The *ONLY* After Hours thread about the European Championships.

Happyman42

Super-Rush wrote: »

Yeah me too.

Lads quit the 1916, us against them bullsh1t.

Seriously.

Yeh, let's leave them to feel sorry for themselves and play up being the victim. :rolleyes:
Honestly, the stuff people are let away with on these forums because people are too afraid to be honest. :rolleyes: Sad.

ballsymchugh

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Hardly, unless the IRA is considered representative of Irish football fans.

Besides, the amount of people who sing that is probably on par with the amount of Irish fans who chant IRA, IRA, during fields of athenry.

actually, in gdansk and poznan for the last two matches, i kept an ear out for anyone shouting that during the fields of athenrye, but didn't hear one.
was pleasantly surprised, as there's usually one or two clowns that shout it, but not once did i hear it over there.
maybe the irish fans have turned a corner?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes it has, you try to ignore the reason international sport exists in the first place. If it weren't so, why don't we select two teams of the most talented footballers in the world and let them play each other, Team X versus Team Y.
Once you name them after a tribe....things have a tendency to get tribal. Things tend to get heated if their is a history between the tribes outside of football. That's the real world, the cloud cuckoo land is expecting it to be like Team X versus Team Y. :rolleyes:

That's even fruther from the point. Sport is about proving yourself to be the best at a certain game or attribute. It doesn't give a flying **** where you are from. International football stems from football - not from nationalism.

And wither the fan in this world of yours? Quietly watching the beautiful game in the stand? :rolleyes:



Hand me down the violin! It's just a game ffs. You'll be taking the ball home next! :rolleyes:

When you resort to trolling, I think my argument stands for itself.

Happyman42

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

That's even fruther from the point. Sport is about proving yourself to be the best at a certain game or attribute. It doesn't give a flying **** where you are from. International football stems from football - not from nationalism.

So tell us what the millions of people watching are doing?
The BBC didn't want the 'best' anything last night, they just wanted to WIN.
btw That's what penalties are for, they don't decide who is the best, they decide who WINS.
Get a freaking grip and stop living in some fantasy world of your own making, one you are making because you are primarily feeling sorry for yourself and unloved. :rolleyes:

When you resort to trolling, I think my argument stands for itself.

A troll is somebody who comes on thread spouting stuff that isn't true just to enflame.
Somebody who claims that international sport isn't partisan is deluding themselves in the face of reality. Again, get over yourself and enjoy the game. :rolleyes:

DEFTLEFTHAND

I was really disappointed with England last night, Italy were rampant for large parts of the game and its a credit to the stoic English defence that they even managed to get it to pens.

In regards to the English punditry I felt the guys were hopeful and excited but realistic at the same time and in fairness they did give Italy their dues. I don't have a problem if they still allude to 1966 every so often, they won a world cup thats a great achievement. We got to a quarter final without winning a game and harp on about it just as much.

vgv

Despite wanting England to win it has to be said justice was done and the better more adventurous team won in the end.England seemed to be aiming for penalties from a long time off,not the best idea considering their history in shootouts.England were very poor in possession-their generosity in giving the ball back to the opposition beyond the halfway line would rival Ireland's.
As for the penalties I thought Joe Hart could have done better.Pirlo's penalty made a fool of him and he deserved it for his gamesmanship.
Spain are tournament favourites for me at this point but even though they are so great in so many ways I dont find their matches that exciting.Its a bit like watching Schumacher when he was driving for Ferrari.He was dominant and imperious but the outcome always seemed oh so predictable.A part of me wants to see Germany or Portugal go and give them a stuffing.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Happyman42 wrote: »

So tell us what the millions of people watching are doing?
The BBC didn't want the 'best' anything last night, they just wanted to WIN.
btw That's what penalties are for, they don't decide who is the best, they decide who WINS.

It's a convenience measure, because they can't have replays in such a short space of time. Otherwise, why have the game? Why not just have the penalty shoot otu and be done with it?

Irrlevant point though. The question was: does sport exist for the reaosn of promoting rivalry and tribalism? I still say no for the arguments I have outlined.

Get a freaking grip and stop living in some fantasy world of your own making, one you are making because you are primarily feeling sorry for yourself and unloved. :rolleyes:





A troll is somebody who comes on thread spouting stuff that isn't true just to enflame.

deosn't nessecarily have to be unture - it just has to enflame, which is the intention of both his post and this section of yours. It adds nothing to you point or to the discussion, so what other point does it have?

