From: Abubakr on
On Oct 16, 9:59 pm, "DavidW" <n...(a)email.provided> wrote:
> Abubakr wrote:
> > Funny he should mention cricket in this context, a sport replete with
> > gamesmanship, and Australians, in particular, are masters of such
> > arts. Play-acting in football is akin to sledging, appealing like your
> > life depended on it even when you know the man's not out, not walking
> > when you've nicked it, or underarming with one ball to go.
>
> None of these examples is analogous to reacting like a wimp. He's not claiming
> that our cricketers are saints. In fact, he chose a West Indian as his prime
> example.
>
> > If
> > anything, the Socceroos are simply carrying on the great Aussie
> > traditions of gamesmanship in their own sport.
>
> It's more than just gamesmanship. It's whiny and pathetic. The game is damaged
> when players behave like sooks.

It's all just gamesmanship.

> > So so I approve of gamesmanship? No. But I understand why players do
> > it. And I also understand that it's something Australian sportsmen in
> > all sports take to with relish.
>
> And he'd be one of the first to acknowledge that. He doesn't hold back
> criticizing Australians for anything when he thinks they deserve it. But his
> article is not about gamesmanship in general, but a particular kind.


Of course he doesn't see or doesn't want want to make out that play
acting is simply a form of gamesmanship because he has an agenda as
anti football propagandist. It's a simple matter, if getting struck by
the ball would cause thompson or Lillee to the pavalion for the rest
of the match, the great IVA Richards would have gone down like sack of
patatos. Have no illusions.

From: ben on
On 16 Oct, 13:51, Abubakr <deltara...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 16, 9:59 pm, "DavidW" <n...(a)email.provided> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Abubakr wrote:
> > > Funny he should mention cricket in this context, a sport replete with
> > > gamesmanship, and Australians, in particular, are masters of such
> > > arts. Play-acting in football is akin to sledging, appealing like your
> > > life depended on it even when you know the man's not out, not walking
> > > when you've nicked it, or underarming with one ball to go.
>
> > None of these examples is analogous to reacting like a wimp. He's not claiming
> > that our cricketers are saints. In fact, he chose a West Indian as his prime
> > example.
>
> > > If
> > > anything, the Socceroos are simply carrying on the great Aussie
> > > traditions of gamesmanship in their own sport.
>
> > It's more than just gamesmanship. It's whiny and pathetic. The game is damaged
> > when players behave like sooks.
>
> It's all just gamesmanship.
>
> > > So so I approve of gamesmanship? No. But I understand why players do
> > > it. And I also understand that it's something Australian sportsmen in
> > > all sports take to with relish.
>
> > And he'd be one of the first to acknowledge that. He doesn't hold back
> > criticizing Australians for anything when he thinks they deserve it. But his
> > article is not about gamesmanship in general, but a particular kind.
>
> Of course he doesn't see or doesn't want want to make out that play
> acting is simply a form of gamesmanship because he has an agenda as
> anti football propagandist. It's a simple matter, if getting struck by
> the ball would cause thompson or Lillee to the pavalion for the rest
> of the match, the great IVA Richards would have gone down like sack of
> patatos. Have no illusions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I very much doubt that.

For Richards, it was a matter of pride as much as anything else.
He deliberately didn't use a helmet. He went out to intimidate his
opponents.

Bit difficult to do that if you're crying foul every second over and
rolling around on the floor as soon as a ball strikes you

From: Futbolmetrix on
"DavidW" <no(a)email.provided> wrote in message
news:XuSBm.10142$cL1.122(a)newsfe20.iad...
>
> So you approve of diving, or are you actually claiming that all those
> histrionics we see are genuine pain?

Why do you call that "diving?" The behavior described in the original
article has got nothing to do with "diving". If you want to have a debate
about this, at the very least you should start by using clear definitions of
what it is that bothers you, not throwing everything under the blanket
definition of "diving".

