Is It Difficult For Asian Countries To Qualify For The World Cup?

Information and news on Asian football

Is It Difficult For Asian Countries To Qualify For The World Cup?

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

06 Sep 2017, 02:17 #1

AFC has 4.5 spots for the 2018 World Cup. Here are the major Asian countries with their economic determinant (a number that estimates countries potential based on gdp per capita and population amount). See this video for more commentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScC5I5M5_DI

China: 60 million
Japan: 54.7 million (football not the number 1 sport in country, number should be greatly reduced)
India: 16.7 million (football not the number 1 sport in country, number should be greatly reduced)
Australia: 11.4 million (football not the number 1 sport in country, number should be greatly reduced)
South Korea: 10.9 million

Indonesia: 7.5 million
Taiwan: 7.4 million (football not the number 1 sport in country, number should be greatly reduced)
Saudi Arabia: 5.1 million
Iran: 4.7 million

Thailand: 3.4 million
United Arab Emirates: 2.9 million
Malaysia: 2.6 million
Singapore: 2.4 million
Hong Kong: 2.3 million
Philippines: 2 million (football not the number 1 sport in country, number should be greatly reduced)
Pakistan: 1.8 million (football not the number 1 sport in country, number should be greatly reduced)
Iraq: 1.4 million
Qatar: 1.2 million
Bangladesh: 1.1 million (football not the number 1 sport in country, number should be greatly reduced)
Kuwait: 1.1 million

Myanmar: 623,000
Sri Lanka: 582,000 (football not the number 1 sport in country, number should be greatly reduced)
Oman: 558,000
Syria: 445,000
North Korea: 441,000
Uzbekistan: 393,000
Lebanon: 380,000
Yemen: 298,000
Macau: 281,000
Bahrain: 255,000
Jordan: 245,000
Turkmenistan: 226,000
Afghanistan: 162,000
Nepal: 160,000 (football not the number 1 sport in country, number should be greatly reduced)
Brunei: 126,000
Cambodia: 112,000

Conclusion: China, Japan, and South Korea are almost guaranteed World Cup spots unless they ridiculously underachieve (which China is doing). Qualification for Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran is made easy because of under achievement by India and Indonesia. Qualification for any other Asian country is extremely difficult (more difficult than it is for North American countries of their relative size). North Korea has greatly overachieved in this regard.
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

06 Sep 2017, 09:20 #2

What is your point?  Half of your figures are self-labelled as inaccurate, and the rest are doubtful anyway.  For example, relatively few people play football in China as youngsters.
Reply

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

06 Sep 2017, 11:50 #3

nfm24 wrote: What is your point?  Half of your figures are self-labelled as inaccurate, and the rest are doubtful anyway.  For example, relatively few people play football in China as youngsters.
Specifically in this case, the point is estimating the true difficulty for teams to qualify based on economic data. And my figures are not self labelled as inaccurate, that is your misinterpretation. There's nothing to doubt, only to analyze. And your final point would make perfect sense why China is underperforming to such an extreme degree, it is definitely an anomaly. You are very skeptical, yet as this, and the large majority of my previous data has shown... larger richer countries seem to excel in an overwhelming amount of situations, and often defeat countries in particular sports that they don't even play nearly as serious as those they beat. Since we are able to quantify this it provides the ability to rank and analyze with greater precision.
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

06 Sep 2017, 14:59 #4

abramjones wrote:Specifically in this case, the point is estimating the true difficulty for teams to qualify based on economic data. And my figures are not self labelled as inaccurate, that is your misinterpretation. There's nothing to doubt, only to analyze. And your final point would make perfect sense why China is underperforming to such an extreme degree, it is definitely an anomaly. ...  Since we are able to quantify this it provides the ability to rank and analyze with greater precision.
Well, in that case there is a lot more work to be done, since you haven't actually "estimated the true difficulty", you've just posted a list of inaccurate/irrelevant figures.

In any case, the difficulty to qualify depends upon the competition format, and the number of qualifying places available (among other things). 

