Your post was about nationalism.
Like @Leon has said in the past, this inferiority complex is really weird.
What inferiority? I don't slavishly follow any football team, let alone some other country's, and I certainly don't go around claiming that the bloated cost of the RF is justified by the height of some numinous profile. 90% of which is the Ruritanian family soap opera element anyway.
You (and @Theuniondivvie did so a couple of weeks ago) get triggered by any mention or putative celebration of English success in sport.
It stirs something deep within the Nat psyche; hence comments like this.
One could say the same about your reaction to their comments.
It doesn't matter what they think, that's the whole point of a monarchy. If they let Charles be king they're not going to have a revolution over William.
Also this is the kind of "topics nobody really gives a fuck about" polling that will give you wildly different results depending how you ask the question. Remind the voters about the CO2 and the cost of the security and they'd be telling him to stay at home. Ignore it.
So the defence about carbon footprints is clearly spurious if we are sending two cabinet ministers down under. I'm sure they could have found room for the prince on the plane.
One might also ask why the Prime Minister himself will not be there. He has been happy to be photographed on holiday in California so it is not as if he is too busy.
Surely the truth is the men who arrange these things do not take women's sport seriously and had not noticed that after winning the Euros, the Lionesses had a leading chance in the World Cup.
Pretending to like women's football is woke so Sunak has a careful line to tread if he's to maintain his new populist, man of the people, climate skeptic, autophile, common bloody sense persona.
Stupidly and the other one are just cannon fodder.
This is a valid point. Think about the aggro if England win the World Cup. This is supposed to be a man's game for manly men. And yet the men are useless and here come their girlfriends to humiliate them by winning.
There is a lot of resistance out there amongst the kind of weaponised stupidity voters the Tories have to chase. The women beating the men would be a Bad Thing.
Meanwhile, Labour have a 28 point lead over the Tories with women voters...
But the women aren't beating the men. They are beating other women. ISTR the USA national women's team played an U15 mens team from Texas in the warm up to the WC,and lost.
Like @Leon has said in the past, this inferiority complex is really weird.
What inferiority? I don't slavishly follow any football team, let alone some other country's, and I certainly don't go around claiming that the bloated cost of the RF is justified by the height of some numinous profile. 90% of which is the Ruritanian family soap opera element anyway.
You (and @Theuniondivvie did so a couple of weeks ago) get triggered by any mention or putative celebration of English success in sport.
It stirs something deep within the Nat psyche; hence comments like this.
60 years celebrating one cheated win is a bit rich though. I personally hope they get absolutely humped or we will be bombarded with crap for the next 60 years. Triggers your national inferiority complex getting constantly humped when you mistakenly think you are the best in world
I don't entirely disagree with you. I can't stand football and get fed up with 1966 too.
Like @Leon has said in the past, this inferiority complex is really weird.
What inferiority? I don't slavishly follow any football team, let alone some other country's, and I certainly don't go around claiming that the bloated cost of the RF is justified by the height of some numinous profile. 90% of which is the Ruritanian family soap opera element anyway.
You (and @Theuniondivvie did so a couple of weeks ago) get triggered by any mention or putative celebration of English success in sport.
It stirs something deep within the Nat psyche; hence comments like this.
I think what really riles them is when a non-English home nation sports team/person does well and the English take pleasure in supporting them too. They just can't abide that their hostility isn't reciprocated.
Scotland will probably do better than England in the Rugby World Cup for example. Seeing English rugby supporters cheer for them in the latter stages is likely to leave Scot Nats fuming.
That said I can't cheer on McIlroy in the golf because my mother-in-law hasn't forgiven him for dumping his girlfriend as soon as he became famous.
This government is desperate to be photographed in front of vote winning things. The PM has decided not to bother with this one. Because it isn't seen as vote winning when they think about the knuckle-dragger vote. It's not proper football is it? Just the lasses having a kick-about. Why bother? Now if it was proper football with manly men, that would be different...
Just a thought, but if the women's team is more successful than the men's team, shouldn't they get paid more...?
Not this again. They're not playing the same opposition. Shouldn't Oxford City be paid more than Oxford United? After all, Oxford City got promoted last year, United only finished 8th. They should get paid what the market will bear. Which is a lot more than it would have done 20 years ago, but still a lot less than men's football. Because the level of interest is a lot less.
All I am saying is that perhaps the interest should be a lot less on the mens game - especially at national level - and a lot more on the more successful women.
TBH I'm just trying to parody the men who find the success of the women to be threatening to their definition of who they are.
But by thst logic more people should go to watch Oxford City than Oxford United.
Do Oxford City threaten the world view of Oxford United fans? If the women win the world cup today, that puts a whole new spin on the worldview of the "two world wars and one world cup" brigade.
