2014 FIFA World Cup

[eFestivals]

Making more stuff up...

What I actually said was...

You said they aren't important (towards the world rankings - this was always a convo about the world rankings).

(you also said you weren't agreeing with me when you agreed with me. that's how much of your own bollocks you're trying to talk your away out of).

FIFA disagree with you. Which is why they include them as relevant.

Perhaps FIFA would know more if they went to more matches?

Edited June 10, 2014 by eFestivals

[TheGayTent]

And as far as the practicalities of it goes, a friendly-free rankings table would be 9 months old now, and so would surely be more-meaningless than a more up-to-date rankings table that included friendlies (with appropriate weighting, whatever that 'appropriate' might be).

But yes, the rankings as FIFA has actually done them is pathetically stupid - because it works on the idea that teams will try harder in WC finals matches than they might other competitive matches. Which is just plain silly, but perfectly self-serving in the usual FIFA way.

[TheGayTent]

(you also said you weren't agreeing with me when you agreed with me. that's how much of your own bollocks you're trying to talk your away out of).

[TheGayTent]

off to pub

[eFestivals]

9 months would be out of date? You do know that all team points in the FIFA rankings take into account matches up to 4 years old don't you...

If they only included competitive matches, the most recent matches that could possibly be included would be around 9 months old, and not just a day old as was the case when the latest rankings were released last week.

Got that? It's very simple.

So...FIFA rankings are "pathetically stupid" yet the fact that FIFA and you agree on them and I don't makes me wrong...

You said friendlies shouldn't be included at all (despite saying you saw they have some relevance [which is about as ridiculous an argument anyone could make lol]).

I say that the relevant should be included.

FIFA include the friendlies as relevant towards rankings.

Got that? All very simple.

Exactly how any weighting should be applied is another entirely different conversation.

To get there we'd first have to agree on what should be included to then be considered for weighting. There's no point me suggesting weighting of any level for friendlies to someone who thinks friendlies shouldn't be included.

I'm getting rather bored stating the obvious, anyone might think you're choosing to be deliberately obtuse. Or perhaps you really are that stupid, I dunno? But for now I'll continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[eFestivals]

If you agree with that then yes we agree...

No, I agree with the other words that for some reason you can't find, where you explicitly agree with me.

I know you're too gutted to actually speak the words yourself, but never mind. You know in your head that you agree with me, we've got there.

[Guest]

The England football team were given a tour of a Favela in Brazil today....."It was sad to see those people who have absolutely no hope."....Said a resident of the Favela

[TheGayTent]

If they only included competitive matches, the most recent matches that could possibly be included would be around 9 months old, and not just a day old as was the case when the latest rankings were released last week.

Got that? It's very simple.

[ThomThomDrum]

This is a bit long but if you have the time it is very much worth it. I love John Oliver.

[eFestivals]

You said friendlies shouldn't be included at all

No I didn't.

So what are you arguing against me for when you're agreeing with me then? :lol

I said that friendlies are relevant and should be included in the forming the rankings, and you've been arguing against me.

Your point is what???

What are you disagreeing with me about?

Please do make sure that you include (full context) quotes of my words that you're saying are wrong, won't you?

</me sits back, and knows that The Thick Twat is gonna struggle >

Edited June 11, 2014 by eFestivals

[TheGayTent]

Your point is what???

[eFestivals]

I think the most amusing point now, is the fact that you've thrown your opinion around on the FIFA rankings when it's quite clear that at the time you were doing so, you didn't actually understand how they work. Pretty dumb even for you.

Still, if you ignore being pulled up on the fact that you didn't understand the system that you're arguing for, maybe people won't notice...was that your thought process?!

You've been calling me wrong. Care to repeat what I've been wrong about?

Or will you just throw in empty bollocks like that, trying to label me wrong when you've been agreeing with me the whole time?

[eFestivals]

How haven't I understood the system?

Where have I been arguing for the current system?

I understand the system. I've neither argued for or against it.

What i've argued for - when people like you have said that friendlies are "meaningless" towards the rankings - is that friendlies are not meaningless towards the rankings, which even you've agreed with.

WTF are you calling me wrong about (that's based in what I've said and not what you've invented)?

[eFestivals]

FFS Neil.... Just admit you was wrong and move the fuck on LMAO

What am I wrong about, Barry?

Tell me - including showing me my own words (in context) and if I am, you'll have me say I am.

[eFestivals]

Will Barry admit he was wrong when he said I was wrong? Or is his advice only for others and never himself?

[eFestivals]

LMAO - Everything has been said. You come out of it bad. Just let it be

So you say that I'm wrong, but you're unable to say what I'm wrong about?

Might that be because nothing I've said has been wrong, just perhaps?

Edited June 11, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Welbeck possibly out of the Italy game.

it can only improve the team.

Welbeck is one of those players whose individual skills are good enough, but who somehow makes the rest of the team something lesser.

[eFestivals]

Or perhaps its all been said already... and maybe we are all just fucking bored now....

or perhaps you're wrong when you say I'm wrong.

Given that you're not able to say what i'm wrong about, it's you that's wrong.

Oh dear.

Now, meanwhile, back at the ranch, FIFA rankings. Not perfect, but more perfect with friendlies included in some manner than excluded entirely as some here said they should be.

[eFestivals]

If you say so Neil.... No one agrees....

Except TGT, who said that friendlies show something of a team's abilities.

The only true ranking can come from competitive games.

then in your own logic it must be the case that the team who wins the FA Cup is a better team than the team who wins the league, because knock-out games are by-nature more competitive than an aggregated competition.

Edited June 11, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

No one agrees....

PS: FIFA agrees.

[ThomThomDrum]

Welbeck possibly out of the Italy game.

Edited June 11, 2014 by ThomThomDrum

[Essex_George]

PS - Any chance the tennis match will end soon so we can chat footie? Its kicking off 2mor.

[eFestivals]

TGT didn't say that... He said it showed a SMALL amount of what a team is capable.

if it shows something then it has relevance at some level - and anyone who excludes the relevant is more stupid than even you.

Certainly not enough to "rank" anyone...

Yes, more than enough. It's relevant data.

The 'how' it's used for ranking purposes is a different discussion, one that's only worth having with someone who has enough brain to realise that relevant data shouldn't be excluded.

And it's such an outrageously wrong idea that football's governing body agrees with the idea and all of the football world goes along with it (while having quibbles over the methodology used but not the data that's included).

Edited June 11, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Great... You and the corrupt fuck tards at FIFA are in the same bed. Suits you sir!

and on the same basis, as you're that stupid here you're always and forever that stupid.

[eFestivals]

Not a chance, this will keep going until well after the world cup has finished.

that's because Barry is able to have an argument even when he doesn't know what he's arguing - like when he tells me I'm wrong but isn't able to say how I'm wrong.