Printable View
Anyone watch them humiliate Juve?
In the end the Italian "giants" were reduced to 9 men and were a complete shambles, pity there wasn't longer left so Arsenal could score a couple more, can't wait for the 2nd leg and hope the Gunners play the same way.:D
being a gooner i watched the match and it was a brilliant game all the guys played well and what a gem Fabregas. is turning out to be , you can only wonder what he will be like in two or three years time.
What happened? I watched the barcelona one :mellow:
Yeah what was the score?
edit: nevermind. a whole 2 to 0. What a blowout. Arse-nal broke the game wiiide open.:dry:
The score didn't reflect the game, even the Italian sports papers were praising Arsenal, on another day it could've been 5-0, it was the manner in which Arsenal won that was so impressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Yeah I like soccer a wee bit but I come from a scoring mentality. If a team beats someone handily then I think it should reflect in the score.Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgy368
To me, soccer is alota back in forth with little result. My thought is if Arsenal was so good (yes ok it was a shut out) then when they made a run at goal but either missed or was blocked then (besides 2 succesful attempts) then it doesn't sound like such an ass whippin'.
Could've been 5 - 0? It wasn't though.:ermm:
I watch English League soccer (among others and baseball) from time to time but sometimes get too bored to finish the match.
Yeah, but the score didn't get into the triple figures for either team and why was that Henry chap not dressed up in a ton of armor (sic) and what happened to the advert breaks? There was like one. I need a break every five minutes from the intense action man and be told what to buy.Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgy368
Anyhow, I expect that Juventus will be happy that they have won their domestic tournament (after all that's all that is important) and not some fruity little foreign tournament.
Yeh, and how come each squad has so few players. Only three subsitutes? What's that about? And where's the oxygen tanks for when the players run really fast! :dry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese
That did make me laugh that guy who scored a touchdown at the superbowel having to take oxygen after running...the full length of the pitch.:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Carcinus
Part of the skill in football is stopping the other team scoring. That's what makes it exciting, because a goal is really special.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
High scoring games like the Liverpool (7), Birmingham (0), games tend to be less exciting because they are a walkover/absolute pasting. The differences between the two teams performances leading to results like this is so high that the only appeal of the game is to see how far one team can be humiliated. Low scoring games where teams are well-matched in performance can be far more exciting because of the tension created by good attacking and defending.
:lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Carcinus
I have seen plenty of very exciting matches that end 4 - 3. loads of goals and close fought game you can have the best of both worlds.Quote:
High scoring games like the Liverpool (7), Birmingham (0), games tend to be less exciting because they are a walkover/absolute pasting. The differences between the two teams performances leading to results like this is so high that the only appeal of the game is to see how far one team can be humiliated. Low scoring games where teams are well-matched in performance can be far more exciting because of the tension created by good attacking and defending.
Beating a quality side 2-0 is an excellent result. Quality teams rarely concede a lot of goals. Remember, Juventus had only lost one game all season, 8 points clear at the top of the Italian league and they had scored in every game this season. Arsenal have been struggling in the league (currently 6th!) which shows how well they played on the night.
My point exactly. Close fought games, with well-matched teams, whatever the end result, are better than high-scoring walkovers.Quote:
Originally Posted by 4play
i remember a guy called John Riggins (washington redskins) was always getting oxygen even after a 25 yrd run.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carcinus
John Riggins was a truck though.:ermm:Quote:
Originally Posted by baccyman
Also a player that runs 100 yards in football is running at balls out speed. Hell I wish I had oxygen available to me when I ran track (long distance and sprint).
You think that in other sports that the players sprinting for the ball aren't running as fast as they can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
:lol:
The simple fact is that American football players aren't as fit as sportmen who particpate in a lot of other sports.
They don't have to be.
That's why the players occasionally need oxygen.
It's because the air is thinner in America. Nothing to do with the inferior fitness of their sportspeople.
Agreed. 'Cause it's not as often.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
I like stuff like the juke moves in soccer when the guy is dribbling and makes another fall and then scores. I like the flair...which I don't see often. Someone posted a compilation awhile back.
Let me go further...when I see a highlight reel from a soccer match it is super short.
I mean part of many games is to stop the other team from scoring.
My initial comment was mainly about what's considered an ass-whippin'. It sounds like if you shut the other team out..even 1 - 0 then that's an ass-whippin'. I think someone remarked that even a 1 - 1 score with one team considered better than the other is considered a win for the lesser team.
Kinda like Blackjack where a push is considered a win...'cause you didn't lose with the odds against you.
I understand these subtle details, but in sport, enjoying it is a different matter.
No. No, you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
I agree somewhat.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Your definition of fit has to relate to fit for what.
I can say that a soccer players aren't as fit as sportsmen who participate in football.
A player like John Riggins was not fit to sprint 100 yards in great time. He was there for speed, running over players and taking hits.
Also soccer players get their breaks too when they are out of play (similar to basketball in that respect).