No it doesn't. You're setting up a straw man here. I don't see these legions of people furious about the concept of women's football. (And personally, as I've said in the past, I prefer it.) But to say it is, or should be, the equal of men's football is daft. Like Carynx, I take an interest in the sports I take an interest in. So does everyone else. It's fine. The 'correct' level of interest in a sport or sporting event is therefore exactly equal to the level of interest there is. (I will be watching the game today, because the wife and middle daughter are interested. But I will be mildly grumpy, because we have tickets to the hundred, and we'll be missing the women's match. And I'd rather watch an arbitrarily assembled team of women play cricket in a confected competition than watch football on the telly. That's not sexism, that's just liking cricket better than football.)
The triviality of this morning's topic is wholly appropriate for a nice lazy Sunday morning with little to worry about.
I'll be enjoying the game unbothered about which cosseted oafs may or may not be in the stands and without a hint a hint of criticism of those who choose not to view, let alone be there.
Plus I'd add that it's shitty to demand that Prince William break up his family holiday to fly 12,000 miles and back to attend an event that could not be foreseen.
Like @Leon has said in the past, this inferiority complex is really weird.
What inferiority? I don't slavishly follow any football team, let alone some other country's, and I certainly don't go around claiming that the bloated cost of the RF is justified by the height of some numinous profile. 90% of which is the Ruritanian family soap opera element anyway.
You (and @Theuniondivvie did so a couple of weeks ago) get triggered by any mention or putative celebration of English success in sport.
It stirs something deep within the Nat psyche; hence comments like this.
One could say the same about your reaction to their comments.
Also note his instant assumption that it's the 'English' I'm reacting to, as opposed to "general idiocy of requiring everyone to support some national team or other". I've made sarcastic comments on the Tebbit-Sillars doctrine on here before.
He is a twat, big inferiority complex about being English.
Casino's OK. Just a bit combative on occasion, which I thought you might appreciate, malcolm.
Nigel, He takes it all far too seriously , his blood pressure will do for him , he is insecure for sure.
Wills should be there imo and I'm a bit surprised he isn't. It's the distance, I suppose. Have people seen where Australia is? Have a look at a globe. You couldn't get any further away and still call yourself Earth.
Like @Leon has said in the past, this inferiority complex is really weird.
What inferiority? I don't slavishly follow any football team, let alone some other country's, and I certainly don't go around claiming that the bloated cost of the RF is justified by the height of some numinous profile. 90% of which is the Ruritanian family soap opera element anyway.
You (and @Theuniondivvie did so a couple of weeks ago) get triggered by any mention or putative celebration of English success in sport.
It stirs something deep within the Nat psyche; hence comments like this.
I think what really riles them is when a non-English home nation sports team/person does well and the English take pleasure in supporting them too. They just can't abide that their hostility isn't reciprocated.
Scotland will probably do better than England in the Rugby World Cup for example. Seeing English rugby supporters cheer for them in the latter stages is likely to leave Scot Nats fuming.
That said I can't cheer on McIlroy in the golf because my mother-in-law hasn't forgiven him for dumping his girlfriend as soon as he became famous.
Methinks you dost protest too much. I care not a jot about the nationality of anyone supporting any Scottish sports representative(s).
This government is desperate to be photographed in front of vote winning things. The PM has decided not to bother with this one. Because it isn't seen as vote winning when they think about the knuckle-dragger vote. It's not proper football is it? Just the lasses having a kick-about. Why bother? Now if it was proper football with manly men, that would be different...
Just a thought, but if the women's team is more successful than the men's team, shouldn't they get paid more...?
Not this again. They're not playing the same opposition. Shouldn't Oxford City be paid more than Oxford United? After all, Oxford City got promoted last year, United only finished 8th. They should get paid what the market will bear. Which is a lot more than it would have done 20 years ago, but still a lot less than men's football. Because the level of interest is a lot less.
All I am saying is that perhaps the interest should be a lot less on the mens game - especially at national level - and a lot more on the more successful women.
TBH I'm just trying to parody the men who find the success of the women to be threatening to their definition of who they are.
But by thst logic more people should go to watch Oxford City than Oxford United.
Do Oxford City threaten the world view of Oxford United fans? If the women win the world cup today, that puts a whole new spin on the worldview of the "two world wars and one world cup" brigade.
