The International Friendlies thread

[mistermagic]

We could but that would mean killing St Juste. The feds will be onto us and it's just not worth it.

 

[St. Juste]

You are contradicting yourself. USA has the population of Brazil just about, and they aren't even in the World Cup in a shitty qualifying zone. Its the 5th sport in the country and its not big in China or India either. Population is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant. Canada are another example. Great infrastructure and 27 million people, but a shitty team with no interest in the sport (and I've lived in Canada, I can tell you first hand)

Interest in the sport is much more important, so Cyprus would beat Brazil if that was the case.

Right, and what if 90% of Brazil was interested in football, and 100% of Cyprus were interested in football.

That would mean the split is more like 186m to 1m - who is more likely to win then? Obviously there are variables for men between 18-35 but in general Brazil will have more than 100 times the number of players to select as well as far more money and infrastructure.

You say population is completely irrelevant and interest in football is the only factor - the above couldn't disprove that hypothesis more clearly.

Regarding your USA, China and India examples - not only have you used these before but you are willfully ignoring my reply to these examples. Population is only really relevant as a factor when comparing nations where football is the dominant sport. It is the dominant sport in Scotland, it is the dominant sport in England. The comparison is valid. It is not the dominant sport in Bangladesh, it is the dominant sport in Spain - the comparison is not valid.

Population is not a smoking gun, it is only relevant as a factor when comparing populations where it is the dominant sport. I cannot emphasize that enough.

As for your statement that population is completely irrelevant - put your money where you mouth is. £100 not enough for you? Name the figure - Brazil to win the world cup before all nations of less than 2 million people.

So because I criticise the system and our old-fashioned policies, I should just quit supporting my home country after 40 years? It doesn't work like that. We have reached a nadir and I have every right to call it such, but hope (without nothing to back this up) that we can, somehow, with a miracle; finally qualify once more. And it will take a miracle, as these shockingly bad players and pub-team standard manager will hold us back once more.

We have been incredibly close to qualifying several times recently - so I don't believe a miracle is required.

You state we have old fashioned system and policies, relative to whom exactly?

You brought in an argument surrounding our use of "English players" whilst at the same time praising Ireland and Wales (who use far more "English" (and Scottish) players than we do relative to them).

The last sentence sums it up - you're not a fan (you probably never were). You are just a self hating Scot. Our manager, no matter what you think of him, has a better track record than the Welsh or English manager. As for shockingly bad players....you really are the worst "fan" ever.

There are surprisingly lots of Scots like you, it is a self hating nation. When we do qualify, they will hate it, until we eventually lose and they will take delight in how we have "embarrassed ourselves". It is a story that is already written. Some people never change.

Hey, Lib. You weren't so wrong with Argentina. When they won their first World Cup the population of Argentina was only a bit more than 27 million.



Contradicts the argument that no nation with less than 40 million won the World Cup after 1950. OK, nowadays Argentina has more than 43 millions. But not in 1978. Seems they are screwing like rabbits then

Anyway, can we please shut this endless discussion. It's Groundhog day all again, we had this months ago in lenghty and annoying posts in some thread (Kazakhstan comes to my mind )

Has Argentina experienced popuation growth significantly above average?

if not, the relative size of their population relative to their rivals has stayed the same - relative would be a more mathematically robust means of comparison.

But that said - I did not factor that in. It should state a nation of less than 27 million people hasn't won the world cup since 1950. If there was absolutely no correlation, why are much larger nations winning it whilst micro states should not. Surely the distribution should be random?

 

[Libertadores FC]

Right, and what if 90% of Brazil was interested in football, and 100% of Cyprus were interested in football.

That would mean the split is more like 186m to 1m - who is more likely to win then? Obviously there are variables for men between 18-35 but in general Brazil will have more than 100 times the number of players to select as well as far more money and infrastructure.

You say population is completely irrelevant and interest in football is the only factor - the above couldn't disprove that hypothesis more clearly.

Regarding your USA, China and India examples - not only have you used these before but you are willfully ignoring my reply to these examples. Population is only really relevant as a factor when comparing nations where football is the dominant sport. It is the dominant sport in Scotland, it is the dominant sport in England. The comparison is valid. It is not the dominant sport in Bangladesh, it is the dominant sport in Spain - the comparison is not valid.

