PDA

View Full Version : Soccer Questions.



JunkBarMan
09-13-2005, 07:00 PM
Why doesn't the clock ever seem to stop in this sport? Doesn't this take away a whole area of strategy from the teams by not allowing them to time out at key points to devise an attack or defense.


Also, a player is allowed to step or run out of bounds with the ball as long as the ball stays in bounds? Please explain.

Liverpool seems to be pretty good, at least on this day. They have scored 2 goals within the first 14 minutes of the match.

Peerzy
09-13-2005, 07:06 PM
Time is added on at the end of each half. If the team delay time to much they get yellow cards. Added time is the time that has been wasted by injuries and such. Usually it's about 3 or 4 minutes.

Yeah a player can go anywhere it just matters where the ball is.

Liverpool arn't playing a great team to be honest and should be expected to win by a good 2 or 3 goals.

manker
09-13-2005, 07:44 PM
Why doesn't the clock ever seem to stop in this sport? Doesn't this take away a whole area of strategy from the teams by not allowing them to time out at key points to devise an attack or defense.All that sort of stuff is done in team talks before the game - or in the fifteen minute half time break.

They're full time professional players so there is no need to disrupt the spectacle for the fans when they've all week to learn how to react to the nuances of the opposition and possible game scenarios. A sense of how to think on their feet without being spoon-fed by a coach is instilled into soccer players from an early age.

The only reason American sports have time-outs and extra breaks is for commercials. Which kinda sucks if you're a fan, but is great if you're a marketing executive ... I guess.

http://img309.imageshack.us/img309/816/dabs5sy.gif

Busyman
09-13-2005, 08:18 PM
Why doesn't the clock ever seem to stop in this sport? Doesn't this take away a whole area of strategy from the teams by not allowing them to time out at key points to devise an attack or defense.

Also, a player is allowed to step or run out of bounds with the ball as long as the ball stays in bounds? Please explain.

Liverpool seems to be pretty good, at least on this day. They have scored 2 goals within the first 14 minutes of the match.
Soccer is a little more anarchistic than others but the bouts of finesse that seep through are sweet.

I can't say whether or not it takes from the strategy but keep in mind that it's a low scoring sport but so is NFL football sometimes. (recently the Redskins scored just 3 field goals and Chicago scored 1 touchdown :dry: )

Soccer and hockey are similar in their anarchy.

Soccer players still try set plays but they are called on the fly.

manker
09-13-2005, 08:22 PM
I can't say whether or not it takes from the strategy but keep in mind that it's a low scoring sportIt's the strategy and finesse that makes it low scoring, as odd as it sounds. While the aim is to score and strategy is developed for just this purpose, defensive strategy is just as important.

The less organised the soccer (less strategy and finesse), the more goals are scored. For example, in the league I play in, scores in excess of ten goals are not that uncommon, when kids play, you get a goal every five minutes or so.

Busyman
09-13-2005, 08:40 PM
I can't say whether or not it takes from the strategy but keep in mind that it's a low scoring sportIt's the strategy and finesse that makes it low scoring, as odd as it sounds. While the aim is to score and strategy is developed for just this purpose, defensive strategy is just as important.

The less organised the soccer (less strategy and finesse), the more goals are scored. For example, in the league I play in, scores in excess of ten goals are not that uncommon, when kids play, you get a goal every five minutes or so.
That is weird.

Although basketball is a different, pee wee basketball (and a little older) tend to be low scoring. This might be in part 'cause basic basketball mechanics are a little harder to pick-up than soccer. I could ask a younger fella to shoot a three-pointer with no defensive player on him and make it and he probably won't. If I asked a younger soccer player to kick a ball (20 feet away) into the goal under the same conditions, he'll most likely make it.

Ironically, I'm teaching my 4 year-old soccer and basketball. :huh: Unfortunately, the only thing she can pick up on basketball is shooting into the hoop with limited success. :(

In soccer, she's picking up dribbling pretty good (no real finesse yet) and striking.

Peerzy
09-13-2005, 08:52 PM
The games are different through, in basketball you don't have a goalkeeper do you, plus even with a man infront of you a lot of the time you can still score as the hope is above head height. Football has a goalkeeper who has an advantage over other players as he could use his hands. So unless your a young budding Frank Lampard or Wayne Rooney is you hit it from 20 yards chances are the keeper is going to get something on it, if not catch it.

JunkBarMan
09-13-2005, 08:54 PM
The only reason American sports have time-outs and extra breaks is for commercials. Which kinda sucks if you're a fan, but is great if you're a marketing executive ... I guess.



Every chance you get to see a negative about America, huh manker? Just keep on trolling. Your statement is so inane, it's ridiculous.

No one denies marketing is a big part of American sports these days, but damn when your payroll is over $200 million, someone has to pay for it.

But time outs are not there solely for Pepsi ads, sorry to ruin your day mankar. :dry:

What seemed strange to me, hence my curious question, was that when there was a "corner kick", (not sure if that is the correct term even), it seemed pretty obvious what the attacking team was going to do.

And, with the fact that Liverpool is a superior team, it would seem to me that for 30 seconds time, Betis would benefit from a short time out to go over a play other then the normal stack 4-5 guys in front of the goal and kick it to one and hope he heads or kicks it in. Betis had few scoring chances up until this point, so to me it seemed logical to take advantage while your chances were limited.

40 scoring chances or 2, if you make 2 of 40 or 2 of 2 and win, what's the difference? When you get your chances, make the most of them. So take a 30 second time out, let another Pepsi add run that pays your supporting team marketing fees, and increase your chances to score a bit.

While this would give the defense a chance to go over a defense, it would still leave them in the dark as to what set play your were running.

manker
09-13-2005, 09:08 PM
Yeah, I threw that in there because I was replying to you. I knew you'd bite. Clearly time-outs weren't devised soley for Pepsi but the marketing execs have perpetuated the fragmentation of the sport(s).

A 30 second time out would do nothing with regard a corner kick, as I said earlier - the players are already well drilled in this facet. They don't need a coach to tell them what to do. No need to break the continuity.

There are basically four options from a corner; play it short, play it to the far post, play it to the near post and play it to the edge of the box. A time-out where the TV coverage goes to an advert would be annoying for those watching on TV and would spoil the atmosphere for the fans in the stadium.

No-one likes breaks in the sporting action. Not even Americans -- or am I wrong, I mean, it would give a great opportunity to grab a hot dog and a pretzel or twelve.

manker
09-13-2005, 09:17 PM
It's the strategy and finesse that makes it low scoring, as odd as it sounds. While the aim is to score and strategy is developed for just this purpose, defensive strategy is just as important.

The less organised the soccer (less strategy and finesse), the more goals are scored. For example, in the league I play in, scores in excess of ten goals are not that uncommon, when kids play, you get a goal every five minutes or so.
That is weird.

Although basketball is a different, pee wee basketball (and a little older) tend to be low scoring. This might be in part 'cause basic basketball mechanics are a little harder to pick-up than soccer. I could ask a younger fella to shoot a three-pointer with no defensive player on him and make it and he probably won't. If I asked a younger soccer player to kick a ball (20 feet away) into the goal under the same conditions, he'll most likely make it.

Ironically, I'm teaching my 4 year-old soccer and basketball. :huh: Unfortunately, the only thing she can pick up on basketball is shooting into the hoop with limited success. :(

In soccer, she's picking up dribbling pretty good (no real finesse yet) and striking.I guess it's easier in soccer to train people to stop goals, there is no restriction on double teaming and the contact thing ... ya know.

