crater
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,444
|
Post by crater on May 29, 2018 11:24:35 GMT
Should they have marauded around for 90 minutes like headless chickens? Why did the chicken cross the maraud? Because he wanted to sh1t on the worst individuals the country of Austria have ever inflicted on the world...well at least since the late 1880s
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 11:27:53 GMT
Should they have marauded around for 90 minutes like headless chickens? Why did the chicken cross the maraud? Because he wanted to sh1t on the worst individuals the country of Austria have ever inflicted on the world...well at least since the late 1880s Er...
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,216
|
Post by eppinggas on May 29, 2018 12:02:30 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 12:06:53 GMT
You were fine with this then? hqttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgrace_of_Gijón Completely different, that match was played after the other match. There's an odd sentiment towards football in this country where trying is often applauded more than winning. Passion is better than talent. The 50/50 tackle gets a louder cheer than the bit of skill. The Disgrace of Gijon was down to football administration. With regards to both Coventry cases, the season had been played out and clubs had put themselves in the position to carry out that sort of performance. The clubs effected by it in a negative way had 45 matches to get their s*** together and stay up before it got to that point. Rubbish. In a 46 game season there's a clue, it's supposed to be 46 rounds of competitive matches, not 45 competitive and 1 fixed game between 2 teams. Here's a thing for you, had Daggers rocked up and just rolled over, we could have been 5-0 up at half time, Accy would most likely have thrown everything forward and could well have nicked a goal. Or, Stevenage could have just shrugged their shoulders, wandered around chatting about their holiday plans and allowed Accy to walk right through them, luckily for us, both Daggers and Stevenage seem to have different moral values to Coventry.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 12:19:21 GMT
Completely different, that match was played after the other match. There's an odd sentiment towards football in this country where trying is often applauded more than winning. Passion is better than talent. The 50/50 tackle gets a louder cheer than the bit of skill. The Disgrace of Gijon was down to football administration. With regards to both Coventry cases, the season had been played out and clubs had put themselves in the position to carry out that sort of performance. The clubs effected by it in a negative way had 45 matches to get their s*** together and stay up before it got to that point. Rubbish. In a 46 game season there's a clue, it's supposed to be 46 rounds of competitive matches, not 45 competitive and 1 fixed game between 2 teams. Here's a thing for you, had Daggers rocked up and just rolled over, we could have been 5-0 up at half time, Accy would most likely have thrown everything forward and could well have nicked a goal. Or, Stevenage could have just shrugged their shoulders, wandered around chatting about their holiday plans and allowed Accy to walk right through them, luckily for us, both Daggers and Stevenage seem to have different moral values to Coventry. Maybe Barnet should have tried harder in their previous 45 games.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 12:26:14 GMT
Rubbish. In a 46 game season there's a clue, it's supposed to be 46 rounds of competitive matches, not 45 competitive and 1 fixed game between 2 teams. Here's a thing for you, had Daggers rocked up and just rolled over, we could have been 5-0 up at half time, Accy would most likely have thrown everything forward and could well have nicked a goal. Or, Stevenage could have just shrugged their shoulders, wandered around chatting about their holiday plans and allowed Accy to walk right through them, luckily for us, both Daggers and Stevenage seem to have different moral values to Coventry. Maybe Barnet should have tried harder in their previous 45 games. I think you've got the seasons confused? Barnet finished 15th that season. Either way, as your reply didn't come close to addressing the point made I'll assume that you concede the debate
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 12:32:49 GMT
Maybe Barnet should have tried harder in their previous 45 games. I think you've got the seasons confused? Barnet finished 15th that season. Either way, as your reply didn't come close to addressing the point made I'll assume that you concede the debate "Here's a thing for you, had Daggers rocked up and just rolled over, we could have been 5-0 up at half time, Accy would most likely have thrown everything forward and could well have nicked a goal. Or, Stevenage could have just shrugged their shoulders, wandered around chatting about their holiday plans and allowed Accy to walk right through them, luckily for us, both Daggers and Stevenage seem to have different moral values to Coventry."
That's just a load of conjecture. Do you like cricket Bamber? Are you inherently against buffet bowling for example?
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,216
|
Post by eppinggas on May 29, 2018 12:48:26 GMT
Maybe Barnet should have tried harder in their previous 45 games. I think you've got the seasons confused? Barnet finished 15th that season. Either way, as your reply didn't come close to addressing the point made I'll assume that you concede the debate Barnet denied safety this season as Coventry "unexpectedly" failed to beat Morecambe. The point earned meant that Morecambe stayed up on goal difference. If I was a Barnet fan I would be a bit miffed 'if' Coventry didn't try very hard (and were saving themselves for the play-offs).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 12:49:24 GMT
I think you've got the seasons confused? Barnet finished 15th that season. Either way, as your reply didn't come close to addressing the point made I'll assume that you concede the debate "Here's a thing for you, had Daggers rocked up and just rolled over, we could have been 5-0 up at half time, Accy would most likely have thrown everything forward and could well have nicked a goal. Or, Stevenage could have just shrugged their shoulders, wandered around chatting about their holiday plans and allowed Accy to walk right through them, luckily for us, both Daggers and Stevenage seem to have different moral values to Coventry."
