Page 1 of 1

FAO Charlie

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:40 pm
by Jon Corby
Image

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:44 pm
by Kai Laddiman
Image

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:46 pm
by Charlie Reams
lolcats. I forgot it was on and tuned in to see 3-0. Good times!

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:56 pm
by Jon Corby
The cursed Bale came on about an hour in, when it was 1-0. Heh heh.

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:15 pm
by Jon Corby
Ah, for fuck's sake. That was all my fault, wasn't it?

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:29 pm
by Charlie Reams
Teehee!

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:38 pm
by Howard Somerset
omg - not here as well.

I've been crying my eyes out on another forum for most of the evening.

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:52 pm
by Jason Larsen
Jon, would you have started this thread if Jeff Stelling were not the host of Countdown?

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:33 pm
by Howard Somerset
Jason Larsen wrote:Jon, would you have started this thread if Jeff Stelling were not the host of Countdown?
I'm quite sure he would've.

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:43 pm
by Jason Larsen
Why?

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:51 pm
by Matt Morrison
Jason Larsen wrote:Why?
You're underestimating the power of football in the UK Jason!
I assure you it's popularity has nothing to do with Jeff Stelling :)

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:32 pm
by Jason Larsen
You all love football, don't you?

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:04 pm
by Matt Morrison
Give or take a couple of million, yes.

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:09 pm
by Ian Volante
Jason Larsen wrote:You all love football, don't you?
Meh. I win money predicting results, I wouldn't call that love. Give me snooker any day.

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:14 pm
by Matt Morrison
Ian Volante wrote:
Jason Larsen wrote:You all love football, don't you?
Meh. I win money predicting results, I wouldn't call that love. Give me snooker any day.
The Masters was hands down the best snooker tournament I've seen for so long. The quality was consistently fantastic, and the final was a marvel. <span class="obvious">Ronnie is such a talent.</span>

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:33 pm
by Jon O'Neill
Matt Morrison wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:
Jason Larsen wrote:You all love football, don't you?
Meh. I win money predicting results, I wouldn't call that love. Give me snooker any day.
The Masters was hands down the best snooker tournament I've seen for so long. The quality was consistently fantastic, and the final was a marvel. <span class="obvious">Ronnie is such a talent.</span>
Agree there, definitely.

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:02 am
by Jason Larsen
Good!

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:34 am
by Ian Volante
Matt Morrison wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:
Jason Larsen wrote:You all love football, don't you?
Meh. I win money predicting results, I wouldn't call that love. Give me snooker any day.
The Masters was hands down the best snooker tournament I've seen for so long. The quality was consistently fantastic, and the final was a marvel. <span class="obvious">Ronnie is such a talent.</span>
I missed it unfortunately. Ah well, not too long till the World Champs...

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:33 am
by Les Butterworth
Jason Larson wrote You all love football, don't you?


A quote you may have heard Jason

“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.”

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:04 am
by Phil Reynolds
Jason Larsen wrote:You all love football, don't you?
That is quite simply, categorically and self-evidently untrue.

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:41 am
by David Roe
Wemberley, Wemberley,We're the famous Burnley FC and we're ... not going to Wemberley. :cry:

And I didn't even get to the game either. Off work with flu.

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:04 pm
by Jason Larsen
So, just some of you love football!

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:50 am
by Steven Tew
is that the one with the round ball?

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 4:29 am
by Jason Larsen
It always is!

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:04 pm
by Martin Gardner
Jason Larsen wrote:So, just some of you love football!
I don't mind it, but I think it's actually quite slow and I can easily think of quite a few sports I'd rather watch. I've never really known why it's so popular, I think it's maybe down to the culture of the game rather than the game itself.

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:09 pm
by Junaid Mubeen
Martin Gardner wrote:
Jason Larsen wrote:So, just some of you love football!
I don't mind it, but I think it's actually quite slow and I can easily think of quite a few sports I'd rather watch. I've never really known why it's so popular, I think it's maybe down to the culture of the game rather than the game itself.
Not in my case. I largely despise the culture of the game but am simply in love with the game itself.

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:31 pm
by Jon O'Neill
There's definitely something sociological going on, because, like Martin says, there are better sports out there. Gaelic Football is probably my favourite sport in sporting value for money terms.

This sociological factor might explain why truly awful sports like baseball are popular in some parts of the world.

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:40 pm
by Jason Larsen
Martin, are you satisfied with Jeff Stelling on Countdown?

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:27 pm
by Martin Gardner
Jon O'Neill wrote:There's definitely something sociological going on, because, like Martin says, there are better sports out there. Gaelic Football is probably my favourite sport in sporting value for money terms.

This sociological factor might explain why truly awful sports like baseball are popular in some parts of the world.
Actually I'm a big Major League Baseball fan, and to be fair there are lots of moments where nothing is happening. Again I think it's more of a habit/routine thing than the sport itself, the fact I know all the players, what they look like, etc. And also it's the most (stupidly) statistical sport in the world, which is good for me... sort of.