Offensive talent is there right from the start (dribbling, shooting) and cannot be taught, as such, you'll either be good at that when you're a kid, or you never will - but defensive tactics are easy to teach (tackling, positioning) and get taught with greater proficiency the higher up the football ladder you get, hence the abundance of goals at lower levels.

A mediocre defender coached at a high level can prevent a highly skilled attacker from dribbling the ball around him 9 times out of ten. [See John Terry and Ronaldo for an example of this. (:P @ Peerzy)] This is also a reason for the lower scoring as coaching gets better.

JunkBarMan
09-13-2005, 09:22 PM
Wow, doesn't this sport sound exciting. The more athletic and gifted players are, the more finesse and strategic the games are, which in turn leads to the same plays being done over and over and over....

About the only thing that comes to mind that deserves any recognition in this sport is when a guy gives another man a good kick and then throws his arms up as if to say "What did I do?". At least that has never been done before.

From the sounds of it, this is the most boring sport around. Just keep rehashing the same stuff every game. No wonder Americans don't really care about this thing as a whole, its still stuck filled with British pride and borish rules.

maebach
09-13-2005, 09:24 PM
heres a difference:

basketball - 95% black people
hockey: - 99% white people
soccer - 60% white people

Is that a difference between sports?

manker
09-13-2005, 09:31 PM
Wow, doesn't this sport sound exciting. The more athletic and gifted players are, the more finesse and strategic the games are, which in turn leads to the same plays being done over and over and over....

About the only thing that comes to mind that deserves any recognition in this sport is when a guy gives another man a good kick and then throws his arms up as if to say "What did I do?". At least that has never been done before.

From the sounds of it, this is the most boring sport around. Just keep rehashing the same stuff every game. No wonder Americans don't really care about this thing as a whole, its still stuck filled with British pride and borish rules.:lol:

It's the sport played and watched by the most people. It's not the rest of the world's fault if Americans don't seem to get it. We've tried but you prefer high scoring games.

It's no loss, really. We'll keep loving it, you keep thinking that the minority view, of it being boring, is the correct one.

We'll keep laughing and playing the game which captures the imagination of more people worldwide than any other.

Rat Faced
09-13-2005, 09:34 PM
No one denies marketing is a big part of American sports these days, but damn when your payroll is over $200 million, someone has to pay for it.

Real Madrids payroll was over $140 million 2 years ago...

They dont need timeouts...

I think the timeouts are to give the American players a breather 'coz of all the armour they're wearing :P

manker
09-13-2005, 09:34 PM
heres a difference:

basketball - 95% black people
hockey: - 99% white people
soccer - 60% white people

Is that a difference between sports?Did you just make those up :D

Soccer is not played by 60% white people - What about all those folk in S. America. White folk playing the game are in the minority.

Hockey is played by a lot of white people because of the places it's popular. Basketball ... it's a cultural thing, mang.

manker
09-13-2005, 09:45 PM
No one denies marketing is a big part of American sports these days, but damn when your payroll is over $200 million, someone has to pay for it.

Real Madrids payroll was over $140 million 2 years ago...

They dont need timeouts...

I think the timeouts are to give the American players a breather 'coz of all the armour they're wearing :PChelsea's payroll is way more than US$200million this year. Man United's is approaching that figure.

I suspect that Real Madrid's and Barcelona's are higher than both, but I duno.

I think that NFL needs some time outs because of the intricacies of some of the plays - they're just mental ... and what you said :P

I don't think Basketball needs them so much but stand to be corrected on that, I really don't know what the coach does while the ads are on.

Peerzy
09-13-2005, 10:43 PM
Terry is paid £90K (£6 million a year or so) a week, Beckham and the Real Madrid co are paid over £160K a week. American's who play Basketball earn crazy money, like £20 million a year. I suspect it's the same for that game where Americans put on 3 inches of thick army armor and crash into each other as fast as they can.

@Manker - Our special one (Teh Mourinho) has never lost to Manchester Utd, Le Arsenal and another 15 teams in the premiership. Chelsea pwn'd Teh ManUSA 2-1 at your own ground, and again 3 - 1 on the second to last match of last season, with our reserve team pretty much. I remember teh Man Utd played did a lap of honor and Mourinho laughed and said if they had done that (lose badly and do a lap of honor) in Portugal they would have had shit thrown at them :lol:

@ Teh Stupid Americans - Please refrain from posting comments on subjects which most of you know fuck all about and start flaming, i could go on for hours about why American Football is shit (and yes i do know the rules and have played it) but i don't. TBH i don't give a shit what little arguement your having with Manker in a different thread, no need to start bashing a sport just cause your one is shit.

manker
09-13-2005, 10:52 PM
@ Teh Stupid Americans - Please refrain from posting comments on subjects which most of you know fuck all about and start flaming, i could go on for hours about why American Football is shit (and yes i do know the rules and have played it) but i don't. TBH i don't give a shit what little arguement your having with Manker in a different thread, no need to start bashing a sport just cause your one is shit.I don't know why he thinks I bash Americans, I hardly ever do. I think he's confused because I use big words.

Anyhow:
@Manker - Our special one (Teh Mourinho) has never lost to Manchester Utd, Le Arsenal and another 15 teams in the premiership. Chelsea pwn'd Teh ManUSA 2-1 at your own ground, and again 3 - 1 on the second to last match of last season, with our reserve team pretty much. I remember teh Man Utd played did a lap of honor and Mourinho laughed and said if they had done that (lose badly and do a lap of honor) in Portugal they would have had shit thrown at them :lol: Feck awf :D

I read a report in an Accounancy magazine on Chelski quite recently that their accountants, KPMG, are unofficially really worried about being associated with Chelsea because if that Russian oil seller pulls out, they'd go bankrupt quicker than Leeds.

Hope no-one pisses him off :lookaround

Busyman
09-13-2005, 11:16 PM
Wow, doesn't this sport sound exciting. The more athletic and gifted players are, the more finesse and strategic the games are, which in turn leads to the same plays being done over and over and over....

About the only thing that comes to mind that deserves any recognition in this sport is when a guy gives another man a good kick and then throws his arms up as if to say "What did I do?". At least that has never been done before.

From the sounds of it, this is the most boring sport around. Just keep rehashing the same stuff every game. No wonder Americans don't really care about this thing as a whole, its still stuck filled with British pride and borish rules.
Damn dude that's a little much. :unsure:

I like all sports to an extent and watch soccer on occasion (as well as Rugby Union). I think it's kinda boring too but don't insult the British for it. :ermm:

Busyman
09-13-2005, 11:27 PM
Wow, doesn't this sport sound exciting. The more athletic and gifted players are, the more finesse and strategic the games are, which in turn leads to the same plays being done over and over and over....

About the only thing that comes to mind that deserves any recognition in this sport is when a guy gives another man a good kick and then throws his arms up as if to say "What did I do?". At least that has never been done before.

From the sounds of it, this is the most boring sport around. Just keep rehashing the same stuff every game. No wonder Americans don't really care about this thing as a whole, its still stuck filled with British pride and borish rules.:lol:

It's the sport played and watched by the most people. It's not the rest of the world's fault if Americans don't seem to get it. We've tried but you prefer high scoring games.
Not really. We watch hockey and NFL football on a goal basis, it is about the same. A touchdown just happens to be 6 points and a field goal, 3.
I mentioned before that shit game I froze my ass off for where both teams scored 1 touchdown and the game ended in a tie. :angry:

Busyman
09-13-2005, 11:30 PM
Terry is paid £90K (£6 million a year or so) a week, Beckham and the Real Madrid co are paid over £160K a week. American's who play Basketball earn crazy money, like £20 million a year. I suspect it's the same for that game where Americans put on 3 inches of thick army armor and crash into each other as fast as they can.

