ponsaelius

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.

The thing with the Dutch is they've always had starting XI players who you think - hmm not quite top level. I mean look at 2010 - Heitinga and (I think) Matthijsen at centre back. But they've been carried by a handful of world class players and in knock-out football that can be enough especially if you have a great way of playing and can ride the wave of a short format tournament. It can also blow up in your face, as it has with the Dutch many times before with even their good sides. With this current generation, the 3 or 4 stars aren't there now, and you're just left with the mediocrity. That's the reality of it and that's the reality of coming to the end of a great generation with a medium sized nation. It's really not too different to the Czechs falling off a cliff after 2004. It's from a greater high, and to a higher trough, but it's by and large the same thing.

No Uruguay is clearly #1 on that front. On a smaller level Iceland's current generation is pretty remarkable. It can't be overstated how impressive it is that a country of 300k is qualifying for major tournaments. They're making a mockery of how pundits view qualifying games against minnows like Malta and Luxembourg which are actually bigger countries in terms of critical mass. It can be done no matter how small.

Belgium have been to more World Cups than the Dutch. 12 vs 10. It's just their peaks haven't been so great when they've had fantastic generations. They were still runners up at the Euros in 1980 and 4th place at the World Cup in 1986. This generation hasn't finished its run yet.

Netherlands didn't enter the WC in 1950, 1954 and didn't qualify for the World Cup in 1958, 1962, 1966, 1970, 1982, 1986, 2002 and now 2018. That's a lot of missed World Cup's for a footballing powerhouse. No they're a smaller country that has massively punched above its weight, and has now regressed slightly after some great success. It's just they have achieved so much, and produced so many fantastic players, that expectations are above and beyond.

They were also absolutely shite pre-1974. Smaller nations are always more liable to come a cropper eventually, and their declines are more obvious. When Germany had their slump that caused them to rip apart their whole system there was still enough there to make a World Cup final.

TBF as I've said before on here it's more surprising that a European country like the Netherlands of ~15 million people has been consistently successful than it is shocking that they are finally having a duff generation. They're closer to the likes of Belgium, Czech Republic and Romania (who have had huge peaks and troughs in terms of player production) than they are the likes of England, France and Germany. Population obviously isn't everything, but it's a factor that gives them some leeway. They're long overdue this slump.

Hard to take rugby seriously when a top flight professional can't catch a falling ball with both their hands and a footballer can do it with the instep of one foot.

Yeah he's a total weapon based on his Twitter account. Couldn't be arsed.

It's an obligation to buy so essentially it's already a completed transfer last summer, just dodgy Italian accounting. They have a few midfielders they'll sell first, so might be a tough deal to do, but everybody is for sale at the right price to Samp.

Yeah he sounded like somebody we'd have done well to get. Unfortunately I don't think Rafa was gonna be allowed a left back while Haidara, Gamez and Lazaar were all on the books. Definitely a position I'd imagine we'd see somebody coming in during the summer, to offer a more attacking option to Dummett (and to allow us to play with wing-backs). In terms of striking targets this summer I would put pretty good money on Sampdoria's Duvan Zupata being on Rafa's list. He bought him, played him, and liked him at Napoli. He's a player where you basically know what you're gonna get, and while it's not necessarily spectacular, I reckon he'd be solidly effective in the PL.

I don't think Napoli will sell him unless they get crazy money, as he's so important to the way they play. It's more likely they move Diawara on. I actually don't think Jorginho will be anywhere near as good somewhere else, for what it's worth.

There's a Wrexham fan who's flying back from China for Wrexham's home game on Saturday and then back out again on Sunday to watch Wales again in the China Cup final. :lol:

So why would it be better or more authentic in the US ? ASlso which ingrediants are rare over here necessary in Indian cooking ? Shit man we've had the banana for nigh on a millenia now. I never said it was more authentic. I've never even had Indian food in the US, and perhaps that is indeed a culinary blindspot for some cultural reason in terms of immigrants going there. I was simply pointing out that 'Indian' food in the UK is actually in many ways British food, and Anglo-Bangladeshi fusion food in itself. The kind of cultural melting that has happened a million times over in the US when it comes to food, and provided a very diverse cuisine. The ingredient point is an obvious one. We are a small island with one specific small type of climate. That means if you want to make exotic food a large amount of ingredients have to be imported. Of course in a globalized world this is possible, but actually at the price point of delivering affordable food in a cheap restaurant (as opposed to a Michelin star restaurant) a lot of smaller restaurants will cut corners in delivering fabled authenticity. In the US this is less of a problem since they have far easier access to all climates within and very near to their borders. Bored with this now. It really isn't much of a controversial statement for somebody to argue that food in terms of diversity and quality in the US is probably higher than the UK. It's an almost insurmountable inevitability in terms of geography and demographics. As good as London might be particularly at the top end.