My point about China does not necessarily prove that China is an anomaly, it just illustrates that you're using the wrong numbers again.

You also haven't done any analysis beyond simply posting the numbers.  Same issue as on one of your previous threads. 
Reply

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

06 Sep 2017, 22:45 #5

nfm24 wrote:
abramjones wrote:Specifically in this case, the point is estimating the true difficulty for teams to qualify based on economic data. And my figures are not self labelled as inaccurate, that is your misinterpretation. There's nothing to doubt, only to analyze. And your final point would make perfect sense why China is underperforming to such an extreme degree, it is definitely an anomaly. ...  Since we are able to quantify this it provides the ability to rank and analyze with greater precision.
Well, in that case there is a lot more work to be done, since you haven't actually "estimated the true difficulty", you've just posted a list of inaccurate/irrelevant figures.

In any case, the difficulty to qualify depends upon the competition format, and the number of qualifying places available (among other things). 

My point about China does not necessarily prove that China is an anomaly, it just illustrates that you're using the wrong numbers again.

You also haven't done any analysis beyond simply posting the numbers.  Same issue as on one of your previous threads. 
My analysis: It is easier for bigger and richer countries to qualify for the World Cup. Proven fact: Bigger and richer countries qualify for the World Cup at higher rates than those smaller than them. These numbers: explain this phenomenon.
Reply

TheRoonBa
Joined: 31 Oct 2006, 22:16

07 Sep 2017, 09:41 #6

Richer countries with bigger populations qualify more often.

They also generally have lower incidences of undernutrition, higher car ownership, etc.

I don't think any of these things is surprising.
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

07 Sep 2017, 17:49 #7

> My analysis: It is easier for bigger and richer countries to qualify for the World Cup

That isn't what your figures show.  All they show is that the ordering of countries by "economic determinant" is not strongly correlated to frequency of qualifying for the world cup.

It also isn't analysis, it's just a conclusion.  Even if your conclusion is correct, you haven't quantified the statement at all, and as Mark notes, the qualitative statement is unremarkable.  You haven't connected your list of figures to the "true difficulty for teams to qualify" (nor defined it) - perhaps you implicitly assume that the top 4.5 of your list should be ipso facto the expected top 4.5 in any qualification system, and that deviations from this are simply under/over performance of teams (rather than, say, noise in your "analysis"), but that again seems a tautology.

Then there is the dubious nature of the figures.  In addition to the fact that you yourself have labelled much of it as inaccurate, it is also quite incomplete.  E.g. where is Vietnam on your list?  Where is Tajikistan?  Where are the Maldives and Guam?  

In other words, if this was an academic paper of (say) 12 pages, you are missing pages 2-11 inclusive, and page 1 consists of dubious and incomplete data.  On the plus side, at least you've got page 12 in the bag.
Reply

TheRoonBa
Joined: 31 Oct 2006, 22:16

08 Sep 2017, 14:22 #8

After 3 cans of beer, this whole discussion seems pointless.

Then again, so does my website.

:-D
Reply

pieter
Joined: 03 Nov 2006, 16:49

08 Sep 2017, 17:21 #9

do you ony need 3 cans of beer?
Reply

TheRoonBa
Joined: 31 Oct 2006, 22:16

09 Sep 2017, 15:51 #10

pieter wrote: do you ony need 3 cans of beer?
Unfortunately, my tolerance of alcohol is decreasing with age.  Now that I am in my 40s, "should I have a 4th?" becomes a really serious question...

I can update my website until I have had 3 beers.
After 4, I can't find the right keys...
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

10 Sep 2017, 13:58 #11

I had assumed it was just that your recycling bin was only large enough to hold three empty cans at a time.
Reply

TheRoonBa
Joined: 31 Oct 2006, 22:16

10 Sep 2017, 23:18 #12

nfm24 wrote: I had assumed it was just that your recycling bin was only large enough to hold three empty cans at a time.
This would have been a better excuse.  However, hindsight is largely useless, especially on forums.
Reply

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

10 Sep 2017, 23:36 #13

TheRoonBa wrote: Richer countries with bigger populations qualify more often.