@Manker - Our special one (Teh Mourinho) has never lost to Manchester Utd, Le Arsenal and another 15 teams in the premiership. Chelsea pwn'd Teh ManUSA 2-1 at your own ground, and again 3 - 1 on the second to last match of last season, with our reserve team pretty much. I remember teh Man Utd played did a lap of honor and Mourinho laughed and said if they had done that (lose badly and do a lap of honor) in Portugal they would have had shit thrown at them :lol:

@ Teh Stupid Americans - Please refrain from posting comments on subjects which most of you know fuck all about and start flaming, i could go on for hours about why American Football is shit (and yes i do know the rules and have played it) but i don't. TBH i don't give a shit what little arguement your having with Manker in a different thread, no need to start bashing a sport just cause your one is shit.
If you don't give a shit, why post? Oh 'cause it's this thread? :lol: :lol:

Second off, anyone can bash whatever sport they like. :ermm:

Busyman
09-13-2005, 11:36 PM
No one denies marketing is a big part of American sports these days, but damn when your payroll is over $200 million, someone has to pay for it.

Real Madrids payroll was over $140 million 2 years ago...

They dont need timeouts...

I think the timeouts are to give the American players a breather 'coz of all the armour they're wearing :P
I think one difference is that in soccer you can pace yourself but in the NFL you are expected to go hard every single play. No one can slag off or could fuck the whole play up. Now in basketball, you can breathers all the time. Sometimes you'll one player that can dismantle a team.

All the other defensive players have to do in some instances is just stay near the man they're guarding and other offensive players sometimes watch a person like Michael Jordan do most of the work.

Speaking of timeouts....I really hate the rule that allows a team to advance the ball past half-court on a timeout (under a minute). They put this rule in to make games closer for last second shots but it seems unfair.

Ironically........it does make games exciting I'm sorry to say. Still unfair. :snooty: .....especially if hurts my team. :lookaroun

JPaul
09-13-2005, 11:52 PM
Why doesn't the clock ever seem to stop in this sport? Doesn't this take away a whole area of strategy from the teams by not allowing them to time out at key points to devise an attack or defense.


Also, a player is allowed to step or run out of bounds with the ball as long as the ball stays in bounds? Please explain.

Liverpool seems to be pretty good, at least on this day. They have scored 2 goals within the first 14 minutes of the match.
1. Because that's the way it's played. No.

2. Because the player leaving the field does not constitute the game stopping. Done.

3. Statement, does not require an answer.

DarthInsinuate
09-14-2005, 12:10 AM
Offensive talent is there right from the start (dribbling, shooting) and cannot be taught, as such, you'll either be good at that when you're a kid, or you never will - but defensive tactics are easy to teach (tackling, positioning)
i disagree there. Defensive positioning can be taught but it's much more instinctive then attacking off-the-ball runs. Strikers just have the simple job of running into space

also didn't they consider splitting a football match into quarters to increase advertising time and cause all sorts of mathematical problems?

JunkBarMan
09-14-2005, 12:54 AM
heres a difference:

basketball - 95% black people
hockey: - 99% white people
soccer - 60% white people

Is that a difference between sports?

Please don't post some rubish such as this without some sort of factual data backing it up.



Chelsea's payroll is way more than US$200million this year. Man United's is approaching that figure.

I suspect that Real Madrid's and Barcelona's are higher than both, but I duno.


What is the point of this? Are you trying to compare team prices based on the fact American Football, for example, has timeouts and some are based on selling ads and I justified that by saying somone has to pay for it?

Come now, last time I checked soccer players were running around with company sponsers all over their jerseys. Take a look around the arena and what do you see on that barrier used to keep all the fanatics from killing the opposition?

It's the same result, just done differently. If you want to argue timeouts can make a sport not as exciting or however you would like to state it, then yeah I agree with that statement.

I just don't see the basis for this argument, sorry.

Besides, if there wasn't money to made in this game with these sponsors, I am sure the Malcolm Glazer wouldn't own both an NFL team and Manchester United, or parts of them.


Damn dude that's a little much.

I like all sports to an extent and watch soccer on occasion (as well as Rugby Union). I think it's kinda boring too but don't insult the British for it.

Yeah I admit it was a bit much.

There wasn't a need for the backhanded comments made about Americans either. Obviously those are allowed as it's the norm with some people, unlike British bashing.


@ Teh Stupid Americans - Please refrain from posting comments on subjects which most of you know fuck all about and start flaming, i could go on for hours about why American Football is shit (and yes i do know the rules and have played it) but i don't. TBH i don't give a shit what little arguement your having with Manker in a different thread, no need to start bashing a sport just cause your one is shit.

Please reread this post and realise who is the shortsighted one, and then come back with something other then obvious American attacks.

If you want to bash American's sports, go right ahead.

I don't have any argument with anyone in any threads, other then maybe this one.

If manker and I don't see eye to eye, that's ok, and as an adult, (take notes kids), I don't hold grudges. People mistake arguments for hatred or dislike, which is not true.

Your correlation between the hurricane thread and this one is way off track, but keep thinking as you like.

:) Just for the record, a touchdown isn't 7 points, it's 6. A team has an option of going for 1 extra point or 2 after they score in the endzone.

A field goal is indeed 3 points, so I'll give ya that one.

JunkBarMan
09-14-2005, 12:58 AM
One last question, what's the point of the "Real" before some of the names?

Are there "Fake" Madrid teams out there?

Seems stupid, but with how obsessive many people can be about the sport, it doesn't strike me outside the realm of possibility.

Busyman
09-14-2005, 01:17 AM
The games are different through,
Nahhh your shittin' me. You like switchin' my words around to make a new sentence? :ermm:
Although basketball is a different


in basketball you don't have a goalkeeper do you, plus even with a man infront of you a lot of the time you can still score as the hope is above head height Football has a goalkeeper who has an advantage over other players as he could use his hands. So unless your a young budding Frank Lampard or Wayne Rooney is you hit it from 20 yards chances are the keeper is going to get something on it, if not catch it.
No goalkeeper but the goal is just little bigger than the ball and the court size is smaller than a field. :dry:

With no other defensive players, basic mechanics of soccer are very easy to pick up which lends to it's popularity and longevity. Also there really isn't any special equipment needed to play.

maebach
09-14-2005, 01:46 AM
'Real(royal)' in Real Madrid is given to them because they were blesed by King Alfonso XIII of Spain June of 1920.

I love wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Madrid

Barbarossa
09-14-2005, 08:49 AM
Funny thread! :lol: :lol: this should be in funny stuff...

Here are my points.

1. 95% of basketball players are very very tall.

2. "Real" means Royal.

3. Soccer skills, even offensive skills, can be taught.. Natural talent IS important, but Brazilians don't come out of the womb and can immediately "step-over" as soon as they can walk.

4. "Added Time Multi-Ball" is not such a bad idea when you think about it.. :P

manker
09-14-2005, 11:19 AM
Chelsea's payroll is way more than US$200million this year. Man United's is approaching that figure.

I suspect that Real Madrid's and Barcelona's are higher than both, but I duno.


What is the point of this? Are you trying to compare team prices based on the fact American Football, for example, has timeouts and some are based on selling ads and I justified that by saying somone has to pay for it?

Come now, last time I checked soccer players were running around with company sponsers all over their jerseys. Take a look around the arena and what do you see on that barrier used to keep all the fanatics from killing the opposition?

It's the same result, just done differently. If you want to argue timeouts can make a sport not as exciting or however you would like to state it, then yeah I agree with that statement.