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm
by Paul Howe
Football is taken seriously in all major European and South American countries, and has established itself in many parts of Africa and Asia, where it hasn't traditionally been part of the culture. It's even making inroads in the USA. I think the popularity of the game across such a wide swathe of humanity testifies to football's brilliance as a sport, both to watch and play. I actually think the culture of the game may alienate as many people as it attracts, in Britain at least.

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 4:18 pm
by Ian Volante
I'd say that (association) football has the advantage of simplicity to play at any level. That, added to the simple scoring system and basically simple gameplay which allows teams of wildly varying quality to compete with each other, is the secret of its success I reckon.

In terms of the amount of cheating, childishness and gamesmanship, it is possibly one of the worst sports however, but these things don't seem to dampen enthusiasm in general.

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:11 pm
by Paul Howe
Ian Volante wrote:I'd say that (association) football has the advantage of simplicity to play at any level. That, added to the simple scoring system and basically simple gameplay which allows teams of wildly varying quality to compete with each other, is the secret of its success I reckon.
Good point, all you need is a ball and bit of space and you're golden.
Ian Volante wrote:In terms of the amount of cheating, childishness and gamesmanship, it is possibly one of the worst sports however, but these things don't seem to dampen enthusiasm in general.
Sadly true of the upper echelons of the game, but you don't see much of that in the 5-a-side league I play in (and those that try it usually get a good kicking), so don't tar us all with the same brush!

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:06 pm
by Eoin Monaghan
Kai Laddiman wrote:Image
.....are rubbish

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:15 pm
by Kai Laddiman
Eoin actually wrote:
Kai Laddiman wrote:Image
.....are brilliant
I agree with you there mate.

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:28 pm
by David O'Donnell
Jon O'Neill wrote:There's definitely something sociological going on, because, like Martin says, there are better sports out there. Gaelic Football is probably my favourite sport in sporting value for money terms
Gaelic football is a great game to watch (I don't have great memories from when I had to play it though) but Hurling is immense!
Jon O'Neill wrote: This sociological factor might explain why truly awful sports like baseball are popular in some parts of the world.
My brother lives in the States and now loves this game; it doesn't appeal to me though.

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:29 pm
by Gavin Chipper
One of the main problems with football for me is that there are far too many subjective refereeing decisions that could go one way or the other, many of which directly result in a goal or stop a goal, which means that the game can hinge on these decisions. So it may be "exciting" that games are often decided by one goal, but the game isn't really precise enough for this. There would really need to be more goals per game to dilute the referee out of it. It would be like a qualifying session in F1 where the top few drivers are separated by a few thousandths of a second, but some guy is using his manual stopwatch to time them.

Also football teams are little more than religions as far as I can see. They are an arbitrary bunch of people that get support purely because of the name they are playing under. There's no substance to to these teams. Everything about a team could be swapped with another team (players, managers, grounds etc. are all transient) and yet people would still follow the name. Fair enough, if you like the game you will probably end up liking some teams more than others, and want one team to win overall, but it's the level that this is taken to (religious worship). I like F1 and want specific drivers to win but I have no particular obsession with any of them, and I find myself changing support from time to time. I can't relate to this football worship.

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:34 pm
by Martin Gardner
Ian Volante wrote:I'd say that (association) football has the advantage of simplicity to play at any level. That, added to the simple scoring system and basically simple gameplay which allows teams of wildly varying quality to compete with each other, is the secret of its success I reckon.

In terms of the amount of cheating, childishness and gamesmanship, it is possibly one of the worst sports however, but these things don't seem to dampen enthusiasm in general.
I agree. I'd rather play football than watch it, though.

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:37 pm
by Ian Volante
Paul Howe wrote:Sadly true of the upper echelons of the game, but you don't see much of that in the 5-a-side league I play in (and those that try it usually get a good kicking), so don't tar us all with the same brush!
Oh I know, I play fives at work and apart from the occasional numpty, everyone plays fairly and the etiquette is great.

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:53 pm
by Michael Wallace
Ian Volante wrote:
Paul Howe wrote:Sadly true of the upper echelons of the game, but you don't see much of that in the 5-a-side league I play in (and those that try it usually get a good kicking), so don't tar us all with the same brush!
Oh I know, I play fives at work and apart from the occasional numpty, everyone plays fairly and the etiquette is great.
Hmm, I hadn't checked this thread in a while, and in doing so just now I read this and wondered how we'd got on to talking about Eton Fives...

Re: FAO Charlie

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:29 pm
by Ian Volante
Michael Wallace wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:
Paul Howe wrote:Sadly true of the upper echelons of the game, but you don't see much of that in the 5-a-side league I play in (and those that try it usually get a good kicking), so don't tar us all with the same brush!
Oh I know, I play fives at work and apart from the occasional numpty, everyone plays fairly and the etiquette is great.
Hmm, I hadn't checked this thread in a while, and in doing so just now I read this and wondered how we'd got on to talking about Eton Fives...
I've never played that particular type of fives. Some sort of group buggery against a wall isn't it? Or is that the Wall Game?