WORLD CUP 2010

[Helios]

England vs Germany on Sunday. Oh dear. Time for all the anti-German prejudice in England to come to the surface again. And I am a bloody German living in England. Whoever uses the match as an excuse to tell me another stupid Second World War joke or thinks the Hitler salute is terribly entertaining deserves a kick in the balls and I hope they will swell to the size of actual footballs. Ha!

You started it.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Whilst I'll acknowledge that two of our three performances so far have been poor, it is ludicrous to say that England is "just not very good"; we have some of the best players in the world, playing club football for some of the best teams in the world.

I said nothing of the players, only mentioned that the team is not very good, a point that you've conceded below.

[The problem lies, or perhaps lay, with those players being unable to act as a unified team.

 

[Blackmail!]

Don't sulk. And don't blame the Merrylanders, either.

Sulking French blame England for their World Cup exit | News

It's nonsense. Don't think England is more important than it is.
If "les bleus" failed so abysmally, no other nation should be blaimed, and I'm wondering how your newspaper could even suggest another possibilty, unless they think too high of themselves already.

Nonetheless, I keep my word: I stand for the Germans. But in the case they are defeated, I will stand for England, and gladly. Portugal has also a very interesting team.

Like Solitarywalker, the only team I do not wish to win is Italy, and for the exact same reasons. Cheaters, racism, and lame game, they're the scum of the football world.

 

[slowriot]

Don't sulk. And don't blame the Merrylanders, either.

Sulking French blame England for their World Cup exit | News

that was a funny read thank you

 

[Blackmail!]

that was a funny read thank you

But it's totally innacurate.

 

[slowriot]

But it's totally innacurate.

How?

 

[Helios]

I said nothing of the players, only mentioned that the team is not very good, a point that you've conceded below.

In saying that the team is not very good, you are clearly not only commenting on the extent to which the players in that team work together effectively; if you are, you are communicating inadequately. When one claims that a sports team "isn't very good", one is almost always referring to the quality of not only the above, but also of the individual players in that team.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

In saying that the team is not very good, you are clearly not only commenting on the extent to which the players in that team work together effectively;]

How good a team is is assessed by the results the team attains without infringements upon the rules of the game. Essentially the 'goodness' factor is a general appraisal of all the merits and demerits that a team needs in order to perform well without violating the rules.

In principle it is possible for a team to have good players, but nonetheless display poor performance on a consistent basis. Precisely that is the case with England. There is no contradiction in saying that a certain team has good players, but its overall quality level is low. The only way there would be a contradiction between these two claims is if having quality players was the sole requisite for having a good team, but that is simply not the case.

 

[Helios]

How good a team is is assessed by the results the team attains without infringements upon the rules of the game. Essentially the 'goodness' factor is a general appraisal of all the merits and demerits that a team needs in order to perform well without violating the rules.

In principle it is possible for a team to have good players, but nonetheless display poor performance on a consistent basis. Precisely that is the case with England. There is no contradiction in saying that a certain team has good players, but its overall quality level is low. The only way there would be a contradiction between these two claims is if having quality players was the sole requisite for having a good team, but that is simply not the case.

Much of what you assert is questionable or unclear, but all of your assertions seem only remotely relevant. I did not claim or imply that it is impossible for a team to have good players yet still be a poor team. There are many factors that determine the overall quality of a sports team: the quality of each individual player, the competence of the manager/head coach, the sophistication of the team's training grounds, the extent to which the players play "as a team" (i.e. unified), etc. My claims were simply these:

In saying that the team is not very good, you are clearly not only commenting on the extent to which the players in that team work together effectively; if you are, you are communicating inadequately. When one claims that a sports team "isn't very good", one is almost always referring to(EDIT: i.e. commenting on) the quality of not only the above (EDIT: i.e. the extent to which the players in that team work together effectively), but also of the individual players in that team.

I suggest you read this more closely. I am not in the least interested in what factors are involved in calculating the "goodness" of a sports team. I am talking about "habits of meaning", a lamentably poor term, but the best I can do at this time of night (morning).

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Nothing of what I said was unclear, I stated that England was a bad team. Now, that's certainly questionable and depends on how you define a good team. The definition of a good team that I've propounded is its ability to get positive results without breaking the rules. All of this is very relevant as the whole discussion is about whether or not England should be thought of as a bad team.

