Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-14 of 14 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 1 Sep 2009 02:19:40 BDT
I was looking for this book on NA based book websites, but often came up with a similar book called "Soccernomics" by the same authors. Is it the same book, or is it the same approach used to answer different questions? A UK specific book and a NA specific book?

SB

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Sep 2009 11:03:15 BDT
Soccernomics is the American edition of the book- is is broadly the same, but has an additional chapter comparing American football with Association football and does not include the chapter on the FA Cup. the language is also Americanized- In American English it is "why England loses" rather than the British English "why England lose"!

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Sep 2009 19:40:44 BDT
So just to clarify, 'Why England lose' still explains all about the prospective rise to prevalence of countries such as India, Turkey etc in the footballing world - as that was something I was very curious about?

Thanks.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Sep 2009 22:13:33 BDT
Yes indeed, all the international comparisons appear in both versions of the book.

Posted on 3 Sep 2009 16:28:28 BDT
Wow! It's great to have the author personally answer enquiries.
Thanks a lot! I really appreciate it.

Posted on 8 Sep 2009 20:06:45 BDT
As a non-native English speaker I was wondering if the title of the book Why England Lose is a grammatical error. England is singular so should it not be Why England LoseS?

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Sep 2009 15:04:11 BDT
Ah, I Like this question. The best answer is to be found on wikipedia:

"In British English, it is generally accepted that collective nouns can take either singular or plural verb forms depending on the context and the metonymic shift that it implies. For example, "the team is in the dressing room" (formal agreement) refers to the team as an ensemble, whilst "the team are fighting among themselves" (notional agreement) refers to the team as individuals. This is also British English practice with names of countries and cities in sports contexts; for example, "Germany have won the competition," "Madrid have lost three consecutive matches," etc. In American English, collective nouns usually take singular verb forms (formal agreement), but either a singular or plural verb is correct American usage where the noun is understood as a group of individual components. In cases where a metonymic shift would be otherwise revealed nearby, the whole sentence may be recast to avoid the metonymy. (For example, "the team are fighting among themselves" may become "the team members are fighting among themselves" or "the team is fighting [period].") "

Thus "why England loses" is part of the subtitle of Soccernomics, published in the US, but "Why England Lose" is the grammatically correct title of the UK book.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2009 09:27:16 GMT
W. Robertson says:
But there is nothing grammatically incorrect in English (by which I refer to British English) in saying "Why England Loses". I understand the Americans have a tendency to treat collective nouns as singular, but in this particular context either is acceptable. There is a good argument for suggesting that, if referring to the England team's match results, "Why England (singular) Loses" is preferable, since the team wins or loses as one.

Posted on 1 Jan 2010 02:17:02 GMT
Tom Plum says:
I'm not sure what all of the fallings out with Fifa over the years has been but I do consider Fifa International Football to be distinctly different than English football.

Some World Cups are tainted and here, is the controversial France/Ireland game from a few weeks ago before the next World Cup is even scheduled to be played, but football and especially the international game are filled with such incidences. One can find many other examples, the draw between West Germany and Austria in 1982. This is to say nothing against these countries since one finds some of the country's own fans find some of this conduct reprehensible.

I was reading in David Winner's 'Brilliant Orange' book today how Holland advanced to the 1974 World Cup on a goal that should have been called offside in the game vs. Belgium.

I will eventually read this book, have read other books by the authors but I truly think Fifa has not been hospitable to England and the UK, in fact, is it possible that the UK in their large role in World War II and largely rescuing Europe from further destruction were awarded the 4 nations spots, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland??

I honestly have to wonder about Fifa.

Posted on 9 Jan 2010 23:28:36 GMT
Stefan

For those of us who have the British version is there any chance you could bullet point the differences you highlighted between association football and american football in teh US version?

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2010 18:00:44 GMT
If you want to understand the politics of World Football the best book around is FIFA & the Struggle for World Football by Sugden & Tomlinson. It's a bit expensive at about £50, but you can get the mass market version "Badfellas" for about £5.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jan 2010 03:33:48 GMT
Tom Plum says:
Thank you for the tip, it still looks like "Badfellas" isn't readily available used; but will run into it some time.

Don't know if I said, a lot of "National Football Associations" have been competed against by other similar entities such as in Nigeria.

It's too hard, I wish someone might come up with another International Federation for the sport.

I don't quite see Fifa as being the Holy Grail it's made out to be.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2010 12:02:14 GMT
hi John

The main topics in the chapter are:

1. why soccer spread by football didn't - we talk about the relative failure of american "cultural imperialism" (contrast the success of Hollywood and popular music)
2. How soccer in the US is much more than MLS
3. how the NFL, which claims to be incredibly balanced ("on any given sunday any team in our league can beat any other team") - has a similar level of imbalance as the Premier League
4. some comments on american money in soccer and the future of global fandom

As you can see some of these themes are discussed in WEL, so we really were just trying to adapt our arguments for an American audience.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Apr 2010 20:09:55 BDT
Interesting points. On top of this there is the reversed structure of sport in the US whereby the League is prescient and controls the teams via franchising and the UK whereby the power resides in the clubs who band together to form a league out of necessity. The power of the US leagues enables more revenue sharing and wage capping, giving more financial stability and generally preserving more competitive balannce. The down side is you support a franchise not a club.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  7
Total posts:  14
Initial post:  1 Sep 2009
Latest post:  8 Apr 2010

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Why England Lose: And other curious phenomena explained
Why England Lose: And other curious phenomena explained by Simon Kuper (Hardcover - 6 Aug 2009)
3.9 out of 5 stars   (44)