I just don't see the basis for this argument, sorry.

Besides, if there wasn't money to made in this game with these sponsors, I am sure the Malcolm Glazer wouldn't own both an NFL team and Manchester United, or parts of them.I totally ignored it when YOU brought it up, the fact that someone has to pay for the huge salaries, because it's not an important point. My comments there were chit-chat to RF and I drew no conclusion from them, I had recently read a financial report on Chelsea, so knew their payroll and guessed at the other three. Just passing the time.

That's not the basis of my argument. You know that because I had written it - yet chose to ignore all my other remarks to focus on a post I made to a different member. Poor show.

My point is that time-outs would be completely unnecessary in football and I think that the time-outs in basketball cause unnecessary fragmentation to the game, from the fans point of view.

I also intimated that soccer is the most popular game in the world so to call it boring is indicative of your own non-appreciation of the game rather than the game itself.

manker
09-14-2005, 11:26 AM
Offensive talent is there right from the start (dribbling, shooting) and cannot be taught, as such, you'll either be good at that when you're a kid, or you never will - but defensive tactics are easy to teach (tackling, positioning)
i disagree there. Defensive positioning can be taught but it's much more instinctive then attacking off-the-ball runs. Strikers just have the simple job of running into space

also didn't they consider splitting a football match into quarters to increase advertising time and cause all sorts of mathematical problems?Yeah they considered it when the World Cup was in the US. Well, American advertisers lobbied the American soccer officials into considering it - FIFA told them to feck awf.

What you did earlier was not disagree with my statement but bring another slant on things. I quite agree that it is easy to run into space.

What I said that the ability to strike a ball with swerve and precision and having the abilty to make turns and feints are innate and can only be coached to a certain extent. This is in marked contrast with defensive abilities, such as tackling and positioning - which can be coached to competence in even mediocre players using systems like zonal marking.

You cannot coach a player to have better balance and balance is more important when the ball is at your feet (attacking) than when you're trying to retreive the ball (defending).

manker
09-14-2005, 11:30 AM
:lol:

It's the sport played and watched by the most people. It's not the rest of the world's fault if Americans don't seem to get it. We've tried but you prefer high scoring games.
Not really. We watch hockey and NFL football on a goal basis, it is about the same. A touchdown just happens to be 6 points and a field goal, 3.
I mentioned before that shit game I froze my ass off for where both teams scored 1 touchdown and the game ended in a tie. :angry:Yeah, I should have mentioned the draw aspect.

It was difficult to write more because I was laughing so hard at Junky's soccer appraisal.

manker
09-14-2005, 11:35 AM
3. Soccer skills, even offensive skills, can be taught.. Natural talent IS important, but Brazilians don't come out of the womb and can immediately "step-over" as soon as they can walk.No-one is saying that they cannot, simply that they are much more difficult to coach to a high level in mediocre players than defensive skills. It's a widely accepted fact.

Unless you have another explanation as to why kids' football usually ends up with scorelines akin to 24-10, amateur football regularly yields ten goals per game - yet the average in the Premiership is circa 2 goals a game and the scoring in International soccer finals is even lower.

Barbarossa
09-14-2005, 11:47 AM
3. Soccer skills, even offensive skills, can be taught.. Natural talent IS important, but Brazilians don't come out of the womb and can immediately "step-over" as soon as they can walk.No-one is saying that they cannot, simply that they are much more difficult to coach to a high level in mediocre players than defensive skills. It's a widely accepted fact.

Can I quote you?


Offensive talent is there right from the start (dribbling, shooting) and cannot be taught, as such, you'll either be good at that when you're a kid, or you never will




Unless you have another explanation as to why kids' football usually ends up with scorelines akin to 24-10, amateur football regularly yields ten goals per game - yet the average in the Premiership is circa 2 goals a game and the scoring in International soccer finals is even lower.

I've watched my 7 year old nephew play kids football.. 12 kids running around after the ball like a flock of sheep, all the dads yelling from the sidelines.. eventually the ball just goes into the net of it's own accord... :P

Amateur football - generally the best players want to play up front, their enthusiastic but clueless mates get made to play in defence, hence the high scores...

I understand what you're saying about training and defensive tactics and positioning and formations being things that must be taught, but dribbling, shooting, crossing... that can be taught as well, assuming there is some talent there in the first place. That's why we have football academies...

I couldn't dribble for toffee as a kid, but in my twenties I learnt a basic "dropping the shoulder" technique, and worked out how to take the ball round people. Now if only I could shoot straight... :cry:

manker
09-14-2005, 12:11 PM
Can I quote you?I said 'as such'.

Meaning that it cannot be taught in the same way as defensive skills.

It's all about the balance, mang.


So far as learning to dribble - sure, you can learn to drop the shoulder but if you didn't have the natural balance to begin with, then you'll suck at it.

Shooting - Beckham strikes the ball now in exactly the same way he did as an eight year old - it's been tuned a little but my point is that I doubt John Terry uses the same tackling technique now as he did back then.

I'll reiterate; it's easier to coach defensive skills, such as tackling and positioning, to a high level in mediocre players than it is to coach offensive skills, such as dribbling and shooting, to a high level in mediocre players.

Example: Rooney is an exceptional, genius, player coached at the highest level. Richard Dunne is a mediocre player coached to a fairly high level yet he completely shut Rooney out last weekend. Rooney is stopped from scoring by mediocre players more times than he isn't.

This is the reason that goals are fewer the higher standard that you play.

peat moss
09-14-2005, 12:34 PM
One thing to keep in mind about childrens sports is the cost . Soccer equipment is cheap compared to football. hockey and even baseball .

Busyman
09-14-2005, 02:09 PM
One thing to keep in mind about childrens sports is the cost . Soccer equipment is cheap compared to football. hockey and even baseball .
When I was a kid, I played soccer often but hated basketball.

Soccer requires a field, ball, and goal net. Open fields are ubiquitous. No special equipment to wear.

All other sports either require special equipment to wear or special facilities.

Ironically, I played tackle football with no equipment (as everyone did).
Only organized football required equipment.

Barbarossa
09-14-2005, 02:28 PM
"Soccer" requires nothing more than a couple of piles of coats to use for goalposts, and something to kick.

Preferably round. ;)

Busyman
09-14-2005, 02:34 PM
"Soccer" requires nothing more than a couple of piles of coats to use for goalposts, and something to kick.

Preferably round. ;)
When I used to play in Silver Spring, MD, we drove 4 poles in the ground.

I loved making the Spanish fellas fall from my misdirection. :lol: :lol: I was the only black guy that played with them.

JPaul
09-14-2005, 05:31 PM
"Soccer" requires nothing more than a couple of piles of coats to use for goalposts, and something to kick.

Preferably round. ;)
When I used to play in Silver Spring, MD, we drove 4 poles in the ground.

I loved making the Spanish fellas fall from my misdirection. :lol: :lol: I was the only black guy that played with them.
A mixed game you had going there, a load of chaps from Spain, a chap from America and four from Poland.

Pity you had to be so violent regarding the Polish chaps.

Busyman
09-14-2005, 06:42 PM
When I used to play in Silver Spring, MD, we drove 4 poles in the ground.

I loved making the Spanish fellas fall from my misdirection. :lol: :lol: I was the only black guy that played with them.
A mixed game you had going there, a load of chaps from Spain, a chap from America and four from Poland.

Pity you had to be so violent regarding the Polish chaps.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

maebach
09-14-2005, 11:43 PM
Seems stupid, but with how obsessive many people can be about the sport, it doesn't strike me outside the realm of possibility.

don't them rednecks have tail-gate parties in the parking lot before NFL games?