They also generally have lower incidences of undernutrition, higher car ownership, etc.

I don't think any of these things is surprising.
Agreed, it isn't surprising at all, it could very well be assumed without any data. I'm simply providing the data... but many people still seem to have a problem with obvious facts + simple data to further elaborate on the obvious facts
Last edited by abramjones on 11 Sep 2017, 00:02, edited 1 time in total.
Reply

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

10 Sep 2017, 23:55 #14

nfm24 wrote:  
That isn't what your figures show.  All they show is that the ordering of countries by "economic determinant" is not strongly correlated to frequency of qualifying for the world cup. 
But it is what they show. Is it just a coincidence that bigger richer countries qualify and are ranked higher more than 50% of the time consistently with absolutely no consideration of who plays what sports more? This is an extremely large number, there is nothing "not strongly correlated" about these numbers: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... Ho2TFO5vcM

 Even if your conclusion is correct, you haven't quantified the statement at all

If you mean I haven't quantified how difficult it is for country with X population and X wealth is to qualify or rank at a certain number against other countries with X populations and X wealth... then you are absolutely right. But that's not what I'm trying to do! This is completely unnecessary for showing that wealth and population offer a huge advantage (though having data like this would make my rankings much more accurate).


Then there is the dubious nature of the figures. 

Unsubstantiated claim, they are not dubious... they are taken from official sources. Are they perfect? Absolutely not. are they relatively accurate approximates in 9 out of 10 cases? Absolutely, and that is all that is needed.


 In addition to the fact that you yourself have labelled much of it as inaccurate,
I never said this, you are misinterpreting what I said.


 it is also quite incomplete.  E.g. where is Vietnam on your list?  Where is Tajikistan?  Where are the Maldives and Guam?  

When you say things like this, I sometimes wonder if you are following what I present at all. Maldives, Guam, and Tajikistan are on the list, they just aren't posted because they are so small, which I pointed out., Vietnam I must have accidently missed, but it makes no difference... other than validating my claim more by adding them. If you want to view their data go here: https://docs.zoho.com/file/03a4e934fe92 ... 1666215e61
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

11 Sep 2017, 10:54 #15

> If you mean I haven't quantified how difficult it is for country with X population and X wealth is to qualify or rank at a certain number against other countries with X populations and X wealth... then you are absolutely right. But that's not what I'm trying to do!
...
> the point is estimating the true difficulty for teams to qualify based on economic data

As these two statements seem to contradict each other, I ask you again, what is your point?  Why are you doing this?  What do you hope to achieve?  What is the meaningful outcome of your work?   And how does it relate to the question asked in the title?


>>    Then there is the dubious nature of the figures.
> Unsubstantiated claim, they are not dubious... they are taken from official sources.

I don't doubt they are official - I'm not disputing your ability to copy and paste numbers from a government website or wikipedia - I'm saying these figures are of dubious relevance for your study.


>> In addition to the fact that you yourself have labelled much of it as inaccurate
> I never said this, you are misinterpreting what I said.

I'm not interested in whether you said it or not, I'm stating a fact.  You have labelled your own data in such as a way as to highlight its irrelevance, inaccuracy, and inadequacy for the study.  


>> it is also quite incomplete.  E.g. where is Vietnam on your list?  Where is Tajikistan?  Where are the Maldives and Guam?
> Vietnam I must have accidently missed, but it makes no difference

First, it makes a difference because people notice errors and omissions, and even small accidental errors are often indicative of a general flaw.  
Secondly, the reason you missed Vietnam might well have something to do with the presence of "Indochina" in your spreadsheet (just below "Normandy").

Now, if you're going to use your own personal bespoke denominations of countries and sub-countries, that's up to you, but then you need to remember that you've done that when it comes to publishing your findings.


> I sometimes wonder if you are following what I present at all.

