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.
Mars wrote:I was looking at the FIFA world rankings and I have to say that I do not understand how they come up with their rankings. The one that shocked me the most is that the US is ranked 5th in the world.How can they be ahead of countries such as England, Spain, France, Germany, Argentina, etcAdmittedly I don't watch a lot of football but I can't even name a single US player and I watched the US - Italy match the other day too.
Lewisexi wrote:Actually the States are ranked 5th because the are by far the best team in a consistently poor qualifying group. They have a high ranking for making every World Cup with comparative ease. If they had better opposition they'd be ranked alot lower. They do have some decent players e.g. McBride is quite good upfront at Fulham but their rating is artifical really.
obiter wrote:Probably the most accurate football rankings are calculated using the Elo system (similar to that used in chess) based on all internationals from 1872 to date. it also gives an idea of the relative strength of each team