Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching
Learnglish.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Discussion Groups / British English / May 2005



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

pipped (at/on/to) the post

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Bob Cunningham - 13 May 2005 18:05 GMT
A history of the Sunderland Football Club at
http://www.answers.com/topic/sunderland-a-f-c uses both of
the phrases "pipped to the post" and "pipped at the post".

The relevant sentences are

    Sunderland's first season in their new home yet again
    involved them being pipped to the post, as they
    finished third in a tougher-than-usual Division One.

    In the 1999-2000 season, Sunderland finished seventh
    in the Premiership — their highest finish since 4th
    place in 1955. Again the team was pipped at the post
    on the last day of the season, this time missing out
    on a place in European competition.

The _Oxford English Dictionary_ has under "pip v(3)"
definition 1c

    c. To anticipate or forestall (someone) in a
    particular activity, circumstance, etc.; spec. in phr.
    to pip at (or on) the post, to defeat by a narrow
    margin at the last moment; also ellipt.

This seems to say that "pipped at the post" and "pipped on
the post" have the same meaning, but how about "pipped to
the post"?  

It seems a little strange that a writer would use the two
phrases within a paragraph or so in the same discussion
without having some different shade of meaning in mind.

Is there a difference, however slight, in connotation?
Mike Lyle - 13 May 2005 18:17 GMT
> A history of the Sunderland Football Club at
> http://www.answers.com/topic/sunderland-a-f-c uses both of
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> Is there a difference, however slight, in connotation?

I'd rate the "to" form a mild solecism -- I say "mild" perhaps
because I'm in an amiable mood, or perhaps because it doesn't appear
to affect the meaning, though I wouldn't consider using it.

Signature

Mike.

Mickwick - 13 May 2005 18:43 GMT
In alt.usage.english, Bob Cunningham wrote:

>A history of the Sunderland Football Club at
>http://www.answers.com/topic/sunderland-a-f-c uses both of the phrases
>"pipped to the post" and "pipped at the post".

Ah, but does it mention that Sunderland was a much-derided pioneer of
commercialism and the buying-in of non-local players?

In the early days, fans of opposing teams used to shout 'Play up,
Scotland!', a reference to the number of Scots mercenaries employed by
Sunderland.

(See 'Oop for t' Coop' in _History Today_, May 2005, which article also
reveals that Northern Chippiness/Southern Snootiness - delete according
to taste - was alive and kicking in 1872, the year of Sir Charles
Clegg's debut for England. Sir Charles, a solicitor from Sheffield,
complained that the 'snobs from the south' who dominated the team never
gave him the ball. I say, Sir Charles! Never complain, never explain,
what. There's always a black ball waiting for chaps who snivel if that's
what they really want. What, what.)

Signature

Mickwick
Fascinating fact at the foot of the page: The current Duke of Westminster had a
trial with Fulham FC.

Mike Lyle - 13 May 2005 19:01 GMT
[...]
> (See 'Oop for t' Coop' in _History Today_, May 2005, which article
> also reveals that Northern Chippiness/Southern Snootiness - delete
> according to taste - was alive and kicking in 1872, the year of Sir
> Charles Clegg's debut for England. Sir Charles, a solicitor from
> Sheffield, complained that the 'snobs from the south' who dominated
> the team never gave him the ball. I say, Sir Charles! Never
complain,
> never explain, what. There's always a black ball waiting for chaps
> who snivel if that's what they really want. What, what.)

I wonder if Sir Chuck was using "snob" in one of its older senses,
which was indeed used de haut en bas, meaning something very like
"oik".

Signature

Mike.

Mickwick - 14 May 2005 12:38 GMT
In alt.usage.english, Mike Lyle wrote:

>>Sir Charles, a solicitor from  Sheffield, complained that the 'snobs
>>from the south' who dominated  the team never gave him the ball.

>I wonder if Sir Chuck was using "snob" in one of its older senses,
>which was indeed used de haut en bas, meaning something very like
>"oik".