That's just a load of conjecture. Do you like cricket Bamber? Are you inherently against buffet bowling for example?
Ah, let's get off of the subject as soon as we are backed into a corner Fair enough. Yeah, I like cricket, and I'm opposed to bowling the last bowl underarm when the opposition require a 6 to win. But not one bit surprised by a certain team who would do such a thing. I'm also opposed to feigning injury, appealing for decisions when you know you are wrong, the list goes on....... Buffet bowling? Hurling sausage rolls at Viv Richards? He would have at least 3 shots he could play at any given Scotch egg I reckon.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 12:52:17 GMT
I think you've got the seasons confused? Barnet finished 15th that season. Either way, as your reply didn't come close to addressing the point made I'll assume that you concede the debate Barnet denied safety this season as Coventry "unexpectedly" failed to beat Morecambe. The point earned meant that Morecambe stayed up on goal difference. If I was a Barnet fan I would be a bit miffed 'if' Coventry didn't try very hard (and were saving themselves for the play-offs). Ah, now I understand. Thanks for that. Still doesn't deal with the point, 46 competitive games, colluding with the opposition to achieve a pre-determined result is a tiny bit against the rules.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 13:12:30 GMT
Should they have marauded around for 90 minutes like headless chickens? Why did the chicken cross the maraud? That is the best opening line I've ever read on the Guzzler.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 15:10:34 GMT
See the Coventry supporters suddenly came out the woodwork when the going got good. No more boycotting matches anymore pathetic.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on May 29, 2018 15:49:47 GMT
Barnet denied safety this season as Coventry "unexpectedly" failed to beat Morecambe. The point earned meant that Morecambe stayed up on goal difference. If I was a Barnet fan I would be a bit miffed 'if' Coventry didn't try very hard (and were saving themselves for the play-offs). Ah, now I understand. Thanks for that. Still doesn't deal with the point, 46 competitive games, colluding with the opposition to achieve a pre-determined result is a tiny bit against the rules. It's certainly gamesmanship but I don't think it's really proper collusion in this case because I don't think you can in any way prove the pre-determined aspect of it. It's just two teams with little incentive to take any risks. The Gijon one might be a bit more questionable in that respect in terms of the capacity for pre-match collusion, which almost certainly did happen. But Chewie's right in the sense that the main issue there was the structure of the competition - it made it possible for that to happen and someone was bound to do it eventually. But the Coventry one is just the way the situation evolved - after all Coventry had several excellent chances that were well saved so it's not like there was a prior agreement but as soon as a draw was to their benefit as well then why bother taking the risk or expending the energy with playoffs coming up? Same thing happened in the last 20 minutes at Cardiff v Birmingham on the last day. Neither team had any incentive to risk what they had - cue stalemate. I don't think that's collusion - professional sport is contextual, the competition creates incentives and an occasional quirk of that is that it will also remove them. The Monaco GP this weekend is a good example of that - most of the drivers more or less admitted they gave up bothering to try and advance places after the first 10 laps because it wasn't worth it. Collusion is more like what used to happen in the 'good old days' of the FA Cup when clubs would arrange a whole series of draws in order to maximise the number of replays and potential gate money.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 16:37:45 GMT
Because he wanted to sh1t on the worst individuals the country of Austria have ever inflicted on the world...well at least since the late 1880s I had to check. He was born then; I thought he was younger. Wow. That's some bold rhetoric, Crate.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 16:57:46 GMT
Ah, now I understand. Thanks for that. Still doesn't deal with the point, 46 competitive games, colluding with the opposition to achieve a pre-determined result is a tiny bit against the rules. It's certainly gamesmanship but I don't think it's really proper collusion in this case because I don't think you can in any way prove the pre-determined aspect of it. It's just two teams with little incentive to take any risks. The Gijon one might be a bit more questionable in that respect in terms of the capacity for pre-match collusion, which almost certainly did happen. But Chewie's right in the sense that the main issue there was the structure of the competition - it made it possible for that to happen and someone was bound to do it eventually. But the Coventry one is just the way the situation evolved - after all Coventry had several excellent chances that were well saved so it's not like there was a prior agreement but as soon as a draw was to their benefit as well then why bother taking the risk or expending the energy with playoffs coming up? Same thing happened in the last 20 minutes at Cardiff v Birmingham on the last day. Neither team had any incentive to risk what they had - cue stalemate. I don't think that's collusion - professional sport is contextual, the competition creates incentives and an occasional quirk of that is that it will also remove them. The Monaco GP this weekend is a good example of that - most of the drivers more or less admitted they gave up bothering to try and advance places after the first 10 laps because it wasn't worth it. Collusion is more like what used to happen in the 'good old days' of the FA Cup when clubs would arrange a whole series of draws in order to maximise the number of replays and potential gate money. The collusion can start at 1 minute, or 60 minutes, why does it matter? Either way, it's beyond bending the rules. When Boston did something, technically within the rules, but against the spirit, they got relegated about 400 divisions. I think at very least, footage of the game in question should be watched, if 2 teams spent a third of the game not competing they should both face heavy sanctions and neither should be allowed to benefit. Ref Monaco, nobody said that they didn't overtake because it 'wasn't worth it', there was no overtaking because the whole formula is a total farce with aerodynamic regs that mean the cars try to take off if they get close up behind another one and the tyres melt if you try to race on them. To have a Grand Prix at that venue just so that the super rich have an excuse for a yacht party is very silly indeed. Well played Bernie, you've sold that Geezer with the daft tash a right pup. Anyway, who exactly do we expect to sort this out, The FA? Morons are about to sell our national stadium, build cost £757m (probably nearer £1b adjusted for inflation), for £600m. Just a thought, do you think that anyone involved in the process of selling the venue may benefit from the sale?