Somebody who claims that international sport isn't partisan is deluding themselves in the face of reality. Again, get over yourself and enjoy the game. :rolleyes:

... except that is not what I argued, now is it? I argued this, as I posted above:
does sport exist for the reason of promoting rivalry and tribalism? I still say no...

Happyman42

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I was really disappointed with England last night, Italy were rampant for large parts of the game and its a credit to the stoic English defence that they even managed to get it to pens.

In regards to the English punditry I felt the guys were hopeful and excited but realistic at the same time and in fairness they did give Italy their dues. I don't have a problem if they still allude to 1966 every so often, they won a world cup thats a great achievement. We got to a quarter final without winning a game and harp on about it just as much.

I think they where flattered in what turned out to be the easiest group.
The draw against France was not a tremendous achievement when you look at what they had to offer subsequently. The Swedish game was just 2 mediocre teams having a ding dong and Sweden could just as easily have won it.
I laughed my way through the halftime punditry in the England game tbh. The consensus was that 'England where playing well' was a joke. Without a doubt the RTE panel of Giles Brady and Dunphy wouldn't delude themselves to that degree. Always, always in the BBC punditry is the question, can we go all the way. The answers are always....'yes'. They where at it subliminally last night with the 'FATE' And 'DESTINY' inserts. Had they won.....we would have been deluged :rolleyes:

kfallon

So the semi finals.....anyone come up with a bet or a prediction for both games?

Happyman42

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

It's a convenience measure, because they can't have replays in such a short space of time. Otherwise, why have the game? Why not just have the penalty shoot otu and be done with it?

It's because it's primarily a game and a competition provided for an audience. Audiences made up of citizens from each country who cheer almost exclusively for their countries. Do you need diagrams?

Irrlevant point though. The question was: does sport exist for the reaosn of promoting rivalry and tribalism? I still say no for the arguments I have outlined.

Sport doesn't exist to 'promote' rivalry and tribalism, what we know as sport, emerged from tribal rivalry. To say otherwise is just nonsense. Man against man (or woman), parish against parish, county against county and country against country....all of them watched and supported by partisan crowds.

deosn't nessecarily have to be unture - it just has to enflame, which is the intention of both his post and this section of yours. It adds nothing to you point or to the discussion, so what other point does it have?

I have been honest about my partisanship and why I am that way. You are being less than honest in deconstructing what sport actually is.

... except that is not what I argued, now is it? I argued this, as I posted above:
does sport exist for the reason of promoting rivalry and tribalism? I still say no...

Nobody claimed that, including your good self, until now. Remember, you where the one who came on thread intimating that it had to do with 800 years of oppression. :rolleyes:

jaspertheghost

portugaL could spring a surprise i reckon,maybe on peno`s,germany 2-0 winners over italy...

Happyman42

kfallon wrote: »

So the semi finals.....anyone come up with a bet or a prediction for both games?

Portugese win over Spain. 2-2 fulltime, Portugal win on penalties.

Germany win over Italy, sombre affair as the Germans quell a very ordinary Italian side. 2-0

Portugal beat Germany in the final 2-1.

kfallon

Happyman42 wrote: »

Portugese win over Spain. 2-2 fulltime, Portugal win on penalties.

Germany win over Italy, sombre affair as the Germans quell a very ordinary Italian side. 2-0

Portugal beat Germany in the final 2-1.

It was all going so well until you got to the final

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

From here on in, I'm just going to delete the troll/petty insults, whatever you want to call them

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's because it's primarily a game and a competition provided for an audience. Audiences made up of citizens from each country who cheer almost exclusively for their countries.

Not in every sport. Tennis for example - the doubles teams are not restricted to nationality.

Sport doesn't exist to 'promote' rivalry and tribalism, what we know as sport, emerged from tribal rivalry. Man against man (or woman), parish against parish, county against county and country against country....all of them watched and supported by partisan crowds.

Other way around: the tirbalism came from sport. The Olympics, for example, go back to Aincent Greece, where the individual was more important than where he came from. The aduiaence had favourites who were nto nessecailry from their home town or city. Nowadays, you march under a national banner, but, especially in individual games, your background is irrelvant.

And, going back to the original point I made, it foes not explain why we cheer rabidly against a country that is indifferent to us at wrost and cheers for us at best.

I have been honest about my partisanship and why I am that way. You are being less than honest in deconstructing what sport actually is.

Hang on, you were the one who brought up the issue as to why sport existed, not me!