No it doesn't. You're setting up a straw man here. I don't see these legions of people furious about the concept of women's football. (And personally, as I've said in the past, I prefer it.) But to say it is, or should be, the equal of men's football is daft. Like Carynx, I take an interest in the sports I take an interest in. So does everyone else. It's fine. The 'correct' level of interest in a sport or sporting event is therefore exactly equal to the level of interest there is. (I will be watching the game today, because the wife and middle daughter are interested. But I will be mildly grumpy, because we have tickets to the hundred, and we'll be missing the women's match. And I'd rather watch an arbitrarily assembled team of women play cricket in a confected competition than watch football on the telly. That's not sexism, that's just liking cricket better than football.)
Wills should be there imo and I'm a bit surprised he isn't. It's the distance, I suppose. Have people seen where Australia is? Have a look at a globe. You couldn't get any further away and still call yourself Earth.
Any further and you fall of the edge, I believe. Yes surprised he's not there. Excited for the game!
Lots of social media messages from politicians saying the entire nation is cheering for the Lionesses. But that’s not true. Unless that nation is England. And if England is a nation, so are Wales and Scotland (Northern Ireland is more complicated). And if England, Scotland and Wales are nations, how can the UK be a nation state?
This is all rather dull. In news marked “mildly interesting” the Wiki page of Hereford Sixth Form college lists both a recently convicted serial killer and a recently flounced PB commenter amongst its notable alumni - although it says a citation is required for the latter.
On a complete tangent, the 1948 Derby at Epsom was reportedly attended by one million people including both George VI and Clement Attlee.
Won by the French 3-y-o MY LOVE who followed up in the Grand Prix de Paris. 32 runners and the winner came in at 100/9 (in old money).
He then went off favourite for the Leger at Doncaster which, with a winning pot of £15,368 was the most valuable race ever run in Britain at that time but run down the field behind BLACK TARQUIN
Do I stay at home to watch the fitba, or head down to the station to watch a Jubilee steaming through Airedale?
Ouch that's a tough one. I'd say the fitba is a more historic one off occasion? But a train... 55009 was at King's X yesterday on a rail tour, apparently she failed at Retford on the home leg, just like the old days. Such beautiful temperamental beasts.
It doesn't matter what they think, that's the whole point of a monarchy. If they let Charles be king they're not going to have a revolution over William.
Also this is the kind of "topics nobody really gives a fuck about" polling that will give you wildly different results depending how you ask the question. Remind the voters about the CO2 and the cost of the security and they'd be telling him to stay at home. Ignore it.
So the defence about carbon footprints is clearly spurious if we are sending two cabinet ministers down under. I'm sure they could have found room for the prince on the plane.
One might also ask why the Prime Minister himself will not be there. He has been happy to be photographed on holiday in California so it is not as if he is too busy.
Surely the truth is the men who arrange these things do not take women's sport seriously and had not noticed that after winning the Euros, the Lionesses had a leading chance in the World Cup.
Pretending to like women's football is woke so Sunak has a careful line to tread if he's to maintain his new populist, man of the people, climate skeptic, autophile, common bloody sense persona.
Stupidly and the other one are just cannon fodder.
This is a valid point. Think about the aggro if England win the World Cup. This is supposed to be a man's game for manly men. And yet the men are useless and here come their girlfriends to humiliate them by winning.
There is a lot of resistance out there amongst the kind of weaponised stupidity voters the Tories have to chase. The women beating the men would be a Bad Thing.
Meanwhile, Labour have a 28 point lead over the Tories with women voters...
But the women aren't beating the men. They are beating other women. ISTR the USA national women's team played an U15 mens team from Texas in the warm up to the WC,and lost.
They would certainly beat my son's U15 team!
Haha - to be fair, I think it was a pretty god U15 team!
This government is desperate to be photographed in front of vote winning things. The PM has decided not to bother with this one. Because it isn't seen as vote winning when they think about the knuckle-dragger vote. It's not proper football is it? Just the lasses having a kick-about. Why bother? Now if it was proper football with manly men, that would be different...
Just a thought, but if the women's team is more successful than the men's team, shouldn't they get paid more...?
Not this again. They're not playing the same opposition. Shouldn't Oxford City be paid more than Oxford United? After all, Oxford City got promoted last year, United only finished 8th. They should get paid what the market will bear. Which is a lot more than it would have done 20 years ago, but still a lot less than men's football. Because the level of interest is a lot less.
All I am saying is that perhaps the interest should be a lot less on the mens game - especially at national level - and a lot more on the more successful women.
TBH I'm just trying to parody the men who find the success of the women to be threatening to their definition of who they are.
But by thst logic more people should go to watch Oxford City than Oxford United.
Do Oxford City threaten the world view of Oxford United fans? If the women win the world cup today, that puts a whole new spin on the worldview of the "two world wars and one world cup" brigade.
