Enzo wrote:
On Oct 17, 11:47 am, "ken.over... at (no spam) gmail.com" <ken.over... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Oct 16, 10:35 am, MH <nos... at (no spam) 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 -

On Oct 19, 9:45 pm, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Enzo wrote:
On Oct 17, 11:47 am, "ken.over... at (no spam) gmail.com" <ken.over... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Oct 16, 10:35 am, MH <nos... at (no spam) 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?

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.

Enzo wrote:
On Oct 20, 4:41 am, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Enzo wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:45 pm, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Enzo wrote:
On Oct 17, 11:47 am, "ken.over... at (no spam) gmail.com"
ken.over... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 16, 10:35 am, MH <nos... at (no spam) 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.

On Oct 20, 4:41 am, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Enzo wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:45 pm, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Enzo wrote:
On Oct 17, 11:47 am, "ken.over... at (no spam) gmail.com"
ken.over... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 16, 10:35 am, MH <nos... at (no spam) 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 ).

Abubakr wrote:
On 21 Oct, 09:39, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Enzo wrote:
On Oct 20, 4:41 am, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Enzo wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:45 pm, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Enzo wrote:
On Oct 17, 11:47 am, "ken.over... at (no spam) gmail.com"
ken.over... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 16, 10:35 am, MH <nos... at (no spam) 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.

Why? It's a good game and I want to watch it. It just needs an attitude change
by the players and it will be even better.

p.s. anyone would think not walking when you've hit the ball is not a
common occurrence in cricket...

It is a common occurrence and I don't object to it. I didn't walk when I was
caught behind. But I don't know what this has to do with diving/melodramatic
response to injury.

Abubakr wrote:
On 22 Oct, 08:33, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Abubakr wrote:
On 21 Oct, 09:39, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Enzo wrote:
On Oct 20, 4:41 am, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Enzo wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:45 pm, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Enzo wrote:
On Oct 17, 11:47 am, "ken.over... at (no spam) gmail.com"
ken.over... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 16, 10:35 am, MH <nos... at (no spam) 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.

Why? It's a good game and I want to watch it. It just needs an
attitude change by the players and it will be even better.

It's not going to happen as long as the game remains highly paid and
professional.

p.s. anyone would think not walking when you've hit the ball is not
a common occurrence in cricket...

It is a common occurrence and I don't object to it. I didn't walk
when I was caught behind. But I don't know what this has to do with
diving/melodramatic response to injury.

LOL. It amounts to cheating, just like diving to get a decision in
your favour.

Rubbish. If you are told to go when you didn't hit it you have no choice but to
go. So you want players to accept those bad decisions _and_ walk off without
being told to when they do hit it.

umpire to make all the decisions because that's your only chance to have the bad
and fortunate decisions balancing each other at the end of your career.

You know the bowler has got you out but because the
umpire has missed it, you stay on the field. You want football players
to be honest and play clean but not cricketers?

The article doesn't focus on honesty and neither have I. It's about wimpy, weak
and whiny reaction to injury.

Abubakr wrote:
On 23 Oct, 08:15, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Abubakr wrote:
On 22 Oct, 08:33, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Abubakr wrote:
On 21 Oct, 09:39, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Enzo wrote:
On Oct 20, 4:41 am, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Enzo wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:45 pm, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Enzo wrote:
On Oct 17, 11:47 am, "ken.over... at (no spam) gmail.com"
ken.over... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 16, 10:35 am, MH <nos... at (no spam) 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.

Why? It's a good game and I want to watch it. It just needs an
attitude change by the players and it will be even better.

It's not going to happen as long as the game remains highly paid and
professional.

p.s. anyone would think not walking when you've hit the ball is
not a common occurrence in cricket...

It is a common occurrence and I don't object to it. I didn't walk
when I was caught behind. But I don't know what this has to do with
diving/melodramatic response to injury.

LOL. It amounts to cheating, just like diving to get a decision in
your favour.

Rubbish. If you are told to go when you didn't hit it you have no
choice but to go. So you want players to accept those bad decisions
_and_ walk off without being told to when they do hit it.

Yes.

The best and fairest course is to allow the
umpire to make all the decisions because that's your only chance to
have the bad and fortunate decisions balancing each other at the end
of your career.

Crap excuse.

You are perfectly entitled to believe that cricketers should "walk" because
that's the sporting thing to do. Plenty of people agree with you. But you are
out of line in labelling non-walkers cheats. You might not like my argument, but
it's a valid one, and those who have it are not cheats. If a batsman gestures
that he didn't hit it you could accuse him of trying to cheat, but if he just
stands there and waits for the decision, the same as he does for every other
decision, then he is not. He's just allowing the umpire to do his job. Why
should umpiring mistakes go in favour of the fielding team (which is effectively
what you are advocating) rather than be as balanced as possible?