Nobody claimed that, including your good self, until now. Remember, you where the one who came on thread intimating that it had to do with 800 years of oppression. :rolleyes:

I made both points in separate parts of the discussion.

This was a different point I made as to why some people routinely cheer against the English.

Someone, I think it was you, put this down to tribal rivalry and said it was the whole reason d'etre of sport, which I disagreed with.

The thing about the tribal angle, is that it explains why you cheer FOR someone, but not why you cheer AGAINST someone, when your favourite is not playing and has nothing to gain from the result.

Happyman42

kfallon wrote: »

It was all going so well until you got to the final

Well, I might revise that after I see Germany actually tested, they haven't been asked to come out of first gear yet imo. Hard to judge just how good they are. But I think Ronaldo on a good day (and he is warming to his job) could unlock them on their current form. Caveat: they may have another couple of gears though.

Happyman42

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Other way around: the tirbalism came from sport. The Olympics, for example, go back to Aincent Greece, where the individual was more important than where he came from.

Nonsense, like your whole argument.
The Olympics where about the city states - represented by individuals - competing.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Happyman42 wrote: »

Nonsense, like your whole argument.
The Olympics where about the city states - represented by individuals - competing.

The Olympics was about the indivual, and not the city or team. The cities then started using the games as poloitcal tools and for propoganda purposes (little chnages ). There were no "medal tables" back then.

There were vey few team games, as well. Also, the whole point of the games was sporting rivialry - between individuals - and as a baromoeter of atheltic prowess. They were not started by cities trying to compete with one another. They had war for that.

Happyman42

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

The Olympics was about the indivual, and not the city or team. The cities then started using the games as poloitcal tools and for propoganda purposes (little chnages ). There were no "medal tables" back then.

There were vey few team games, as well. Also, the whole point of the games was sporting rivialry - between individuals - and as a baromoeter of atheltic prowess. They were not started by cities trying to compete with one another. They had war for that.

Bull constructed to suit your bull**** argument I'm afraid.

The Olympic Games (Ancient Greek: τὰ Ὀλύμπια – ta Olympia; Modern Greek: Ὀλυμπιακοὶ Ἀγῶνες (Katharevousa), Ολυμπιακοί Αγώνες (Dimotiki) – Olympiakoi Agones) were a series of athletic competitions held for representatives of various city-states of Ancient Greece held in honor of Zeus. The exact origins of the Games are shrouded in myth and legend but records indicate that they began in 776 BC in Olympia in Greece. They were celebrated until 394 AD when they were suppressed by Theodosius I as part of the campaign to impose Christianity as a state religion.



Regardless of who is rightor wrong about the origin of sport, your hypothesis just isn't sustained by the reality of what happens when people watch international team sports. End of, you lost, dry your eyes and try again, it wouldn't be the same without you.

bwatson

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, they've toned down the arrogance...on the BBC. But I listen to and read a wide range of stuff coming out of England. And the same old arrogance and sense of entitlement is there. Had they won tonight the BBC wouldn't have been able to resist.

Did you hear the 'beaten by a West Ham reject' comment by the BBC commentator? :D Brilliant! At times he and Mark Lawenson sounded like a sketch from Apres Match.

Why were you watching the English national broadcaster over the Irish national broadcaster? As an Irish nationalist surely you should be supporting your own national institutions?

By the way, I think the English commentators and analysts were incredibly humble and observant of the fact that England were simply not as good as Italy before, during and after last night's match. As a result of your strange and seemingly unsubstanciated sense of rivalry, you are simply hearing what you want to hear. Moreover, who are you to say that the English media should not be hopeful when it comes to their own national team? Every other nation enters tournaments with an optimistic outlook, with the belief that luck might just go their way, with the hope that they could surprise a few people. Why do you get so angry when it is the English who do it? You keep trying to lecture people on what sport is and isnt, yet you seem to conveniently forget this aspect.

Furthermore, you should look closer to home when it comes to arrogance and delusion. Look on the RTE sports player, look for pre tournament interviews from Dunphy saying that Ireland would get something from the Croatia game, and would progress if they set up right against the Italians. I assume you expect me to go "HA, DELUSIONAL", and rub it in his smug face. But no, I have no problem with people talking up their own nation's chances. Dreams are what football is about. It also has something to do with the fact that I understand RTE is not there to cater for me, a British citizen. Some Irish viewers of the BBC (no problem there, a far superior broadcaster) expect them to act as if they are catering primarily to a world and not British audience.

bwatson

peasant wrote: »

...even better ...we don't have to listen to all this 1966 shoyte warmed up all over again

:D:D Pot calling the kettle black or what???