Population is not a smoking gun, it is only relevant as a factor when comparing populations where it is the dominant sport. I cannot emphasize that enough.

As for your statement that population is completely irrelevant - put your money where you mouth is. £100 not enough for you? Name the figure - Brazil to win the world cup before all nations of less than 2 million people.



We have been incredibly close to qualifying several times recently - so I don't believe a miracle is required.

You state we have old fashioned system and policies, relative to whom exactly?

You brought in an argument surrounding our use of "English players" whilst at the same time praising Ireland and Wales (who use far more "English" (and Scottish) players than we do relative to them).

The last sentence sums it up - you're not a fan (you probably never were). You are just a self hating Scot. Our manager, no matter what you think of him, has a better track record than the Welsh or English manager. As for shockingly bad players....you really are the worst "fan" ever.

There are surprisingly lots of Scots like you, it is a self hating nation. When we do qualify, they will hate it, until we eventually lose and they will take delight in how we have "embarrassed ourselves". It is a story that is already written. Some people never change.



Has Argentina experienced popuation growth significantly above average?

if not, the relative size of their population relative to their rivals has stayed the same - relative would be a more mathematically robust means of comparison.

But that said - I did not factor that in. It should state a nation of less than 27 million people hasn't won the world cup since 1950. If there was absolutely no correlation, why are much larger nations winning it whilst micro states should not. Surely the distribution should be random?

I am saying that football needs to be a dominant sport. I am also saying that it has nothing to do with population but instead, percentage of interest in the sport. If population was so relevant, there is no reason for Uruguay and Iceland to be good.

 

[St. Juste]

I am saying that football needs to be a dominant sport. I am also saying that it has nothing to do with population but instead, percentage of interest in the sport. If population was so relevant, there is no reason for Uruguay and Iceland to be good.

No, that's not what you are saying, that's what I am saying. Indeed, I said it first in this thread in June 2017 (specifically in response to the 'China' question).

If it has nothing to do with percentage, why don't you answer the question re. Brazil vs. Cyprus? You think 1% of Brazil would be beaten by 100% of Cyprus, how about 90% of Brazil - how about 40%? Where does the madness stop?

Population is an indication and a useful comparison, but it isn't the sole determination. You are the one stating big rules that "population is irrelevant" but you will never hear me say it is of sole relevance. There are many factors indicating why Uruguay are quite good (no where near best in the world, or even their region though). As for Iceland, they have been abject for 99% of their footballing history. Why are you only considering the time they have a golden generation? (As well as a few other factors going to their advantage).

Population could be compared to wage bill. On the whole, teams with a larger wage bill win beat teams with a smaller wage bill. This is because they can attract better players (similar to bigger nations having a larger talent pool to pick from). The game isn't decided on balance sheets, however, and sometimes teams with a smaller budget will win. It doesn't stop the overall rule though - Barcelona are better than Port Vale. Teams with a small budget (especially now) have a vanishingly small chance of reaching the latter stages of European competition. Back when wages weren't so distant, teams like Aberdeen could beat Real Madrid. Certainly not very likely now.

You are saying percentage interest matters more than population - mathematically this does not stack up as small nations with a much higher percentage interest will be smaller in absolute terms than larger nations with a smaller population interest. Take Scotland - fantastic proportional attendance figures - amongst the highest in Europe and far better than Germany, Brazil, England, Spain, France, Italy et. al. Are we better at football than them? Clearly not, even with smaller proportional attendances and smaller proportional participation rates their raw figures are quite a bit higher than ours.

 

[Libertadores FC]

No, that's not what you are saying, that's what I am saying. Indeed, I said it first in this thread in June 2017 (specifically in response to the 'China' question).

If it has nothing to do with percentage, why don't you answer the question re. Brazil vs. Cyprus? You think 1% of Brazil would be beaten by 100% of Cyprus, how about 90% of Brazil - how about 40%? Where does the madness stop?

Population is an indication and a useful comparison, but it isn't the sole determination. You are the one stating big rules that "population is irrelevant" but you will never hear me say it is of sole relevance. There are many factors indicating why Uruguay are quite good (no where near best in the world, or even their region though). As for Iceland, they have been abject for 99% of their footballing history. Why are you only considering the time they have a golden generation? (As well as a few other factors going to their advantage).