No it doesn't. You're setting up a straw man here. I don't see these legions of people furious about the concept of women's football. (And personally, as I've said in the past, I prefer it.) But to say it is, or should be, the equal of men's football is daft. Like Carynx, I take an interest in the sports I take an interest in. So does everyone else. It's fine. The 'correct' level of interest in a sport or sporting event is therefore exactly equal to the level of interest there is. (I will be watching the game today, because the wife and middle daughter are interested. But I will be mildly grumpy, because we have tickets to the hundred, and we'll be missing the women's match. And I'd rather watch an arbitrarily assembled team of women play cricket in a confected competition than watch football on the telly. That's not sexism, that's just liking cricket better than football.)
Why not go to the cricket on your own.
Perfectly respectable option, but I don't feel that strongly - it's only the hundred! Would be a different matter if it was a test match (or even the county T20). I do remember a few years back (2018?) being mildly amused at the incomprehension of my football mad neighbours that several of us wouldn't be attending their party to watch England against, let's say, Colombia in the football world cup on the telly because we had tickets to watch England play cricket in real life. The idea that anything could trump watching football was incomprehensible to them. But in this case, it's a family day, and the wife really wants to watch the football, so we'll do that.
Plus I'd add that it's shitty to demand that Prince William break up his family holiday to fly 12,000 miles and back to attend an event that could not be foreseen.
In other news, I see the Russians are further enhancing their nation's reputation for skill and derring do.
"Russia's Luna-25 spacecraft crashes into moon" - BBC News
Maybe they were aiming for Kiev.
More of humankind's junk dumped on another planet*. The arrogance of our species is boundless.
*I know that technically the Moon is not a planet. However, I didn't want to say heavenly body because I know the sort of posts that would follow.
Bollocks
The result of a space craft crash on the moon will be indistinguishable from the results of the chunks of space rock that hit the moon every day. Even if you walked up to the crater 10 minutes after it happened.
It will just be another hole in the ground, among a zillion holes in the ground.
Wills should be there imo and I'm a bit surprised he isn't. It's the distance, I suppose. Have people seen where Australia is? Have a look at a globe. You couldn't get any further away and still call yourself Earth.
Good morning
My wife and I flew London to Sydney with a *refuel in Bangkok
The flight time is approx 22 hours 50 minutes and we then flew another 3 hours to New Zealand which does feel like a very long way from home
* the only issue we had was that 2 hours out of Bangkok we lost an engine and circled for ages with fuel pouring out of the wing as the pilot jettisoned it for an emergency landing back at Bangkok
It was quite an experience but to be fair to Qantas they put us up in a 5 star Bangkok hotel overnight and on our return home sent a £500 ex gratia payment
In other news, I see the Russians are further enhancing their nation's reputation for skill and derring do.
"Russia's Luna-25 spacecraft crashes into moon" - BBC News
Maybe they were aiming for Kiev.
More of humankind's junk dumped on another planet*. The arrogance of our species is boundless.
*I know that technically the Moon is not a planet. However, I didn't want to say heavenly body because I know the sort of posts that would follow.
The moon is bombarded with a lot more than that, every day. It's arrogant thinking a single spacecraft is of any significance.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/lunar/overview.html ...On average, 33 metric tons (73,000 lbs) of meteoroids hit Earth every day, the vast majority of which harmlessly ablates ("burns up") high in the atmosphere, never making it to the ground. The Moon, however, has little or no atmosphere, so meteoroids have nothing to stop them from striking the surface. The slowest of these rocks travels at 20 km/sec (45,000 mph); the fastest travels at over 72 km/sec (160,000 mph). At such speeds even a small meteoroid has incredible energy -- one with a mass of only 5 kg (10 lbs) can excavate a crater over 9 meters (30 ft) across, hurling 75 metric tons (165,000 lbs) of lunar soil and rock on ballistic trajectories above the lunar surface.
The lunar impact rate is very uncertain because observations for objects in this mass range are embarrassingly few -- a single fireball survey conducted by Canadian researchers from 1971 to 1985. Clearly more observations are needed if we are to establish the rate of large meteoroids impacting the Moon.
But why look at the Moon? We need to understand the numbers of meteoroids across a range of sizes so we can evaluate the threat to spacecraft. Small meteoroids are measured with radar as they ablate in Earth’s atmosphere. Larger meteoroids are less abundant so a large collecting area is needed to measure a statistically significant sample. The surface of the Moon provides millions of square kilometers of collecting area we can see from Earth...
In other news, I see the Russians are further enhancing their nation's reputation for skill and derring do.
"Russia's Luna-25 spacecraft crashes into moon" - BBC News
Maybe they were aiming for Kiev.
More of humankind's junk dumped on another planet*. The arrogance of our species is boundless.