Busyman
09-14-2005, 11:58 PM
Seems stupid, but with how obsessive many people can be about the sport, it doesn't strike me outside the realm of possibility.

don't them rednecks have tail-gate parties in the parking lot before NFL games?
Fuck you calling a redneck? :angry:

Tailgating is actually quite nice. I've only done it about 4 times.

Cheese
09-15-2005, 12:15 AM
I hate soccer atm.

My national team sucks, my club team are doing shite and my local team are doing even shitter.

The only "American sport" I really enjoy is the wrestling.

maebach
09-15-2005, 12:38 AM
I hate soccer atm.

My national team sucks, my club team are doing shite and my local team are doing even shitter.

The only "American sport" I really enjoy is the wrestling.

if your thinking of fake wrestling like that WWF stuff, I think its stupid. It's repetitive and you can tell the matches are fixed.

Cheese
09-15-2005, 01:30 AM
I hate soccer atm.

My national team sucks, my club team are doing shite and my local team are doing even shitter.

The only "American sport" I really enjoy is the wrestling.

if your thinking of fake wrestling like that WWF stuff, I think its stupid. It's repetitive and you can tell the matches are fixed.

By the fact that you call it WWF leads me to believe you have very little knowledge of the "sport".

btw I'd wager that more people in the UK watch WWE than watch baseball, basketball, hockey or American Football.

maebach
09-15-2005, 01:36 AM
if your thinking of fake wrestling like that WWF stuff, I think its stupid. It's repetitive and you can tell the matches are fixed.

By the fact that you call it WWF leads me to believe you have very litle knowledge of the "sport" so just be quiet spammer.

I'm not a spammer because I use to be a huge fan, untill it started getting riduculous, Steve Austin stealing Angle's gold medals etc etc etc. There is a point where you know it's too fake to watch.

BTW, Busyman your inbox is full, I tried sending you a PM

Cheese
09-15-2005, 01:47 AM
By the fact that you call it WWF leads me to believe you have very litle knowledge of the "sport" so just be quiet spammer.

I'm not a spammer because I use to be a huge fan, untill it started getting riduculous, Steve Austin stealing Angle's gold medals etc etc etc. There is a point where you know it's too fake to watch.

BTW, Busyman your inbox is full, I tried sending you a PM

I edited the spammer bit out (I decided (too late) that there was no need to bring my dislike of your spamming tenedencies into the discussion and my mention of WWE was pure roddage so I should effect a less gitty tone).

The fact that it is fake is not lost on anyone but children and mentals. It is a bit of OTT fun, like a soap opera with fisticuffs. And some of the performers are truly talented (Rey Mysterio Jr), entertaining (Chris Jericho) or just plain cool (SCSA).

The fake argument makes no sense to me when you consider that most television is just that fake. Star Trek, Lost, Fox News, etc are all fake. So what's the problem with fiction all of a sudden?

maebach
09-15-2005, 01:55 AM
Those are shows, for a sport to have athletes steal from each other like medals, wives, children etc etc. is too unneccessary dont you think? Just to provoke someone into a fight? But I do understand what you mean about it being entertaining, I use to love undertaker's choke slam and tombstone. Let's not forget the divas :naughty:

Busyman
09-15-2005, 02:01 AM
I hate soccer atm.

My national team sucks, my club team are doing shite and my local team are doing even shitter.

The only "American sport" I really enjoy is the wrestling.
Really? I like wrestling when I was a kid watching it with my great grandmother in South Carolina.

Now though, I see it as being so childish (and of course fake as hell).

Cheese
09-15-2005, 02:02 AM
Those are shows, for a sport to have athletes steal from each other like medals, wives, children etc etc. is too unneccessary dont you think?

Would make sport more interesting.

"Tiger Woods is about to sink this to win the Open...but what's this? It's Sergio Garcia, he's got a steel chair...bah gawd! He split him right open!"

Busyman
09-15-2005, 02:04 AM
I'm not a spammer because I use to be a huge fan, untill it started getting riduculous, Steve Austin stealing Angle's gold medals etc etc etc. There is a point where you know it's too fake to watch.

BTW, Busyman your inbox is full, I tried sending you a PM

I edited the spammer bit out (I decided (too late) that there was no need to bring my dislike of your spamming tenedencies into the discussion and my mention of WWE was pure roddage so I should effect a less gitty tone).

The fact that it is fake is not lost on anyone but children and mentals. It is a bit of OTT fun, like a soap opera with fisticuffs. And some of the performers are truly talented (Rey Mysterio Jr), entertaining (Chris Jericho) or just plain cool (SCSA).

The fake argument makes no sense to me when you consider that most television is just that fake. Star Trek, Lost, Fox News, etc are all fake. So what's the problem with fiction all of a sudden?
Probably 'cause it's passed off as sport.

I remember many years ago (before your time) the WWF was trying to convince everyone that it was real.....like The George "The Animal" Steel reallllly loved to eat the insides of turnbuckles. :lol: :lol:

I remember Roller Derby doing the same thing. At one time that was real.

Cheese
09-15-2005, 02:05 AM
I hate soccer atm.

My national team sucks, my club team are doing shite and my local team are doing even shitter.

The only "American sport" I really enjoy is the wrestling.
Really? I like wrestling when I was a kid watching it with my great grandmother in South Carolina.

Now though, I see it as being so childish (and of course fake as hell).

Well it has changed since 20-30 years ago.

Busyman
09-15-2005, 02:09 AM
Really? I like wrestling when I was a kid watching it with my great grandmother in South Carolina.

Now though, I see it as being so childish (and of course fake as hell).

Well it has changed since 20-30 years ago.
No.....no not really. It's the exact same bullshit. I just grew up.

I still have pictures I took from some matches I went to.

I was verrrrry good at snapping the pictures. I'll catch them in the air, either off the the top turnbuckle or someone being knocked off their feet.

I'll post them when I get the chance to scan them into my Snapfish account.

maebach
09-15-2005, 02:12 AM
WWE is desperate for fans, they moved their Smackdown from Thursday to Friday, because they werent getting many viewers.

BTW: Busyman, delete some PM's in your INBOX!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheese
09-15-2005, 02:27 AM
Well it has changed since 20-30 years ago.
No.....no not really. It's the exact same bullshit. I just grew up.

I still have pictures I took from some matches I went to.

I was verrrrry good at snapping the pictures. I'll catch them in the air, either off the the top turnbuckle or someone being knocked off their feet.

I'll post them when I get the chance to scan them into my Snapfish account.

The quality in matches has changed hugely in the last twenty years since the likes of George Steel (I vaguely remember him), if you think differently then you haven't watched anything of it in recent times. You only have to compare an 80's match to that of today's performers, wrestler's today have turned it into an artform.

I'll admit the concept is much the same, though they have a more storyline based way of doing things now (this obviously to create interest in PPV's), good guys vs bad guys. And whilst it is fake, that doesn't neccessarily mean you know what the result will be.

And the childishness and cheesiness is a big part of what appeals to me, a puerile mixture of men beating each other up, tasteless jokes, hawt divas and people getting hit with steel chairs.

@macbeth: No, they moved because the network told them to. Friday night is a crap night for trying to get ratings (so I'm lead to believe) in America so that would be suicide. They still show it here on Thursdays, and in Canada.

Busyman
09-15-2005, 02:27 AM
WWE is desperate for fans, they moved their Smackdown from Thursday to Friday, because they werent getting many viewers.

BTW: Busyman, delete some PM's in your INBOX!!!!!!!!!!!!
You think THEY moved it to Friday?

