User Tag List

First 36444546474856 Last

Results 451 to 460 of 848

Thread: WORLD CUP 2010

  1. #451
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    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...
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  2. #452
    Senior Member INTPness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    2,158

    Default

    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?
    NTJ's are the only types that have ever made me feel emo.
    ENP's are the only types that have ever made me feel like a sensor.


    There are two great days in a person's life - the day we are born and the day we discover why. --William Barclay

  3. #453
    psicobolche tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTPness View Post
    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).
    "Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

    "Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

    -Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.

  4. #454
    Senior Member Helios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Nothing of what I said was unclear, I stated that England was a bad team.
    You claimed more than this.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    I don't believe any of this contradicts my claims.
    It wasn't supposed to-I was agreeing with you!

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    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".

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    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:


    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    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.

  5. #455
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    [FONT="Palatino Linotype"]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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    [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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    [FONT="Palatino Linotype"]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";
    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    , 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    [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.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  6. #456
    S Saiyan God Mace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8 sx
    Socionics
    --- Te
    Posts
    2,141

    Default [Slovakia VS. Italy.]



    (ITALY ARE OUT OF THE WORLD!)

  7. #457
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    The dirty Italians got what they deserved at last.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  8. #458
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    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.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  9. #459
    S Saiyan God Mace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8 sx
    Socionics
    --- Te
    Posts
    2,141

    Default

    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?

  10. #460
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mace View Post
    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).
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

Similar Threads

  1. World Cup of Hockey
    By mooseantlers in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-03-2016, 09:09 PM
  2. Rugby World Cup
    By Quinlan in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 10-25-2015, 04:01 AM
  3. 2014 FIFA World Cup
    By entropie in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 296
    Last Post: 07-23-2014, 09:13 AM
  4. [SP] SP's what's your favourite FIFFA world cup team?
    By jixmixfix in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-06-2010, 07:39 PM
  5. 2010 World Cup Draw
    By pure_mercury in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-05-2009, 03:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO