Off The Ball Official Thread <Mod Note - Post #1, #533, #6651>

RoversCeltic

Dots1982 wrote: »

He read out a text calling himself an “encyclopedia of sport”...had to admire the sheer barefaced conceitedness of it. But it’s all a load of nonsense to me. I listen to that show mainly for Dan McDonnell. Don’t care who the host is.

agreed with that

always find it hard to take any Irish football journalist seriously if they arent LOI men

generalgerry

Gilroy seems to cherry pick the good interviews for himself.

Joe accepting very little of the blame, when it's put to him he just creates a comparison with a similar situation with another team, and shrugs his shoulders. He's like a man who is being questioned about a murder.

UpTheSlashers

RoversCeltic wrote: »

agreed with that

always find it hard to take any Irish football journalist seriously if they arent LOI men

JD comes across as fairly smug, can't believe they have put him in the centre of what used to be a very good slot.

CatFromHue

RINO87 wrote: »

I enjoyed Nathan presenting on Saturdays, he really worked well with whatever guests were in for the football, but I guess he'll be doing more commentary now.

Nathan is very good. He's well able to chat and have a bit of fun.

Tell me how

RINO87 wrote: »

I enjoyed Nathan presenting on Saturdays, he really worked well with whatever guests were in for the football, but I guess he'll be doing more commentary now.

Can't really warm to JD, seems a bit bland. Might change of course when he's at the helm.

I'm not in Ireland at moment so not listening to OTB as much as when at home.
I like John Duggan but not sure if he is suitable to host the show on his own. Time will tell.

Nathan was very good as a host and was able to generate conversation or let it become light hearted in an appropriate manner in a way which I think the show benefited from.

Does he solely commentate for OTB soccer matches or does he do other sports for other stations?

diusmr8a504cvk

howareyakid wrote: »

I see JD is taking over the Saturday show. I always enjoy listening to him. He's very knowledgeable and always comes across as being very passionate about sport.

So it looks like I won't be listening on Saturdays, unless I want to hear John's story about him attending some random sport event in Bolivia, which I don't.

diusmr8a504cvk

Really enjoyed the recent interview with Vinny Perth. I enjoyed it because of Vinny, not Joe Molloy who added little and came off as uninformed.

Ahwell

Tell me how wrote: »

Does he solely commentate for OTB soccer matches or does he do other sports for other stations?

He has commentated on the rugby for Newstalk for the last two Saturdays, which maybe is the reason for the changed.

Murdoc90

Brayan Chilly Shoplifter wrote: »

So it looks like I won't be listening on Saturdays, unless I want to hear John's story about him attending some random sport event in Bolivia, which I don't.

or how many winners he's tipped at Cheltenham. No doubt John Duggan is very knowledgeable but he's so far up his own hole its unreal.

Raoul

Nathan is one of the best guys they have. He seems very good natured and is able to have fun on the show without being nasty like some of the others.

poteen

What ever happened with the OTB golf open in Abu Dhabi ? It was supposed to be a week or so ago. Heard no pod, no reference at all and dont know anybody that went. Anyone have any info or feedback?

robo

poteen wrote: »

What ever happened with the OTB golf open in Abu Dhabi ? It was supposed to be a week or so ago. Heard no pod, no reference at all and dont know anybody that went. Anyone have any info or feedback?

Yeh that got lost in the black hole...was advertised like mad in the summer and then disappeared like a reality tv star. From what I remember from the advert, they may have had more "celebs" than punters going and I'd say the "celebs" trip was free of charge so they were probably losing a shed lot of money on it.
It sounded a ludicrous idea anyway :rolleyes:

It was so funny when they read out "texts" of listeners asking (whilst ads were still being played) if they could still book it for them and their mates...they just sounded like made up texts!
Would love to have been in that meeting when they decided to shelve it - poor Joe and the lads getting no jolly & I'd say when they picked Eoin to get the trip to the World Cup, it was under the premise that he would be one of the few left behind for the golf trip...mind you good choice with Eoin in Japan, he certainly delivered on his repots and videos.

deisedude

I wonder is Joe Molloy miffed he didnt get to interview Joe Schmidt.