Population could be compared to wage bill. On the whole, teams with a larger wage bill win beat teams with a smaller wage bill. This is because they can attract better players (similar to bigger nations having a larger talent pool to pick from). The game isn't decided on balance sheets, however, and sometimes teams with a smaller budget will win. It doesn't stop the overall rule though - Barcelona are better than Port Vale. Teams with a small budget (especially now) have a vanishingly small chance of reaching the latter stages of European competition. Back when wages weren't so distant, teams like Aberdeen could beat Real Madrid. Certainly not very likely now.

You are saying percentage interest matters more than population - mathematically this does not stack up as small nations with a much higher percentage interest will be smaller in absolute terms than larger nations with a smaller population interest. Take Scotland - fantastic proportional attendance figures - amongst the highest in Europe and far better than Germany, Brazil, England, Spain, France, Italy et. al. Are we better at football than them? Clearly not, even with smaller proportional attendances and smaller proportional participation rates their raw figures are quite a bit higher than ours.

Uruguay are one of the best teams in the world and in South America though, that's where you are wrong. I don't believe in what ifs either. I could say that if Uruguay had Brazil's population, they would win every world cup there is. Means fuck all, they have 3 million and that's how it will likely remain in my lifetime.

 

[St. Juste]

Uruguay are one of the best teams in the world and in South America though, that's where you are wrong. I don't believe in what ifs either. I could say that if Uruguay had Brazil's population, they would win every world cup there is. Means fuck all, they have 3 million and that's how it will likely remain in my lifetime.

If Uruguay are one of the best teams in the World, why haven't they reached the World Cup final since 1950? Since 1970 they have reached one semi final and not qualified 5 times. They are not one of the best teams in the World, but if you care, why not bet on them winning the World Cup ahead of Brazil and Germany?

Are Uruguay punching above their weight? Clearly. But to say population doesn't matter because Uruguay are quite good is like saying wage bills don't matter because Wigan beat Man City in the FA Cup.

You are zeroing in on one point, and avoiding your clearly incorrect "population is completely irrelevant" line. That is....progress I guess?

 

[Libertadores FC]

If Uruguay are one of the best teams in the World, why haven't they reached the World Cup final since 1950? Since 1970 they have reached one semi final and not qualified 5 times. They are not one of the best teams in the World, but if you care, why not bet on them winning the World Cup ahead of Brazil and Germany?

Are Uruguay punching above their weight? Clearly. But to say population doesn't matter because Uruguay are quite good is like saying wage bills don't matter because Wigan beat Man City in the FA Cup.

You are zeroing in on one point, and avoiding your clearly incorrect "population is completely irrelevant" line. That is....progress I guess?

2 semi-finals and have Suarez, Cavani, Godin, Gimenez, and plenty of other good players who are capable of beating any team on their day. They are one of the best teams in the world.

Are Brazil not one of the best sides there is, given they have no finals since 2002?

 

[St. Juste]

2 semi-finals and have Suarez, Cavani, Godin, Gimenez, and plenty of other good players who are capable of beating any team on their day. They are one of the best teams in the world.

Are Brazil not one of the best sides there is, given they have no finals since 2002?

No, one semi final since 1970, in 2010.

What exactly are you arguing here - that "population is completely irrelevant" because one small nation does relatively well? That Uruguay are better than Brazil?

That Uruguay are one of the best teams in the world?

That San Marino have as much chance of winning the 2022 World Cup as either Brazil or Uruguay because "population is completely irrelevant"?

Be specific.

 

[Libertadores FC]

Population has its relevance but its nowhere near as relevant as you are making it out to be. Uruguay has 3 million people and ARE one of the best teams in the world. Costa Rica has few people and are a relatively good team. So many factors that are far more important. Just because a nation has 1 million or 15 billion doesn't mean much.

 

[St. Juste]

I am saying that football needs to be a dominant sport. I am also saying that it has nothing to do with population but instead, percentage of interest in the sport. If population was so relevant, there is no reason for Uruguay and Iceland to be good.

Population has its relevance but its nowhere near as relevant as you are making it out to be. Uruguay has 3 million people and ARE one of the best teams in the world. Costa Rica has few people and are a relatively good team. So many factors that are far more important. Just because a nation has 1 million or 15 billion doesn't mean much.

Well, it's good to see you have finally seen the light.

I don't know what your capitalisation of ARE is supposed to represent. They only reached the round of 16 in 2014 World Cup and were knocked out of the group stage of Copa America - finishing below luminaries such as Venezuela and Mexico.

