From: dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.soccer
Subject: Re: Just laughing at England
Date: 10 Nov 92 12:44:11 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

paull@plasma.co.uk (Paul Lee) writes:

>>Nope - Rangers, current Scottish Champions, beat Leeds, current English 
>>champions in what the English Tablioid press hyped up a 'The Battle of Britain"
>>predicting that Leeds would steam roller Rangers at Elland Road thus proving
>>the superiority of the English Premier league, something a number of English
>>supporters here on Usenet went along with.
>>They were dead wrong, thus he is quite entitled to throw the claims back in
>>their faces.
>>
>>Dave
>>-- 

>All of us have been watching football for long enough that you can't draw any
>conclusions from a small number of matches. 
>I am neither a Leeds fan or a Glasgow
>Rangers fan, but it is quite obvious that just because 

Nor am I.

>Ranger's beat Leeds we can't
>deduce that Scottish teams are the best.

Quite so, equally we can't claim that the Enlish Premier is better than the
Scottish Premier, something a number of English posters here were claiming
and consequently Leeds would trounce Rangers. So, as I said, he's quite
entitled to indulge in a bit of nya nya in their direction.

>There are a number of arguments;

>1) Leeds we're off form

They had the vast majority of possession and couldn't convert. Maybe an excuse
for a draw.

>2) Ranger's we're in form

They did their homework and wer the tactically superior side. The played a
style of game totally alien to Rangers and British football in general.
When they got there few chances, they took them, unlike Leeds who had pots
of chances and frittered most of them away.

>3) Pot Luck - everbody knows you need some luck in cup competitions.

To win an away game convincingly? Come on!!

>4) Look at Englands progress in European and World Cup competitions. 
>It is better
>    than Scotland's certainly, but this doesn't prove anything, as the same
>    arguments apply.

When they qualify yes, but contrast Englands peformance in the European Nations
Cup last summer with Scotlands. We had what was considered by most, the
tougher group. We expected nothing from Scotland and ended up getting some
delightful games. Consider Englands performance in the weaker of the groups,
very, very poor.

Scotland have qualified for every World Cup final since 1972 (although I doubt
we'll make it this time). Can the same be said of England?
Scotland have been consistantly poor with one brief flash in Sweden last
summer, England have fluctuated wildly between very good performances in Italy
and truly abysmal ones in Sweden.

You can't draw any conclusions as to who's the better side until they play
one another and even then you'll get people trotting out the same old tired
excuses.

Time, methinks for a four year Brtish national championship along the
lines of the EC in Sweden, played over a couple of weeks and based one year
in SCotland, the next England followed by Northern Ireland and then Wales, 
rather than this pathetic Rouse Cup which no one seems interested in.

..or restart the Scottish League vs English League Matches that used to
be played regularly years ago.

>5) Lot's of Ranger's players are English.

Big deal, they play in the Scottish Premier.

>6) Lot's of Leed's players are Scottish.

Big deal, they play in the English Premier.


>Take the following scores;

[fictional games and scores]

[Asks whose the better team]

Try some real ones for a change and ask the question.

Rangers 2 Leeds United 1
Leeds United 1 Rangers 2

Who's the better team over the piece?
Rather obvious isn't it?

Now try another question.
Who have failed to beat Leeds at Elland Road this season irrespective of
Leeds lowly position?

Who finally beat Leeds at Elland Road?

What can we conclude about the relative merits of the teams that failed and
the team that succeeded?

That Rangers are better than most of the top flight English clubs? Hmm....

Answers on a postcard or sealed down envelope to Scott Jackson, c/o Spider
Systems.

Can we extrapolate that one result to guage which Premier League is the
superior?

Of course we can't but some English posters here would have us believe that
even PRIOR to this first testing that: 

"..most of us knew all along i.e. that
*Scottish Football is not played at the same standard as English Football!"

Oh yeah??

>Anybody who believe's that a cup round can decide whether Scottish teams are better
>than English one's either writes for a silly newspaper, or has no intelligence.

..or is one of those English posters who loudly declare the English Premier
as "the best league in the world"
See my posting on "They said it.....Leeds vs Rangers"

Can you stick to 80 columns?

>The best way would be to have a league with both Scottish and English clubs in it,
>and see what happens over a season. It thing's were as predictable as people are
>making out, winning the pools would be easy.

Ther used to be a competion in the early 70s like this, Dryborough Cup? but
I can't remember what the general outcome was over the piece.

>Some people take what the papers say to seriously.

That's right, then they post it to Usenet with wild predictions, hence, he's
entitled to gloat a bit when it's 'gang awry'.
'Hoist by their own patard' I think, was Wullie's phrase.

>In the mean time, well done Ranger's now go and win the cup !!!!!

Amen, the boys done well. Marseille next.
Gie it Jim Capaldi....

Dave (An unfortunate St. Mirren supporter :-( )
-- 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.soccer