He had mentioned on a few shows in passing that he was doing to interview him and naively said on one show he intended to ask him about the Jackson/Olding case and then surprise surprise Gilroy did the interview yesterday

amlinopta

Joe Molloy is interviewing Schmidt in the Bord Gais Energy Theatre and also in U.L., couple of nice nixers for him. Might partially explain why he didn’t do the Off the Ball interview. Can’t imagine the rape trial will feature much at either of these events.

deisedude

amlinopta wrote: »

Joe Molloy is interviewing Schmidt in the Bord Gais Energy Theatre and also in U.L., couple of nice nixers for him. Might partially explain why he didn’t do the Off the Ball interview. Can’t imagine the rape trial will feature much at either of these events.

Ah that explains it so

poteen

robo wrote: »

Yeh that got lost in the black hole...was advertised like mad in the summer and then disappeared like a reality tv star. From what I remember from the advert, they may have had more "celebs" than punters going and I'd say the "celebs" trip was free of charge so they were probably losing a shed lot of money on it.
It sounded a ludicrous idea anyway :rolleyes:

It was so funny when they read out "texts" of listeners asking (whilst ads were still being played) if they could still book it for them and their mates...they just sounded like made up texts!
Would love to have been in that meeting when they decided to shelve it - poor Joe and the lads getting no jolly & I'd say when they picked Eoin to get the trip to the World Cup, it was under the premise that he would be one of the few left behind for the golf trip...mind you good choice with Eoin in Japan, he certainly delivered on his repots and videos.

It just disappeared off the grid. Looking back at the Golf Weekly twitter account around the time of the announcement, it wasn't well received. Most of the feedback seemed to say great concept but wrong price/location, why not do it in Ireland for a few days and it would be heavily booked. I would agree with that too. Alternatively they could have gone somewhere expensive like Scotland or maybe Spain of they wanted the sun.

I hope they try this again next year with a more attainable package for people.

Tell me how

poteen wrote: »

It just disappeared off the grid. Looking back at the Golf Weekly twitter account around the time of the announcement, it wasn't well received. Most of the feedback seemed to say great concept but wrong price/location, why not do it in Ireland for a few days and it would be heavily booked. I would agree with that too. Alternatively they could have gone somewhere expensive like Scotland or maybe Spain of they wanted the sun.

I hope they try this again next year with a more attainable package for people.

Destination was mental for a first off event. Straight away it's adding a grand for flights, at least.

generalgerry

amlinopta wrote: »

Joe Molloy is interviewing Schmidt in the Bord Gais Energy Theatre and also in U.L., couple of nice nixers for him. Might partially explain why he didn’t do the Off the Ball interview. Can’t imagine the rape trial will feature much at either of these events.

Well OTB had already acted as judge and jury on that case, so they are not objective enough to conduct a proper interview. They had a representative of the rape crisis centre on the night that Jackson was found innocent. How they ever got away with that is beyond me. Shameful populism. But I guess they got some positive feedback on Twitter from Sinead O'Carroll so in contemporary broadcasting that is the sort of thing that takes priority.

Tell me how

generalgerry wrote: »

Well OTB had already acted as judge and jury on that case, so they are not objective enough to conduct a proper interview. They had a representative of the rape crisis centre on the night that Jackson was found innocent. How they ever got away with that is beyond me. Shameful populism. But I guess they got some positive feedback on Twitter from Sinead O'Carroll so in contemporary broadcasting that is the sort of thing that takes priority.

They seemed to go with the line that most organisations took, that the behaviour of the guys was unacceptable even if they had been found not guilty and that it reflected the difficulty many victims of rape have in seeing their attacker receive justice.

Iirc, most, if not all public commentary was that while the guys were not convicted, the evidence indicated that they were behaving very far from decently.
Any of the voices saying they were entirely blame free seemed to be limited to twitter and anonymous voices on places such as Boards.

Ahwell

generalgerry wrote: »

Well OTB had already acted as judge and jury on that case, so they are not objective enough to conduct a proper interview. They had a representative of the rape crisis centre on the night that Jackson was found innocent. How they ever got away with that is beyond me. Shameful populism.

"Given it's definition, I think it tells you a lot about a person when they use the word populist as a pejorative term." posted by generalgerry 27-10-2019

generalgerry

Ahwell wrote: »

"Given it's definition, I think it tells you a lot about a person when they use the word populist as a pejorative term." posted by generalgerry 27-10-2019

Except I wasn't using it as a pejorative term, I was using it in the literal sense. If you're gonna have a go at me at least take the posts in context.

generalgerry

amlinopta wrote: »

Joe Molloy is interviewing Schmidt in the Bord Gais Energy Theatre and also in U.L., couple of nice nixers for him.