So, they are clearly not one of the best teams in the world (and haven't been for some time). Have they over performed relative to their population over time? Absolutely.

Smaller teams will occasionally be quite good, Scotland certainly have been in the past. Micro states have virtually no chance.

There are many factors in play, Scotland should look to Uruguay and Costa Rica and say "why aren't we as good as them?" But we should not look to Brazil or Germany and say "why aren't we as good as them" because without massive immigration we are unlikely to ever be as good.

Re Hungary, how this already started, it is a good achievement to beat a much larger nation (with a proud footballing history) away from home. I'm sure Costa Rica were happy beating Scotland away, too.

England beating the Netherlands? Somewhat less impressive.

 

[SF_]

Which England player is from Ghana? I'm stumped.

 

[Libertadores FC]

Well, it's good to see you have finally seen the light.

I don't know what your capitalisation of ARE is supposed to represent. They only reached the round of 16 in 2014 World Cup and were knocked out of the group stage of Copa America - finishing below luminaries such as Venezuela and Mexico.

So, they are clearly not one of the best teams in the world (and haven't been for some time). Have they over performed relative to their population over time? Absolutely.

Smaller teams will occasionally be quite good, Scotland certainly have been in the past. Micro states have virtually no chance.

There are many factors in play, Scotland should look to Uruguay and Costa Rica and say "why aren't we as good as them?" But we should not look to Brazil or Germany and say "why aren't we as good as them" because without massive immigration we are unlikely to ever be as good.

Re Hungary, how this already started, it is a good achievement to beat a much larger nation (with a proud footballing history) away from home. I'm sure Costa Rica were happy beating Scotland away, too.

England beating the Netherlands? Somewhat less impressive.

Population doesn't mean shit in terms of 1 on 1. Being good at football does though.

 

[mistermagic]

Is anyone reading this?

 

[Libertadores FC]

Is anyone reading this?

I would be surprised if there was, to be honest. Luckily for him I don't insult in football debate.

 

[St. Juste]

Which England player is from Ghana? I'm stumped.

Both of Danny Welbecks parents are Ghanaian, and he was approached to play for Ghana before he made his full England debut.

Still, I don't remember saying he was Ghanaian (certainly not in this thread).

Rather, Raheem Sterling is Jamaican and moved to England when he was five.

Population doesn't mean shit in terms of 1 on 1. Being good at football does though.

So Andorra vs. Brazil you would have no idea who would win before the match? Or, indeed, Andorra / San Marino vs. anyone would just be a straight shoot - no favourites?

Even you don't know what you are talking about anymore.

It absolutely is a useful comparison when comparing how a team is doing. Northern Ireland were delighted to make the Euros, and they weren't angry when they were knocked out.

England were not delighted to make the Euros, and they were angry when they were knocked out.

Why do two nations (actually constituents of the same nation), same economic background, same climate, roughly equivalent interest in football, have such wildly different expectations? One reason - population.

I would be surprised if there was, to be honest. Luckily for him I don't insult in football debate.

Why does this make me lucky?

I couldn't care less if you insulted me, beyond being mildly embarrassed and bemused.

 

[SF_]

Still, I don't remember saying he was Ghanaian (certainly not in this thread).

Tetchy aren't you? I genuinely didn't have a clue about Welbeck's parents with him being a broad Manc and having a very English sounding name.

 

[Skinner]

Both Welbeck and Sterling developed their talents in England, they did not fly back to Ghana and Jamaica for under 7s training on a Saturday morning.

 

[St. Juste]

Both Welbeck and Sterling developed their talents in England, they did not fly back to Ghana and Jamaica for under 7s training on a Saturday morning.

Correct, I'm not questioning their right to play for England.

The point was made in the context of a Scottish fan being completely opposed to English born players playing for Scotland. The response was that all countries engage in this to certain degrees.

A better example in this instance would be the retired Owen Hargreaves, born in Canada, played his youth football in Germany yet represented England.

It's not something unique to any nation, nor is it something to be upset about.

Can anyone think of a major footballing nation where this doesn't happen? Brazil, maybe, they have so many players they never need to look elsewhere. They 'lose' plenty.

 

[Libertadores FC]

Both of Danny Welbecks parents are Ghanaian, and he was approached to play for Ghana before he made his full England debut.

