The FIFA World Cup 2022 has started and Apostagolos.com has returned to the ancient philosophical question of whether the heavens really do govern human affairs by conducting a study of the astrological profiles of the world’s top football players (tracing all the way back to the first tournament in 1930).
The results of their analysis seem to defy statistical explanation. Starting off with the remarkable fact that:
• Aquarius is by far the most common star sign amongst the historical squad players - 840 past players have been an Aquarius. This curious link between the game and the sign has been noted before, with astrologers hazarding that it might be something due to the symbolism of Aquarius. Specifically, that of an individual separating from the crowd and being different, while at the same time linking to everyone on an equal, humanitarian level. Aquarian’s are supposed to produce unexpected flourishes too - the two traits seeming ideally suited to the game of football which combines teamwork with that goal-scoring moment.What about this year’s tournament, though? Again, Aquarius is the most common star sign in 2022 - 95 squad players are an Aquarians. Pisces with 85 players is the second most common star sign but now Gemini is the third most common stars sign - 81 current players are heavenly twins. And Libra is the least common star sign amongst the players with only 53 players being a Libra from the 2022 group.
• Second finding is that Pisces, with 835 players, is the second most common star sign. Astrologers, being literal folk at heart, usually predict Pisceans will seek watery sports, but there is an aspect to Pisces that makes them valuable in a soccer team, which is their selflessness. Pisceans are also creative and make strategic plays that others can convert into goals ..
• Capricorn is the third most common stars sign - 769 past squad players were Capricorns, a sign associated with being good team players.
• On the other hand, Sagittarius is the least common star sign amongst the players - with ‘only’ 649 squad players to their credit. Why might that be? Maybe because traditionally the Archer loves to feel free and resist rules. Football, unique for its yellow cards and referees, ain’t their game.
ALL WORLD CUPS DATA
Number of players / Star Sign
840 Aquarius
835 Pisces
769 Capricorn
749 Aries
726 Taurus
722 Virgo
697 Gemini
695 Cancer
693 Scorpio
685 Libra
683 Leo
649 Sagittarius
• World Cup Players have been analyzed since 1930 until this year’s tournament
• Where Date of Birth wasn’t available, the player was omitted from the analysis
3 comments:
As we all know, there has been a history of upsets in Football World Cups over the decades. Upsets being part of the verve of sports. This year’s upsets have been at least equally notable, numbering these as of the date of this comment: Saudi Arabia upset Argentina, Japan upset Germany, Ghana upset South Korea, United States stalemated England, Morocco upset Belgium, Costa Rica upset Japan. And counting, no doubt! (Recognizing, of course, that the definition of ‘upset’ is highly disputable among nations’ fans.) So, I wonder if anyone has considered breaking down the star signs of the players on the teams being upset and the teams doing the upsetting. That might tell an interesting story, too, to see if there’s a correlation between signs and upsets. (Meanwhile, I'm struck by how interestingly ‘deterministic’ all this business about star signs seems!)
Perig adds (by email) that we should add in the fact that Aquarius is one of, or even 'the', rarest sign! So there's a statistical relationship that at least hints at some unknown - and 'hopefully' celestial - influence. But to ask that the success or otherwise of particular teams in particular matches reflect their zodiacal makeup (Keith's comment) seems to be presenting something ridiculous in order to discredit the whole approach. But I think the history of science shows that mysteries should be welcomed, as within them lies new insights.
Actually, to be clear, Martin, my aim was neither to “present something ridiculous” nor to “discredit the whole approach.” It’s a pity that was the takeaway. I’m unfamiliar with the zodiacal makeup of sports teams, and what such makeup might signify. But, yes, I found the subject matter at least interesting. So, out of genuine curiosity, my intent was to ask about what I thought might be a natural extension of the essay’s theme regarding players’ star signs. I’d prefer to think that my question was not so much “ridiculous” and not intending to “discredit,” but rather nothing more than reflecting my unfamiliarity with the subject of zodiacal makeup.
Post a Comment