I think this is actually gonna be a sticky wicket for Joe now. The book has been absolutely panned by all of his peers in the media - the latest being Dunphy and Franno who ripped it to shreds on The Stand this week.

How does he get through the interview without acknowledging or referencing the fact that everybody thinks the book is so bad, and maintain his "journalistic credibility"? If you have smiling, humble, respectful Joe Schmidt in front of you, can you really ask "Joe, why are you asking for 25 quid for a rubbish book, is it really just you cashing in your chips?". Be like hitting a squirrel over the head with a mallet.

Ahwell

generalgerry wrote: »

Except I wasn't using it as a pejorative term, I was using it in the literal sense.

Nonsense.

generalgerry

Ahwell wrote: »

Nonsense.

I think the two uses are pretty clear.



But I realise that you are already committed to your first post at this stage, so there is no point in trying to talk your round with logic.

Ahwell

generalgerry wrote: »

I think the two uses are pretty clear.



But I realise that you are already committed to your first post at this stage, so there is no point in trying to talk your round with logic.

I don't think it's my logic that's at fault here Gerry. What you are ignoring is the adjective you put before populism i.e. Shameful. An adjective describes or modifies a noun.

pejorative - expressing contempt or disapproval

"Shameful populism" is clearly a pejorative term and is using populism in a pejorative way.

So, I won't be expecting a response then, like the 99% of the times you don't have the courage of your convictions to debate the stuff you post on here.

hawley

Their updates on the Premier League are a few minutes behind what's actually taking place. Alisson sent off for Liverpool and nothing about it for about five minutes.

Aidric

generalgerry wrote: »

I think this is actually gonna be a sticky wicket for Joe now. The book has been absolutely panned by all of his peers in the media - the latest being Dunphy and Franno who ripped it to shreds on The Stand this week.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they ripped it to shreds. Whilst they were in broad agreement that it was a weak book, Francis articulated why that was. He also made a telling point about Schmidt's relationship with the media. Schmidt was a little bit spiky with the rugby journalists and not as subservient as previous coaches. This got their back up and they had an axe to grind.

generalgerry wrote: »

How does he get through the interview without acknowledging or referencing the fact that everybody thinks the book is so bad, and maintain his "journalistic credibility"? If you have smiling, humble, respectful Joe Schmidt in front of you, can you really ask "Joe, why are you asking for 25 quid for a rubbish book, is it really just you cashing in your chips?". Be like hitting a squirrel over the head with a mallet.

I'd give Joe Molloy a bit more credit than that. I happen to think he is one of the best interviewers around, always well prepared and not afraid to ask the difficult questions. I'm pretty sure he would broach the topic of reaction to the book unless he is specifically barred by the publishers from asking it. Given that the event is organised by the publishers this is a live risk.

Aidric

Aidric wrote: »

I wouldn't go so far as to say they ripped it to shreds. Whilst they were in broad agreement that it was a weak book, Francis articulated why that was. He also made a telling point about Schmidt's relationship with the media. Schmidt was a little bit spiky with the rugby journalists and not as subservient as previous coaches. This got their back up and they had an axe to grind.

Some of the reviews of Schmidt's book have been very pointed and over the top in their criticism. As the above poster states, Schmidt had a frosty relationship with the media and didn't really give them the time of day, which got many of their backs up. And, of course, in their eyes he also had the temerity to write the book himself rather than getting a journalist to ghost it which is the norm. Schmidt was doomed from the off with this book and it looks like many of the egos in the media have been champing at the bit to exact a small slice of revenge.

CatFromHue

Very over the top stuff.

You don't hear them talking about other sports books in the way they did his, and definitely not just as it's been released.

Tell me how

CatFromHue wrote: »

Very over the top stuff.

You don't hear them talking about other sports books in the way they did his, and definitely not just as it's been released.

I think the quotes at the start of each chapter, and particularly the Vodafone one turned it from a memoir in to a commercial enterprise in a lot of peoples eyes.

