Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Daggers

What grinds my gears...

By Daggers, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Alexikokopops

Alexikokopops

Posted
Posted

how was it herculean?

why? When the english win something with dignity and show a bit of humility then i might offer my congratulations, but until then they are just a nation who believe themselves t'be on of the greatest in the world when they are average at best.

Sure they may be better than us at most sports but in cricket, despite winning the last 2 ashes they aren't as good as the aussies. In rugby although we fight italy to avoid the wooden spoon, england aren't that far ahead and (although it irritates me to say this since no doubt finners will be insufferable about it) wales, ireland and france are all better, as are south africa, new zealand and possibly the aussies. In football you're behind spain, portugal, italy, germany, holland and most of the south african nations. Finally does england even have a fooking hockey team?

While I'd agree with you that football can be a bit arrogant, I'm really struggling to see where you get this impression about rugby and cricket. I'm genuinely confused by that. Also, a very odd statement about not being as good as Australia, That's a very odd conclusion to come to. It's not a surprise that people think the Scottish have a chip on their shoulder when you pop up with comments like that :D

Oh, and England has a hockey team. They're current European Champions. My housemate is a keen hockey player and I used to dabble, hence knowing that random fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Miquel The Work Geordie

Miquel The Work Geordie

Posted
Posted (edited)

how was it herculean?

why? When the english win something with dignity and show a bit of humility then i might offer my congratulations, but until then they are just a nation who believe themselves t'be on of the greatest in the world when they are average at best.

Sure they may be better than us at most sports but in cricket, despite winning the last 2 ashes they aren't as good as the aussies. In rugby although we fight italy to avoid the wooden spoon, england aren't that far ahead and (although it irritates me to say this since no doubt finners will be insufferable about it) wales, ireland and france are all better, as are south africa, new zealand and possibly the aussies. In football you're behind spain, portugal, italy, germany, holland and most of the south african nations. Finally does england even have a fooking hockey team?

Wow. This has to be the most ignorant post I've ever read on here.

Despite winning the last two series of the Ashes, we aren't as good as Austrailia at cricket? Bizarre logic, I've also never found the fans of either cricket or rugby union to be anything less than dignified.

English rugby has improved no end recently, certainly in the ascendancy, so I find the comparison to Scotland and Italy little short of laughable. The sport in this country is currently in that transitional phase, and I'll accept that Wales, Ireland, South Africa and New Zealand are all more competent nations at the minute, however I'd still rank England as one of the best nations in the world at the sport, with the potential to perhaps reach the pinnacle once again.

And as for the football point, you're retarded. The top five in the world, currently (Spain, Holland, Germany, Brazil, Argentina) are untouchable. They might rotate standings, but they'll all be in the top five for a long, long while yet. England currently reside in sixth. Despite a gash world cup, we absolutely demolished a tough group to qualify* for that tournament in the first instance, containing the likes of Croatia and the Ukraine. We're there on merit.

To add, I think the African nations you're probably making an attempt to refer to, are Western nations, not Southern, and that none of them are 'better' per se. The Ivory Coast have never posed much of a threat at international level, Cameroon are hideously over reliant on Samuel Eto'o, and Nigeria never fail to crushingly disappoint. The best two teams in Africa are Egypt and Ghana. I'd rank neither above England (not to say I don't rate either side).

*

qual·i·fy /ˈkwäləˌfī/ Verb

1. Become eligible for a competition or its final rounds, by reaching a certain standard or defeating a competitor.

Just to refresh your memory, man.

And in case no one noticed, whinging, jealous, green eyed Jocks grind my gears. If you put as much effort into sport as you did being unnecessarily angry, your nation could achieve something in the realm of sports.

Edited by Michael The Work Geordie
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Finnegan

Finnegan

Posted
Posted (edited)

Girls are fooking stupid, irrational bitches.

Tell us what happened, lil' guy.

English rugby has improved no end recently, certainly in the ascendancy, so I find the comparison to Scotland and Italy little short of laughable. The sport in this country is currently in that transitional phase, and I'll accept that Wales, Ireland, South Africa and New Zealand are all more competent nations at the minute, however I'd still rank England as one of the best nations in the world at the sport, with the potential to perhaps reach the pinnacle once again.

Mmh, no. Well at least, it depends what you consider the "pinnacle" to be. Going to a Southern Hemisphere World Cup and beating the Aussies and the Saffers en route to winning the whole thing is staggering for any Northern side, then and now. But even in this short time the sport has changed - distinctly for the worse, if you're English.

It's true that England are slowly beginning to get back to their feet following the mass retirements of the Johnsons and the Backs of this world that left them with an alarming dirth of genuinely world class players. It must have hurt the Twickenham faithful to see that coincide with a rise to form of Wales and Ireland that left them out of the top three of European rugby.

