Diving
in [World Football]
|
From: El Kot on 19 Oct 2009 17:56 DavidW wrote: > > Diving is the biggest blight on the game and if players had the attitude that > he's calling for - stay on your feet if you possibly can - they wouldn't do it. Quite a lot of people don't agree with you. First of all, the attitude he's calling for is idiotic machismo. We don't want gladiators that soldier on until their foot is ripped off ala Eduardo, and even then try to score with the stump. We want to watch intelligent, creative, agile, and most of all - human players, that can feel pain and show it, not some senseless androids. Second, I personally don't think that diving and playacting (which happens, of course) is a big problem in its current levels (let alone being "the biggest blight"). In most of the world, the quality of the pitch is the biggest problem, causing countless injuries and ending careers. And the next biggest problem is the inability of the referees to adequately see what happens on the pitch. -- No, no, you can't e-mail me with the nono.
From: DavidW on 19 Oct 2009 18:21 El Kot wrote: > DavidW wrote: >> >> Diving is the biggest blight on the game and if players had the >> attitude that he's calling for - stay on your feet if you possibly >> can - they wouldn't do it. > > Quite a lot of people don't agree with you. First of all, the > attitude he's calling for is idiotic machismo. We don't want > gladiators that soldier on until their foot is ripped off ala > Eduardo, and even then try to score with the stump. That's a misrepresentation. He's not asking the players to stay on the field when genuinely injured. His main complaint is their immediate reaction to minor knocks: "... 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." And all he's asking is: "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." Glancing blows, not feet ripped off. > We want to watch > intelligent, creative, agile, and most of all - human players, that > can feel pain and show it, not some senseless androids. > Second, I personally don't think that diving and playacting (which > happens, of course) is a big problem in its current levels (let alone > being "the biggest blight"). In most of the world, the quality of the > pitch is the biggest problem, causing countless injuries and ending > careers. And the next biggest problem is the inability of the referees > to adequately see what happens on the pitch. Certainly the refereeing needs to improve. Only if the ref sees an actual infringement occur should he blow the whistle. The reaction of the player to the contact (if any) should be discounted completely.
From: Enzo on 19 Oct 2009 22:46 On Oct 19, 9:45 pm, "DavidW" <n...(a)email.provided> wrote: > Enzo wrote: > > On Oct 17, 11:47 am, "ken.over...(a)gmail.com" <ken.over...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> On Oct 16, 10:35 am, MH <nos...(a)ucalgary.ca> wrote: > > >>> From a Canadian perspective I didn't mind this article at all. He > >>> puts his finger on a problem people who are used to hockey and > >>> gridiron football can identify with, and what he describes is a > >>> real reflection of a prevalent attitude. > > >> I don't mind that position, but he offers nothing new as far as I can > >> see, certainly nothing remotely like a solution. As far as I can see > >> his main point is "We are tougher and morally superior than the rest > >> of the world." > > > Yes, that is his main point. As 2 others have said, > > > 1. he is just out to bash because of insecurity > > Rubbish. Having read his articles over many years it's obvious that he's not > like that. On what basis do you dismiss the possibility that he's sincere? > > > 2. he has never played the game > > > I dont think this thread should be so long. He is trolling. > > And on what basis do you come to that conclusion?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Simple. He brings up IVA Richards standing up to bouncers. Heck, I can bring up Sunil Gavaskar wearing a skull cap and facing the Windies quartet in their prime! But whats the eff'ing point? Let me state a simple thing. Let Sunil Gavaskar or IVA Richards don a pair of boots and play for 5-10 minutes. Then, suddenly, Gavaskar, who is driving the midfield, threads a long ball on the flank where Marshall, who is in charge of the flying winger Richards, has strayed up the pitch a bit too much. Richards goes flying down the wing, as he is so good at, Marshall is out of position, but Colin Croft comes lunging in from his position in defensive midfield and deftly slips IVA's heels. Foul, freekick. Wonder how long IVA will stay down. DavidW probably didnt have his heel clipped while on a flat run.