Friday is a TV gulag. It means you suck balls and are about to be flushed to basic cable status.

Busyman
09-15-2005, 02:31 AM
No.....no not really. It's the exact same bullshit. I just grew up.

I still have pictures I took from some matches I went to.

I was verrrrry good at snapping the pictures. I'll catch them in the air, either off the the top turnbuckle or someone being knocked off their feet.

I'll post them when I get the chance to scan them into my Snapfish account.

The quality in matches has changed hugely in the last twenty years since the likes of George Steel (I vaguely remember him), if you think differently then you haven't watched anything of it in recent times. You only have to compare an 80's match to that of today's performers, wrestler's today have turned it into an artform.

The concept is much the same, though they have a more storyline based way of doing things now (this obviously to create interest in PPV's), good guys vs bad guys. And whilst it is fake, that doesn't neccessarily mean you know what the result will be.

And the childishness and cheesiness is a big part of what appeals to me, a puerile mixture of men beating each other up, tasteless jokes, hawt divas and people getting hit with steel chairs.
It's basically the same except with more sexy divas and more story oriented skits.

Hell I remember when Hulk Hogan went "bad".

I remember when "other" wrestling leagues started...then folded.

Cheese
09-15-2005, 02:39 AM
WWE is desperate for fans, they moved their Smackdown from Thursday to Friday, because they werent getting many viewers.

BTW: Busyman, delete some PM's in your INBOX!!!!!!!!!!!!
You think THEY moved it to Friday?

Friday is a TV gulag. It means you suck balls and are about to be flushed to basic cable status.

I think they're getting teh shaft as they are in the last year of their contract with UPN. RAW's move to USA Networks next month could see a resurgence of interest in wrestling and a new home for Smackdown.

Busyman
09-15-2005, 02:45 AM
You think THEY moved it to Friday?

Friday is a TV gulag. It means you suck balls and are about to be flushed to basic cable status.

I think they're getting teh shaft as they are in the last year of their contract with UPN. RAW's move to USA Networks next month could see a resurgence of interest in wrestling and a new home for Smackdown.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
That's funny 'cause (I kid you not) I didn't actually know they were going to basic cable.

Why would it moving to USA give it a resurgence? :huh: WWF or Ewhateverthefuck was on Spike TV (used to come on before CSI repeats) and I never recalled much fanfare.

Cheese
09-15-2005, 02:53 AM
I think they're getting teh shaft as they are in the last year of their contract with UPN. RAW's move to USA Networks next month could see a resurgence of interest in wrestling and a new home for Smackdown.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
That's funny 'cause (I kid you not) I didn't actually know they were going to basic cable.

Why would it moving to USA give it a resurgence? :huh: WWF or Ewhateverthefuck was on Spike TV (used to come on before CSI repeats) and never recalled much fanfare.

WWE (then WWF) was at the height of its popularity when it was on USA was going to be my main reasoning. But perhaps I need to do some research into US TV networks before I comment further.:ermm:

I did say "could" though...:snooty:

Busyman
09-15-2005, 02:58 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol:
That's funny 'cause (I kid you not) I didn't actually know they were going to basic cable.

Why would it moving to USA give it a resurgence? :huh: WWF or Ewhateverthefuck was on Spike TV (used to come on before CSI repeats) and never recalled much fanfare.

WWE (then WWF) was at the height of its popularity when it was on USA was going to be my main reasoning. But perhaps I need to do some research into US TV networks before I comment further.:ermm:

I did say "could" though...:snooty:
Channels don't make a program unless they have a hand in changing the program's format for the better or it gives said program more visibilty.

Going from network TV to basic cable is less visibility.

brotherdoobie
09-15-2005, 03:10 AM
WWE (then WWF) was at the height of its popularity when it was on USA was going to be my main reasoning. But perhaps I need to do some research into US TV networks before I comment further.:ermm:

I did say "could" though...:snooty:
Channels don't make a program unless they have a hand in changing the program's format for the better or it gives said program more visibilty.

Going from network TV to basic cable is less visibility.

Tivo (PVR) is changing the way we watch tv. Basic cable is not the
graveyard of television, it once was. Wrestling has been doing great
on cable for years.

Peace bd

Cheese
09-15-2005, 03:10 AM
WWE (then WWF) was at the height of its popularity when it was on USA was going to be my main reasoning. But perhaps I need to do some research into US TV networks before I comment further.:ermm:

I did say "could" though...:snooty:
Channels don't make a program unless they have a hand in changing the program's format for the better or it gives said program more visibilty.

Going from network TV to basic cable is less visibility.

Well, the upcoming move will be interesting (to me at least). Spike TV are airing UFC head-to-head with Raw. Genuine competition (they'll both be after a similar audience) will hopefully lead to a better product and thus, possibly, more interest.

As to the first point I realise that the channel has little or no hand in making the show(s), my point was just that WWE obviously have had a successful relationship with USA Network in the past. Something they haven't enjoyed with Spike TV.

brotherdoobie
09-15-2005, 03:31 AM
Channels don't make a program unless they have a hand in changing the program's format for the better or it gives said program more visibilty.

Going from network TV to basic cable is less visibility.

Well, the upcoming move will be interesting (to me at least). Spike TV are airing UFC head-to-head with Raw. Genuine competition (they'll both be after a similar audience) will hopefully lead to a better product and thus, possibly, more interest.

As to the first point I realise that the channel has little or no hand in making the show(s), my point was just that WWE obviously have had a successful relationship with USA Network in the past. Something they haven't enjoyed with Spike TV.

I think it's a wise move. Wrestling is at it's best, when there are competing
leagues, going head to head.

Peace bd

Busyman
09-15-2005, 03:33 AM
Channels don't make a program unless they have a hand in changing the program's format for the better or it gives said program more visibilty.

Going from network TV to basic cable is less visibility.

Tivo (PVR) is changing the way we watch tv. Basic cable is not the
graveyard of television, it once was. Wrestling has been doing great
on cable for years.

Peace bd
My statement still stands. Cable is less visibility.

Busyman
09-15-2005, 03:34 AM
Channels don't make a program unless they have a hand in changing the program's format for the better or it gives said program more visibilty.

Going from network TV to basic cable is less visibility.

Well, the upcoming move will be interesting (to me at least). Spike TV are airing UFC head-to-head with Raw. Genuine competition (they'll both be after a similar audience) will hopefully lead to a better product and thus, possibly, more interest.

As to the first point I realise that the channel has little or no hand in making the show(s), my point was just that WWE obviously have had a successful relationship with USA Network in the past. Something they haven't enjoyed with Spike TV.
I rather watch UFC. That is extremely real.

Now THAT'S a cable show.

JPaul
09-15-2005, 03:40 AM
Isn't "extremely real" qualifying a superlative.

Can one have degrees of real.

Busyman
09-15-2005, 03:56 AM
Isn't "extremely real" qualifying a superlative.

Can one have degrees of real.
Yes.
Besides that, I couldn't give a shit* about superlaxatives.

UFC is really, really, really, extremely, and really real....and that's realer and betterer than WWE..................imho.




* Whether this is the correct version or whether I should or shouldn't give 2 or even 3 shits, I could or couldn't give a shit. If one struggles with this wording then simply get some pussy to get your mind off grammar. However, If you think that there is something, possibly, in the world that you do give 9 shits about, feel free to use whatever the fuck comes to mind since, if you could or couldn't give a shit, it doesn't fucking matter....now does it? ANSWER ME MOTHERFUCKER!!!. Thanks, and fuck yo mama.