[ but all of your assertions seem only remotely relevant. I did not claim or imply that it is impossible for a team to have good players yet still be a poor team. There are many factors that determine the overall quality of a sports team: the quality of each individual player, the competence of the manager/head coach, the sophistication of the team's training grounds, the extent to which the players play "as a team" (i.e. unified), etc. My claims were simply these,]

I don't believe any of this contradicts my claims.

[ I am talking about "habits of meaning", a lamentably poor term, but the best I can do at this time of night (morning).[/FONT]

Upon a closer reading, all I've noticed is that you're exploring the definition of a good team in greater depth than I have. I said that a good team is one that attains positive results without bending the rules, yet you stated that the overall quality of a sports team is determined by various factors such as quality of coaches, sophistication of training, unity of players and so forth. From the perspective of my argument one may respond that all of these factors determine how likely a team will be able to win games fairly. Essentially I have stated a general overview of the concept of a good team and you have shed light upon the constituents to which it could be reduced.

Now we go back to your main contention: England is not a bad team because it has very good players. This claim can be refuted within your own conceptual framework regarding the evaluation of a team's merit. You've stated that various factors such as quality of coaches, players, unity (team spirit) and so forth determine how good a team is. Thus, from this premise one may reason that the quality of players is but one factor that influences the overall quality of the team and therefore it is in principle possible for a group of soccer players to be composed of exceptionally talented individual players, yet lack other virtues that characterize good teams such as quality of coaching staff, unity and so forth.

On the basis of this conclusion, one may regard the claim that England, a team of exceptional individual talent is a bad team as tenable.

Lastly, I am going to respond to your second objection: when a person claims that a certain team is bad, he almost always means that the players are bad also. This claim is by nature descriptive rather than conceptual, determining whether this is true is a job for an investigative journalist and is of no concern to a purely conceptual review of the topic. However, from the purely analytical perspective, there is no reason why a claim that team X is bad should committ one to the claim that team X has bad players. In light of the fact that a cornucopia of different factors determine whether a team is good and the quality of players is but one of numerous of such factors, there is no reason to suppose that its impossible for a team to employ exceptional players yet display very poor quality.

 

[FDG]

I do remember that you've mentioned that, but what I am curious about is why Italy producers more divers than other European nations. One may infer that Serie A encourages the behavior more than other leagues, is there something about the general Italian culture that accounts for this difference?

Well - Italian, Spanish and Portuguese cultures are rather similar; their respective national teams aren't "famous" for their diving "skills" (except Cristiano Ronaldo), so I suppose I can't say that there's something cultural behind this attitude. Sure though, our referees should be less tolerant, yet I guess sometimes it might be hard to tell if a player dove or has been genuinely hit...

 

[INTPness]

So the U.S. and Ghana both played on Wednesday and now they have to turn around and play a game 3 days later on Saturday. Isn't it pretty standard for soccer (uhhh, football) teams to have a week off in between games, like it was in the "group round" and also like it is in MLS?

How does the fast turnaround affect a team's play? Is it a fairly difficult task (physically/mentally) to play 2 matches in 3-4 days?

 

[tcda]

So the U.S. and Ghana both played on Wednesday and now they have to turn around and play a game 3 days later on Saturday. Isn't it pretty standard for soccer (uhhh, football) teams to have a week off in between games, like it was in the "group round" and also like it is in MLS?

How does the fast turnaround affect a team's play? Is it a fairly difficult task (physically/mentally) to play 2 matches in 3-4 days?

Tems in national leagues quite often do it. Especially if they also participate in national or continental cup competitions.

If everyone is in the same position it doesn't make much difference.

To do it every week would be impossible but in a short tournament like this the adrenalaine can get them through (though when games start getting to Extra Time you will see a lot of players going down with cramp).

 

[Helios]

Nothing of what I said was unclear, I stated that England was a bad team.

You claimed more than this.

Now, that's certainly questionable and depends on how you define a good team. The definition of a good team that I've propounded is its ability to get positive results without breaking the rules. All of this is very relevant as the whole discussion is about whether or not England should be thought of as a bad team.

No, this is not what the discussion is about.

I don't believe any of this contradicts my claims.

It wasn't supposed to-I was agreeing with you!