Sure a soccer player is not running as fast as he can for the ball. That ain't the same as sprinting 50 yards....as fast you can. A track runner isn't just ho-hum after running a 40-yard dash and doesn't take a hits as well....but oh....many football players have a nice 40 time AND take hits. Figure that. :smilie4:
Thinner air comes into play when playing the Utah Jazz at home in basketball. They are in higher altitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carcinus
Why 'cause I don't enjoy it.:ermm:Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
That's just pish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
A midfielder runs an average eight miles in a match. I think an American footballer wouldn't run even one. There are some occasions where a footballer wouldn't run flat out, of course, but if he is in an offensive move or chasing another player for the ball - which is the most common circumstance, then he will be running as fast as he can.
Soccer/football is a poor analogy. Rugby/football is a better one.
The players take tackles, make tackles, kick and make covering/attacking sprints without the ball. All rugby players have to be competent at all disciplines. They have to be fit to tackle, fit to sprint and not have to take oxygen at any point - otherwise they won't make the team. They also stay on the pitch for 80 minutes.
This simply isn't true of American football. You get fat guys in American football.
Wales have one of the best running packs in the world, this mean that the big guys do just as much, if not more, running than the smaller, faster guys. In the 13-a-side version of rubgy, the players are traditionally fitter but now the 15-a-side code has caught up.
An international rubgy player is, overall, the fittest team sportsman in the world. NFL 'stars' don't come close.
Again..fit for what. You know that rugby and football are different don't you? I wouldn't claim William "The Refrigerator" Perry had more endurance than a rugby player. I probably wouldn't have replaced him with one either.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
The fat players are there to take up space and/or block and go after the QB (and all of them aren't fat either). Simon Rice of Tampa Bay looks fit as fiddle.
Plus from what I've seen in rugby and rugby union, the aim is simply to tackle not crush. In football they try to absolutely pummel the opponent (this is sometimes a fault when a player needs to be simply tackled but the opponent is trying to hit him hard and he gets away).
Also a rugby or soccer player isn't running a continuous 8 miles. It's all within pace.
Rugby is a continuous game in comparison. However, in football you are expecting to sprint, block, tackle, and whatever your function is AT YOUR HARDEST for each down. Short rest then do it again.
It seems to have a little less finesse but that's probably due to less set-up. It's has more anarchy. As does soccer and hockey.
I liked John Riggins, but I preferred Marcus Allen.
His performance when The Raider beat The Redskins in the Superbowl was nothing short of awesome.
He was a stupidly fabulous athlete.
"Football is the name given to a number of different, but related, team sports. The most popular of these worldwide is Association football, which is known as soccer in several countries. The English language word football is also applied to Rugby football (Rugby union and Rugby league), American football, Australian rules football, Gaelic football and Canadian football.Quote:
You know that rugby and football are different don't you?
You mean rugby and soccer are different games. I think he knows.
Football is far more of a continuous flowing game in comparison to Rugby.Quote:
Rugby is a continuous game in comparison. However, in football you are expecting to sprint, block, tackle, and whatever your function is AT YOUR HARDEST for each down. Short rest then do it again.
No it's not, they stop every few seconds, have a wee chat then fall forward a yard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carcinus
I admit, rubgy league is a far faster game than rugby union, which is very stop/start with all that scrummage and lineouts and falling over and things.
Yeah, but not as slow as football, like I pointed out. With the stopping and the chatting and the flags and the falling into a big pile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carcinus
Yeah I wish I could see more rugby league games over here. I get mostly IRB Sevens Rugby Union (I like it 'cause I can watch it in short time).Quote:
Originally Posted by Carcinus
The game is full of anarchy but it's nice and fast. I hate how they tackle but love it when there's a break away.
It seems like if tackle too hard that there's a flag.:ermm: It also seems like you almost have to allow a tackled player's teammate to get the ball (I know that's not true). There isn't a lot of finesse to the game but it's very entertaining.
Why comment on the rules of a game when you're totally ignorant of them. Isn't it easier to ask the question rather than to be continually contradicted.
The tackler must not restrain the tackled player after the tackle, therefore he is not allowed to stop the tackled player's team mates getting the ball - the only way he can do this is turn the tackled guy during the tackle to be facing his own, onrushing, team-mates such that they can procure the ball.
This is different to 13-a-side rugby but allows second phase ball and makes the overall game more continuous.
There is a tremendous amount of finesse involved in rugby but this won't be visible if you've only watched a few games.
The reason you got to see Sevens is because the tour was in LA for a couple of days in February. I don't watch a lot of it, it's good but reminds me of a watching a film after you've read the book :dabs:
I used to watch a lot of American Football and whilst not being an expert, far from it, I am sufficiently au fait with the rules to both enjoy the game and comment on it.
The relevance of your point escapes me.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Just random posting.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
I used to like that sig you had when I joined (about random posts) - it marked you as someone who was rather more intellectual than the self-evident menagerie of lol boys.
Boy, was I a newb back then :lol: :lol: :lookaroun
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
:ermm:
:dry:
:angry:
Back handed compliments, FTW :01:
It was actually a quote, from The. :blushing:Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
So, your impression of me having a vast intellect (true story) was based on me quoting what was to become the board emo.