On 22 Oct, 08:33, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Abubakr wrote:
On 21 Oct, 09:39, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Enzo wrote:
On Oct 20, 4:41 am, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Enzo wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:45 pm, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Enzo wrote:
On Oct 17, 11:47 am, "ken.over... at (no spam) gmail.com"
ken.over... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 16, 10:35 am, MH <nos... at (no spam) 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.

Why? It's a good game and I want to watch it. It just needs an
attitude change by the players and it will be even better.

It's not going to happen as long as the game remains highly paid and
professional.

p.s. anyone would think not walking when you've hit the ball is not
a common occurrence in cricket...

It is a common occurrence and I don't object to it. I didn't walk
when I was caught behind. But I don't know what this has to do with
diving/melodramatic response to injury.

LOL. It amounts to cheating, just like diving to get a decision in
your favour.

You know the bowler has got you out but because the
umpire has missed it, you stay on the field. You want football players
to be honest and play clean but not cricketers?

On 23 Oct, 08:15, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Abubakr wrote:
On 22 Oct, 08:33, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Abubakr wrote:
On 21 Oct, 09:39, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Enzo wrote:
On Oct 20, 4:41 am, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Enzo wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:45 pm, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Enzo wrote:
On Oct 17, 11:47 am, "ken.over... at (no spam) gmail.com"
ken.over... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 16, 10:35 am, MH <nos... at (no spam) 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.

Why? It's a good game and I want to watch it. It just needs an
attitude change by the players and it will be even better.

It's not going to happen as long as the game remains highly paid and
professional.

p.s. anyone would think not walking when you've hit the ball is
not a common occurrence in cricket...

It is a common occurrence and I don't object to it. I didn't walk
when I was caught behind. But I don't know what this has to do with
diving/melodramatic response to injury.

LOL. It amounts to cheating, just like diving to get a decision in
your favour.

Rubbish. If you are told to go when you didn't hit it you have no
choice but to go. So you want players to accept those bad decisions
_and_ walk off without being told to when they do hit it.

Yes.


The best and fairest course is to allow the
umpire to make all the decisions because that's your only chance to
have the bad and fortunate decisions balancing each other at the end
of your career.

Crap excuse.

On Oct 22, 7:48 pm, Abubakr <deltara... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On 23 Oct, 11:27, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:





Abubakr wrote:
On 23 Oct, 08:15, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Abubakr wrote:
On 22 Oct, 08:33, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Abubakr wrote:
On 21 Oct, 09:39, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Enzo wrote:
On Oct 20, 4:41 am, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Enzo wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:45 pm, "DavidW" <n... at (no spam) email.provided> wrote:
Enzo wrote:
On Oct 17, 11:47 am, "ken.over... at (no spam) gmail.com"
ken.over... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 16, 10:35 am, MH <nos... at (no spam) 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.

Why? It's a good game and I want to watch it. It just needs an
attitude change by the players and it will be even better.

It's not going to happen as long as the game remains highly paid
and professional.

p.s. anyone would think not walking when you've hit the ball is
not a common occurrence in cricket...

It is a common occurrence and I don't object to it. I didn't
walk when I was caught behind. But I don't know what this has
to do with diving/melodramatic response to injury.

LOL. It amounts to cheating, just like diving to get a decision
in your favour.

Rubbish. If you are told to go when you didn't hit it you have no
choice but to go. So you want players to accept those bad
decisions _and_ walk off without being told to when they do hit
it.

Yes.

The best and fairest course is to allow the
umpire to make all the decisions because that's your only chance
to have the bad and fortunate decisions balancing each other at
the end of your career.

Crap excuse.

You are perfectly entitled to believe that cricketers should "walk"
because that's the sporting thing to do. Plenty of people agree
with you. But you are out of line in labelling non-walkers cheats.
You might not like my argument, but it's a valid one, and those who
have it are not cheats. If a batsman gestures that he didn't hit it
you could accuse him of trying to cheat, but if he just stands
there and waits for the decision, the same as he does for every
other decision, then he is not. He's just allowing the umpire to do
his job. Why should umpiring mistakes go in favour of the fielding
team (which is effectively what you are advocating) rather than be
as balanced as possible?

They are cheats, just like appealers who know the batsman is NOT out
and still appeal. There have been plenty of incidents when bullshit
appeals have yielded a wicket for the fielding team, many of which
were game turning. All cheating and gamesmanship. Cricketers do it
and so do footballers. They just adapt their behaviour to the
mechanics and dynamics of their particular sports, that's all. It's
got nothing to do with machismo or lack thereof, it's about gaining
an advantage and professional sportsmen will try whatever is
available to them to achieve it.

DavidW is a tool who is a frequent poster in the tennis group. He
starts controversial topics like this over here and goes on trolling.