Alright, let's talk about that.  How difficult is it to qualify for the World Cup?  I've watched your video, I've read your posts.  You haven't answered or seriously addressed this question.  All you've done is list countries in order of (capita GDP)*population, which is just GDP as Kaizeler noted, and you've made a pig's ear of that by relabelling and sub-dividing various countries so that your list is an esoteric one.  

Where are the football-specific inputs in your work?  Where are the figures on qualifying success ratios, or figures on "performance in qualifying" ?  Your spreadsheet includes no data of actual football results.  Maybe you deliberately left these out, but without this, you might as well replace the word "football" with "caber tossing" or "tiddlywinks".  Where is the quantitative relationship between any of your input data and actual football qualifying potential?  

Although you haven't actually stated it, it is implicitly clear that you are simply assuming the top N in your list will fill the top N places in the qualifying bijectively (or have the best chance to do so), unless there is under/overachievement.   This is not good enough.  You need to demonstrate the correlation, quantitatively, between "economic power" and "qualifying power".  You also need to account for other non-economic factors on qualifying potential e.g. the format itself giving preferential chances to seeded teams, which is a large effect - see other thread.  

The lack of any consideration of actual football performance in your work is perhaps best summarized by this direct quote from your video commentary:

"China ... one of the biggest if not the biggest underachiever in the sport of soccer, they should be making it to the World Cup every single time,
no doubt about it, and they just hardly ever get there.  I don't ... have they ever ... they've had to ... I don't even know if they've ever been there.  I don't think they have."

You're commenting on a subject of which you lack fundamental knowledge.
Reply

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

10 Oct 2017, 05:30 #16

nfm24 wrote: > If you mean I haven't quantified how difficult it is for country with X population and X wealth is to qualify or rank at a certain number against other countries with X populations and X wealth... then you are absolutely right. But that's not what I'm trying to do!
...
> the point is estimating the true difficulty for teams to qualify based on economic data

As these two statements seem to contradict each other, I ask you again, what is your point?  Why are you doing this?  What do you hope to achieve?  What is the meaningful outcome of your work?   And how does it relate to the question asked in the title?


>>    Then there is the dubious nature of the figures.
> Unsubstantiated claim, they are not dubious... they are taken from official sources.

I don't doubt they are official - I'm not disputing your ability to copy and paste numbers from a government website or wikipedia - I'm saying these figures are of dubious relevance for your study.


>> In addition to the fact that you yourself have labelled much of it as inaccurate
> I never said this, you are misinterpreting what I said.

I'm not interested in whether you said it or not, I'm stating a fact.  You have labelled your own data in such as a way as to highlight its irrelevance, inaccuracy, and inadequacy for the study.  


>> it is also quite incomplete.  E.g. where is Vietnam on your list?  Where is Tajikistan?  Where are the Maldives and Guam?
> Vietnam I must have accidently missed, but it makes no difference

First, it makes a difference because people notice errors and omissions, and even small accidental errors are often indicative of a general flaw.  
Secondly, the reason you missed Vietnam might well have something to do with the presence of "Indochina" in your spreadsheet (just below "Normandy").

Now, if you're going to use your own personal bespoke denominations of countries and sub-countries, that's up to you, but then you need to remember that you've done that when it comes to publishing your findings.


> I sometimes wonder if you are following what I present at all.

Alright, let's talk about that.  How difficult is it to qualify for the World Cup?  I've watched your video, I've read your posts.  You haven't answered or seriously addressed this question.  All you've done is list countries in order of (capita GDP)*population, which is just GDP as Kaizeler noted, and you've made a pig's ear of that by relabelling and sub-dividing various countries so that your list is an esoteric one.  

Where are the football-specific inputs in your work?  Where are the figures on qualifying success ratios, or figures on "performance in qualifying" ?  Your spreadsheet includes no data of actual football results.  Maybe you deliberately left these out, but without this, you might as well replace the word "football" with "caber tossing" or "tiddlywinks".  Where is the quantitative relationship between any of your input data and actual football qualifying potential?  