JPaul
09-15-2005, 04:29 AM
Isn't "extremely real" qualifying a superlative.

Can one have degrees of real.
Yes.
Besides that, I couldn't give a shit* about superlaxatives.

UFC is really, really, really, extremely, and really real....and that's realer and betterer than WWE..................imho.




* Whether this is the correct version or whether I should or shouldn't give 2 or even 3 shits, I could or couldn't give a shit. If one struggles with this wording then simply get some pussy to get your mind off grammar. However, If you think that there is something, possibly, in the world that you do give 9 shits about, feel free to use whatever the fuck comes to mind since, if you could or couldn't give a shit, it doesn't fucking matter....now does it? ANSWER ME MOTHERFUCKER!!!. Thanks, and fuck yo mama.


It's really rather surprising, the lengths to which you will go, in commenting on a subject, with regard to which, you "couldn't give a shit".

Busyman
09-15-2005, 10:13 AM
Yes.
Besides that, I couldn't give a shit* about superlaxatives.

UFC is really, really, really, extremely, and really real....and that's realer and betterer than WWE..................imho.




* Whether this is the correct version or whether I should or shouldn't give 2 or even 3 shits, I could or couldn't give a shit. If one struggles with this wording then simply get some pussy to get your mind off grammar. However, If you think that there is something, possibly, in the world that you do give 9 shits about, feel free to use whatever the fuck comes to mind since, if you could or couldn't give a shit, it doesn't fucking matter....now does it? ANSWER ME MOTHERFUCKER!!!. Thanks, and fuck yo mama.


It's really rather surprising, the lengths to which you will go, in commenting on a subject, with regard to which, you "couldn't give a shit".
*


*indicates copy and paste effort

manker
09-15-2005, 10:18 AM
It's really rather surprising, the lengths to which you will go, in commenting on a subject, with regard to which, you "couldn't give a shit".
*


*indicates copy and paste effortYou're still doing it :D

Busyman
09-15-2005, 10:54 AM
*


*indicates copy and paste effortYou're still doing it :D
Yep and it's really taxing on the fingers. :lookaroun

dodgy368
09-16-2005, 12:46 PM
Why doesn't the clock ever seem to stop in this sport? Doesn't this take away a whole area of strategy from the teams by not allowing them to time out at key points to devise an attack or defense.
Cos it isn't in the rules.:P



Also, a player is allowed to step or run out of bounds with the ball as long as the ball stays in bounds? Please explain.
Only the ball has to stay in play.;)


Liverpool seems to be pretty good, at least on this day. They have scored 2 goals within the first 14 minutes of the match.
Yep.




ps, don't ask about the offside rule!:naughty:

pps, WWE isn't a sport!

Cheese
09-16-2005, 02:35 PM
pps, WWE isn't a sport!

Then why do they show it on Sky Sports then, eh?

Busyman
09-16-2005, 03:03 PM
pps, WWE isn't a sport!

Then why do they show it on Sky Sports then, eh?
It's a sport as much as The Playmakers was....which was shown on ESPN. :dry:

dodgy368
09-16-2005, 03:06 PM
pps, WWE isn't a sport!

Then why do they show it on Sky Sports then, eh?

Cos they're fick innit!:P

JPaul
09-16-2005, 04:45 PM
Gheyball on trampolines, now there's a sport.

Cheese
09-16-2005, 04:55 PM
Gheyball on trampolines, now there's a sport.

This may come as a shock but this is already a sport. It's called Slamball.

manker
09-16-2005, 05:00 PM
Interweb fishing, now there's a mental idea for a contest.

Cheese
09-16-2005, 05:14 PM
The Celine Dion Jukebox/Rough Pub Challenge is a good sport that I just this minute invented.

Busyman
09-16-2005, 05:27 PM
The Celine Dion Jukebox/Rough Pub Challenge is a good sport that I just this minute invented.
The bottomline is the WWE doesn't involve sport.

There is no competition, only choreography and acting.

It is an action sitcom.. :dry:

Cheese
09-16-2005, 05:33 PM
The Celine Dion Jukebox/Rough Pub Challenge is a good sport that I just this minute invented.
The bottomline is the WWE doesn't involve sport.

There is no competition, only choreography and acting.

It is an action sitcom.. :dry:

What on earth does that have to do with the new sport I just invented?


Edit: But for the record, WWE stopped pretending to be a sport 15 years ago. These days they market as "sports entertainment", but you still get people (who don't watch it and are somehow experts at classifying sports, did I miss sports classifying lessons at school or something?) saying, "But, wah, it's not a sport!!!". Yeah, thanks for figuring that out for me.

JPaul
09-16-2005, 05:44 PM
Interweb fishing, now there's a mental idea for a contest.
Yup, mad talk.

I have a feeling it's entirely feasable but will result, as you say, in a lot of mad talk. Maybe to make it even more mad, exponents could throw in some mild homoerotic innuendo.

I don't know, if I concentrate maybe I could make a good fist of it

Busyman
09-16-2005, 05:51 PM
The bottomline is the WWE doesn't involve sport.

There is no competition, only choreography and acting.

It is an action sitcom.. :dry:

What on earth does that have to do with the new sport I just invented?


Edit: But for the record, WWE stopped pretending to be a sport 15 years ago. These days they market as "sports entertainment", but you still get people (who don't watch it and are somehow experts at classifying sports, did I miss sports classifying lessons at school or something?) saying, "But, wah, it's not a sport!!!". Yeah, thanks for figuring that out for me.
Cool maybe folk will stop calling it a sport then. :ermm:

Busyman
09-16-2005, 05:51 PM
Interweb fishing, now there's a mental idea for a contest.
Yup, mad talk.

I have a feeling it's entirely feasable but will result, as you say, in a lot of mad talk. Maybe to make it even more mad, exponents could throw in some mild homoerotic innuendo.

I don't know, if I concentrate maybe I could make a good fist of it
Go fist some twat.

Cheese
09-16-2005, 06:14 PM
What on earth does that have to do with the new sport I just invented?


Edit: But for the record, WWE stopped pretending to be a sport 15 years ago. These days they market as "sports entertainment", but you still get people (who don't watch it and are somehow experts at classifying sports, did I miss sports classifying lessons at school or something?) saying, "But, wah, it's not a sport!!!". Yeah, thanks for figuring that out for me.
Cool maybe folk will stop calling it a sport then. :ermm:

Well I can only speak for myself when I say that I don't call it a sport outside of rodding attempts.

JPaul
09-16-2005, 07:53 PM
Yup, mad talk.

I have a feeling it's entirely feasable but will result, as you say, in a lot of mad talk. Maybe to make it even more mad, exponents could throw in some mild homoerotic innuendo.

I don't know, if I concentrate maybe I could make a good fist of it
Go fist some twat.
You must be truly delightful to know irl.

Peerzy
09-16-2005, 08:32 PM
Go fist some twat.
You must be truly delightful to know irl.


Yeah, his favourite hobbies include taking photo's of homeless people then knocking them out when they ask why, and shooting at people who he doesn't like.

I suppose the first could be classified as Hobo Baiting, which last time i checked was a sport :unsure:

Cheese
09-16-2005, 08:36 PM
You must be truly delightful to know irl.


Yeah, his favourite hobbies include taking photo's of homeless people then knocking them out when they ask why, and shooting at people who he doesn't like.

I suppose the first could be classified as Hobo Baiting, which last time i checked was a sport :unsure:

I think I just ruptured something from laughing.:lol:

Bad Peerzy.

Busyman
09-16-2005, 09:44 PM
Yeah, his favourite hobbies include taking photo's of anything including homeless people then knocking them out when they try to take his laptop, and shooting at people who break into his house while he's home.

