Things you often Wonder

[MakemineVanilla]

40 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

But in those days, 'gentlemen' played football, too - Old Etonians were a top side. And rugby as well, of course. Neither caught on with the locals like cricket did. 

It looks like I need another theory, don't it, our kid!

Edited May 27, 2016 by MakemineVanilla

[Wainy316]

10 hours ago, sharkyvilla said:

Because cricket is a far superior sport.

 

Nah, if you break every sport down to complete basics and forget everything that has come with them and evolved over the years football is the best.  It just makes the most sense.

[dAVe80]

Too hot to play football in India. It is a game for playing in the winter. 

[sidcow]

13 hours ago, maqroll said:

Why didn't football catch on until recently or at all in Commonwealth nations and former colonies? You'd think India could have produced a few world class players over the years...

Is it because cricket is a summer sport to be played in hot sunny weather. Most of the cricket playing Commonwealth nations are hot most of the year. Football is a winter sport to be played in hail,  snow and fog. 

I certainly wouldn't fancy sprinting down the wing and shoulder charging a defender wearing in full evening suit and tie with a 4 ft beard in Mumbai in 90 degree heat,  not even with a gin and tonic on standby. 

[Kingman]

Seems to be a lot of people of late answering a question with the word "So" 

Why?

Edited May 28, 2016 by Kingman

[troon_villan]

Seems to be a lot of people of late answering a question with the word "So" 

Why?

That's been going on for ages. Annoying as hell. For me, it takes all the conviction out of the answer, like the person doesn't really believe their own answer.

[Kingman]

7 minutes ago, troon_villan said:

That's been going on for ages. Annoying as hell. For me, it takes all the conviction out of the answer, like the person doesn't really believe their own answer.

Yeah think it originated from our friends across the pond and as per usual we got the cold from the sneeze 

Maybe i hear it more of late because i just think straight away, Here we go again, what a word removed. 

Edited May 28, 2016 by Kingman

[MakemineVanilla]

1 hour ago, Kingman said:

Seems to be a lot of people of late answering a question with the word "So" 

Why?

Which usage do you actually object to?

So meaning hence, or ergo, or so meaning very?

It is not clear why it is so annoying and so further explanation would help?

So?

Edited May 28, 2016 by MakemineVanilla

[mjmooney]

Last time I was in the U.S. (which was admittedly a long time ago), the all-purpose monosyllabic reply was "hey". 

Which seemed to mean anything from "I agree" to "**** off". 

[wazzap24]

On 16 May 2016 at 14:49, choffer said:

Shoes have always been a weakness for me. I managed a bit of a cull earlier in the year and got rid of about 20 pairs.

I'd say I've got about 15 pairs of trainers, 5 or 6 pairs of flip-flops, 10 pairs of boots, 6 or 7 pairs of loafers, half a dozen pairs of brogues and about 12 other pairs of shoes. Oh, and two pairs of golf shoes.

I think I have a problem. 

Naaah man that's just good living! 

I can't believe people only have one or two pairs. That's some third world shizzle right there!!

22 pairs of trainers + the pair I ordered this morning! 

Shoes, boots and other footwear  separate!! 

Edited May 28, 2016 by wazzap24
Photo

[chrisp65]

Only this morning I thought to myself, I just don't have enough similar blue daps.

 

 

[wazzap24]

29 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Only this morning I thought to myself, I just don't have enough similar blue daps.

 

 

The struggle is real. 

Need more shades of black too. 

 

Edited May 28, 2016 by wazzap24
Picture and words

[HanoiVillan]

Re the spread of football, is it something to do with the nationality of railway workers? Football was spread around the world by British and Irish railway workers, or at least that was how it was spread into South America anyway. Maybe the Indians built their own railways? 

I'm just thinking out loud, obviously. 

[MakemineVanilla]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Re the spread of football, is it something to do with the nationality of railway workers? Football was spread around the world by British and Irish railway workers, or at least that was how it was spread into South America anyway. Maybe the Indians built their own railways? 

I'm just thinking out loud, obviously. 

I am favouring the theory that football existed in many variations around the globe but it took Victorian England to codify it and the existence of an urban industrial proletariat to provide the players and spectators.

Countries which developed industrially, as in your South American railways example, would have the right conditions for the game to develop, where India did not.

Obviously just another thesis which is need of further synthesis.

 

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I am favouring the theory that football existed in many variations around the globe but it took Victorian England to codify it and the existence of an urban industrial proletariat to provide the players and spectators.

Countries which developed industrially, as in your South American railways example, would have the right conditions for the game to develop, where India did not.

Obviously just another thesis which is need of further synthesis.

 

I think there's something to your theory. 

Football certainly did exist in many incarnations, and crowds of any significant size could only be provided by industrial workers. More importantly perhaps, the age of communication and travel brought about by railways must have made it easier for a codified game to catch on in multiple places, with standardised rules, thus making leagues a possibility. In agricultural Britain of yore, every village had its own different sporting traditions. 

[sidcow]

12 hours ago, Kingman said:

Seems to be a lot of people of late answering a question with the word "So" 

Why?

I have noticed this also and it really irritates me. There must be a reason for it because people never used to. I am not sure but I think it might be another creeping Americanism or possibly an Australianism.  It's something I could have put in the things that piss you off thread if I had thought of it. 

Another thought is it might be a media training thing. It's often  "So.........." with a pregnant pause. It might be a strategy to create thinking time 

[snowychap]

5 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think there's something to your theory. 

I wouldn't put too much faith in the theory of someone who wasn't aware that football was even played at public schools.

[MakemineVanilla]

10 hours ago, snowychap said:

I wouldn't put too much faith in the theory of someone who wasn't aware that football was even played at public schools.

But surely my good sir, although two games may share the same nomenclature, if they have substantially different rules, they might reasonably be considered to be two different games entirely. 

 

[mjmooney]

45 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

But surely my good sir, although two games may share the same nomenclature, if they have substantially different rules, they might reasonably be considered to be two different games entirely. 

 

Not rugby. Soccer.

Long article here.

[MakemineVanilla]

9 hours ago, mjmooney said:

Not rugby. Soccer.

Long article here.

I wasn't thinking of rugby, I was thinking of the Eton Field Game and such.

But yes, you are right.

For reasons to do with class loyalty/prejudice I had completely blanked from my mind all those early Wanderers' FA Cup victories.

I always think of Blackburn as the first winners.

Professionalism, it seems, was the big turning point for working-class players.