Although you haven't actually stated it, it is implicitly clear that you are simply assuming the top N in your list will fill the top N places in the qualifying bijectively (or have the best chance to do so), unless there is under/overachievement.   This is not good enough.  You need to demonstrate the correlation, quantitatively, between "economic power" and "qualifying power".  You also need to account for other non-economic factors on qualifying potential e.g. the format itself giving preferential chances to seeded teams, which is a large effect - see other thread.  

The lack of any consideration of actual football performance in your work is perhaps best summarized by this direct quote from your video commentary:

"China ... one of the biggest if not the biggest underachiever in the sport of soccer, they should be making it to the World Cup every single time,
no doubt about it, and they just hardly ever get there.  I don't ... have they ever ... they've had to ... I don't even know if they've ever been there.  I don't think they have."

You're commenting on a subject of which you lack fundamental knowledge.
> If you mean I haven't quantified how difficult it is for country with X population and X wealth is to qualify or rank at a certain number against other countries with X populations and X wealth... then you are absolutely right. But that's not what I'm trying to do! 

...
> the point is estimating the true difficulty for teams to qualify based on economic data

As these two statements seem to contradict each other, I ask you again, what is your point?  Why are you doing this?  What do you hope to achieve?  What is the meaningful outcome of your work?   And how does it relate to the question asked in the title?

They are not contradicting each other. Estimates can be made without getting such detailed data. Such detailed data will certainly help with estimates. I do not have the expertise or resources to get such detailed data at this time. This does not mean that obvious estimates cannot be made. It is as clear as day that wealth and population have a great impact on sports (and anything else). I just don't know the exact numbers, or the equation to tell you precisely how much. I'm not sure why you insist on constantly rehashing the most elementary concept.

I'm not interested in whether you said it or not, I'm stating a fact.  You have labelled your own data in such as a way as to highlight its irrelevance, inaccuracy, and inadequacy for the study.  

No, this is not true, and this is not what happened. You can continue to say it's true, I will continue to say it's not. Until you provide some substance to this statement it doesn't hold any water.

First, it makes a difference because people notice errors and omissions, and even small accidental errors are often indicative of a general flaw. 

Accidentally not highlighting Vietnam is not indicative of anything but accidently not highlighting Vietnam. Don't kid me around.

Secondly, the reason you missed Vietnam might well have something to do with the presence of "Indochina" in your spreadsheet (just below "Normandy").

Now, if you're going to use your own personal bespoke denominations of countries and sub-countries, that's up to you, but then you need to remember that you've done that when it comes to publishing your findings. 

This is another great example of how you are not following what's going on. Indochina and Normandy are in there because they have a national team in 1 or more sport. They have nothing to do with what I'm talking about in the video, which is why they are not highlighted.

You're commenting on a subject of which you lack fundamental knowledge.

Just because I can't remember at one point during a video if a country made the world cup doesn't really demonstrate anything besides a brain fart. You sound more like a politician at this point. Though it was funny.

 All you've done is list countries in order of (capita GDP)*population, which is just GDP

That isn't quite all I've done.

Where are the football-specific inputs in your work?  Where are the figures on qualifying success ratios, or figures on "performance in qualifying" ?  Your spreadsheet includes no data of actual football results.  Maybe you deliberately left these out, but without this, you might as well replace the word "football" with "caber tossing" or "tiddlywinks".  Where is the quantitative relationship between any of your input data and actual football qualifying potential?  

Yes, we might as well replace the word football with caber tossing and tiddlywinks. I said something similar to that in the video. You can replace it with anything that requires manpower and money.

Although you haven't actually stated it, it is implicitly clear that you are simply assuming the top N in your list will fill the top N places in the qualifying bijectively (or have the best chance to do so), unless there is under/overachievement.   This is not good enough.  You need to demonstrate the correlation, quantitatively, between "economic power" and "qualifying power".  You also need to account for other non-economic factors on qualifying potential e.g. the format itself giving preferential chances to seeded teams, which is a large effect - see other thread.  

