I don't know how many people will side with Kane on this one, but I'd like to give this a shot.

Is Harry Kane right now a better player than Wayne Rooney was in his prime?

Kane plays slightly further up the pitch than Rooney did, but he's still extremely effective. Undoubtedly a better goal-scorer than Rooney, Kane has notched 31, 28, 35, and 41 goals in the past four seasons - certainly a fantastic record. Harry Kane also has the record for best goal ratio for a PL Golden Boot winner (29 goals in 30 games).

A prime Rooney was more known for his ability to merge an aggressive, physical style with clever, technical football. Rooney was not as prolific as Kane, but did knock in 34 goals twice in his career.

Who was better? Kane right now or a prime Wayne Rooney?

LOL that picture is awesome.

Hey, I call it soccer in day-to-day chatter with people in the US. I was just highlighting that part of the way in which people can tell a country isn't crazy about football, is because they don't call it football.

@Lodatz I get what your mean but that was actually the results of Football losing popularity a "long" time ago. The fact the name was never corrected doesn't mean people don't care for it. Even if its true people care about it less than hockey, americain football and basket. And baseball I guess. :( Still, I'm not convinced other country like Russia are that much more crazy about the sport than us. :)

Also talking about sport that isn't popular in certain county: CAMEL RACING!

Edit: Sorry for going off-topic like that. I needed to share this somewhere.

...that's kind of amazing.

@Lodatz I know right, a sport so intense, they don't even have jockey! Though, from what I heard, the real reason they use little robot to whip the camel instead of jockey is because the competitor had a tendency to use child-slaves. :( Still, its pretty damm impressive. Would totally be into that kind of stuff if I was born in the country where they do those thing. :D .

I hate when people get upset that US calls football soccer. As if that makes it be a whole different sport. Does it seriously matter? It's a difference in language in which the word soccer was actually used by England first and at that very same time US adopted the former English name.

The US just happens to have two well known sports called Football. So it just makes sense to use soccer to avoid any confusion.

Anyways, it's just a sad and cheap excuse to mock or think someone can't know the sport well enough if they call it by something else.

@raimondo90:

Anyways, it's just a sad and cheap excuse to mock or think someone can't know the sport well enough if they call it by something else.

I agree with that, actually, so if you want me to apologize for it, then okay. I am sorry I said that to Sun.

But here's the thing, rai. Imagine if someone came to your country, for instance, and mispronounced Buenos Aires. It may be that in their language Buenos Aires is pronounced differently, and so they've actually grown up calling it that, or maybe in their language it is an entirely different word (such as Munchen and Munich).

That's fine, of course. They grew up with a different word/name for the same thing. No big deal. But what if you tried to gently hint at how it should actually be pronounced, and they shake their head and say: "No, this is what I call it, and I don't care what you say", would you be impressed by it? Or would you think that perhaps they are being just a little bit arrogant?

It's like when some people insist on saying EPL instead of PL, because it's what they want to call it, not what it is actually called.

I mean, if you informed someone of how to pronounce Buenos Aires properly, not just the way they do it back home, if they truly wish to join in the spirit of the thing, shouldn't they adjust to this new information?

Like I said, I say soccer when I am talking to North Americans, because that's the only way they will know what I am talking about. I would hope that North Americans who have decided to get involved in this thing that half the world treats as religion to maybe show a bit of respect and willingness to start calling it what the rest of the world calls it, when talking with them.

But that's just me.

@lod I mean me personally I wouldn't really care if people mispronounced something wrong even after I tried correcting them. In this scenario soccer isn't mis pronouncing or wrong. It's just what they grow up calling it. It's dialect. Much like how in England chips is not the same and in the US. Are we also supposed to be upset at that?
How does mispronouncing a city or sport not let you participate on the spirit? I just can't follow that logic. Like you said yourself, you use both words yet that doesn't mean you are less part of the culture.
At the end of the day soccer and football refer to the exact same sport. So it's just synonims in that regard.

In this scenario soccer isn't mis pronouncing or wrong. It's just what they grow up calling it. It's dialect

Yes, but it's dialect based upon a lack of interest in football. Like I said, it comes off as arrogant to me, in the same way I think of tourists as arrogant when they don't choose to respect everyone else's dialect.

Like you said yourself, you use both words yet that doesn't mean you are less part of the culture.

I mean, it kinda does, though. Take a look at this map:

All the pink/red areas call it football, or a variant of depending upon spelling. All the blue areas call it soccer, and as you can see in none of those countries is football the most popular sport, in the US and Australia especially, and people only call it that there to distinguish from something else called football.

The only exception is in Ireland, there's a funny thing about that: in Gaelic, the Irish language, it is called sacar, but whenever it is translated from Gaelic into English it becomes football.