Still, I don't remember saying he was Ghanaian (certainly not in this thread).

Rather, Raheem Sterling is Jamaican and moved to England when he was five.




So Andorra vs. Brazil you would have no idea who would win before the match? Or, indeed, Andorra / San Marino vs. anyone would just be a straight shoot - no favourites?

Even you don't know what you are talking about anymore.

It absolutely is a useful comparison when comparing how a team is doing. Northern Ireland were delighted to make the Euros, and they weren't angry when they were knocked out.

England were not delighted to make the Euros, and they were angry when they were knocked out.

Why do two nations (actually constituents of the same nation), same economic background, same climate, roughly equivalent interest in football, have such wildly different expectations? One reason - population.



Why does this make me lucky?

I couldn't care less if you insulted me, beyond being mildly embarrassed and bemused.

Uruguay are better than Nigeria by kilometres, with 169 million less people. Population has its factors, but it is largely irrelevant.

 

[Libertadores FC]

And don't even bring me the excuse that its a "poor country with little infrastructure". Paraguay is one of the poorest countries in the world also with few people, and they always churn out good players.

 

[St. Juste]

Uruguay are better than Nigeria by kilometres, with 169 million less people. Population has its factors, but it is largely irrelevant.

You're changing your position every post.

If Uruguay are so great why are they finishing below Venezuela and getting knocked out of the Group Stage of Copa America and the last World Cup?

Since 1994 Nigeria have a much better qualification record than Uruguay for the World Cup.

But again, if it's largely irrelevant, then bet your money on it. Brazil to win the World Cup before all nations below 4 million people? Germany to win the world cup before all nations of 4 million people?

Just admit you got it wrong, rather than constantly changing your position to justify a discredited position that population is irrelevant as a factor.

And don't even bring me the excuse that its a "poor country with little infrastructure". Paraguay is one of the poorest countries in the world also with few people, and they always churn out good players.

Do they? Paraguay don't have a great record in international football.

But yes, obviously poverty and infrastructure is a factor as well as population. This is just obvious.

When you consider anything logically, Brazil have far more men aged 18-36 than Andorra have people. Of course they are incredibly likely to have a much better football team.

What about that don't you get? It is the most obvious conclusion ever.

 

[Libertadores FC]

You're changing your position every post.

If Uruguay are so great why are they finishing below Venezuela and getting knocked out of the Group Stage of Copa America and the last World Cup?

Since 1994 Nigeria have a much better qualification record than Uruguay for the World Cup.

But again, if it's largely irrelevant, then bet your money on it. Brazil to win the World Cup before all nations below 4 million people? Germany to win the world cup before all nations of 4 million people?

Just admit you got it wrong, rather than constantly changing your position to justify a discredited position that population is irrelevant as a factor.



Do they? Paraguay don't have a great record in international football.

But yes, obviously poverty and infrastructure is a factor as well as population. This is just obvious.

When you consider anything logically, Brazil have far more men aged 18-36 than Andorra have people. Of course they are incredibly likely to have a much better football team.

What about that don't you get? It is the most obvious conclusion ever.

You're an idiot. Teams don't always perform in tournaments, it doesn't always speak for their level. Uruguay is, have and always will be a better team than Nigeria.

 

[Libertadores FC]

You're changing your position every post.

If Uruguay are so great why are they finishing below Venezuela and getting knocked out of the Group Stage of Copa America and the last World Cup?

Since 1994 Nigeria have a much better qualification record than Uruguay for the World Cup.

But again, if it's largely irrelevant, then bet your money on it. Brazil to win the World Cup before all nations below 4 million people? Germany to win the world cup before all nations of 4 million people?

Just admit you got it wrong, rather than constantly changing your position to justify a discredited position that population is irrelevant as a factor.



Do they? Paraguay don't have a great record in international football.

But yes, obviously poverty and infrastructure is a factor as well as population. This is just obvious.

When you consider anything logically, Brazil have far more men aged 18-36 than Andorra have people. Of course they are incredibly likely to have a much better football team.

What about that don't you get? It is the most obvious conclusion ever.

And on Paraguay... 8 World Cup qualifications in by far the hardest qualification zone and 1 quarter final. 2 Copa Americas with less resources than anyone else in the continent. As I said, being good at football is the most important factor.

