The English game - a generally relative theory

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

The three early games today seem to bear out a general theory (probably not unique to me) that the team fielding the most Englishmen at the start of the modern game will lose. Or the corollary - the less English geezers in the first eleven (old term; look it up) the better the chance of winning.

I'm not sure if the odds are worsened by including Scottish, Welsh and non-Republic Irishmen.

More UK = less wins?


A-7924463-1591093919-2613.jpeg.jpg

"Works for me, look you"
 
Not lately but thanks for the ad hominem. Theory is: the more English players on a first team, the less likely the team is to win. Notice, I didn't say "guaranteed not to win", just less likely.

Leeds, Brentford, Brighton today - all had fewer home-grown players than their opposition. And each won.

Tonight, Chelsea fielded 2 in the starting team while Liverpool had 3. A draw wouldn't be unlikely (it was, of course 2-2) because 2 Anglos vs 3 is not a significant difference.

No, my system is to bet on the team fielding less UK folks. And will I lose by it?

Let's face it, it's worked for World Cups since 1966 🤬
 
Not lately but thanks for the ad hominem. Theory is: the more English players on a first team, the less likely the team is to win. Notice, I didn't say "guaranteed not to win", just less likely.

Leeds, Brentford, Brighton today - all had fewer home-grown players than their opposition. And each won.

Tonight, Chelsea fielded 2 in the starting team while Liverpool had 3. A draw wouldn't be unlikely (it was, of course 2-2) because 2 Anglos vs 3 is not a significant difference.

No, my system is to bet on the team fielding less UK folks. And will I lose by it?

Let's face it, it's worked for World Cups since 1966 🤬
How much have you won this season?
 
Not lately but thanks for the ad hominem. Theory is: the more English players on a first team, the less likely the team is to win. Notice, I didn't say "guaranteed not to win", just less likely.

Leeds, Brentford, Brighton today - all had fewer home-grown players than their opposition. And each won.

Tonight, Chelsea fielded 2 in the starting team while Liverpool had 3. A draw wouldn't be unlikely (it was, of course 2-2) because 2 Anglos vs 3 is not a significant difference.

No, my system is to bet on the team fielding less UK folks. And will I lose by it?

Let's face it, it's worked for World Cups since 1966 🤬

All I know is that England have an abundance of talent at the moment, especially in midfield and forward areas, which has also coincided with the National team reaching a World-Cup semi-final and a Euro's final, with more to come.
 
Aside from my joke about the World Cup - which any fule kno was a joke . . . . whether or not English players are improved, double-knitted or dang good chaps, the fact remains that:

The team with the most English players starting any game is more likely to lose in the EPL. So far, nobody has provided any evidence to counteract the claim. Nothing but <crickets>. Oh well.

And I have won more than 6,000 Ethiopian Birr which is nothing . . . to sneeze at.
Once my wife has caught on to my system, she'll probably get it all back
 
Aside from my joke about the World Cup - which any fule kno was a joke . . . . whether or not English players are improved, double-knitted or dang good chaps, the fact remains that:

The team with the most English players starting any game is more likely to lose in the EPL. So far, nobody has provided any evidence to counteract the claim. Nothing but <crickets>. Oh well

And I have won more than 6,000 Ethiopian Birr which is nothing . . . to sneeze at.
Once my wife has caught on to my system, she'll probably get it all back
The way it works is if you have a hypothesis you have to offer up evidence and prove your theory.

Still waiting for more than 3 games on a random game day.

You created an account just for this shit idea? You will no doubt be banned within a few weeks.
 
The way it works is if you have a hypothesis you have to offer up evidence and prove your theory.

Still waiting for more than 3 games on a random game day.

You created an account just for this shit idea? You will no doubt be banned within a few weeks.
No, I did not "create an account just for this" and I don't see why anyone should be offended. It's an observation over time and last night's four games seem to bear it out. Agree on the need for more data - but one is forced to wait a bit for games to examine the starting 11 . . . let's see what happens.