*I know that technically the Moon is not a planet. However, I didn't want to say heavenly body because I know the sort of posts that would follow.
The moon is bombarded with a lot more than that, every day. It's arrogant thinking a single spacecraft is of any significance.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/lunar/overview.html ...On average, 33 metric tons (73,000 lbs) of meteoroids hit Earth every day, the vast majority of which harmlessly ablates ("burns up") high in the atmosphere, never making it to the ground. The Moon, however, has little or no atmosphere, so meteoroids have nothing to stop them from striking the surface. The slowest of these rocks travels at 20 km/sec (45,000 mph); the fastest travels at over 72 km/sec (160,000 mph). At such speeds even a small meteoroid has incredible energy -- one with a mass of only 5 kg (10 lbs) can excavate a crater over 9 meters (30 ft) across, hurling 75 metric tons (165,000 lbs) of lunar soil and rock on ballistic trajectories above the lunar surface.
The lunar impact rate is very uncertain because observations for objects in this mass range are embarrassingly few -- a single fireball survey conducted by Canadian researchers from 1971 to 1985. Clearly more observations are needed if we are to establish the rate of large meteoroids impacting the Moon.
But why look at the Moon? We need to understand the numbers of meteoroids across a range of sizes so we can evaluate the threat to spacecraft. Small meteoroids are measured with radar as they ablate in Earth’s atmosphere. Larger meteoroids are less abundant so a large collecting area is needed to measure a statistically significant sample. The surface of the Moon provides millions of square kilometers of collecting area we can see from Earth...
This is a very serious thought in the event of us establishing a moon base. It would be essential to have multiple sealed areas to mitigate the risk.
In other news, I see the Russians are further enhancing their nation's reputation for skill and derring do.
"Russia's Luna-25 spacecraft crashes into moon" - BBC News
Maybe they were aiming for Kiev.
More of humankind's junk dumped on another planet*. The arrogance of our species is boundless.
*I know that technically the Moon is not a planet. However, I didn't want to say heavenly body because I know the sort of posts that would follow.
The moon is bombarded with a lot more than that, every day. It's arrogant thinking a single spacecraft is of any significance.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/lunar/overview.html ...On average, 33 metric tons (73,000 lbs) of meteoroids hit Earth every day, the vast majority of which harmlessly ablates ("burns up") high in the atmosphere, never making it to the ground. The Moon, however, has little or no atmosphere, so meteoroids have nothing to stop them from striking the surface. The slowest of these rocks travels at 20 km/sec (45,000 mph); the fastest travels at over 72 km/sec (160,000 mph). At such speeds even a small meteoroid has incredible energy -- one with a mass of only 5 kg (10 lbs) can excavate a crater over 9 meters (30 ft) across, hurling 75 metric tons (165,000 lbs) of lunar soil and rock on ballistic trajectories above the lunar surface.
The lunar impact rate is very uncertain because observations for objects in this mass range are embarrassingly few -- a single fireball survey conducted by Canadian researchers from 1971 to 1985. Clearly more observations are needed if we are to establish the rate of large meteoroids impacting the Moon.
But why look at the Moon? We need to understand the numbers of meteoroids across a range of sizes so we can evaluate the threat to spacecraft. Small meteoroids are measured with radar as they ablate in Earth’s atmosphere. Larger meteoroids are less abundant so a large collecting area is needed to measure a statistically significant sample. The surface of the Moon provides millions of square kilometers of collecting area we can see from Earth...
This is a very serious thought in the event of us establishing a moon base. It would be essential to have multiple sealed areas to mitigate the risk.
Anyway, betting post: we'll be at Old Trafford later, and while I view "Manchester Originals" as a weird and arbitrary creation, and not 'my' team, my daughters have no such nuance (though they will be baffled and disappointed by the absence of Lanky the Giraffe). And importantly, my middle daughter has on 12 occasions watching live sport only ever seen 'her' team win. So Manchester will definitely, definitely win.
In other news, I see the Russians are further enhancing their nation's reputation for skill and derring do.
"Russia's Luna-25 spacecraft crashes into moon" - BBC News
Maybe they were aiming for Kiev.
More of humankind's junk dumped on another planet*. The arrogance of our species is boundless.
*I know that technically the Moon is not a planet. However, I didn't want to say heavenly body because I know the sort of posts that would follow.
Bollocks
The result of a space craft crash on the moon will be indistinguishable from the results of the chunks of space rock that hit the moon every day. Even if you walked up to the crater 10 minutes after it happened.
It will just be another hole in the ground, among a zillion holes in the ground.
If you watch the final episode of Battlestar Galactica you can clearly see a Viper falling off the ship onto the Moon. When they find it a few heads will turn.
Like @Leon has said in the past, this inferiority complex is really weird.
