Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

Still not worthy of a thread

gbandit

by gbandit
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Pata

Pata

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Erikse said:

Messi was Agrentinas best player overall, but saying that Messi singlehandedly won them the World Cup is disrespectful to the Argentinian team. They had a lot of good players who performed well.


Messi 100% carried that team all the way. Obviously they had other good performers too but a real chance they don’t even get out of their group without Messi. 
 

Think he deserves the one last Ballon d’or just for his performances in that tournament, he was amazing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Who's this Chouchu fella or whatever he's called? Keep seeing videos of some huge crowd watching him in a 5-a-side game, him falling over himself, defenders and keepers letting him score then some huge celebration. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pilko

Pilko

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

 

 

 

There's a few ways of looking at this cos you could easily choose someone from a relegated PL side who did a one-season tour of the Championship and took the piss.

 

I'd probably look for someone who spent a while in the division and was consistently excellent every season.

 

Peter Whittingham probably not a bad shout (RIP) or I can't shake Adel Taarabt either as a possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

People who've dropped down like you say (Coloccini, etc) shouldn't count aye.

 

I didn't realise Kinkladze spent two seasons at City in that division, always thought he left for Ajax when they went down from the PL to Division One but he was a regular in the team who dropped to the third tier. Mental. 

 

Loads of love for pretty legendary players like Prosinecki who did it all in the game but spent a year at Portsmouth. Ali Benarbia a similar one under Keegan at City. 

 

 

Edited by Optimistic Nut

Link to post
Share on other sites
gbandit

gbandit

Posted
Posted

I’m not sure what the formal grammar expectation is but I’d always use “are”

in that situation. I’d use “is” and “are” interchangeably for this though “Sainsbury’s is / are shit for sandwiches”. “Sports Direct are a shite company, Sports Direct is such a shit place to shop”.

 

I’m sure the grammar is wrong above for the Chelsea comments but not entirely sure why

Link to post
Share on other sites
alexf

alexf

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, TaylorJ_01 said:

It looks clunky but isn't "is" correct when talking about an organisation? I get this wrong all the time.

Really? Ok I'm happy to be corrected but it just reads wrong to me. I thought surely it should be are?.

Link to post
Share on other sites
number37

number37

Posted
Posted (edited)

Sickeningly, using 'is' is correct but agree it looks and sounds awful and I would always use 'are' like the rebel I am. 

 

It's because you're treating the club, in this case, as a single entity rather than as a group or collection. 

 

So it's always "Eddie Howe is mint" but not "Eddie Howe are mint" because even though he is mint, he's still just a man (but we're looking into sainthood). 

 

So treating a club as a single entity gives you "Chelsea is worse" but I'd always consider a football/sport team as a collective of players so "Chelsea are worse" would be my preference as I laugh in the face of what's right. 

 

I think it works better for countries like "Japan is amazing" to describe the country rather than "Japan are amazing" to describe their football team. 

 

 

Oh, what's that noise at my door? It's that hoard of beautiful women again, now if you don't mind someone needs to underwhelm these lovely ladies. 

 

 

Edited by number37
I get what I deserve

Link to post
Share on other sites
Checko

Checko

Posted
Posted

In British English we'd say 'are', think in American English they'd use 'is'.

 

In Americanese seems you refer to a sports team with 'is' if you're referring to the city [one thing], but when their names include plural thingys [not sure what the word is here] (eg the patriots/cowboys/yankees), it's plural.

 

Eg: republican English:

 

Dallas is a good fooball team.

The Cowboys are a good football team.

 

Arsenal is a right bunch of whingeing bastards.

The Gunners are a right bunch of whingeing bastards.

 

Whereas in royalist English using is/are seems to depend on whether it's seen more as a group of individuals making up something (eg a football team - plural) or one entity (eg a department - singlular), so we'd say:

 

Arsenal are a right bunch of whingeing bastards.

The FA's disciplinary committee is satisfied that Arsenal are a right bunch of whingeing bastards.

 

See for some bbc examples: https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv358.shtml

 

As ESPN is American 'Chelsea is' would probably be their editorial style. Americans can correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

Ultimately though I don't think it really matters, no-one's going to confuse your meaning so I would say just put what feels natural, and be thankful for the opportunities it gives to have arguments over the internet about it.

 

Also, don't do what the Americans do because that would obviously be wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlucky Luque

Unlucky Luque

Posted
Posted

Playing FM I was reminded of a youngster we had in the NUFC academy sometime in the last 5-10 years. He was from South America, possibly Colombia, and had an outrageous name that made everybody excited. Then no one ever heard from him again.

 

Any remember what his name was?

 

Not Zamblera, Santiago Munoz, Vilca, Victor Fernandez...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...