From: t-frans@microsoft.com (Francis Stanisci)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.soccer
Subject: unnecessary hostility, etc.....
Date: 31 Aug 1992 13:16:39 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

The following discussion (a copy of which is pasted at the end of my 
comments) has gotten way out of hand.  Like most people here, we all 
enjoy a little controversy, etc.   But this topic has been reduced to 
name calling and *personal* insults.

I for one do not believe that was the intent of this group.

Therefore I would propose a trues, and a suggestion that each offers 
some idea of the...

1.  point they are trying to make.
2.  what source of info is being used.
3.  the *time frame* for comparative data.
4.  method of statistical analysis.
5.  any other guidelines considered reasonable.


So far, I have seen much bias in this discussion.  The problem (to me) 
appears not that they differ in there personal opinions, but that they 
differ in the way they are presenting their facts.

how about standardizing this info so as to *properly* reflect the 
objective opinions.

You both may be right, BUT, for different reasons. :-)

Francis.


================original post==================





From: Ariel Mazzarelli  writes:

In article <1992Aug30.114252.23880@fuw.edu.pl> michals@fuw.edu.pl 
(Michal Szleper) writes:
>Ariel Mazzarelli writes:
>
>>>And in this matter, the proportions are 14/4 = 3.5,
>>>so South American teams *don't* fare better than their European
>>>conterparts.
>>
>>A physicist????  Ok,  let's take it slow here.  Start: Europe 14 teams,
>>SA 4 teams,  ratio 3.5.  By semifinal time (aggregate over many WC's)
>>Europe 39,  SA 16,  ratio 2.96.  See?
>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^
>Hey, Mr. Mathematician!  Is it the South American version
>of mathematics?????  :-)
>
>I think you misunderstood. The 14/4 which I mentioned was the
>number of *different* European and South American teams which
>ever reached the top 4.  I guess you can see now that your reply
>fits here nohow. Anyway, comparing a number which is an aggregate
>over all history, to a number just extracted from WC'90 does not
>make sense to me.  You should make up your mind whether you
>want to discuss history, or the present.
>
>By the way, yes I am a physicist. But you are *certainly* not.

Ok, actually 39/16 = 2.44.  Once again, this is lower than 14/4--the ratio
of entrants from Europe and South America.  You are a little dense on some
of these other things,  and I don't know whether to repeat my words verbatim
or not.  Let's try this: your notion,  Michal that different representatives
= Europe deserves more slots is just plain useless.  As I mentioned before,
it is unfair to force a team to make it through Brazil and Uruguay without
taking into account the strength of those teams.

And 2.44 < 2.96,  so the point I was making (that the number is low) is
actually strengthened by your correction.  Isn't it nice to have an excuse
to use a calculator?

As to discussing history vs. the present,  I'll allow that your understanding
of the english language isn't good enough to understand the connection between
the two words.

You're right about me not being a physicist--but the ones I have hung out with
around here are a little smarter than you...

Ariel