killjoy32 wrote:nope its always been the seperated countries and it will always be that way.
killjoy32 wrote:its the same in rugby - we have england, ireland, wales, scotland etc...
faro wrote:killjoy32 wrote:its the same in rugby - we have england, ireland, wales, scotland etc...Heh. And we can't even beat the Pumas at that...
killjoy32 wrote:faro wrote:Heh. And we can't even beat the Pumas at that... yeah and we got stiffed by the wallabies too - not nice!well this japan -v- croatia game is the pits so far... 10 mins to go...0-0 yawn (gee i sound like an american) - maybe we needa multi-ball system to liven it up a little Al
faro wrote:Heh. And we can't even beat the Pumas at that...
obiter wrote:I come from a rugby family (although I'm not a rugby player). Rugby, like cricket is one of those colonial games that didn't go global. Soccer did so the historical anomalies stand out.
Xaxaxe wrote:^^^^ Ka-CHING! 1,000 posts! LOL, LOL, LOL +++++No argument here on the American football angle. It is a sport played by ... well, Americans. Some Canadians, too, but that's it.It requires too much equipment, is very expensive, and has too many arcane rules to ever go much beyond the colonies.
obiter wrote:On Scotland ......Archie Gemmil's goal in '78 ... awesome but best ever Scottish player ??? What about Jimmy Johnstone, Dennis Law or Kenny Dalglish?
Mars wrote:Can you imagine what American football would be like if it was a worldwide phenomenon? Picture a team from Japan with a front line of Sumo wrestlers. They may choose not to wear the full equipment and keep it simple with the diapers.