I suppose the first could be classified as simply taking pictures, which last time i checked was a sport :unsure:
Finally some logic. :ermm:

Rat Faced
09-16-2005, 09:55 PM
No one mentioned that great old traditional Aussie sport of Dwarf Tossing yet?





Why Aussie's want to toss off those poor bloody Dwarfs is beyond me though :unsure:

JPaul
09-16-2005, 10:44 PM
Yeah, his favourite hobbies include taking photo's of homeless people then knocking them out when they ask why, and shooting at people who he doesn't like.

I suppose the first could be classified as Hobo Baiting, which last time i checked was a sport :unsure:

I think I just ruptured something from laughing.:lol:

Bad Peerzy.
Look the chap made an arse of apostrophe placement, give him a wee break.

Busyman
09-16-2005, 11:51 PM
Go fist some twat.
You must be truly delightful to know irl.
I forgot to stay in character...

Go get fisted.

peat moss
09-17-2005, 03:04 AM
Could some one explain the linemans role in calling offsides ? Shit I'm nominated again to help patrol the line . I understand the concept but is it the linesman job ? I'm scared shitless and could probably fake it but .........

I have a hard time calling the throw in's just because I try to be fair , and you know what happens some fat mom gets her ass in the way of your sight line .The parents all stand too close to the line getting in my way . I'm huffing and puffing running the line . :)

I look to the ref ,he looks to me ............ fuck it next game one of the other dads can do it .



Edit : Don't tell me to ask the coach to get them to back off , his wife is the one with the big ass .

Peerzy
09-17-2005, 10:48 AM
Just call the throws how you see them, people will always get things wrong, infact if you watch football on TV you'll see that because of all the cameras and stuff they can often prove the linesman is wrong.

For offside it's easy, who is nearest the goal when the ball is played? If it's the defenders then it's onside and legal. If it's the attacker it's offside.

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/893/onside2ex.jpg
Onside: as the guy is in line with or behind the defenders and they are nearer to the goal.

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/9115/offside1kv.jpg

When the defenders thing there has been an offside they'll put there hands up and look at you, don't call offside just because of that, alot of times strikers time there runs perfectly so they are in line with the defenders.

JPaul
09-17-2005, 11:54 AM
Could some one explain the linemans role in calling offsides ? Shit I'm nominated again to help patrol the line . I understand the concept but is it the linesman job ? I'm scared shitless and could probably fake it but .........


Yes, it's your job to call offside decisions. It is ultimately up to the referee whether she gives it or not, but in the majority of cases if you call it she will give it.

Just keep up with play if you can and it will make things a lot easier. Stay in line with the person nearest the goals (other than the footballer's labourer) and watch for someone in an offside position, bearing in mind that they are not offside until the ball is played towards them.

Basically always know if you have someone who is potentially off-side (in an off-side position) then when the ball is played forward raise the flag. However if the ball is played towards someone else and your man is a good way away then you need to consider whether they are effecting play, also if they are actively moving back into an on-side position then you must also consider not giving it.

It's really quite simple.

peat moss
09-17-2005, 02:06 PM
Thanks guys , I think I just needed some moral support , I think I'll work the line on the other side . That way I can coach too , probably better anyway to have the opposition side complaining than my own.

In fairness most of the parents know little of the rules anyway. Our coaches are good they have taught our team to play the offside rule since u7 . Cost us a few games but better to be prepaired I guess .

JPaul
09-17-2005, 02:12 PM
Just remember, whatever you do is wrong.

If you give off-side, the attacking side know you are wrong. If you don't give it then the defending side know you are wrong.

However that also means you are always right, which is nice.

peat moss
09-17-2005, 02:30 PM
Ya JP , and the close calls I'll leave alone ,makes for an exciting game . :)

JPaul
09-17-2005, 02:42 PM
Ya JP , and the close calls I'll leave alone ,makes for an exciting game . :)
Favour the attack, that's what the pros are supposed to do, but they never do.

Only give off-side when you know it's off-side, makes for a better game. However you get more stick, particliarly if they score. Coz it's obviously your fault.

If you give a bad off-side all you do is take a chance away, if you let it run and they score, then you gave away a goal (in the defence's head).

541T happens, just enjoy yourself.

manker
09-17-2005, 03:42 PM
The linesmen (who are just substitutes or spectators) aren't required to rule offsides in our league. I would be surprised if Peat had to officiate in that manner for a game in which his son was playing. Actually, I'd think the ref a bit of an idiot if this was the case.

Parental bias, and all that.

peat moss
09-17-2005, 05:21 PM
The linesmen (who are just substitutes or spectators) aren't required to rule offsides in our league. I would be surprised if Peat had to officiate in that manner for a game in which his son was playing. Actually, I'd think the ref a bit of an idiot if this was the case.

Parental bias, and all that.


I'm not sure Manker cause we hav'nt played a game yet , why I was asking .

But we don't always get a referee either so both coaches take turns at the half . Not a great situation but you do you what you have to so the kids can play . I'v always gave the close throw ins to the othe team just so it seems fair . But that sucks too oh well what can do .

manker
09-17-2005, 05:27 PM
The linesmen (who are just substitutes or spectators) aren't required to rule offsides in our league. I would be surprised if Peat had to officiate in that manner for a game in which his son was playing. Actually, I'd think the ref a bit of an idiot if this was the case.

Parental bias, and all that.


I'm not sure Manker cause we hav'nt played a game yet , why I was asking .

But we don't always get a referee either so both coaches take turns at the half . Not a great situation but you do you what you have to so the kids can play . I'v always gave the close throw ins to the othe team just so it seems fair . But that sucks too oh well what can do .Not having a go at you, matey :D

I was just saying how it works in the league I play in. It has been known for us not to have a referee too, happened twice last year. It really sucks if you're playing away from home without a ref.

http://img309.imageshack.us/img309/816/dabs5sy.gif

peat moss
09-17-2005, 05:39 PM
Oh I know Manker , the few times I had to coach the team ( coaches work too ) I put all the kids that never get to play forward up front ................ I'm 2 -0 :) I'm a fucking genuis ? lol

Barbarossa
09-19-2005, 10:12 AM
Offside decisions are a piece of piss.. All you have to do is keep track of at least six moving objects.. a doddle! :unsure:

peat moss
09-21-2005, 12:56 AM
I was all worred for not, the ref called them . Not very well I might add but he's the boss. :D

GM1
11-10-2005, 08:19 PM
There's an Irish guy - former Gaelic football player - that has recently joined an English soccer club. The club is in the Championship or League 1/2. Apparently this guy has been cracking in the goals recently.

I heard him mentioned by Mark Clemet on BBC 5 Live about three weeks ago but I can't remember the guy's name, or who he plays for.

Does anyone know?

Cheers

manker
11-10-2005, 09:00 PM
There's an Irish guy - former Gaelic football player - that has recently joined an English soccer club. The club is in the Championship or League 1/2. Apparently this guy has been cracking in the goals recently.

I heard him mentioned by Mark Clemet on BBC 5 Live about three weeks ago but I can't remember the guy's name, or who he plays for.

Does anyone know?

CheersThere's a young Irish lad playing for Reading who only joined them in the summer - Kevin Doyle. He's been scoring a few.

He might be who you're thinking of but I've no idea whether he used to play Gaelic football.

JPaul
11-10-2005, 09:40 PM
Possibly the chap maker is speaking of.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/reading/4415602.stm

GM1
11-11-2005, 01:17 PM
Thanks for that lads, Kevin Doyle's the player I was thinking of.

Cheers