From: DavidW on 20 Oct 2009 00:41 Enzo wrote: > On Oct 19, 9:45 pm, "DavidW" <n...(a)email.provided> wrote: >> Enzo wrote: >>> On Oct 17, 11:47 am, "ken.over...(a)gmail.com" <ken.over...(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On Oct 16, 10:35 am, MH <nos...(a)ucalgary.ca> wrote: >> >>>>> From a Canadian perspective I didn't mind this article at all. He >>>>> puts his finger on a problem people who are used to hockey and >>>>> gridiron football can identify with, and what he describes is a >>>>> real reflection of a prevalent attitude. >> >>>> I don't mind that position, but he offers nothing new as far as I >>>> can see, certainly nothing remotely like a solution. As far as I >>>> can see his main point is "We are tougher and morally superior >>>> than the rest of the world." >> >>> Yes, that is his main point. As 2 others have said, >> >>> 1. he is just out to bash because of insecurity >> >> Rubbish. Having read his articles over many years it's obvious that >> he's not like that. On what basis do you dismiss the possibility >> that he's sincere? >> >>> 2. he has never played the game >> >>> I dont think this thread should be so long. He is trolling. >> >> And on what basis do you come to that conclusion? > > Simple. He brings up IVA Richards standing up to bouncers. > Heck, I can bring up Sunil Gavaskar wearing a skull cap > and facing the Windies quartet in their prime! But whats > the eff'ing point? If you can't see his very simple point already then there's little I can do. > Let me state a simple thing. Let Sunil Gavaskar or IVA Richards > don a pair of boots and play for 5-10 minutes. Then, suddenly, > Gavaskar, who is driving the midfield, threads a long ball on > the flank where Marshall, who is in charge of the flying winger > Richards, has strayed up the pitch a bit too much. Richards > goes flying down the wing, as he is so good at, Marshall is > out of position, but Colin Croft comes lunging in from his > position in defensive midfield and deftly slips IVA's heels. > Foul, freekick. > > Wonder how long IVA will stay down. DavidW probably didnt > have his heel clipped while on a flat run. What's your eff'ing point? He is contrasting Richards getting hit on the head by a cricket ball with soccer players writhing around from _trivial_ knocks. He is not claiming that _all_ knocks in soccer are trivial or that players can always stay on their feet and continue no matter what happens. Your post is completely irrelevant to his article.
From: Enzo on 20 Oct 2009 02:35
On Oct 20, 4:41 am, "DavidW" <n...(a)email.provided> wrote: > Enzo wrote: > > On Oct 19, 9:45 pm, "DavidW" <n...(a)email.provided> wrote: > >> Enzo wrote: > >>> On Oct 17, 11:47 am, "ken.over...(a)gmail.com" <ken.over...(a)gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> On Oct 16, 10:35 am, MH <nos...(a)ucalgary.ca> wrote: > > >>>>> From a Canadian perspective I didn't mind this article at all. He > >>>>> puts his finger on a problem people who are used to hockey and > >>>>> gridiron football can identify with, and what he describes is a > >>>>> real reflection of a prevalent attitude. > > >>>> I don't mind that position, but he offers nothing new as far as I > >>>> can see, certainly nothing remotely like a solution. As far as I > >>>> can see his main point is "We are tougher and morally superior > >>>> than the rest of the world." > > >>> Yes, that is his main point. As 2 others have said, > > >>> 1. he is just out to bash because of insecurity > > >> Rubbish. Having read his articles over many years it's obvious that > >> he's not like that. On what basis do you dismiss the possibility > >> that he's sincere? > > >>> 2. he has never played the game > > >>> I dont think this thread should be so long. He is trolling. > > >> And on what basis do you come to that conclusion? > > > Simple. He brings up IVA Richards standing up to bouncers. > > Heck, I can bring up Sunil Gavaskar wearing a skull cap > > and facing the Windies quartet in their prime! But whats > > the eff'ing point? > > If you can't see his very simple point already then there's little I can do. > > > Let me state a simple thing. Let Sunil Gavaskar or IVA Richards > > don a pair of boots and play for 5-10 minutes. Then, suddenly, > > Gavaskar, who is driving the midfield, threads a long ball on > > the flank where Marshall, who is in charge of the flying winger > > Richards, has strayed up the pitch a bit too much. Richards > > goes flying down the wing, as he is so good at, Marshall is > > out of position, but Colin Croft comes lunging in from his > > position in defensive midfield and deftly slips IVA's heels. > > Foul, freekick. > > > Wonder how long IVA will stay down. DavidW probably didnt > > have his heel clipped while on a flat run. > > What's your eff'ing point? He is contrasting Richards getting hit on the head by > a cricket ball with soccer players writhing around from _trivial_ knocks. He is > not claiming that _all_ knocks in soccer are trivial or that players can always > stay on their feet and continue no matter what happens. Your post is completely > irrelevant to his article.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Ok, I will make it simpler. Apples and oranges, my friend. Apples and oranges. And a propensity on the part of certain journos of other codes of football to talk about "soccer" without knowing the first thing about it. It is a common failing. Rarely do you see the reverse ( we can all laugh at the million 5 minute breaks, tea and coffee which is part and parcel of many other sports ). |