Diving != Faking injury != embellishing contact != seeking contact != other
forms of unsportsmanlike behavior/gamesmanship.

D


From: Diabolik on

"DavidW" <no(a)email.provided> wrote in message
news:h2SBm.69937$bP1.17482(a)newsfe24.iad...
> Good article by an Australian sports writer (whose background is not in
> soccer). All teams could take note, not just Australia.
>
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/soccer/time-to-vote-with-the-feet--and-keep-them/2009/10/15/1255195876697.html?autostart=1
>
> Time to vote with the feet - and keep them
> Greg Baum
> 16 October 2009
>
> ONE DAY at the MCG, many years ago, the great West Indian Viv Richards
> hooked at a bouncer from Australia's Rodney Hogg, missed and was struck a
> fearful-looking blow to the head. It was unprotected, except for a cloth
> cap. The crowd gasped. Richards did not flinch, did not reach for the
> traumatised spot, did not even shake his head, but took block again. The
> next ball, another bouncer, he clouted for six.
>
> That was chalk. Cheese was Wednesday night's soccer international at
> Etihad Stadium, in which - all too familiarly - a physically affronted
> player would spin, crumple and then lie prone, as if picked off from the
> grassy mound, bringing play to a screeching halt. Mostly, long before the
> ambulance and the police escort could be arranged, he would make a
> Lazarus-like recovery.
>
> The Omanis were more prone, so to speak, provoking an apparently
> intemperate outburst from Australian team manager Garry Moretti to Oman
> coach Claude Le Roy at half-time. The trouble for Moretti was that
> Australia was standing not so much on high moral ground as thin ice. When
> necessary, Australians can roll, twist and writhe as well as any other. At
> one point, Josh Kennedy needed only a cross to turn Etihad Stadium into
> Calvary at sunset.
>
> Australians admired Richards, and were inspired by him, too. In most
> sporting endeavours, it is something of a proud Australian tradition not
> to betray even acute pain. A batsman, when struck, will not rub the sore
> spot. A heavily tackled footballer will gasp for a moment, then stoically
> carry on. A tennis player will not call for the trainer until his leg
> begins to detach.
>
> The thinking is not necessarily profound. It's about machismo, about the
> mental battle, about projecting a sense of indestructibility, about not
> admitting to your opponent that he has had even a moral victory. It is
> probably more reckless than it is wise. But it is us.
>
> And it is why many Australians who have warmed to soccer in this, its
> first golden age in this country, still are bemused by - even contemptuous
> of - the apparent frailty of so many soccer players, including Socceroos.
> They see it as antithetical to their idea of sport.
>
> They cannot dispel the suspicion that some of these apparent axe murders
> are no more than elaborate but tired tactical ploys, meant either to slow
> down the game or draw a sanction for an opponent. And they cannot help but
> think that all these boys crying wolf cruel it for the player who is
> genuinely injured.
>
> Here, the Socceroos have the chance to make a virtue of a vice. They could
> establish themselves as the team that plays the game, but not games. They
> could as a matter of policy make light of glancing slights and blows. They
> could, uniquely among soccer-playing nations, resolve to get on with the
> game.
>
> It would not be easy. No one doubts that an ankle clipped at pace hurts as
> if stabbed. No one doubts that sliding studs can inflict eye-watering
> pain. No one doubts a rough body check can have the effect of a rugby
> tackle.
>
> What they do doubt is that minutes later, the pain is still so
> unrelievedly excruciating that the victim is lying inert on the turf, hair
> arranged just so, or else clutching for several body parts at once, as if
> unable to remember which was supposed nearly to have been severed,
> meantime wincing dramatically, but with a half-open eye cocked towards the
> referee to make sure that he is watching.
>
> What they do doubt is that some of these clashes hurt any more than, for
> instance, the ball does when a defender blocks a thumping shot at close
> range, or heads it out of the skies. On Wednesday night, Omani goalkeeper
> Ali Al Habsi made a save when the ball struck him in the head. Though he
> must have seen stars, he did not even wince, let alone collapse for the
> camera; there was still a goal to be saved.
>
> Critics doubtlessly will say that I do not understand the game. They ought
> to consider this: much as the Socceroos are striving to impress the world,
> they are still tasked with trying to impress Australia. Much ground has
> been gained, but much has still to be made; the barely passable crowd on
> Wednesday night says as much. Australia is an earnest and honest team, but
> despite the yellow shirts, it is not like watching Brazil, not yet.
>
> It is not enough to say Australia must accustom itself to the world game;
> the world game must also adapt to Australia. It must be a game with which
> all Australian can identify. It has shown a willingness already, for
> instance, in the format of the A-League, which meshes league and knock-out
> competitions in a way would be a curio elsewhere in the world, but makes
> sense here.
>
> Mostly, Australians prefer their sporting representatives to be hard,
> robust, impervious to pain. The Socceroos have a chance to take a stance.
> Upright.