Saw a lot of different sports people tweet the image of that or comment on it in the days after the books release.

generalgerry

Ahwell wrote: »

I don't think it's my logic that's at fault here Gerry. What you are ignoring is the adjective you put before populism i.e. Shameful. An adjective describes or modifies a noun.

We could go round in circles on this one. My point is that there are two ways the word in used in contemporary "journalism". The genuine sense of the word, where populist simply means saying something (whether you believe it to be true or not) simply because it is what you think will make you popular with your audience. The second use is relatively new, where you will hear a liberal journalist describe the conservative policies of a politician as populist, which can essentially be read as "racist".

generalgerry

Aidric wrote: »

I'd give Joe Molloy a bit more credit than that. I happen to think he is one of the best interviewers around, always well prepared and not afraid to ask the difficult questions.

I'm not taking any credit from Joe, I'm just saying that it will be a difficult social situation. Gilroy didn't mention at all about how the book has been getting bad reviews. I'm just wondering will Joe broach the topic of the book not being very good or will he just do the same as what Gilroy did and effectively pretend like it's a great book.

Neil Francis did agree with you in that he too thought that a lot of the media were waiting for Joe in the long grass, and took out their revenge on him in their reviews of the book. But I think the general consensus is that if Joe was not even prepared to give his parent's names in the book, then the book probably should not have been written, as the man is simply not prepared to give anything away.

I see it is up on Audible. Read by Paul Hanley, whoever that is. I think I probably would have bought it and listened to it in the car if I hadn't heard Dunphy's review. Almost 27 euro for the audio version.

https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/Ordinary-Joe-Audiobook/0241988675?qid=1575188068&sr=1-1&pf_rd_p=c6e316b8-14da-418d-8f91-b3cad83c5183&pf_rd_r=2FPTMFY3TQA4P83M02NY&ref=a_search_c3_lProduct_1_1

Jayesdiem

generalgerry wrote: »

I'm not taking any credit from Joe, I'm just saying that it will be a difficult social situation. Gilroy didn't mention at all about how the book has been getting bad reviews. I'm just wondering will Joe broach the topic of the book not being very good or will he just do the same as what Gilroy did and effectively pretend like it's a great book.

Neil Francis did agree with you in that he too thought that a lot of the media were waiting for Joe in the long grass, and took out their revenge on him in their reviews of the book. But I think the general consensus is that if Joe was not even prepared to give his parent's names in the book, then the book probably should not have been written, as the man is simply not prepared to give anything away.

I see it is up on Audible. Read by Paul Hanley, whoever that is. I think I probably would have bought it and listened to it in the car if I hadn't heard Dunphy's review. Almost 27 euro for the audio version.

https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/Ordinary-Joe-Audiobook/0241988675?qid=1575188068&sr=1-1&pf_rd_p=c6e316b8-14da-418d-8f91-b3cad83c5183&pf_rd_r=2FPTMFY3TQA4P83M02NY&ref=a_search_c3_lProduct_1_1

People should just not buy the book. The press has done everyone a favour by reviewing it up front so anyone who drops 25 quid on it at this stage deserves to be parted with their money.

CatFromHue

There are plenty of bad, boring, and rubbish sports books out each year.

None of them have got anywhere near the criticism his book has gotten.

They might get some at the end of the year, or a throwaway comment here and there but none as the book has just been published.

Ahwell

generalgerry wrote: »

We could go round in circles on this one. My point is that there are two ways the word in used in contemporary "journalism". The genuine sense of the word, where populist simply means saying something (whether you believe it to be true or not) simply because it is what you think will make you popular with your audience.

But that has never been the meaning. Look at the definition you posted yourself. For something to be populist there has to be a "the ordinary people" v "an elite" element. A typical example of a populist slogan would be "Drain the swamp". What populist is being confused with in the media is "demagogue" - a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument. I would put Trump and Boris Johnson into this category, you wouldn't.

Clonmel1000

Rugby is almost above criticism in this country that’s why I’m surprised at the negative reviews.

CatFromHue

Clonmel1000 wrote: »

Rugby is almost above criticism in this country that’s why I’m surprised at the negative reviews.

That's completely untrue.

After an Ireland loss, like say against Japan, there is plenty of criticism. It's just in the rugby section which if you don't follow rugby you won't see.

Higgins5473

CatFromHue wrote: »

That's completely untrue.