What inferiority? I don't slavishly follow any football team, let alone some other country's, and I certainly don't go around claiming that the bloated cost of the RF is justified by the height of some numinous profile. 90% of which is the Ruritanian family soap opera element anyway.
You (and @Theuniondivvie did so a couple of weeks ago) get triggered by any mention or putative celebration of English success in sport.
It stirs something deep within the Nat psyche; hence comments like this.
Great, the Nat explainer has logged on. We certainly seem to occupy a place deep in your psyche, and don’t even have to pay rent!
Anyway, betting post: we'll be at Old Trafford later, and while I view "Manchester Originals" as a weird and arbitrary creation, and not 'my' team, my daughters have no such nuance (though they will be baffled and disappointed by the absence of Lanky the Giraffe). And importantly, my middle daughter has on 12 occasions watching live sport only ever seen 'her' team win. So Manchester will definitely, definitely win.
Whenever I hear about the Originals I think of this -
"God save the King" continues to sound weird. There always sounds to my ears to be a slight awkward pause before 'king'. I reckon the number of people fully comfortable with the new anthem is somewhere under 20%.
Wills should be there imo and I'm a bit surprised he isn't. It's the distance, I suppose. Have people seen where Australia is? Have a look at a globe. You couldn't get any further away and still call yourself Earth.
The logistics aren't the issue. If Baldy had wanted to go to Australia then BA would IDB absolutely any other passenger to accommodate him and his nut sucking entourage.
Anyway, betting post: we'll be at Old Trafford later, and while I view "Manchester Originals" as a weird and arbitrary creation, and not 'my' team, my daughters have no such nuance (though they will be baffled and disappointed by the absence of Lanky the Giraffe). And importantly, my middle daughter has on 12 occasions watching live sport only ever seen 'her' team win. So Manchester will definitely, definitely win.
My daughter was born and lives in Nottinghamshire, mother's side is all Yorkshire and I'm from Coventry. So she'll have a choice of hundred/cricketing loyalties if she wants ..
"God save the King" continues to sound weird. There always sounds to my ears to be a slight awkward pause before 'king'. I reckon the number of people fully comfortable with the new anthem is somewhere under 20%.
What percentage of the general populace felt comfortable with the old anthem? I imagine 20% is a subset of a subset.
Lots of social media messages from politicians saying the entire nation is cheering for the Lionesses. But that’s not true. Unless that nation is England. And if England is a nation, so are Wales and Scotland (Northern Ireland is more complicated). And if England, Scotland and Wales are nations, how can the UK be a nation state?
After the Second World War the government ought to have insisted on one UK team. There wouldn't have been much of a fuss at the time if they'd done it then.
Wrt women's football. I notice the Super League, and all the leagues down the pyramid have only 12 teams. Surely this is a major contributory cause of the lower pay? It's difficult to get into a habit of supporting a club, and get exposure for sponsors, etc., with only 11 home games in 9 months. Are there any plans to increase?
"God save the King" continues to sound weird. There always sounds to my ears to be a slight awkward pause before 'king'. I reckon the number of people fully comfortable with the new anthem is somewhere under 20%.
Some of us had to learn to sing ‘Queen’ rather than ‘King’!
Lots of social media messages from politicians saying the entire nation is cheering for the Lionesses. But that’s not true. Unless that nation is England. And if England is a nation, so are Wales and Scotland (Northern Ireland is more complicated). And if England, Scotland and Wales are nations, how can the UK be a nation state?
After the Second World War the government ought to have insisted on one UK team. There wouldn't have been much of a fuss at the time if they'd done it then.
After the Second World War no UK team had ever taken part in the World Cup. But the home nations would regularly play each other and all 4 football associations eventually joined FIFA.
"God save the King" continues to sound weird. There always sounds to my ears to be a slight awkward pause before 'king'. I reckon the number of people fully comfortable with the new anthem is somewhere under 20%.
Some of us had to learn to sing ‘Queen’ rather than ‘King’!
Lots of social media messages from politicians saying the entire nation is cheering for the Lionesses. But that’s not true. Unless that nation is England. And if England is a nation, so are Wales and Scotland (Northern Ireland is more complicated). And if England, Scotland and Wales are nations, how can the UK be a nation state?
After the Second World War the government ought to have insisted on one UK team. There wouldn't have been much of a fuss at the time if they'd done it then.
After the Second World War no UK team had ever taken part in the World Cup. But the home nations would regularly play each other and all 4 football associations eventually joined FIFA.
Lots of social media messages from politicians saying the entire nation is cheering for the Lionesses. But that’s not true. Unless that nation is England. And if England is a nation, so are Wales and Scotland (Northern Ireland is more complicated). And if England, Scotland and Wales are nations, how can the UK be a nation state?
