ponsaelius

3 total gifts

How bad are Derby? fucking hell

This is vile

He was a PL midfielder between around 2005 and 2011. I can only guess you started following the PL properly after that? He developed a cultish personality for himself thanks to zany and 'hilarious' on-pitch antics that would always be highlighted on Soccer AM. This has inevitably led to him forging something of a Z list celebrity status since he retired. Being fair, there was a spell where he played to a decent level and made the England squad. However watching him on Soccer AM's 'You Know The Drill' on Youtube, I can see where he comes from in thinking he stole a living. Some of the videos he struggles with the most basic of training drills.

August 9th deadline is gonna be a nightmare with a month of World Cup football as well.

A cruciate injury can kill any players' career tbf. Especially considering so much of his game was dribbling and pace.

That's just pretty much completely wrong. Just because you chose to eat at steakhouses and pancake places doesn't make that the only food options in a country with 52 states and 300 million people from pretty much every corner of the planet. I'm really struggling to see why this point has become so debated. It's not even a remotely controversial statement.

It all just meldges in to one huge lump tbh. It was like a competition. They opened it in 1997 at 40k, we expanded in 1998 from 36 to 52, so they expanded again up to nearly 49 in 2000. Hence their ground is a fair whack too big now, even when they were getting 40k. But it made sense for both clubs at the time if you look back at the trajectory of the teams and the crowds. Yeah true. The first season they finished 7th with Quinn and Phillips it was actually difficult to get tickets for Sunderland games. So they expanded and tbf in the next 7th place season they averaged 47k. That fell to 44k and then 36k for the 19 point season. They overshot based on what was a wave at the time. But both clubs were ambitious and optimistic. It was a far better era for North East football, especially when you also consider Boro.

It all just meldges in to one huge lump tbh. It was like a competition. They opened it in 1997 at 40k, we expanded in 1998 from 36 to 52, so they expanded again up to nearly 49 in 2000. Hence their ground is a fair whack too big now, even when they were getting 40k. But it made sense for both clubs at the time if you look back at the trajectory of the teams and the crowds.

I'm surprised people don't know this stuff. I'm born 93 and even I knew they built SoS before we expanded SJP.

It's the 2016/17 season. This season isn't on there yet.

Yup. Although the likes of Arsenal were maxed out at 38k at Highbury. http://www.worldfootball.net/attendance/eng-premier-league-1998-1999/1/ http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/sund.htm Also again the following season until we expanded.

They don't help themselves like do they. I've been along to watch the Heed only once in my time. Was a good standard, but in all honesty so long as they're at the athletics track I probably won't be back along. If NUFC aren't playing and I fancy something else I'll pretty much always rather go along to a NL game where for 1/3 of the price you can stand next to the pitch. At the moment the Heed don't fill a niche as a good professional team nor as an intimate non-league side, instead occupying a grey area in between, which IMO goes a long way to explaining their poor crowds.

I see both sides of the argument. Northern League clubs are happy to pay extra to players, give top strikers bonuses etc, and compete intensely with each other - but they don't want to pay the greater travel costs to play at a higher level. Some of the bigger NL clubs are at an artificially low level considering the size (and potential size) of the clubs and it's reflected in the Vase domination. However, the North East clubs are in a particularly difficult position in terms of travelling and I can see the fear and practical problems of stepping out of the comfort zone. It will be interesting to see the make-up of the new Evo-Stik division next year geographically. My sympathies either way will probably be decided by that.

That sounds like it would make it much better. One of the worst things about rugby union is the lack of tribalism that removes all sense of sporting drama from the contest.

Was WBA the Lovenkrands one you're thinking of.

Interesting changes to the league pyramid next season and what it could mean for the Northern League. The FA is introducing a 4th regional division to steps 3 and 4 which will cover the midlands, so lots of shuffling around to create a much more northern Evo-Stik NPL and NPLD1. This obviously means promotion becomes more financially viable for Northern League clubs and could greatly change the make-up of the placing of North East clubs on the pyramid. Also at step 5 and 6 leagues will now be limited to 20 clubs, which means the Northern League is going to have to jettison some clubs one way or another. Interesting times. In a way the strength of the NL at step 5 and the limited scope for teams to progress has been an enjoyable microcosm, because of the locality and the continued success in the Vase. Now it is likely to be the case that some of the bigger more ambition clubs move up. This brings in some potential danger for clubs who have for so long limited themselves having to cope with completely different ambitions. I hope the FA is not too forceful about clubs being promoted under this new system and still leaves it for the NL clubs to decide what is best for them.

Didn't even see that post. You can't compare the popularity of football and rugby union in this country. It's simply not a fair comparison. One is the national sport, the other is a minority game.

I'm pretty sure the relative popularities of Union and League are a geographical and cultural thing that has existed since the split back in 1895, rather than any particular preference based on the rules or excitement of the game. Same goes for Australia and the similar geographical divisions that exist there between the two codes. It's not like football where the sport is structurally completely different, and you can trace its global spread and popularity compared to other games based on how easy it is to pick up and play. The two rugby codes are far more similar in their make-up and any disparity in popularity is largely because they have just occupied different geographical niches. By and large they don't compete against each other, as they fulfill the same role in their respective regions of preference. If Rugby Union had made the rule changes that League did and League had stayed the same post-split the two sports would still be in exactly the same positions of global status as they are now. As in Union would have still remained the more global colonial sport established in the 1800s, and league would still be the small minority sport played in the North West. Attempts to establish Rugby League World Cups and the likes are largely nonsensical really. It's like trying to establish a Canadian Rules Football World Cup.

Didn't have Ian down as a fully paid up member of the Conservative Party like.

Since the inception of the international game they are not a consistent qualifier at the same level as Germany, Italy, France, Spain, and England. This is an indisputed fact based on the number of World Cup tournaments they have missed that I have already listed for you. They are also a nation that is roughly 1/4 the size of those countries, which goes a long way to explaining the fact that they are not as consistent a nation historically as the others. They had a system that produced players that allowed them to punch above their weight for 30 years, and now they have regressed to a lower level akin to pre-1974. This is not too dissimilar to Hungary who were a footballing powerhouse in the early part of the century but reduced to much weaker level. Ignoring the relevance of population in terms of Central/Western Europe where interest in football and infrastructure is broadly at a similar level makes you an idiot and the one who is talking bollocks.

Objectively it's not. Evidence = national and international attendance and TV figures

This is clearly and exactly it. In reality I shouldn't have made the comparison to Belgium and Czechia because obviously he's gone and took it as a direct comparison rather than a relative one.

They've also missed 6 tournaments in that time, and in the previous years their record was barren. They are a country that has produced great players and great teams but in respect to their overall history and the size of the country it is always likely to be more sporadic than similar nations with larger raw resources (Germany). Arguing that 30 years of good (but inconsistent) performances and players proves this is the Netherlands' natural mean is flimsy at best. It's like saying Hungary having a great team between 1930 and 1966 is their mean and everything else since is gross underperformance. Every European nation outside of the very sizeable ones is liable to weak generations and the lack of depth is always more exaggerated when it happens because of this fact.

You're arguing for the sake of it now, and listing off excellent players that have played for the Netherlands doesn't change the overarching point. The Netherlands are not Belgium, Croatia or the Czech Republic. They are however also not Germany or Spain. In truth they are probably somewhere in between in terms of quality and depth of player production. They have simply missed far too many World Cup tournaments to be classed as an elite country, even post-1974. That is no slight on them, and it reflects their position as a medium-sized nation that has had excellent generations and put in some brilliant tournaments.