| Original Message |
Kid Zymurgy (no login)
Posted Sep 4, 2005 6:41 AM
Team sports are won by the better TEAM on that given day, not the best players. Case in point... Basketball: Argentina vs. USA in the last olympics. The USA had the better players, Argentina had the better TEAM. I wouldn't call Argentina 'overachievers' because they were the better team and I wouldn't call the USA 'underachievers' because they were beaten, and beaten by a better team... they didn't just lose by themselves. I'm sure England produces many great Football players, but who cares. It's a team sport and if you can't put together one great team, then you are going to lose, and you'll lose because you're losers (comparatively speaking). England may be capable of puting together a winning team, but, again, who the fuck cares until they do. The upset factor can often times be attributed to the likelyhood of annointing someone 'the best in the world' before they have actually won anything ( i.e.: by talking about how many points they got - 36 points behind chelsea? OR assuming Gabriele Marcotti is correct). I assume those 'points' don't count when actually playing matches. I am of the opinion that single elimination play-offs and championship matches reveal the best team and expose the system of 'points' and such non-sense to be flawed. The 'better' team in sport is DEFINED as the team that wins. The loser is then designated as the team that must have been 'worse'. All predictions are then relegated to the file: THINGS WE THOUGHT WE KNEW BUT WERE COMPLETELY WRONG ABOUT. |
|