After the Second World War the government ought to have insisted on one UK team. There wouldn't have been much of a fuss at the time if they'd done it then.
Yep, amazing that they didn’t prioritise this among the various minor issues they were dealing with.
Anyway, betting post: we'll be at Old Trafford later, and while I view "Manchester Originals" as a weird and arbitrary creation, and not 'my' team, my daughters have no such nuance (though they will be baffled and disappointed by the absence of Lanky the Giraffe). And importantly, my middle daughter has on 12 occasions watching live sport only ever seen 'her' team win. So Manchester will definitely, definitely win.
My daughter was born and lives in Nottinghamshire, mother's side is all Yorkshire and I'm from Coventry. So she'll have a choice of hundred/cricketing loyalties if she wants ..
All five of us are from minor counties, so can take our pick really. But with OT 20 minutes away door to door, a 'shall-we-do-this?' became a happy habit. I like also that my grandfather used to be a member. My in-laws are from South London, so Surrey is the girls' second team. How old is she? I first took my two to the T20 when they were 8 and 6. Really is a lovely thing to do with kids that age.
Comments
Do they even exist, or exist in great numbers ?
I’ve not seen or heard, either in RL or online, any negativity about the England womens team. The only possible negative was comparative standards.
Would Sunak have travelled to Australia to see the men's football team compete in the World Cup final?
If yes, then the charge of hypocrisy and not taking women's sport seriously is easy to make.
And does anyone serious think the answer is no?
As for the royal family, I couldn't care less as to what they get up to.
TwitterX from their stores, as the ability to block people is a required function for social media apps on their platforms.Scotland will probably do better than England in the Rugby World Cup for example. Seeing English rugby supporters cheer for them in the latter stages is likely to leave Scot Nats fuming.
That said I can't cheer on McIlroy in the golf because my mother-in-law hasn't forgiven him for dumping his girlfriend as soon as he became famous.
That can and may change.
I’d argue the money for international appearances etc should be the same, if it isn’t already.
*One of the NIMBY, angry at everything, at every local meeting types
https://www.thenationalnews.com/sport/football/2021/07/10/do-england-players-get-paid-for-international-matches/
The big money comes from the professional leagues, with TV revenues and gate receipts.
FIFA have already complained about no TV interest in this women’s tournament, and threatened at one point to not show it on TV as the offers were so low outside the US and Australia.
This is another issue with which I'm struggling to muster a scintilla of interest.
Rishi Sunak is entitled to a holiday - he may be Prime Minister (for now) but that doesn't mean he can't have some sort of break. We could have sent Oliver Dowden (seriously) but James Cleverly is attending which is fair enough.
As for someone Royal, well, Harry's in California which is a bit nearer. Those who argue for environmental sensibility and sensitivity then have to justify William and entourage travelling halfway round the world - I mean, he only turned up to Ascot for a couple of days. The problem will be when he stands up to try and take the environmental high ground somebody will turn round and say "you flew all the way to Australia and back for a football match".
As we see with so much else, it's less what you do now than what gets dragged up 20 years on when times and attitudes have changed and gets used against you.
Look at it another way - if you want to listen to music from 50 years ago, it's quite easy to find but 50 years ago, did anyone listen to the music of the 1920s?
As Margaret Thatcher - would she have travelled to Australia for a football match? - once said "it's a funny old world".
I recall an argument in the past that there weren't enough goals in men's soccer because the goalkeepers were too tall. It was argued that the size of the goals should be increased to compensate.
Well, women's soccer is, to a certain extent, the same as men's soccer except that the goalkeepers are shorter. It might be that, over time, this leads to fans of the sport concluding that women's soccer is a better spectacle than men's soccer, and it consequently receives higher levels of support, income and then pay for the players.
But that's not what your post was about. Your post was about nationalism.
Off to enjoy the sun.
Do I stay at home to watch the fitba, or head down to the station to watch a Jubilee steaming through Airedale?
At least we will be spared the agonising of which VIP will be representing England or Wales at the Rugby World Cup final.
Rishi and Wills can safely fill their diaries for that day.
You're setting up a straw man here. I don't see these legions of people furious about the concept of women's football. (And personally, as I've said in the past, I prefer it.) But to say it is, or should be, the equal of men's football is daft.
Like Carynx, I take an interest in the sports I take an interest in. So does everyone else. It's fine. The 'correct' level of interest in a sport or sporting event is therefore exactly equal to the level of interest there is.