What I've done is good enough for what I'm saying... as the numbers show. This isn't rocket science. Though some of this will need to be done to get more accurate results.
Last edited by abramjones on 10 Oct 2017, 20:16, edited 1 time in total.
Reply

mattsanger92
Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

10 Oct 2017, 14:42 #17

Just to divert the conversation based on today's events, for one of Asia's biggest football countries the difficulty level was basically 'scraped it by a few centimetres'. What a moment that would have been... Omar Al Soma giving Egypt a run for their money in the premature emotion stakes.
Reply

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

10 Oct 2017, 20:44 #18

mattsanger92 wrote: Just to divert the conversation based on today's events, for one of Asia's biggest football countries the difficulty level was basically 'scraped it by a few centimetres'. What a moment that would have been... Omar Al Soma giving Egypt a run for their money in the premature emotion stakes.
In my rankings Syria is #72 and Australia #84 (this is before recent matches)
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

11 Oct 2017, 09:15 #19

> What I've done is good enough for what I'm saying... as the numbers show.
...
> I'm not sure why you insist on constantly rehashing the most elementary concept.

You said that you are supposedly "estimating the true difficulty for teams to qualify based on economic data".  You haven't done this.   You haven't even begun to do this.  You haven't done any meaningful work in this direction.


>> All you've done is list countries in order of (capita GDP)*population, which is just GDP
>That isn't quite all I've done.

It is.


> Indochina and Normandy are in there because they have a national team in 1 or more sport.

You prefer to write "Indochina" because that is an Aussie Rules team, despite that the topic was supposed to be about Asian countries (e.g. Vietnam) qualifying for the (soccer) World Cup ?


> Just because I can't remember at one point during a video if a country made the world cup doesn't really demonstrate anything besides a brain fart

It demonstrates a lack of basic research and preparation, and a general slapdash attitude.  It shows that you aren't interested in incorporating even the most fundamental football data.   Are you seriously happy with that video?   Did you listen to it back, before you published it?


> Yes, we might as well replace the word football with caber tossing and tiddlywinks.

At least we agree on that.
Reply

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

11 Oct 2017, 12:15 #20

You prefer to write "Indochina" because that is an Aussie Rules team, despite that the topic was supposed to be about Asian countries (e.g. Vietnam) qualifying for the (soccer) World Cup ?

You are being ridiculous. That is my complete list of nations with their economic determinant, which is why I highlighted Asian countries using Italic font, which I also specified. The problem with many of your criticisms, is you are criticizing elements that have nothing to do with the actual topic... it would be better to stick with legitimate criticisms (which you have had), this way we can make progress instead of having a big mess. I do appreciate positive criticisms, but if I wanted to get nagged about every little irrelevant element I would simply bring all this up to one of my ex girlfriends :P

At least we agree on that.

We agree on more than you think (or let on to).
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

11 Oct 2017, 14:14 #21

> The problem with many of your criticisms, is you are criticizing elements that have nothing to do with the actual topic...

So you're saying it has nothing to do with the topic (which is about Asian countries in the World Cup, and the validity of your study) when I noted that your list of Asian countries is wrong and I complained that your overall "analysis" contains zero sport-specific input whatsoever other than the erroneous babble in the video commentary?

Most of my criticism here is that you simply haven't even attempted to answer your own question in any meaningful way.
Reply

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

12 Oct 2017, 01:20 #22

nfm24 wrote: > The problem with many of your criticisms, is you are criticizing elements that have nothing to do with the actual topic...

So you're saying it has nothing to do with the topic (which is about Asian countries in the World Cup, and the validity of your study) when I noted that your list of Asian countries is wrong and I complained that your overall "analysis" contains zero sport-specific input whatsoever other than the erroneous babble in the video commentary?

Most of my criticism here is that you simply haven't even attempted to answer your own question in any meaningful way.
😂 again, you're nagging (about Vietnam)... and turning it into something it's not. well let's take a look here anyway.

