Jump to content

Still still not worthy of a thread


gbandit

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

11 minutes ago, Unlucky Luque said:

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...

Esteban Lopez?

 

 

Edited by GEFAFWISP

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was thinking earlier do you think there's a dearth of marketable world class footballers at the moment?

 

Obviously no one compares to Messi and Ronaldo but even just behind them I felt you always had some world class stars like Neymar, Bale,Iniesta,Xavi, Suarez, Ibrahimovic, Ronaldinho,Henry but I feel there's just a bit of a lack of players you can call world class these days.

 

Mbappe, Kane, Vincius, deBruyne and Bellingham are up there and I've probably missed out some obvious ones but not sure if the threshold for world class has changed.

 

Or maybe the sport is becoming more team and stats based so that we don't get as many world class individuals any more 

 

Or maybe I'm just talking nonsense and waffling

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a new one... Watching some women's NCAA over here and this chick is a throw-in specialist, does the front flip throw and all that. Noticed she's wearing grip gloves, almost like wide receiver gloves in the NFL.

 

Curious if any of the rules nonces out there know if this is legal in the elite leagues, if so it seems like, and I know this is the fringiest of fringe cases, if you did have a long-throw specialist you're missing a trick not having them wear gloves for it...

 

throwingloves.jpg.a06005f0f9c320b7702d65ab4966ced7.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Miercoles said:

This is a new one... Watching some women's NCAA over here and this chick is a throw-in specialist, does the front flip throw and all that. Noticed she's wearing grip gloves, almost like wide receiver gloves in the NFL.

 

Curious if any of the rules nonces out there know if this is legal in the elite leagues, if so it seems like, and I know this is the fringiest of fringe cases, if you did have a long-throw specialist you're missing a trick not having them wear gloves for it...

 

 

She did this without gloves.

I can't find any FA or FIFA rule that restricts outfield players from wearing gloves of any sort, as long as they're not adjudged to be potentially dangerous.

 

 

Edited by GideonShandy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boom. That's my football career sorted. The throw in coach that invented wearing gloves.

 

Don't even try to tell me it's not worthwhile, these throw in dorks are constantly rubbing the balls dry with their soaking wet shirts to try to get some grip so they can hurl the ball against the first defender yet again.

 

More grip, more goals. Simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, David Edgar said:

 

You'd think it would be laughed off, but he's proper annoyed.

Mask slips again. Not quite the warm, funny banter boy that the press had him down as. He’s a winner and most of them are absolute sociopaths.

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
×
×
  • Create New...