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...

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.

Abubakr wrote:
On 16 Oct, 14:48, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:

A typical myopic view from a writer from the egg-ball brigade. First
understand the game then you'll be in position to complain about
players' behavior. Until then, pieces like this are nothing but the
work of a lowlife propagandist. Football fans downunder are NOT
interested.

So you approve of diving, or are you actually claiming that all those
histrionics we see are genuine pain?

On 16 Oct, 14:48, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:

A typical myopic view from a writer from the egg-ball brigade. First
understand the game then you'll be in position to complain about
players' behavior. Until then, pieces like this are nothing but the
work of a lowlife propagandist. Football fans downunder are NOT
interested.

Futbolmetrix wrote:
"DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote in message
news:XuSBm.10142$cL1.122 at (no spam) 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.

All very true. What the author of the article is complaining about comes
under some categories of "simulation" , I would suggest.

Partly faking (or exaggerating the magnitude of) injuries. This has two
main goals 1) delaying the game and opponents attacks' and 2) convincing
the ref to give a foul and maybe a card.

Partly embellishing contact. Again to influence the ref.

 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.

You don't need to agree with him, but calling him an idiot (as some here
have) is unreasonable, because he is describing a legitimate and
widespread point of view in some countries where soccer is not the major
sport.  He is also doing it while avoiding some of the excesses of
similar articles written by reporters among our neighbours to the south
- who always manage to suggest that soccer is an effete sport for the
effeminate etc.



D

On 16 Oct, 14:48, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:





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...

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.

A typical myopic view from a writer from the egg-ball brigade. First
understand the game then you'll be in position to complain about
players' behavior. Until then, pieces like this are nothing but the
work of a lowlife propagandist. Football fans downunder are NOT
interested.

On 16 Oct, 15:18, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:

Abubakr wrote:
On 16 Oct, 14:48, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:

A typical myopic view from a writer from the egg-ball brigade. First
understand the game then you'll be in position to complain about
players' behavior. Until then, pieces like this are nothing but the
work of a lowlife propagandist. Football fans downunder are NOT
interested.

So you approve of diving, or are you actually claiming that all those
histrionics we see are genuine pain?

There's a reason for the histrionics that has to do with the nature of
the game and its rules which outsiders can't appreciate. And frankly,
football fan's don't give a rat's arse what an Aussie Rules
'journalist' has to say about our game.

p.s. tackles in football do actually hurt, and quite badly. Just as an
example of their severity, one of the world's greatest players, Marco
Van Basten had to give up the game at his peak because of repeated
battery to his ankles leading chronic injuries.

Abubakr wrote:
On 16 Oct, 14:48, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:

A typical myopic view from a writer from the egg-ball brigade. First
understand the game then you'll be in position to complain about
players' behavior. Until then, pieces like this are nothing but the
work of a lowlife propagandist. Football fans downunder are NOT
interested.

So you approve of diving, or are you actually claiming that all those
histrionics we see are genuine pain?

On 16 Oct, 15:18, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:

Abubakr wrote:
On 16 Oct, 14:48, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:

A typical myopic view from a writer from the egg-ball brigade. First
understand the game then you'll be in position to complain about
players' behavior. Until then, pieces like this are nothing but the
work of a lowlife propagandist. Football fans downunder are NOT
interested.

So you approve of diving, or are you actually claiming that all those
histrionics we see are genuine pain?

There's a reason for the histrionics that has to do with the nature of
the game and its rules which outsiders can't appreciate. And frankly,
football fan's don't give a rat's arse what an Aussie Rules
'journalist' has to say about our game.

p.s. tackles in football do actually hurt, and quite badly. Just as an
example of their severity, one of the world's greatest players, Marco
Van Basten had to give up the game at his peak because of repeated
battery to his ankles leading chronic injuries.

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.

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.

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...

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..

In article
798ea59b-79af-48db-8f73-4c4585865... at (no spam) s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,





 Abubakr <deltara... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On 16 Oct, 15:18, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Abubakr wrote:
On 16 Oct, 14:48, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:

A typical myopic view from a writer from the egg-ball brigade. First
understand the game then you'll be in position to complain about
players' behavior. Until then, pieces like this are nothing but the
work of a lowlife propagandist. Football fans downunder are NOT
interested.

So you approve of diving, or are you actually claiming that all those
histrionics we see are genuine pain?

There's a reason for the histrionics that has to do with the nature of
the game and its rules which outsiders can't appreciate. And frankly,
football fan's don't give a rat's arse what an Aussie Rules
'journalist' has to say about our game.

Oh, so tell us what it is about "the nature of the game" that demands
writhing about as if hit by a truck? I'll tell you - absolutely nothing.
It is just a childish attempt to cheat, and get an opposition player
carded for nothing. If that's how you like your games, good luck to you.
Most of us prefer the grown up version.



p.s. tackles in football do actually hurt, and quite badly. Just as an
example of their severity, one of the world's greatest players, Marco
Van Basten had to give up the game at his peak because of repeated
battery to his ankles leading chronic injuries.

Yes, tackles can hurt, just ask those who played against Ron Harris,
Norman Hunter, or Tommy Smyth. It is a physical game. But all the faking
simply means that when a player does go down hard, it gets ignored
because of all the crying wolf that preceded it.

"DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote in message

news:h2SBm.69937$bP1.17482 at (no spam) 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...

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.

In article
15fc7037-5edb-4f40-a5b4-c084169eb... at (no spam) b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,





 Abubakr <deltara... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 17, 12:19 am, ben <bennysant... at (no spam) y7mail.com> wrote:
On 16 Oct, 13:51, Abubakr <deltara... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 16, 9:59 pm, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) 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.

Give it up - you are just making yourself look more ridiculous by the
minute.

On Oct 17, 1:35 am, MH <nos... at (no spam) ucalgary.ca> wrote:





Futbolmetrix wrote:
"DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote in message
news:XuSBm.10142$cL1.122 at (no spam) 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.

All very true. What the author of the article is complaining about comes
under some categories of "simulation" , I would suggest.

Partly faking (or exaggerating the magnitude of) injuries. This has two
main goals 1) delaying the game and opponents attacks' and 2) convincing
the ref to give a foul and maybe a card.

Partly embellishing contact. Again to influence the ref.

 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.

You don't need to agree with him, but calling him an idiot (as some here
have) is unreasonable, because he is describing a legitimate and
widespread point of view in some countries where soccer is not the major
sport.  He is also doing it while avoiding some of the excesses of
similar articles written by reporters among our neighbours to the south
- who always manage to suggest that soccer is an effete sport for the
effeminate etc.

D

You are not familiar with the context the likes of this Gaum write in.
There's an all out media war by the other codes to vilify football in
this country. In Melbourne it's the Aussie Rules establishment and in
NSW and Queensland we have the rugby heads who never tire of telling
whoever reads their articles how football is 'un-Australian'.

They are jealous and protecting their interests through propaganda.
They know that in the heart of their next season the focus of the
nation will be on the NT in South Africa and football's growing
popularity is a major threat to their codes' hegemony.

But we don't care to turn people to our game. If they choose to follow
it, they choose to follow it on its own terms, not on Rugby's, Aussie
Rule's or cricket's. And if they don't find something appealing in our
game, they are quite welcome to keep throwing their eggballs around
till kingdom come.