A very shrewd suggestion but, on balance ... no, I don't think so. The
article's author seems to think that Clegg was using the modern meaning
of the word. Clegg's complaint is reported at the end of a paragraph
about how most 'sports were managed from London where meetings were
supposedly dominated by "aloof", exclusive, socially-biased southern
"swells".' And the England team for that 1872 match* was as follows:

Maynard (1st Surrey Rifles),
Greenhaigh (Notts County),
Welch (Wanderers),
Maddison (Oxford University),
Barker (Hertfordshire Rangers),
Brockbank (Cambridge University),
Clegg JC (Sheffield Wednesday),
Smith AK (Oxford University),
Ottaway (Oxford University),
Chenery (Crystal Palace),
Morice (Barnes).

Which doesn't look very oiky.

Also, I misremembered the passage and probably gave the impression that
Clegg was a Sir Charles when he played the 1872 match and that he made
his complaint contemporaneously. In fact, the quoted complaint was made
many years later - probably well into the next century. The modern
meaning might well have been the only one allowed by then.

Sir Charles's favourite maxim was: Nobody ever gets lost on a straight
road. Which, in my experience, is not strictly true.

*That match (Clegg's only appearance for England) was the first-ever
international. The Scottish team was picked by a Queen's Park man and
comprised eleven Queen's Park men. They played in a 2-2-6 formation (and
wore 'red cowls'). The English team played 1-2-7. Despite the most
determined efforts of all thirteen forwards, neither side managed to
score. For some reason (snooty southern bias?), after the match Scotland
was second in the official world rankings rather than joint first.

<http://www.englandfootballonline.com/Seas1872-00/1872-73/M0001Sco1872.ht
ml>

Signature

Mickwick

Brian {Hamilton Kelly} - 18 May 2005 19:31 GMT
On Saturday, in article
    <KhDXzPHgMehCFwZf@shropshire.plus.com>

> Sir Charles's favourite maxim was: Nobody ever gets lost on a straight
> road. Which, in my experience, is not strictly true.

Indeed, I have an ideal refutation of that maxim here where I live, which
is on a Coxwell Street.  This road commences at a mini-roundabout, at the
confluence of Gravel Walk, Station Road, and Marlborough Street.  (At one
time, it was the major road out of town, towards Swindon, before we were
by-passed in the 1970s.)

Some 500m further up the road, which is quite straight, it ceases to be
Coxwell STREET and instead becomes Coxwell ROAD.  So house numbering, on
both sides, recommences at 1 (on the left) and 2 (on the right).  I have
had deliveries made (or attempted) here for the identically numbered
house in Coxwell Road (memorably once, for a "Bouncy Castle"), and vice
versa, with items of my mail going astray (sometimes for several weeks)
until my neighbour in Coxwell Road manages to effect re-delivery to me.

[Things always seem to go wrong when the Royal Mail employs a new postman
on the "walk".]

Signature

Brian {Hamilton Kelly}                                     bhk@dsl.co.uk
        "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu
        le loisir de la faire plus courte."
                            Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657

Bob Cunningham - 14 May 2005 01:32 GMT
> In alt.usage.english, Bob Cunningham wrote:

> >A history of the Sunderland Football Club at
> >http://www.answers.com/topic/sunderland-a-f-c uses both of the phrases
> >"pipped to the post" and "pipped at the post".

> Ah, but does it mention that Sunderland was a much-derided pioneer of
> commercialism and the buying-in of non-local players?

I've read that at one time one of the nicknames of the
Sunderland club was "the Bank of England" because of the
lavish funds they were expending for players.

Sunderland may have been notable in that respect at one
time, but I suppose their efforts have in later years been
eclipsed by the vast sums of money spent by other clubs for
players they wanted.

Snippets from http://soccernet.espn.go.com/

    Robben joined the Chelsea revolution in July 2004,
    signing from PSV Eindhoven in a £12million deal.

    The media frenzy surrounding Rooney after Euro
    2004 had put huge pressure on Everton, who were
    desperate for him to pen a new five-year contract
    which would net the star £50,000-a-week, to make
    him the highest paid player in the club's history.

Speaking of Rooney before Manchester United acquired him,
one writer says

    Everton at one stage slapped a mammoth £50million
    price tag on the player's head.

