Lack of Joy, Lack of Success?

After watching England lose to Australia in the rugby league world cup and watching the post match interviews something dawned on me.

Is the inherently joyless nature the Brits bring to sport responsible for their continued inability to foot it with the sun blessed fun loving boys from the southern hemisphere?

In the south, rugby is about passion, fun, running, showing off, executing outrageous skills, scoring tries, having fun with mates, the joyful bonding and rivalry with mates and opposition team members. A lot of rapturous jubilant elated uplifting energy is injected and out comes some sublime rugby and a history of success.

Contrast the wind beaten, rain lashed, grey of the north. The attitude brought here is the stiff upper lip, the grinding steely faced men, collars upturned against the elements, grim determination, phalanxes of dour faced combatants marching into war, and what I would call "fearful" rugby. It propagates control, order, slow, plodding monotonous structure, set pieces, kicks at goal. A win is a nervous grinding, painful, thing extracted like a venemous prickle with a hot needle.

More often than not these sullen faced ranks of northern hardship are simply overwhelmed and overrun by the smiling, jubilant dancing willow-the-wisps who bring a festive mood to the game.

Contrast Israel Dagg in full flight, wide grin on his face, trying something audacious, enjoying expressing himself in his contribution to the arrogant presence of a tight lipped Chris Ashton punching at the air before the try line, face burning with intent like he's out for revenge over some generations old nemesis. One continues to thrive, the other appears burned out.

 

yet another new zealand are the best of the bestest and brits are rubbish thread...

Well compared to the Aussies maybe, but surely the Kiwis are as dour as any Northerner.

AQnybody know what the fabric material that holds a whistle around your neck is called?

Not string, I'm talking the thick fabric, with a key chain ring at the end. I need one for my keys/whistle, thanks.

I would check a chandlers. Sailing suppliers will have all the latest technology materials.

I'm not sure it's very latest tech, but it looks very handy, and I am alone online looking for one to buy.

It is driving me insane...

It's called a lanyard, usually secured by a safety release clip so you don't throttle yourself if you fall over and it gets caught on something.

Is this the seafood thread?

I had a tuna sandwich today. Quite nice.

I can remember when Rugby League BEFORE the 4 tackle rule CAN YOU?Billy Boston rules ok.
Go Wigan!!! Australia rule League mostly,England have a good record versus Wallabies in
Union.

True, SPF40 is slippery

Does GE ever write about sport these days?

Did he used to write about sport then?

i think he's an embittered America's Cup correspondent. Kiwis 20-1 ahead then lost 20 straight yacht races in a row once the americans figure out how to race the boat...sounds a bit like Fra-NZ 1999 WC

quinsforever wrote:i think he's an embittered America's Cup correspondent.  Kiwis 20-1 ahead then lost 20 straight yacht races in a row once the americans figure out how to race the boat...sounds a bit like Fra-NZ 1999 WC

At least England has won more rugby World Cups than Americas Cups.

This is brilliant, the script practically writes itself...

An embittered, craggy and dour British cop approaching retirement (John Bull) is paired with a wise-cracking, fun-loving young southern hemisphere rookie (Simon Mug) to bust a drug cartel in Australia's outback. Let's call it 'Down Under-Cover' no, no 'Don't Out-Back Down'...ok it's a working title. But along with the no doubt HILARITY that would ensue, this has got all the hackneyed cliches, tired old tropes and '70s mild xenophobia that would be an absolute smash in the Southern Hemisphere, surely?

On an aside, I think you've made the mistake of thinking all sports are rugby. I seem to remember there is an event that pulls them all together, the Olympics maybe? I also seem to remember the Southern Hemisphere looking pretty grim faced during most of that joyous celebration of British sporting success.

 

 

The Olympics? You mean that tournament where NZ is in the top 3 or 4 most successful nation per capita where poor old Britain languishes in the mid twenties sandwiched unhappily between Armenia and Kazakhstan?

silly me. i must have missed that "olympics medal table adjusted for population". can give you link to the actual medals table if you like?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Summer_Olympics_medal_table

i also didnt realise that NZ was the only nation in the SH to which hood was referring. again, silly me.

 

 

http://www.medalspercapita.com

Seems once again that old Britain is somehow unable to effectively manage its wealth of resources to yield the expected proportion of global success. I suspect that having become accustomed to that eventuality it's only natural that the jubilant celebration of mediocrity that we saw was the appropriate response. 

Now go on, remind us how often you almost won another World Cup too...

quinsforever wrote:silly me. i must have missed that "olympics medal table adjusted for population". can give you link to the actual medals table if you like?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Summer_Olympics_medal_table

i also didnt realise that NZ was the only nation in the SH to which hood was referring. again, silly me.