The English media talk up the fact that they have done what only 8 nations have ever done, and win the most prestigious tournament in world sport? How dare they be proud of that fact?

No, they should definately be more like the Irish fans who never bring up the fact they beat a rival (who doesnt realize they are a rival) in 1988 in a solitary group game and still totally failed to even proceed from the group stages... OH WAIT.

:D

Happyman42

bwatson wrote: »

Why were you watching the English national broadcaster over the Irish national broadcaster? As an Irish nationalist surely you should be supporting your own national institutions?

Because I enjoy the sound of words being eaten.

By the way, I think the English commentators and analysts were incredibly humble and observant of the fact that England were simply not as good as Italy before, during and after last night's match. As a result of your strange and seemingly unsubstanciated sense of rivalry, you are simply hearing what you want to hear. Moreover, who are you to say that the English media should not be hopeful when it comes to their own national team?

I wouldn't be in favour of proscribing it or censoring it for one second. As I have been at pains to say, it's too enjoyable.
You must have been listening to a different programme to me. First the 'FATE' and 'DESTINY' insets. The 'hope' from the pundits which was based on (as it invariably always is) a delusional assessment of their progress through the groups.
Their assessment at half-time 'that England where playing well' and their forecasts; a win for England, was also delusional.
Yes, their assessment at the end (undeniable, in the face of the overwhelming evidence) that Italy were the better team was enjoyable, as per my answer to the first part of your post. ^

Furthermore, you should look closer to home when it comes to arrogance and delusion. Look on the RTE sports player, look for pre tournament interviews from Dunphy saying that Ireland would get something from the Croatia game, and would progress if they set up right against the Italians. I assume you expect me to go "HA, DELUSIONAL", and rub it in his smug face. But no, I have no problem with people talking up their own nation's chances.

Nowhere near the same level of hope based on delusion. Of all pundits Dunphy is and always has been very honest about what was possible with the Irish squad. In fact, you don't have to look very hard on here to see complaints about his negativity.

Dreams are what football is about. It also has something to do with the fact that I understand RTE is not there to cater for me, a British citizen. Some Irish viewers of the BBC (no problem there, a far superior broadcaster) expect them to act as if they are catering primarily to a world and not British audience.

Yes, it is about dreams, and it also not that important, it is only a game after all. Nobody dies. Enjoy it in whatever way you can, and for god's sake don't be a crybaby about it.....I enjoy it too much!

Cork boy 55

Guardian have done some stats England have fourth worst penalty winning record in the world.

England
14% winning rate
81% opponent scoring rate
61% England scoring rate


Ireland
50% winning rate
70% opponent scoring rate
70% ireland scoring rate


http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jun/25/euro2012-uefa?newsfeed=true

Super-Rush

I'll reopen this tomorrow so certain people can read the opening post a few times and understand what the thread is meant to be about.

Super-Rush

Goallllllllllll!!!!!!!!!!!!

I miss the footy.

Duggys Housemate

well, back to 1916. As I was saying....

Mint Sauce

Super-Rush wrote: »

Goallllllllllll!!!!!!!!!!!!

I miss the footy.

I have wimbledon to keep me going.

Although it does blow that theres no football for a couple of days, even worse that its my first couple of days off.

kfallon

One more sleep til the semi.....but that's enough about me morning pisshorn :pac:

mackg

I would love to see Portugal go ahead early in that game, Spain are going to have all the ball anyway more than likely at least that would give them a little more urgency. Don't think I've ever seen them play each other, is it a big rivalry?

hondasam

I'm supporting Spain now.

kfallon

mackg wrote: »

I would love to see Portugal go ahead early in that game, Spain are going to have all the ball anyway more than likely at least that would give them a little more urgency. Don't think I've ever seen them play each other, is it a big rivalry?

They played in the World Cup two years ago, Spain won 1-0
They played in the Euro's in Portugal in 2004, Portugal won 1-0

I think I am correct in saying that!

Happyman42

mackg wrote: »

I would love to see Portugal go ahead early in that game, Spain are going to have all the ball anyway more than likely at least that would give them a little more urgency. Don't think I've ever seen them play each other, is it a big rivalry?

I was on hols in Portugal the night this happened. Boy oh boy did they party, ended at 6 0r 7am the following morning with the police arriving at our apartment to arrest two boisterous members of staff.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/euro_2004/3787483.stm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

So... what about them Olympics then...?

