Which would you prefer; to be an active player on the losing team in the game or a reservist with no playing time on the winning side?

Asked by rojo (24179

) July 14th, 2014

I was watching the World Cup finals and wondered what it would be like to “win” the world cup without having stepped onto the playing field. You were there through all the practices and lead up games; you worked just as hard as those who were chosen as starters; you were ready to step in if presented with the opportunity but that opportunity never came. Can you be satisfied? Would you rather have played even if you were on the losing side?

Observing members: 0

Composing members: 0

7 Answers

An active player on the losing team.

Dutchess_III (47126

)“Great Answer” (1

) Flag as…

^^^^ Yep, me too. Better to be active and lose than a potato on the sidelines. lol

Coloma (47193

)“Great Answer” (1

) Flag as…

I used to intentionally fumble baseball tryouts for that very reason as a kid.

ARE_you_kidding_me (20021

)“Great Answer” (0

) Flag as…

If you were on the Dutch team… You would have played. All players were on the field.

During the final for third and fourth the coach made a last minute switch to get the last remaining player on the field that hadn’t played yet.

So the answer to this one… On the Dutch team. The team one should have wanted to be on, anyways.

whitenoise (14162

)“Great Answer” (1

) Flag as…

You mean a walk-on part in the war or a leading role in a cage?

wish you were here

cookieman (41886

)“Great Answer” (0

) Flag as…

A reservist with no playing time on the winning side, because I would know that even if I wasn’t in the final game, I still had a part in the whole team getting there. Plus, I like to win.

ibstubro (18804

)“Great Answer” (1

) Flag as…