After an Ireland loss, like say against Japan, there is plenty of criticism. It's just in the rugby section which if you don't follow rugby you won't see.

The Rugby section of Boards? Is that what you mean?

CatFromHue

Yeah that's a good example. I did mean the papers though.

CatFromHue

MacKenna doing the rounds with his book at the moment and was on OTB earlier with Ger.

Ger didn't seem to be buying what he was selling and I can't be the only one who picked up on a some frostiness from Ger?

MacKenna was MacKenna

"There was a petition with a 100,000 signatures", there wasn't
"He was on The Late Late 4 or 5 times", he wasn't
"He wasn't funny", he was

He also seemed to miss the main reason why people started paying attention to McGregor, cos he was very very good and very exciting!

Tell me how

CatFromHue wrote: »

MacKenna doing the rounds with his book at the moment and was on OTB earlier with Ger.

Ger didn't seem to be buying what he was selling and I can't be the only one who picked up on a some frostiness from Ger?

MacKenna was MacKenna

"There was a petition with a 100,000 signatures", there wasn't
"He was on The Late Late 4 or 5 times", he wasn't
"He wasn't funny", he was

He also seemed to miss the main reason why people started paying attention to McGregor, cos he was very very good and very exciting!

Mackenna on Second Captains as well. Be interesting to know who reached out to who to arrange the pieces.

Not surprised to hear there was frostiness, Mackenna hadn't been near the place since the debate about overhyping the rugby team.

Hard to know exactly when/why people started paying attention to McGregor, he became a loudmouth very quickly with the accompanying theatrics of 'Who the f*ck is this guy' and so on. That was somewhat entertaining if not outright exciting.

Clonmel1000

CatFromHue wrote: »

That's completely untrue.

After an Ireland loss, like say against Japan, there is plenty of criticism. It's just in the rugby section which if you don't follow rugby you won't see.

Completely untrue. Challenge game victories are celebrated with DVD releases and the players are heroes regardless of never getting past a QF in a sport taken seriously by 9 countries.

Jayesdiem

Clonmel1000 wrote: »

Completely untrue. Challenge game victories are celebrated with DVD releases and the players are heroes regardless of never getting past a QF in a sport taken seriously by 9 countries.

Challenge game? That doesn’t half give away your GAA roots. I’m going to assume you are a hurling man, coming from Tipperary and if you are, I’d suggest you take a look at your own sport. Munster championships are often won on the back of just two measly victories and are subsequently met with a confusing and disproportionate euphoria in some counties. This makes no sense whatsoever because a) how is two consecutive wins actually meaningful in any way? And b) even at that, the job is just half-done. Your own Tipp might not **** the bed after such a short run of victories but Waterford and Limerick routinely have. Players are branded heroes for winning two sh1tty games. Also, fck all counties take the game seriously, much like you point out with rugby. I would say three in Leinster and five in Munster. If you say only nine countries meaningfully play rugby, I’m not giving you the Dublin hurlers on this one. They play to two men and their dog in Parnell Park and nobody in the county cares. But let me correct you on the rugby issue from someone who knows and inflate your nine countries a little to reflect greater accuracy: Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales, France, Italy, Georgia, New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina, Australia, Japan, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and numerous others who may not be competitive with these teams, but do take the game seriously (your definition, not mine).

Jayesdiem

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Challenge game? That doesn’t half give away your GAA roots. I’m going to assume you are a hurling man, coming from Tipperary and if you are, I’d suggest you take a look at your own sport. Munster championships are often won on the back of just two measly victories and are subsequently met with a confusing and disproportionate euphoria in some counties. This makes no sense whatsoever because a) how is two consecutive wins actually meaningful in any way? And b) even at that, the job is just half-done. Your own Tipp might not **** the bed after such a short run of victories but Waterford and Limerick routinely have. Players are branded heroes for winning two sh1tty games. Also, fck all counties take the game seriously, much like you point out with rugby. I would say three in Leinster and five in Munster. If you say only nine countries meaningfully play rugby, I’m not giving you the Dublin hurlers on this one. They play to two men and their dog in Parnell Park and nobody in the county cares. But let me correct you on the rugby issue from someone who knows and inflate your nine countries a little to reflect greater accuracy: Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales, France, Italy, Georgia, New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina, Australia, Japan, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and numerous others who may not be competitive with these teams, but do take the game seriously (your definition, not mine).