Not going to to lie, when you decided to abandon the argument in favor of dressing me down for whatever ills you imagine I've committed in other threads, you ended any reason to be impressed with your posturing.

The reason I didn't like the debate you and Dynastian were having was because it became about the people who were having the discussion instead of the discussion itself. Every disagreement you have with anyone always comes back to that, which leads me to suspect that you don't care about what we're talking about, just proving that you are somehow "better."

The second you started talking about me, instead of what I'm discussing, the conversation is done. I cannot learn anything from it anymore. It's just going to turn into a show of insults that will leave you cocky because you get off on that for some reason, and me angry because I don't.

You say this:

That's why we should talk. The reason why we usually do talk is because you've said something I know to be false, something you've probably picked up from shoddy sources, and I want to show you why it is not true.

But then you tell me the '94 World Cup had terrible engagement. That's just incorrect. I raise you literally any source on it ever:

The 1994 FIFA World Cup was the 15th FIFA World Cup, held in nine cities across the United States from 17 June to 17 July 1994. The United States was chosen as the host by FIFA on 4 July 1988. Despite the host nation's lack of a national top-level football league, the tournament was the most financially successful in World Cup history; it broke the World Cup average attendance record with nearly 69,000 spectators per game, a mark that still stands.[1][2] The total attendance of nearly 3.6 million for the final tournament remains the highest in World Cup history, despite the expansion of the competition from 24 to 32 teams (and from 52 to 64 games) in the 1998 World Cup.[1]

And that's fine. Live and learn. But then you double down on it and deny what I'm saying, tell me that because I'm not from a "soccer-crazy country" I can't possibly understand the wisdom of your words. I don't need wisdom, I need facts, and that's a helluva one right there.

If all our discussions do is stroke your ego, then so be it. If you want to say that I've run away or something, that's your prerogative. I don't care about you at all, no offense. I just fail to see how talking with you will lead to any productivity in my own knowledge, because while that is your stated intention, based off what I've shown here (which only the most obvious example), it is not what is actually happening.

I'm not even surprised. Just disappointed for the both of us.

The reason I didn't like the debate you and Dynastian were having was because it became about the people who were having the discussion instead of the discussion itself

Yes. That started with Dynastian calling someone nationalistic, saying racist things about the British and accusing posters of having a colonial attitude. You can see how things went badly from there on.

Every disagreement you have with anyone always comes back to that,

That's because I'm usually standing up for England or Tottenham when someone decides to say nasty or inaccurate things about them. When I cite things about English football that people from North America don't understand, I am then subjected to accusations of arrogance, and the whole thing devolves.

It is a curious pattern indeed.

The second you started talking about me, instead of what I'm discussing, the conversation is done.

Point out when this happened. Was it before or after you started talking about me, and my supposed tone, instead of what I was discussing?

It's just going to turn into a show of insults that will leave you cocky because you get off on that for some reason,

Only when you do. I only give people what they give to me. Stay on topic, do not try and distract from it with either cheap insults or cheap strawmandering, and you will find me a model conversationalist.

And that's fine. Live and learn.

Notice how this time you actually produced something to back yourself up, instead of just telling me to go away until I knew anything about it? That's much more likely to persuade me. Congratulations on showing that the US World Cup was a success; I was mistaken to suggest otherwise.

See? I can admit when I'm wrong. That's because I have integrity. Next time simply answer the question, instead of making whatever meta-point you thought you were trying to make.

tell me that because I'm not from a "soccer-crazy country" I can't possibly understand the wisdom of your words.

I never said that at all. I said you don't listen to me. That's not the same as being incapable of it. Indeed, I think you're more than bright enough to understand my perspectives and opinions; you just always refuse to listen to them, and then we get into arguments when I start bringing up facts and stuff to back myself up.

I just fail to see how talking with you will lead to any productivity in my own knowledge,

I'm trying to help you not fail, in that regard. What you have to do is to stop arguing with me just because you don't want me to be right. It's the same thing with Dynast, to be honest; I just keep waiting for you guys to simply admit you are wrong, but you never, ever do so, because it burns to think of Lodatz (that is, however you picture me from behind your own screen) being right. Insteadm you'd rather start calling me arrogant, or complain about smileys, or say that I was being mean in another thread, or any number of things but engage my actual argument.

And so we never grow, and we never have nice things.

Lodatz is always right, everyone else is always wrong. Anyone who tries to convince Lodatz otherwise is therefore an idiot from a sub-par footballing country and knows nothing.

If you say so. :) It's certainly not what I said. What I said was:

See? I can admit when I'm wrong. That's because I have integrity.

By the way, still waiting for that apology.

Lmao I'm trying to help you not fail. This is as non productive as arguing with golazo