|
|
Rex
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,287
|
Post by Rex on May 29, 2018 17:20:16 GMT
I find it odd that two teams can play out a draw to the detriment of a third team and face no punishment, yet play a couple of youngsters on the fringes of the first team in the Leyland Daf -sorry I've forgotten it's current title- attracts a fine.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 17:33:41 GMT
I find it odd that two teams can play out a draw to the detriment of a third team and face no punishment, yet play a couple of youngsters on the fringes of the first team in the Leyland Daf -sorry I've forgotten it's current title- attracts a fine. Oh you, what are you like, getting all sensible and pulling the carpet out from under stupid arguments
|
|
ricardo
Steve Elliot
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 138
|
Post by ricardo on Jun 1, 2018 10:22:56 GMT
Tisdale departure confirmed
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2018 12:40:57 GMT
Tisdale departure confirmed More interesting to us, Leeds have sacked yet another manager, assuming that Darrell hasn't had a call already, he'll probably be getting one soon...….
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jun 1, 2018 16:03:55 GMT
It's certainly gamesmanship but I don't think it's really proper collusion in this case because I don't think you can in any way prove the pre-determined aspect of it. It's just two teams with little incentive to take any risks. The Gijon one might be a bit more questionable in that respect in terms of the capacity for pre-match collusion, which almost certainly did happen. But Chewie's right in the sense that the main issue there was the structure of the competition - it made it possible for that to happen and someone was bound to do it eventually. But the Coventry one is just the way the situation evolved - after all Coventry had several excellent chances that were well saved so it's not like there was a prior agreement but as soon as a draw was to their benefit as well then why bother taking the risk or expending the energy with playoffs coming up? Same thing happened in the last 20 minutes at Cardiff v Birmingham on the last day. Neither team had any incentive to risk what they had - cue stalemate. I don't think that's collusion - professional sport is contextual, the competition creates incentives and an occasional quirk of that is that it will also remove them. The Monaco GP this weekend is a good example of that - most of the drivers more or less admitted they gave up bothering to try and advance places after the first 10 laps because it wasn't worth it. Collusion is more like what used to happen in the 'good old days' of the FA Cup when clubs would arrange a whole series of draws in order to maximise the number of replays and potential gate money. Ref Monaco, nobody said that they didn't overtake because it 'wasn't worth it', there was no overtaking because the whole formula is a total farce with aerodynamic regs that mean the cars try to take off if they get close up behind another one and the tyres melt if you try to race on them. To have a Grand Prix at that venue just so that the super rich have an excuse for a yacht party is very silly indeed. Well played Bernie, you've sold that Geezer with the daft tash a right pup. That's absolutely correct of course. But that is more or less what Hamilton said - that essentially it was a waste of time and the drivers know it. You can see they drive differently round that circuit or there would be carnage at the first corner every single year. I'm just pissed off cos I rarely bother with F1 anymore and that might be the one race I sit through all year!
The point about football though is it's always contextual. So if 1 team has no incentive to attack and plays for a stalemate by sticking 11 men behind the ball then I think most would accept that is OK ethically and sensible strategy in a lot of cases, but if 2 teams have no incentive to attack and stick 11 men behind the ball then that's collusion? I don't know how you untangle what is reasonable strategy from what isn't in that sense. I'd be mighty pissed off if I was a Coventry fan and they'd blown their first chance of anything positive happening at the club in 2 decades by taking needless risks - same goes if I was a Morecambe fan and my team had gone down due to that. It was bloody obvious in the Cardiff-Birmingham game that neither team had any incentive at all to advance over the halfway line or commit men forward in the last 20 minutes so the game died as a contest completely. It certainly didn't start that way but scores elsewhere lead to that. But to me that's just natural - you can't force competitiveness when both teams have active incentives not to compete. It wouldn't be the real thing anyway. Football might be uniquely vulnerable to that scenario due to the rarity of goals -it's nowhere near as easy to stalemate other sports.
|
|