Upon a closer reading, all I've noticed is that you're exploring the definition of a good team in greater depth than I have. I said that a good team is one that attains positive results without bending the rules, yet you stated that the overall quality of a sports team is determined by various factors such as quality of coaches, sophistication of training, unity of players and so forth. From the perspective of my argument one may respond that all of these factors determine how likely a team will be able to win games fairly. Essentially I have stated a general overview of the concept of a good team and you have shed light upon the constituents to which it could be reduced.

I'm not "exploring" anything to do with this. You said:

The only way there would be a contradiction between these two claims is if having quality players was the sole requisite for having a good team, but that is simply not the case.

With which I agreed:

I did not claim or imply that it is impossible for a team to have good players yet still be a poor team. There are many factors that determine the overall quality of a sports team: the quality of each individual player, the competence of the manager/head coach, the sophistication of the team's training grounds, the extent to which the players play "as a team" (i.e. unified), etc.

On a related note, you specified how a sports team should be assessed:

How good a team is is assessed by the results the team attains without infringements upon the rules of the game.

Now we go back to your main contention: England is not a bad team because it has very good players.

This isn't my "main contention" at all.

This claim can be refuted within your own conceptual framework regarding the evaluation of a team's merit. You've stated that various factors such as quality of coaches, players, unity (team spirit) and so forth determine how good a team is. Thus, from this premise one may reason that the quality of players is but one factor that influences the overall quality of the team and therefore it is in principle possible for a group of soccer players to be composed of exceptionally talented individual players, yet lack other virtues that characterize good teams such as quality of coaching staff, unity and so forth.

On the basis of this conclusion, one may regard the claim that England, a team of exceptional individual talent is a bad team as tenable.

Thus this is irrelevant. Perhaps England is a poor team, overall. Yet this is not the issue.

I cannot comprehend why you are failing to understand me; you are misunderstanding and complicating the topic to almost comical lengths, something which you have done elsewhere when replying to my posts. Here's the relevant exchange:

None of that has anything to do with England's recent performance, those ideas are nothing but pitiable excuses for fanatics to avoid owning up to the fact that their team is just not very good,

I reply:

Whilst I'll acknowledge that two of our three performances so far have been poor, it is ludicrous to say that England is "just not very good"; we have some of the best players in the world, playing club football for some of the best teams in the world.

To which you reply:

I said nothing of the players, only mentioned that the team is not very good, a point that you've conceded below.

To which I respond:

In saying that the team is not very good, you are clearly not only commenting on the extent to which the players in that team work together effectively; if you are, you are communicating inadequately. When one claims that a sports team "isn't very good", one is almost always referring to the quality of not only the above, but also of the individual players in that team.

I am saying that when you said that England's team "is just not very good", either you were commenting, among other things, on the quality of the team's individual players, or, if you were not, you were communicating inadequately, since most people making this claim of a sports team are almost always commenting on, among other things, the quality of the team's individual players. Had you wanted to communicate adequately, you might have said something like, "England has much individual talent, but, all things considered, is a poor team".

Lastly, I am going to respond to your second objection: when a person claims that a certain team is bad, he almost always means that the players are bad also. This claim is by nature descriptive rather than conceptual, determining whether this is true is a job for an investigative journalist and is of no concern to a purely conceptual review of the topic. However, from the purely analytical perspective, there is no reason why a claim that team X is bad should committ one to the claim that team X has bad players.

At last, something pertinent!

Regrettably, I have no idea what any of this means. We sadly stray into irrelevance at the end, too:

In light of the fact that a cornucopia of different factors determine whether a team is good and the quality of players is but one of numerous of such factors, there is no reason to suppose that its impossible for a team to employ exceptional players yet display very poor quality.

Of course, I don't disagree with you:

I did not claim or imply that it is impossible for a team to have good players yet still be a poor team. There are many factors that determine the overall quality of a sports team: the quality of each individual player, the competence of the manager/head coach, the sophistication of the team's training grounds, the extent to which the players play "as a team" (i.e. unified), etc.

Failure to comprehend what I have written again will result in the termination of our dialogue.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

You claimed more than this.

The claim that England was a bad team was the thesis statement, all other claims served the purpose of supporting that assertion. As a conclusion, 'England is a bad team' is the only thing I claimed.

No, this is not what the discussion is about.]

S: England is not very good.
H: England has good players but struggles to act as a unified team.
S: I said nothing of the players, I merely said that the team isn't good. A team can have good players and not be very good.
H: You must be communicating inadequately because when people say a team isn't very good, they typically mean that the team lacks quality players.