ETA the theory is not disproved by tonight's game alone, although it could be evidence FOR if Utd lose. But the team with the most Brits is not always going to lose.
:
Manchester United possible starting lineup:
De Gea; Wan-Bissaka (Eng), Varane (Eng), Maguire (Eng), Shaw (Eng); Greenwood (Eng), McTominay (Scot), Matic, Fernandes; Ronaldo, Cavani

Wolverhampton Wanderers possible starting lineup:
Sa; Kilman (Eng), Coady (Eng), Saiss; Hoever, Neves, Moutinho, Marcal; Traore, Jimenez, Podence

United's 6 Brits vs Wolves 2 (and even in different line-ups Utd would still have more) will likely prevail, given their 5-match EPL streak without loss - and being home. In this one I'd put my money on Utd and root for Wolves anyway.

:kanehand:Wolves advantage in non-Brits may be offset by having too many Portuguese players*.

*I hope it's clear this final remark is intended to be humorous
 
Last edited:
Aside from my joke about the World Cup - which any fule kno was a joke . . . . whether or not English players are improved, double-knitted or dang good chaps, the fact remains that:

The team with the most English players starting any game is more likely to lose in the EPL. So far, nobody has provided any evidence to counteract the claim. Nothing but <crickets>. Oh well.

And I have won more than 6,000 Ethiopian Birr which is nothing . . . to sneeze at.
Once my wife has caught on to my system, she'll probably get it all back

Vine Ok GIF
 
You don't have to look back far to work out how pointless this theory is...

In the last week:
West Ham 4-1 win over watford with more English players
Palace 3-0 win over Norwich with more English players
Leicester 1-0 win over Liverpool with more English players
West Ham 3-2 win over Palace with more English players
And assuming you watch Spurs games, surely you'll remember we beat Watford 1-0 and guess what...we had 3 more English players than them in our starting lineup!!
 
The three early games today seem to bear out a general theory (probably not unique to me) that the team fielding the most Englishmen at the start of the modern game will lose. Or the corollary - the less English geezers in the first eleven (old term; look it up) the better the chance of winning.

I'm not sure if the odds are worsened by including Scottish, Welsh and non-Republic Irishmen.

More UK = less wins?


A-7924463-1591093919-2613.jpeg.jpg

"Works for me, look you"
Assuming you are not trolling, I will share why I think this thread and theory are weak.

You are on a UK board and hating on English players.

There could be a correlation between English players and losing but it could have nothing to do with the fact that they are English. Teams like burnley will have a lot of English players because they can’t afford much from overseas.

I think a far stronger correlation would be the team with the lower team transfer value is more likely to lose which is news to no one. There may be some shared correlation with this and more English players due to the low budget teams.
 
Assuming you are not trolling, I will share why I think this thread and theory are weak.

You are on a UK board and hating on English players.

There could be a correlation between English players and losing but it could have nothing to do with the fact that they are English. Teams like burnley will have a lot of English players because they can’t afford much from overseas.

I think a far stronger correlation would be the team with the lower team transfer value is more likely to lose which is news to no one. There may be some shared correlation with this and more English players due to the low budget teams.
Yes, not trolling. I'm an English Spurs supporter with many a trip to the Lane, Highbury, Stamford Bridge, etc. in the early 70s (and my dad was a Spurs man too - our family is from Harringey), even seeing Spurs play in Toronto after I moved to the USA. Still watching (on TV) in South Africa and wishing I could watch in person. (Was at the England game in Bloemfontein against the Germans and that was a goal dammit as we all could see, even from the other end of the stadium)

I'd prefer the clubs to have MORE English players, rather than fewer, to develop world class talent at the highest level rather than in the nether regions of the Championship and lower leagues. Noted that England's current team has done rather well and certainly there are good players there.

Football Chap has provided useful data which certainly discredits my limited observation via other teams highlights. Can't watch all the EPL here. Not because the games are not on - they are - but I can't sit around watching them all.
 
Back
Top Bottom