 

[St. Juste]

You're an idiot. Teams don't always perform in tournaments, it doesn't always speak for their level. Uruguay is, have and always will be a better team than Nigeria.

Just going to embolden those two statements.

And on Paraguay... 8 World Cup qualifications in by far the hardest qualification zone and 1 quarter final. 2 Copa Americas with less resources than anyone else in the continent. As I said, being good at football is the most important factor.

What is your point about Paraguay again? That they are one of the best teams in the world?

That teams from poor nations can also occasionally do well?

Erm, okay then. Population is a factor, so is poverty but even that not really to the extent that Paraguay is poor as their poverty is relative rather than absolute in most instances. Their infrastructure will be weaker than their peers.


As with your final point.....what? Are you referring to that in a historical context? I.e. those who were good always will be?

Really.....?

Being good at football means having young men who are good at football, the more young men you have, the more likely some of them will be good at football.

I can't make this concept any simpler.

 

[Libertadores FC]

Just going to embolden those two statements.



What is your point about Paraguay again? That they are one of the best teams in the world?

That teams from poor nations can also occasionally do well?

Erm, okay then. Population is a factor, so is poverty but even that not really to the extent that Paraguay is poor as their poverty is relative rather than absolute in most instances. Their infrastructure will be weaker than their peers.


As with your final point.....what? Are you referring to that in a historical context? I.e. those who were good always will be?

Really.....?

Being good at football means having young men who are good at football, the more young men you have, the more likely some of them will be good at football.

I can't make this concept any simpler.

1. Only an idiot would claim Nigeria to be a more traditional football nation than Uruguay, who have more semi-final appearances than any African nation in their history.

2. Paraguay aren't world class, but they are a good side albeit not excellent. My point was that they always produce quality despite most of the country being aboriginals.

 

[mistermagic]

St Juste,
If I find a brick wall that says population and football are two uncorelatable things, could you please please speak to him instead of spouting the same old shit on this board.

Do say yes.

And give us your wifi supplier while you're at it. This guy should be shot.

 

[G.B]

salty mate is right, the scottish are shit at soccer and even worse at outliving their english overlords

 

[St. Juste]

1. Only an idiot would claim Nigeria to be a more traditional football nation than Uruguay, who have more semi-final appearances than any African nation in their history.

2. Paraguay aren't world class, but they are a good side albeit not excellent. My point was that they always produce quality despite most of the country being aboriginals.

Nobody has claimed they are more traditional football nation than Uruguay (whatever that even means) but rather question the assertion that Uruguay will always be better than Nigeria. How on earth can you know that? Indeed, in the last 20 years in many metrics, such as qualification for the World cup, Nigeria have outperformed Uruguay.

Making such a bold statement with no supporting evidence is idiotic.

And your point about Paraguay is relevant in what way?

As if to complete the propensity of falsehoods being dispelled, only 1.7% of Paraguay identify as fully indigenous, with 95% identifying as Mestizo.

However, again, I fail to see the relevance of this Paraguay example in any respect. Are they good / bad? I'd say they are pretty much what you would expect a nation of their size to be.

I actually went there once, it's the only country I actively disliked. Awful, I'm sure there are some nice parts of it, but not where I visited.

St Juste,
If I find a brick wall that says population and football are two uncorelatable things, could you please please speak to him instead of spouting the same old shit on this board.

Do say yes.

And give us your wifi supplier while you're at it. This guy should be shot.

If you don't like it don't read it.

Indeed, I'm only providing claims backed up by evidence, in contrast to some others.

 

[mistermagic]

If you don't like it don't read it.

Indeed, I'm only providing claims backed up by evidence, in contrast to some others.

I understand that but not a lot of people post in this thread because fans pick club over country (as well they should) and when a comment is made I look forward to reading it. However, I'd much rather read a complaint about how bland Gareth Southgate is as England manager than your stupid obessession.

Now about this supplier of yours...

 

[St. Juste]

I understand that but not a lot of people post in this thread because fans pick club over country (as well they should) and when a comment is made I look forward to reading it. However, I'd much rather read a complaint about how bland Gareth Southgate is as England manager than your stupid obessession.

Now about this supplier of yours...

And to reiterate, if you don't like it then don't read it....

I don't much care for the New Yorker, but rather requesting they stop publishing, I make do with not reading the magazine.

Works fine for everyone.