*2/5 or 3/5 countries in the first group have qualified, depending on the playoff.
*2/5 countries in the second group have qualified
*0/11 in the next
*0/16 in the last

These are patterns very typical of sports qualifications, and people should be picking up on the reasoning for this using common sense. these patterns are consistent, and usually obvious in every continent in any sport with enough data. without even considering sports inputs, the wealth and population of countries is still showing correlation with results. this is simple, redundant, and it's something that can be acknowledged without much fuss or debate.

To understand why this is such a big deal let's look at other possibilities, even if the percentages all around the board were consistently changed to something like;

1/5
1/5
0/11
2/16

this would still be statistically significant in the favor of bigger and richer countries, as long as we can still conclude causation after deducting other possibilities.
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

12 Oct 2017, 21:40 #23

This is poor, and anyhow the effect is dwarfed by simple format/history factors such as "was a top seed" or "has qualified before/recently".
Reply

mattsanger92
Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

12 Oct 2017, 23:51 #24

The amount you two argue 🙄... you both have YouTube channels (at least I'm assuming this one belongs to Neil), it's 2017, the place to take this is to drop some disstracks on eachother.

It's the done thing now, apparently.
Reply

mattsanger92
Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

13 Oct 2017, 08:21 #25

nfm24 wrote: > Indochina and Normandy are in there because they have a national team in 1 or more sport.

You prefer to write "Indochina" because that is an Aussie Rules team, despite that the topic was supposed to be about Asian countries (e.g. Vietnam) qualifying for the (soccer) World Cup ?
Spin-off question, I managed to find what the Indochina thing was all about (a 🇹🇭/🇰🇭 combined national team, funnily enough I also found out there's a 🇮🇱/🇵🇸 combined aussie rules team, and several unspecified 🇪🇺 ones), and in the original video I know "Arabian Gulf" comes from them having a former rugby team, but what did Normandy compete in on their own?
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

13 Oct 2017, 14:25 #26

This is exactly how I imagined it:   [insert inexplicable video]
Reply

mattsanger92
Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

13 Oct 2017, 15:07 #27

Rhyming "boardgame" and "cardboard". It's stretching a little, but 🔥🔥🔥🔥 bars, maybe?

"Tactical Overload" would make a good disstrack title at least, I'm guessing.
Reply

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

14 Oct 2017, 15:16 #28

mattsanger92 wrote:
nfm24 wrote: > Indochina and Normandy are in there because they have a national team in 1 or more sport.

You prefer to write "Indochina" because that is an Aussie Rules team, despite that the topic was supposed to be about Asian countries (e.g. Vietnam) qualifying for the (soccer) World Cup ?
Spin-off question, I managed to find what the Indochina thing was all about (a 🇹🇭/🇰🇭 combined national team, funnily enough I also found out there's a 🇮🇱/🇵🇸 combined aussie rules team, and several unspecified 🇪🇺 ones), and in the original video I know "Arabian Gulf" comes from them having a former rugby team, but what did Normandy compete in on their own?
Normandy played in football: http://internationalsports.nfshost.com/ ... rofile/278

I actually didn't know that Indochina was only Thailand and Laos. From the article I read they made it sound like Vietnam was in there too (but didn't actually say it), but it looks like I'll have to change that.
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

14 Oct 2017, 16:06 #29

More brain farts.
Reply

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

14 Oct 2017, 16:07 #30

nfm24 wrote: More brain farts.
Does the n in nfm stand for negative nancy?
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

14 Oct 2017, 16:38 #31

When did Normandy play international football?  Are you referring to the 2011 "Coupe des Ligues Régionales" ? In which case, what about the other matches in that event?
Reply

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

14 Oct 2017, 18:40 #32

nfm24 wrote: When did Normandy play international football?  Are you referring to the 2011 "Coupe des Ligues Régionales" ? In which case, what about the other matches in that event?
I'm not aware of any other matches, my source for that match is here: http://theroonba.com/football/men/2011.html 
Reply