World Cup Soccer

[davieddy]

England v USA in 7 hours from now.

There is a silly fashion in UK for mocking the
term "soccer", when these days we usually say "football".
I find this mockery ridiculous/ignorant:
"Soccer" originated ages ago in England as an
abbreviation of "Association Football", and serves to
distinguish it from "Rugby Football".
The need to distinguish it from "American Football"
must be at least as great Stateside.

I suppose "Soccer" and "Rugger" are most freguently
heard in schools and universities. My father (Oxford 1921)
explained the slang current at the time, and referred to
the Queen as "the Quagger".

David

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davieddy

I suppose "Soccer" and "Rugger" are most freguently heard in schools and universities. My father (Oxford 1921)
explained the slang current at the time, and referred to
the Queen as "the Quagger".

David

The Oxbridge "-er" slang has almost disappeared now. It was common at Oxford from roughly 1890 up to the first world war or so. It was already in decline when your father went up.

"Cuppers" are still held at Oxford; the word "bugger" is in widespread use though I'm not completely certain that it derives from -er slang. However, both elements in the term "rugger-bugger", which is still occasionally met, derive from -er slang. I can't at the moment think of any other examples still in use.


Paul

[davieddy]

To maintain the football theme, it has been replaced by
-s, -ie and -a:

Becks, Greavsie, Gazza etc.

Davy Eddie
(or should that be Jonesie's locker?)

OTOH "rower" = "one who rows" AFAIK

[ewmayer]

I see odds as favorable as 1:9 for North Korea vs Brazil tomorrow ... never been a sports bettor, but that seems pretty attractive for a wager. Thoughts?

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

I see odds as favorable as 1:9 for North Korea vs Brazil tomorrow ... never been a sports bettor, but that seems pretty attractive for a wager. Thoughts?

1/9 is for Brazil to win
23/2 for a draw
35/1 for N Korea to win

What seems attractive?
As a principle, I go for the dark horse
rather than the "housewives' choice".

David

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by davieddy

1/9 is for Brazil to win
23/2 for a draw
35/1 for N Korea to win

What seems attractive?

I had in mind betting on Brazil to win ... I figure if NK manages the upset it'll be such big news that I won't mind having lost my money.

[davieddy]

Jeremy Paxman just described the resulting cacophony as
"making a Neapolitan traffic jam sound like Mozart".

I couldn't agree more!

David

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...vuvuzelas.html https://betrig.com/betting-tips/

[davieddy]

It's not North Korea, it's the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...medium=twitter

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

I had in mind betting on Brazil to win ... I figure if NK manages the upset it'll be such big news that I won't mind having lost my money.

When the favourite wins, the bookies lose.
Bookies make money.
What does this tell you about the probability of the favourite winning?

David

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

I had in mind betting on Brazil to win ... I figure if NK manages the upset it'll be such big news that I won't mind having lost my money.

If they draw, it will probably be at least as newsworthy as
England v USA, and might even provoke a comment in this thread.

[Flatlander]

Well the Brazilians weren't overly impressive imo.

Slightly off topic:
Has anyone heard the cry of "Redhill!" at a football match?
I'll tell you why later.

edit: If I say 'football' I always mean 'soccer'.