 

 

In fairness to GE, at least he didn't go down the hackneyed old 'how many GB (and NI) medallists were actually born in GB (and NI)?' road!

comedy...no wonder i havent come across that site before. did find this on the "About" page though

"My bias? I'm originally from New Zealand, which has consistently been in the top half-dozen or so countries for total medals and gold medals per capita, and in 1984 won the most golds per capita."

is this website required reading for people in small countries?

would be interested to see how much your medal performance increases when you host an olympic games in your home country... 

failing that, how convenient for you living here to able to go see all those gold medals per capital being won last summer

 

Casartelli wrote:

quinsforever wrote:silly me. i must have missed that "olympics medal table adjusted for population". can give you link to the actual medals table if you like?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Summer_Olympics_medal_table

i also didnt realise that NZ was the only nation in the SH to which hood was referring. again, silly me.

 

 

In fairness to GE, at least he didn't go down the hackneyed old 'how many GB (and NI) medallists were actually born in GB (and NI)?' road!

i noticed that too. maybe NZ are in a bit of a glass house in this regard

GloriousEmpire wrote:http://www.medalspercapita.com

Seems once again that old Britain is somehow unable to effectively manage its wealth of resources to yield the expected proportion of global success. I suspect that having become accustomed to that eventuality it's only natural that the jubilant celebration of mediocrity that we saw was the appropriate response. 

Now go on, remind us how often you almost won another World Cup too...

Haha, i knew you'd bring out this pitiful piece of arithmetic, it was trotted out by desperate Aussies at the time, unfortunately it was round about the same time they were wailing and wringing their hands about the death of Aussie sporting culture, or trying to convince themselves silver was the new gold. Their gold per capita was below us, comfortably, even if their medal count for first and second loser was very good - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/no-olympic-silver-is-not-the-new-gold/story-e6frg7bo-1226445131393#

Of course, New Zealand's gold medal per capita is very impressive. It puts them alongside the well-known sporting giants of Grenada and Bahamas - if only you could manage your wealth and resources as effectively as them, maybe you'd have the same glory and adulation heaped on you eh? Of course, I'm sure the US was distraught that it's 271 medals represented a less then efficient use of their resources but they probably did the same as us and consoled themselves with the seemingly endless procession of winners - proof that contrary to your original post, sporting success is in fact the preserve of us northern hemisphere lot.

It's a shame that sporting success so obviously hugely penalises small countries, but there you go.

Hood83 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:http://www.medalspercapita.com

Seems once again that old Britain is somehow unable to effectively manage its wealth of resources to yield the expected proportion of global success. I suspect that having become accustomed to that eventuality it's only natural that the jubilant celebration of mediocrity that we saw was the appropriate response. 

Now go on, remind us how often you almost won another World Cup too...

Haha, i knew you'd bring out this pitiful piece of arithmetic, it was trotted out by desperate Aussies at the time, unfortunately it was round about the same time they were wailing and wringing their hands about the death of Aussie sporting culture, or trying to convince themselves silver was the new gold. Their gold per capita was below us, comfortably, even if their medal count for first and second loser was very good - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/no-olympic-silver-is-not-the-new-gold/story-e6frg7bo-1226445131393#

Of course, New Zealand's gold medal per capita is very impressive. It puts them alongside the well-known sporting giants of Grenada and Bahamas - if only you could manage your wealth and resources as effectively as them, maybe you'd have the same glory and adulation heaped on you eh? Of course, I'm sure the US was distraught that it's 271 medals represented a less then efficient use of their resources but they probably did the same as us and consoled themselves with the seemingly endless procession of winners - proof that contrary to your original post, sporting success is in fact the preserve of us northern hemisphere lot.  

It's a shame that sporting success so obviously hugely penalises small countries, but there you go.

Now go on, tell us about how you're really really good at rugby.

So we're done here? OK great.

Hood83 wrote:So we're done here? OK great.

Done here? maybe, just a matter of hours / minutes until GE's next pointles wum though  

Poor chap forced to live here too. You can just imagine him at the back of the Earls Court bar where he works polishing beer glasses, thinking of his next hilarious anti-English thread

I notice that South west trains have already been suspended for Monday in case it rains overnight. Classic.

Lucky I moved in from Wimbledon when I did it your glasses would go unpolished. Or whatever it is that I do.

  

GloriousEmpire wrote:I notice that South west trains have already been suspended for Monday in case it rains overnight. Classic.

Lucky I moved in from Wimbledon when I did it your glasses would go unpolished. Or whatever it is that I do.

Well, you're not an English teacher.

Sorry forced to use a mobile device due to the inability to get the internet connected in this outpost of the British empire: Central London.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Sorry forced to use a mobile device due to the inability to get the internet connected in this outpost of the British empire: Central London.

I'm sure you are quite the expert on British Empire outposts/sheep stations etc

Well I've been able to get the internet on every outpost I've visited so far. So this is a first!

GloriousEmpire wrote:Well I've been able to get the internet on every outpost I've visited so far. So this is a first!

Vote with your feet then  

Seems crazy to think that Central London and the City can function without internet but if you say it's so it must be true I guess

Lanyard!

