Diving
in [World Football]
|
From: DavidW on 20 Oct 2009 18:39 Enzo wrote: > 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. > > 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 ). Anyone would think that diving after minimal contact is not a common occurrence in soccer.
From: Insane Ranter on 20 Oct 2009 22:35 On Oct 20, 6:39 pm, "DavidW" <n...(a)email.provided> wrote: > Enzo wrote: > > 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. > > > 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 ). > > Anyone would think that diving after minimal contact is not a common occurrence > in soccer. How else do you think Brazil wins their world cups?
From: Abubakr on 21 Oct 2009 04:19 On 21 Oct, 09:39, "DavidW" <n...(a)email.provided> wrote: > Enzo wrote: > > 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. > > > 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 ). > > Anyone would think that diving after minimal contact is not a common occurrence > in soccer. Here's a thought: don't watch it and don't write about it. p.s. anyone would think not walking when you've hit the ball is not a common occurrence in cricket...
From: El Kot on 21 Oct 2009 04:47 DavidW wrote: > 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. Yes, exactly. He's ignoring the fact that in soccer, these glancing blows can be quite strong and hurt like hell for a few moments, even if no damage was done. I have personally writhed in agony for about 30 seconds, with tears in my eyes, and then continued playing, after such "glancing blows", so I understand the effect perfectly. You, and the author, apparently don't. >> 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. What should be discounted completely is yours and that writer's nonsense. -- No, no, you can't e-mail me with the nono.
From: Enzo on 21 Oct 2009 06:39
On Oct 21, 8:47 am, El Kot <nono.black.e...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > DavidW wrote: > > 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. > > Yes, exactly. He's ignoring the fact that in soccer, these glancing > blows can be quite strong and hurt like hell for a few moments, even if > no damage was done. I have personally writhed in agony for about 30 > seconds, with tears in my eyes, and then continued playing, after such > "glancing blows", so I understand the effect perfectly. You, and the > author, apparently don't. > > >> 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. > > What should be discounted completely is yours and that writer's > nonsense. > > -- > No, no, you can't e-mail me with the nono.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Unfortunately, he already has had more than his 5 minutes of trolling fame on rss. |