Is there anything more boring than people bashing other sports? People like different sports in Ireland - we all just need to get over that. Or just enjoy what you enjoy and ignore the rest if you so choose.

On another note, the show seems to have taken on two very posh sounding sports news readers of late. The lad has a particularly annoying D4 accent.

diusmr8a504cvk

This whole sports moment of the decade thing is embarrassing. Listening to Joe and Nathan talking about it last night and they're both only interested in their own agendas.

Got a laugh out of Joe saying that Ireland aren't very successful at Football, though. It's pretty hard to be successful in a proper international game, as opposed to the very successful Irish rugby team who can't get to the last four of a 9 team tournament.

BPKS

Brayan Chilly Shoplifter wrote: »

This whole sports moment of the decade thing is embarrassing. Listening to Joe and Nathan talking about it last night and they're both only interested in their own agendas.

Got a laugh out of Joe saying that Ireland aren't very successful at Football, though. It's pretty hard to be successful in a proper international game, as opposed to the very successful Irish rugby team who can't get to the last four of a 9 team tournament.

And Gilroy on OTB AM yesterday arguing about the Dublin-Donegal game from 2014.

He went into full Gilroy mode

I AM RIGHT
I AM RIGHT
I AM RIGHT

NA-NA-NA-NA-NA

poteen

The Moment of the decade item is one of their poorest pieces in a long time. Some awful crap in there and the criteria is very blurred. Weak weak radio.

RoversCeltic

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Challenge game? That doesn’t half give away your GAA roots. I’m going to assume you are a hurling man, coming from Tipperary and if you are, I’d suggest you take a look at your own sport. Munster championships are often won on the back of just two measly victories and are subsequently met with a confusing and disproportionate euphoria in some counties. This makes no sense whatsoever because a) how is two consecutive wins actually meaningful in any way? And b) even at that, the job is just half-done. Your own Tipp might not **** the bed after such a short run of victories but Waterford and Limerick routinely have. Players are branded heroes for winning two sh1tty games. Also, fck all counties take the game seriously, much like you point out with rugby. I would say three in Leinster and five in Munster. If you say only nine countries meaningfully play rugby, I’m not giving you the Dublin hurlers on this one. They play to two men and their dog in Parnell Park and nobody in the county cares. But let me correct you on the rugby issue from someone who knows and inflate your nine countries a little to reflect greater accuracy: Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales, France, Italy, Georgia, New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina, Australia, Japan, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and numerous others who may not be competitive with these teams, but do take the game seriously (your definition, not mine).

.
How are England Scotland and Wales separate countries?

100000 people live in tonga.

Jayesdiem

RoversCeltic wrote: »

.
How are England Scotland and Wales separate countries?

100000 people live in tonga.

Fck me.....ok let me explain this (I’m going to assume you aren’t trolling). In rugby terms (and soccer to a lesser extent), the United Kingdom, aside from Northern Ireland, is divided into three nations. They all have their individual federations who govern the local game and are financially independent from one another. When the detractors in this thread state that the RWC is a nine team tournament I am 110% sure they aren’t grouping England, Wales and Scotland together as one. Whether they are classified as ‘teams’ or ‘countries’ doesn’t really matter for the purposes of the exercise. Has this been difficult for you to comprehend? If so, let me know and I’ll simplify it EVEN further.

Now, for Tonga, you are going to have to return the favour to me. Thanks for the info on the country. Did you know that Greenland is the least densely populated territory on the planet?

RoversCeltic

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Fck me.....ok let me explain this (I’m going to assume you aren’t trolling). In rugby terms (and soccer to a lesser extent), the United Kingdom, aside from Northern Ireland, is divided into three nations. They all have their individual federations who govern the local game and are financially independent from one another. When the detractors in this thread state that the RWC is a nine team tournament I am 110% sure they aren’t grouping England, Wales and Scotland together as one. Whether they are classified as ‘teams’ or ‘countries’ doesn’t really matter for the purposes of the exercise. Has this been difficult for you to comprehend? If so, let me know and I’ll simplify it EVEN further.

Now, for Tonga, you are going to have to return the favour to me. Thanks for the info on the country. Did you know that Greenland is the least densely populated territory on the planet?

Can you accept that they aren't countries and you got it wrong in your initial post