It's true that the likes of Croft, Youngs and Foden have the potential to reach those heights (and even steer England to another 6N) but in the mean time the chasm between Northern and Southern hemisphere sides has become immense. Also different since 2003 has been the rise to prominence of the Magners League which, finally, after being decades behind the English, crowns Ireland and Wales' (and to a lesser extent Scotland's) settling in to the professional era of the sport. In the mean time, the financial impact of a global economic crisis (mixed with, I imagine, a decline in interest in rugby after the obvious boom the 2003 WC gave) has noticeably rocked the English Guinness Premiership and the weakened league is seeing it's brightest stars pulled away to France and Australia and this is just the start.

Rugby isn't like football. In football, having your players pulled away to the best leagues in the world should only improve them - and there may be a sense of that in rugby. But it never really comes through that way in rugby. There's a reason the likes of New Zealand tie their domestic players to international contracts to keep them local and a reason that the ABs are the best side in the world. A reason Gatland will pick domestic players over foreign based players - and Johnson the same.

Meanwhile Scottish rugby can only go one way, and that's up. And it is doing. It improves every year and LargeAl is right about one thing in his rant - England are far closer to Scotland's level than they are to "the top" and it's staying like that for a long, long while to come.

Oh. And Australia are shit at cricket.

Edited by Finnegan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Doctor

The Doctor

Posted
Posted

Wow. This has to be the most ignorant post I've ever read on here.

Despite winning the last two series of the Ashes, we aren't as good as Austrailia at cricket? Bizarre logic, I've also never found the fans of either cricket or rugby union to be anything less than dignified.

And as for the football point, you're retarded. The top five in the world, currently (Spain, Holland, Germany, Brazil, Argentina) are untouchable. They might rotate standings, but they'll all be in the top five for a long, long while yet. England currently reside in sixth. Despite a gash world cup, we absolutely demolished a tough group to qualify* for that tournament in the first instance, containing the likes of Croatia and the Ukraine. We're there on merit.

To add, I think the African nations you're probably making an attempt to refer to, are Western nations, not Southern, and that none of them are 'better' per se. The Ivory Coast have never posed much of a threat at international level, Cameroon are hideously over reliant on Samuel Eto'o, and Nigeria never fail to crushingly disappoint. The best two teams in Africa are Egypt and Ghana. I'd rank neither above England (not to say I don't rate either side).

*

Just to refresh your memory, man.

And in case no one noticed, whinging, jealous, green eyed Jocks grind my gears. If you put as much effort into sport as you did being unnecessarily angry, your nation could achieve something in the realm of sports.

Probably could have worded that better - despite winning the last two ashes series, Australia have all most always been better than you. (australia have won the most series (31), the most test matches (123), have scored the most runs (5,028) and taken the most wickets (195))

Your world cup qualification group was hardly tough - ukraine and croatia were the only decent teams in there, you were also playing the likes of kazakhstan, belarus and andorra, completely shit nations.

In my defence that was a spelling mistake, i meant american not african.

and 'kokopops - i'm not normally this angry - combination of exams, that home nations championship stuff and not being able to travel to manchester next week has really got me on edge at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alexikokopops

Alexikokopops

Posted
Posted

Probably could have worded that better - despite winning the last two ashes series, Australia have all most always been better than you. (australia have won the most series (31), the most test matches (123), have scored the most runs (5,028) and taken the most wickets (195))

and 'kokopops - i'm not normally this angry - combination of exams, that home nations championship stuff and not being able to travel to manchester next week has really got me on edge at the moment.

It's 31 tests to 30, so there's not that much difference :) Historically I'd argue we're relatively even (as the 31-30 tests shows). If you look at the past 20 years overall then Australia have dominated, but the past five years that has changed. The thing is though, English cricket fans recognise this, and know this is the case, which is why I found your initial outburst (in relation to cricket) a touch odd :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Haydos

Haydos

Posted
Posted

On behalf of a mate.

Paying for petrol at night on the card-only machines when someone gives you a tenner so they can piut petrol in because they havent got a card on them.

After driving off he realises that the card only gets charged afterwards and they could put any amount in. Drives back to find them gone, having topped up £50 :frusty:

I lol'd

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FoxyPV

FoxyPV

Posted
Posted

Not good! Having to sign the forms with all the other customers watching you is a very low moment in your life!

I didn't even think of that. I rang the mrs and got her to drive back to give me my wallet. Making her turn round half way into her morning commute earned me loads of brownie points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Doctor

The Doctor

Posted
Posted

Failure to use punctuation correctly.

Going through past paper biology questions and find this question:

Conservation officers were working on the beaches used in this investigation. They noticed that there were fewer larger seaweeds on beaches used by a large number of people than on beaches visited by only a few people. Explain how the data in figure 3 supports this.

Right so is that fewer seaweeds but the ones that are there are larger or is it that the majority of seaweeds are small ones and there are few large ones?

It meant fewer seaweeds but the ones that are there are larger but why did they not make it clear what they meant and put a fooking comma between fewer and larger?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...