    Rooney moved to Old Trafford four hours before the
    deadline passed, for an guaranteed fee of £20million.
    There was additional £7million on the fee, made up
    of Rooney's appearances for United and England,
    the length of his stay at the club and the
    performance of the Red Devils at home and in
    Europe.

In a piece about Frank Lampard:

    Chelsea stepped in to bring him to Stamford Bridge
    in summer 2001, with manager Claudio Ranieri paying
    £11million.

I wonder how much a 160-pound sack of gold would bring these
days.  A very rough ball-park estimate, taking a typical
gold price of $300 per ounce, not knowing for sure what kind
of ounces gold comes in, and rounding off to the nearest
half-million pounds, the cost of a 160-pound sack of gold is
in the neighborhood of a measly half a million pounds.  So
football stars are worth many times more than their weight
in gold.

Somewhere I've seen a summary of the leading amounts paid
for various players, including the holder of the all-time
record.  I'm not finding it again now.
Mickwick - 14 May 2005 12:35 GMT
In alt.usage.english, Bob Cunningham wrote:

[...]

>I wonder how much a 160-pound sack of gold would bring these
>days.  A very rough ball-park estimate, taking a typical
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>football stars are worth many times more than their weight
>in gold.

Plutonium? Fancy wine at restaurant prices?

Signature

Mickwick

Bob Cunningham - 14 May 2005 14:14 GMT
> In alt.usage.english, Bob Cunningham wrote:

> [...]

> >I wonder how much a 160-pound sack of gold would bring these
> >days.  A very rough ball-park estimate, taking a typical
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> >football stars are worth many times more than their weight
> >in gold.

> Plutonium? Fancy wine at restaurant prices?

CPU chips?

How much would 160 pounds of CPU chips cost?

Incidentally, what kind of ounces *is* gold measured in?
Troy?  Avoirdupois?  Something else?
Spehro Pefhany - 14 May 2005 14:45 GMT
>> In alt.usage.english, Bob Cunningham wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>Incidentally, what kind of ounces *is* gold measured in?
>Troy?  Avoirdupois?  Something else?

Troy. One troy ounce is approximately 31.10348 grams, so almost 10%
more than an avoirdupois ounce. Not as much as the 15% difference
between nautical miles and statute miles, but a lot more than the tiny
difference between US survey feet and feet.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
Signature

"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

Odysseus - 14 May 2005 14:46 GMT
<snip>

> I wonder how much a 160-pound sack of gold would bring these
> days.  A very rough ball-park estimate, taking a typical
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> football stars are worth many times more than their weight
> in gold.

Precious metals are weighed in troy ounces, which are one-twelfth of
a troy pound or 480 grains. At $300 U.S. per ounce troy, an
avoirdupois pound (7000 gr.) of gold would be worth $4375, making 160
lb. worth $700,000 -- about £380,000 today.

Signature

Odysseus

Bob Cunningham - 14 May 2005 19:45 GMT

> <snip>

> > I wonder how much a 160-pound sack of gold would bring these
> > days.  A very rough ball-park estimate, taking a typical
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> > football stars are worth many times more than their weight
> > in gold.

> Precious metals are weighed in troy ounces, which are one-twelfth of
> a troy pound or 480 grains. At $300 U.S. per ounce troy, an
> avoirdupois pound (7000 gr.) of gold would be worth $4375, making 160
> lb. worth $700,000 -- about £380,000 today.

Which, rounding to the nearest half million, is -- like I
said -- a half million.
Odysseus - 14 May 2005 21:28 GMT
<snip>

> > [... U.S.] $700,000 -- about £380,000 today.
>
> Which, rounding to the nearest half million, is -- like I
> said -- a half million.

Sure; I wasn't correcting you, but answering what I perceived as an
indirect request for greater precision -- sorry if it seemed
otherwise. Interestingly (or maybe not) the value rounds to half a
million in either USD or GBP.

Signature

Odysseus

David - 14 May 2005 23:27 GMT
> Which, rounding to the nearest half million, is -- like I
> said -- a half million.