*runs*

mackg

kfallon wrote: »

They played in the World Cup two years ago, Spain won 1-0
They played in the Euro's in Portugal in 2004, Portugal won 1-0

I think I am correct in saying that!

I won a few a nice bit off Spain in that world cup and was pretty sure I saw all their games but for the life of me I cannot remember a thing about that game, even after looking up about it on wiki

kfallon

mackg wrote: »

I won a few a nice bit off Spain in that world cup and was pretty sure I saw all their games but for the life of me I cannot remember a thing about that game, even after looking up about it on wiki

Villa scored, I had him backed to get the first goal! Portugal were awful!

Sunnyisland

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

well, back to 1916. As I was saying....

:D:D:D

Sunnyisland

hondasam wrote: »

I'm supporting Spain now.

Aaaaa why

hondasam

realies wrote: »

Aaaaa why

I did from the start tbh, who are you supporting now?

I had a little bet on England and Spain, nothing much just for the fun and to keep it interesting.

Sunnyisland

hondasam wrote: »

I did from the start tbh, who are you supporting now?

I had a little bet on England and Spain, nothing much just for the fun and to keep it interesting.

From the start I have had holland,England,portugal So Portugal it stays for me

hondasam

realies wrote: »

From the start I have had holland,England,portugal So Portugal it stays for me

should be a good game. will it be Germany in the final?

mackg

kfallon wrote: »

Villa scored, I had him backed to get the first goal! Portugal were awful!

Watched the goal there, jaysus he was standing there unmarked for the best part of twenty seconds!

Sunnyisland

hondasam wrote: »

should be a good game. will it be Germany in the final?

Dont really know tbh We shall all have to wait and see Obrigado

Duggys Housemate

And, we're back.

kfallon

SHOVELLER wrote: »

Go to a live game here. Pats v Rovers tonight.

I am playing football tonight! Plus, until I had to move to Dublin years ago for work reasons I supported my hometown LOI team (didn't miss a home game for 7 seasons and plenty of away trips too) so no way am I gonna pay to watch two teams I considered rivals to my team.

Sunnyisland

Martin mcguinness should shoot foo


This is a soccer thread is it not Are portugal going to beat Spain tomorrow night ? The rivalry between the two Iberian countries is immense with Spain being the big powerful neighbour and forever looking down on its former colony, Does this sound familiar :P Wonder how the fans are getting along ? ole ole

Come on posters back to the soccer :cool:

hondasam

Could we make up to teams and just play for the last post on the subject?

bwatson

realies wrote: »

Martin mcguinness should shoot foo


This is a soccer thread is it not Are portugal going to beat Spain tomorrow night ? The rivalry between the two Iberian countries is immense with Spain being the big powerful neighbour and forever looking down on its former colony, Does this sound familiar :P Wonder how the fans are getting along ? ole ole

Come on posters back to the soccer :cool:

The fact that you acknowledge that the rivalry between Spain and Portugal is immense must surely mean that it can't be reminding you of the relationship between Ireland and England?

I'd love to see someone other than Spain in this final, as long as it isn't Portugal. Therefore, I will be very much hoping for a Spanish win and in truth I can't see any other result. Spain should dominate the ball as per usual and I can't see Portugal being able to play their normal counter attacking game. Spain are just so good at flooding back and crowding out any break away, completely snuffing out danger.

Duggys Housemate

Why are people hostile to Spain. I wudda thought they would be the purist choice to win.

kfallon

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Why are people hostile to Spain. I wudda thought they would be the purist choice to win.

People get bored of the same team winning all the time, we like to see new Champions coming thru and then we get bored of them :P

Sindri

realies wrote: »

Martin mcguinness should shoot foo


This is a soccer thread is it not Are portugal going to beat Spain tomorrow night ? The rivalry between the two Iberian countries is immense with Spain being the big powerful neighbour and forever looking down on its former colony, Does this sound familiar :P Wonder how the fans are getting along ? ole ole

Come on posters back to the soccer :cool:

Portugal was never a colony of Spain. Your taking our history and relations with Britain and applying it to their's.


Spain will win 2-1. Portugal are incapable of being clinical in the last third without Ronaldo and he has to have the ball to do anything with it. The game will probably open up a bit near the end with Portugal mainly counter attacking. If Portugal sit back they'll lose, which they will.

Sunnyisland

kfallon wrote: »

People get bored of the same team winning all the time, we like to see new Champions coming thru and then we get bored of them :P

Its good for the sport :D