Thanks it was bugging me for ages, I ordered one this morning... VICTORY!

butterfingers wrote:Lanyard!

Thanks it was bugging me for ages, I ordered one this morning... VICTORY!

Lanyard...sounds similar to GE aka Dullard!!

Happy to help out.

How about a World Cup count across sports that are common to all? Cricket, RL, Rugby and Football.
NZ - 2 x RWC, 1 x RL                          3 in total
Eng - 1 x football, 1 x RWC                  2 in total
SA - 2 x RWC                                    2 in total
Australia 2 x RWC, 9 x RL, 5 x Cricket   16 in total

Got a lot of catching up to do fellas but such dominant sporting nations should have no problem bridging the gap. We could even include the Commonwealth games where we all go head-to-head without the interference of those pesky medal-winning Americans, Germans and Chinese. Not sure how it'd look but I suspect there'd be even more catching up for you to do.

Icu wrote:How about a World Cup count across sports that are common to all? Cricket, RL, Rugby and Football.
NZ - 2 x RWC, 1 x RL                          3 in total
Eng - 1 x football, 1 x RWC                  2 in total
SA - 2 x RWC                                    2 in total
Australia 2 x RWC, 9 x RL, 5 x Cricket   16 in total

Got a lot of catching up to do fellas but such dominant sporting nations should have no problem bridging the gap. We could even include the Commonwealth games where we all go head-to-head without the interference of those pesky medal-winning Americans, Germans and Chinese. Not sure how it'd look but I suspect there'd be even more catching up for you to do.

Yeah I suppose we could make up a completely arbitrary table of sports...or we could just go with the Olympics. But no, you're right union, league and cricket are definitely comparable to football in terms of global reach.

quinsforever wrote:i think he's an embittered America's Cup correspondent.  Kiwis 20-1 ahead then lost 20 straight yacht races in a row once the americans figure out how to race the boat...sounds a bit like Fra-NZ 1999 WC

I heard the American crew adopted an in-demand south african (and now getting on a bit) waitress called Suzi as the key to their success.

Icu wrote:How about a World Cup count across sports that are common to all? Cricket, RL, Rugby and Football.
NZ - 2 x RWC, 1 x RL                          3 in total
Eng - 1 x football, 1 x RWC                  2 in total
SA - 2 x RWC                                    2 in total
Australia 2 x RWC, 9 x RL, 5 x Cricket   16 in total

Got a lot of catching up to do fellas but such dominant sporting nations should have no problem bridging the gap. We could even include the Commonwealth games where we all go head-to-head without the interference of those pesky medal-winning Americans, Germans and Chinese. Not sure how it'd look but I suspect there'd be even more catching up for you to do.

Unfortunately I don't think you can give one to one footings for a RL world cup with 3 serious nations and the FIFA world cup with over 40 serious nations.

I would say a FIFA world cup is worth 10 points. A RWC and a Cricket world cup is worth 5 and a RL world cup is worth 1.

So that would give the following

NZ 11 points
SA - 10 points
AUS - 44 points
GB - 18 points (GB won the RLWC 3 times and lets be honest it was almost all filled with those residing around the M62 (i.e. England with 1 or 2 exceptions).

However its a little obtuse given you're looking at sports your country participate in. Perhaps you should look at all major sports...

So Olympics, golf, tennis, motorsport etc. Any other majors we're leaving out?

So

Formula 1 world titles (14 GB, 4 AUS, 1 SA, 1 NZ)
Golf majors (100 GB, 16 AUS, 22 SA, 2 NZ)
Olympic Gold medals (245 GB, 143 AUS, 23 SA, 42 NZ)
Tennis majors (33 GB, 35 AUS, 1 SA, 1 NZ)

I reckon an Americas cup is worth 500 points.

The question with the rugby World Cup of course, is if England don't win it again soon, will they give up like they did in the Americas cup and just leave NZ, Aus and sa to scrap it out?

In our defence the America's cup is about as appealing as bog snorklling, i'd rather scratch my eyes out than be forced to watch that non sport!

especially given the nationality of the participants can vary significantly and have no relation to the boat.

Its club sailing, not nation sailing... like saying club football is an indicator of the national game.

It's why ive never understood people who root for team sky at cycling...

Just because the Americas cup is dominated by kiwis, i don't see it as much different to rugby which is dominated by kiwis and South Africans. Surely?

GE - can you list the number of participants into the "global" america's cup in 2013?

GloriousEmpire wrote:I reckon an Americas cup is worth 500 points.

The question with the rugby World Cup of course, is if England don't win it again soon, will they give up like they did in the Americas cup and just leave NZ, Aus and sa to scrap it out?

works for me. i regard the "Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron" as a GB affiliate. unless you acquired your own monarchy and i missed that?

what was the other question? oh yeah. whatever you say about england, presumably you mean it many times over for the rest of the NH teams?

If only PI people were superb sailors too