This idot and his like think they understand football but they don't.
Football don't need these wankers, or their stupid comments. They want to be
part of this sport because they know it's going to be BIG, but they will
never understand football.

The ref knows what's going on in football and acting, something this stupid
journalist didn't even mention. Yeah the players act, but who cares,
everyone knows it's part of the game and see beyond it.

The difference is mainly cultural, and it's not about cheating.

Australians have rugby league and AFL as a national sport and that says
everything really. These are brain dead idiots rumbling each other, they
don't care if they break bones and they are ridiculous to watch, something I
would
never wish my children to play. These sports are those of cavemen, not
civilised people, yet they have the hide to criticise football. Give me a
break.



From: Abubakr on
On Oct 17, 12:19 am, ben <bennysant...(a)y7mail.com> wrote:
> On 16 Oct, 13:51, Abubakr <deltara...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 9:59 pm, "DavidW" <n...(a)email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > Abubakr wrote:
> > > > Funny he should mention cricket in this context, a sport replete with
> > > > gamesmanship, and Australians, in particular, are masters of such
> > > > arts. Play-acting in football is akin to sledging, appealing like your
> > > > life depended on it even when you know the man's not out, not walking
> > > > when you've nicked it, or underarming with one ball to go.
>
> > > None of these examples is analogous to reacting like a wimp. He's not claiming
> > > that our cricketers are saints. In fact, he chose a West Indian as his prime
> > > example.
>
> > > > If
> > > > anything, the Socceroos are simply carrying on the great Aussie
> > > > traditions of gamesmanship in their own sport.
>
> > > It's more than just gamesmanship. It's whiny and pathetic. The game is damaged
> > > when players behave like sooks.
>
> > It's all just gamesmanship.
>
> > > > So so I approve of gamesmanship? No. But I understand why players do
> > > > it. And I also understand that it's something Australian sportsmen in
> > > > all sports take to with relish.
>
> > > And he'd be one of the first to acknowledge that. He doesn't hold back
> > > criticizing Australians for anything when he thinks they deserve it. But his
> > > article is not about gamesmanship in general, but a particular kind.
>
> > Of course he doesn't see or doesn't want want to make out that play
> > acting is simply a form of gamesmanship because he has an agenda as
> > anti football propagandist. It's a simple matter, if getting struck by
> > the ball would cause thompson or Lillee to the pavalion for the rest
> > of the match, the great IVA Richards would have gone down like sack of
> > patatos. Have no illusions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I very much doubt that.
>
> For Richards, it was a matter of pride as much as anything else.
> He deliberately didn't use a helmet. He went out to intimidate his
> opponents.
>
> Bit difficult to do that if you're crying foul every second over and
> rolling around on the floor as soon as a ball strikes you
Because cricket is a different game. It allows the bowler to aim to
hit the batsman and richard response was appropriate for that
dynamic.