- Joined
- Jan 16, 2020
- Messages
- 4,748
Don't you just hate it when Germans have a better command of the English language than you do. Pfft.
Yeah,I also hate when non-english native speakers have a better English than meDon't you just hate it when Germans have a better command of the English language than you do. Pfft.
Maybe the point is that the number of victories is not the only variable that should be looked at. Quality vs quantity kind of thing. Size, odds, %, was it just you or did were you part of a coalition fighting, etc. All these things matter.Which was kind of the point of my post. I'm not glorifying France (I am very neutral about France), I just find it funny that people from nations with their own share of military defeats and, by definition, less military successes than France try to poke fun at them on that topic.
A bit late in this very rugby discussion, but a generally-well accepted opinion amongst historians is that France reached its "natural frontiers" as Savoie and Nice opted to join France when Italy was founded in 1860 and that all subsequent wars were fought reluctantly by France because the French nation was well integrated and no territorial advantage was expected, contrary to central Europe where frontiers were uncertain up until now (see Czechoslovakian and Yugoslavian splits, Moldavia, Greece and Macedonia, ...)Well as my username suggests, I'm German and we suffered quite a lot of defeats on our own, especially more recently and especially against the French. We didn't establish a colonial empire and on to mid 18th century we were basically a country of infighting
Still imo there's no such thing as a golden age in french history (like with Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese) and that a long time centralist, well organised, dominating nation in continental Europe was always stopped in their expansionism by bitter defeats. That's my association with French military history (and I'm not neglecting their brilliant diplomacy of Talleyrand and Richelieu). Just my two cents.
(Written in a German train riding through the Eastern French landscape where so much bloody and pointless fighting between our nations took place)
Maybe the point is that the number of victories is not the only variable that should be looked at. Quality vs quantity kind of thing. Size, odds, %, was it just you or did were you part of a coalition fighting, etc. All these things matter.
Look at it this way:
If you lose the first game of the World Cup and win all the remaining six the media will call your team Champions.
If you win all first six games and lose the last one they might very well call you losers or cokers.
In both cases, the number of victories was exactly the same.
New Zealand vs. South Africa. Can't believe these two teams haven't met in a final since 95! I think the All Blacks will win quite comfortably and revenge that loss just before the World Cup.
England vs. Argentina. England to win fairly comfortably with 15 players. Ben Earl to score a brilliant try.
Near enoughMy prediction: South Africa vs Ireland final, with South Africa lifting the trophy
I think you confuse the words "prediction" and "hope"Near enough
Well... you got half of that right. And funnily enough, we ended up with the better end of the deal.Argentina and Australia to be the losers of the worst world cup semi finals ever.