Now, stop right there. Think, is this discussion really not about what constitutes a good team and whether England is a good team? It started with the claim that England is not very good and this part of the dialogue ended with your objection to that statement. In fact, I will quote the passage where you've demurred.

Whilst I'll acknowledge that two of our three performances so far have been poor, it is ludicrous to say that England is "just not very good";

The fact that you try to claim that the conversation is not about the topic that you have invoked to start this discussion is astounding.

[It wasn't supposed to-I was agreeing with you!]

In that case your agreement is inconsistent with your earlier claim that it would be ludicrous to say that England is not a very good team because it has excellent players. Furthermore, I don't see where you've agreed with my claim in your previous posts.

This isn't my "main contention" at all.

It should have been, had you stayed consistent with your initial challenge of my first claim. What are you going to say this time, it wasn't a challenge? If you are going to say that you don't deny the claim that England is a bad team, you repudiate the very first statement you made in this dialogue, which I will remind you again, is this.

Whilst I'll acknowledge that two of our three performances so far have been poor, it is ludicrous to say that England is "just not very good";

Thus this is irrelevant. Perhaps England is a poor team, overall. Yet this is not the issue.]]]

It is the issue because your first objection was that its ludicrous to say that England is a bad team. You mistakenly believe that it is not the issue because you seem to think that the discussion is about whether I am communicating clearly. That is an error on your part because the discussion of whether I am communicating clearly is an extension of the primary discourse regarding whether or not England is a bad team. We started talking about unclear communication only after the discussion about whether England is a bad team started, that initial conversation has not been drawn to a conclusion, which is why I have discussed whether England is a bad team first and whether I was communicating unclearly secondly.

, if you were not, you were communicating inadequately, since most people making this claim of a sports team are almost always commenting on, ]

As you have read in my previous post. I will recapitulate for you again.

I was not communicating clearly if scenario A is the case.

Scenario A

Premise: When most people say that a certain team is not good, they mean that the team in question lacks good players.

Conclusion: Because I said that England is not a good team yet did not imply that it lacks good players, I misused the term 'bad team' and therefore communicated unclearly.

I was communicating clearly if scenario B holds true.

Premise: It is unclear if when people say that a certain team is not good, it lacks good players.

Conclusion: It is therefore acceptable to claim that a team is not good but has good players.

In my previous responses, I have ignored your suggestion that scenario A may be true but I have suggested that even if I was communicating unclearly, I am not guilty of a conceptual error as it is possible to believe that a certain team has good players but its overall quality is poor.

If you want to defend a claim as strong as 'when people say that a team is bad, they imply that it lacks good players', the onus is on you to defend it, not me. For that reason, I have just ignored your assertion as it has no substance, its a bare conclusion with no supporting argument.

I cannot comprehend why you are failing to understand me; you are misunderstanding and complicating the topic to almost comical lengths, something which you have done

I have a very simple explanation for you, but its one that you're not going to appreciate. The reason you were misunderstood is because you started the discussion with one topic, then moved on to the other without letting me know that you wanted to drop your initial query.

[Failure to comprehend what I have written again will result in the termination of our dialogue.

You can work on not being misunderstood by taking the time to carefully spell out your salient claims. You can't assume that your interlocutor knows what you mean unless you tell them specifically. For example, you've stated that the discussion is not about whether England is a bad team, yet you've initially led me to believe that this is exactly what it was about by challenging my assertion that England is a bad team. You could have avoided the miscommunication by telling me that you've changed your topic of interest.

 

[AOA]

[Slovakia VS. Italy.]



(ITALY ARE OUT OF THE WORLD!)

 

[SolitaryWalker]

The dirty Italians got what they deserved at last.

 

[FDG]

Jesus, worse than I expected. At least I was right when I got angry because they didn't let Quagliarella play, he was clearly the best player in that team.

 

[AOA]

Italy? By miles the most controversial side since World Cup '94 - beaten by Slovakia today. I'm lost for words, honestly. How did it happen?

 

[FDG]

Italy? By miles the most controversial side since World Cup '94 - beaten by Slovakia today. I'm lost for words, honestly. How did it happen?

Our players sucked, everyone (in Italy) knew it - Lippi wanted to keep many old players that aren't good anymore. Everyone expected them to suck, although I think most people thought we'd at least pass the first turn (as second).