(I will be watching the game today, because the wife and middle daughter are interested. But I will be mildly grumpy, because we have tickets to the hundred, and we'll be missing the women's match. And I'd rather watch an arbitrarily assembled team of women play cricket in a confected competition than watch football on the telly. That's not sexism, that's just liking cricket better than football.)
The triviality of this morning's topic is wholly appropriate for a nice lazy Sunday morning with little to worry about.
I'll be enjoying the game unbothered about which cosseted oafs may or may not be in the stands and without a hint a hint of criticism of those who choose not to view, let alone be there.
Enjoy the sun.
"Russia's Luna-25 spacecraft crashes into moon" - BBC News
Maybe they were aiming for Kiev.
I'll open the window to hear the kettle.
*I know that technically the Moon is not a planet. However, I didn't want to say heavenly body because I know the sort of posts that would follow.
I think Stodge has it.
Plus I'd add that it's shitty to demand that Prince William break up his family holiday to fly 12,000 miles and back to attend an event that could not be foreseen.
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:U54803/2023-08-20/detailed
Won by the French 3-y-o MY LOVE who followed up in the Grand Prix de Paris. 32 runners and the winner came in at 100/9 (in old money).
He then went off favourite for the Leger at Doncaster which, with a winning pot of £15,368 was the most valuable race ever run in Britain at that time but run down the field behind BLACK TARQUIN
Wonderful
I do remember a few years back (2018?) being mildly amused at the incomprehension of my football mad neighbours that several of us wouldn't be attending their party to watch England against, let's say, Colombia in the football world cup on the telly because we had tickets to watch England play cricket in real life. The idea that anything could trump watching football was incomprehensible to them.
But in this case, it's a family day, and the wife really wants to watch the football, so we'll do that.
The result of a space craft crash on the moon will be indistinguishable from the results of the chunks of space rock that hit the moon every day. Even if you walked up to the crater 10 minutes after it happened.
It will just be another hole in the ground, among a zillion holes in the ground.
My wife and I flew London to Sydney with a *refuel in Bangkok
The flight time is approx 22 hours 50 minutes and we then flew another 3 hours to New Zealand which does feel like a very long way from home
* the only issue we had was that 2 hours out of Bangkok we lost an engine and circled for ages with fuel pouring out of the wing as the pilot jettisoned it for an emergency landing back at Bangkok
It was quite an experience but to be fair to Qantas they put us up in a 5 star Bangkok hotel overnight and on our return home sent a £500 ex gratia payment
It's arrogant thinking a single spacecraft is of any significance.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/lunar/overview.html
...On average, 33 metric tons (73,000 lbs) of meteoroids hit Earth every day, the vast majority of which harmlessly ablates ("burns up") high in the atmosphere, never making it to the ground. The Moon, however, has little or no atmosphere, so meteoroids have nothing to stop them from striking the surface. The slowest of these rocks travels at 20 km/sec (45,000 mph); the fastest travels at over 72 km/sec (160,000 mph). At such speeds even a small meteoroid has incredible energy -- one with a mass of only 5 kg (10 lbs) can excavate a crater over 9 meters (30 ft) across, hurling 75 metric tons (165,000 lbs) of lunar soil and rock on ballistic trajectories above the lunar surface.
The lunar impact rate is very uncertain because observations for objects in this mass range are embarrassingly few -- a single fireball survey conducted by Canadian researchers from 1971 to 1985. Clearly more observations are needed if we are to establish the rate of large meteoroids impacting the Moon.
But why look at the Moon? We need to understand the numbers of meteoroids across a range of sizes so we can evaluate the threat to spacecraft. Small meteoroids are measured with radar as they ablate in Earth’s atmosphere. Larger meteoroids are less abundant so a large collecting area is needed to measure a statistically significant sample. The surface of the Moon provides millions of square kilometers of collecting area we can see from Earth...
Bet365 has boosted England to lift the trophy to 7/4. Match starts in 5 mins.
We certainly seem to occupy a place deep in your psyche, and don’t even have to pay rent!
[runs and hides]
https://youtu.be/PROS7aKoZuY?si=9QjDr6wo79qheHk0
I notice the Super League, and all the leagues down the pyramid have only 12 teams.
Surely this is a major contributory cause of the lower pay? It's difficult to get into a habit of supporting a club, and get exposure for sponsors, etc., with only 11 home games in 9 months.
Are there any plans to increase?
A long time ago, admittedly!
Of course England have a good chance of winning. They have a foreign manager.
All five of us are from minor counties, so can take our pick really. But with OT 20 minutes away door to door, a 'shall-we-do-this?' became a happy habit. I like also that my grandfather used to be a member. My in-laws are from South London, so Surrey is the girls' second team.
How old is she? I first took my two to the T20 when they were 8 and 6. Really is a lovely thing to do with kids that age.