Good job 'tweren't less than 250 grand then, innit?

Signature

http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/joachim/09-0.htm
The vet wiped the anal thermometer across
 the brown sleeve of his old tweed jacket...

Ross Howard - 13 May 2005 19:35 GMT
>A history of the Sunderland Football Club at
>http://www.answers.com/topic/sunderland-a-f-c uses both of
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>phrases within a paragraph or so in the same discussion
>without having some different shade of meaning in mind.

You're talking English football journalism here, Bob. It's not strange
*at all*. (If you're not aware of it already, check out the
Colemanballs section at www.private-eye.co.uk for a taster.)

>Is there a difference, however slight, in connotation?

I've only ever heard/read "pipped at the post" and I'd consider "to"
to be an error -- I'd certainly change it to "at" if I saw it when
editing. As for "on", that sounds like a non-native speaker's
utterance.

ObFooty: So now it's "MUSC" -- not OK.

--
Ross Howard
Don Phillipson - 13 May 2005 20:01 GMT
>      Sunderland's first season in their new home yet again
>      involved them being pipped to the post, as they
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>      on the last day of the season, this time missing out
>      on a place in European competition.

The first instance is non-standard usage, the second is
standard usage, as confirmed by the phrase's origin in
horse racing.   A horse pipped at the post is overtaken
by another horse at the end of the race i.e. just before
they reach the winning post (marker for the finishing line.)

It was unwise to apply this phrase from racing to soccer.
Both sports events usually generate a winner but that is
the only similarity.  (No winning post in soccer, no
second and third prizes in soccer.  The names for a
decision with no winner are very different, dead heat
and draw.)

Signature

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Mike Lyle - 13 May 2005 21:09 GMT
>>      Sunderland's first season in their new home yet again
>>      involved them being pipped to the post, as they
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> decision with no winner are very different, dead heat
> and draw.)

But sports writing does make very particular demands. If you aren't
Neville Cardus or that West Indian genius whose name briefly but
shamefully escapes me, it's tough to make readable writing out of
something so formulaic. It's quite commonplace to lift expressions
from one sport into accounts of another, and it's often striking
enough for a daily paper: I'd never condemn it out of hand. I think
"pipped at the post" is quite acceptable, cliché though it is, for a
last-minute reversal in any athletic sport; but I'd want it reserved
for such dramatic occasions.

Signature

Mike.

John Hall - 13 May 2005 21:53 GMT
>But sports writing does make very particular demands. If you aren't
>Neville Cardus or that West Indian genius whose name briefly but
>shamefully escapes me,
<snip>

CLR James?
Signature

John Hall

           "I don't even butter my bread; I consider that cooking."
                                                  Katherine Cebrian

Mike Lyle - 13 May 2005 23:27 GMT
>> But sports writing does make very particular demands. If you
aren't
>> Neville Cardus or that West Indian genius whose name briefly but
>> shamefully escapes me,
> <snip>
>
> CLR James?

Thank you. I blush.

Signature

Mike.

John Dean - 13 May 2005 23:58 GMT
>>      Sunderland's first season in their new home yet again
>>      involved them being pipped to the post, as they
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> decision with no winner are very different, dead heat
> and draw.)

Of course there are winning posts in soccer. The quoted excerpts
actually refer to them - they relate to the season's competition, not
individual matches. Finishing first in the Premiership / Championship /
League / Division or whatever it is / was called at the time is winning.
If you have been leading Division One, as Sunderland were, and are
overtaken at the end of the season, you have been pipped at the post.
Of course there are second and third prizes. In the Premiership, for
example, your position in the final table determines which European
competitions you are eligible for next season.
In the Championship (ex-First Division, ex-Division One) second place
wins you promotion, third place wins you entry to the play-offs for
promotion.

Signature

John Dean
Oxford

rbaniste1@shaw.ca - 13 May 2005 20:26 GMT
>This seems to say that "pipped at the post" and "pipped on
>the post" have the same meaning, but how about "pipped to
>the post"?  

Pipped 'at' the post is easier on _my_ ear than pipped 'on' the post,
and pipped 'to' the post is "impossible".
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.