| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
 |
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | ' Orthodox strategy is to have a single player (normally the striker i.e. the least effective defensive-minded player) sort of harrying the back four by scurrying around following the ball. This always looks forlorn but actually prevents one of them simply advancing with the ball to the halfway line. |
That's not the objective. The objective of the orthodox strategy is to get the central backs (when ball carrying passing) to play it sidewides wide to one of the players on the touchline, by the striker running forward towards the gap between the ball carrier and the half of the pitch you are cutting off. The objective is not to follow the ball (doh) or tackle .... it's called halving the pitch and making it easier to defend as the attacking side has less space to play in. Once you halve the pitch you then reduce the attacker's space again.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough, I'll take your word for it, but does it alter the overall argument?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| A mediocre Dutch side, it has to be said. |
It doesn’t have to be said because every newspaper and saloon bar has already said it. And you will see it is not true (not valid anyway) once you are forced to think about it as opposed to parroting it. England have just played ten qualifiers against truly ‘mediocre’ sides and in not a single one—not a single one—did they demonstrate this degree of fluidity. So Holland have to be compared with these teams (not with Dutch teams in the past).
Once you get to this point you realise that the Dutch are different in kind to Lithuania et al. They are stuffed with multi-million pound players and are comparable in every way (except maybe confidence) to England. This is why the switch from 0-0 to 0-1 is crucial. Can you imagine Lithuania ‘going on the offence’, ‘pushing up’, 'pressurising the back four' etc etc? No, and England went to pieces when Holland did, or at any rate lost all their fluidity. It's Gareth's next task unless he is listening to you and the saloon bar and not me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BBC website headline:
| Australia cricket scandal: A body blow to an incredulous nation |
I seem to remember we did the body blows in the days of Larwood - now they're doing it to themselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Australia merely did what every test has always done ie changing the performance of the ball. In your early days it was picking the seam, nowadays it's generating reverse swing by roughing one side.
Every team does it, the difference is that the South Africans encouraged the channel covering the cricket to look for Aussie ball tampering.
Test Cricket was much improved by replacing home umpires (Pakistan was notorious for bad LBWs) by neutral umpires.
Now we are back to the bad old days, the home side will have the advantage of exposing technical infringements of the away side by the use of TV, along with the choice of home ball, preparation of pitch etc.
Cricket is more important than this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Every word of this is out of the saloon bar except the reference to South African TV which was at least new to me and almost certainly untrue. As is the statement
| Pakistan was notorious for bad LBWs |
Pakistan umpires gave no LBW verdicts (in favour of foreign teams) not bad ones.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not making any more football comments unless I have been to a few saloon bars, read the press and online media after a sporting event and checked to see if my own thoughts were different. No more sitting in front of the TV with a beer and giving my immediate reaction...oh, no.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
At last! But remember your compulsion to comment will now be channelled into curious byways. You'll see.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
So we saw it all play out against Italy as I foretold. All the Italians had to do was to plonk a few people in the England third and we were helpless -- or at any rate reduced to hoofing it up the park. Much talk afterwards about whether to play both Henderson and Dyer. This was in a defensive context. Wrong! It is for attacking purposes.
The one thing that Henderson and Dyer are trained to do is actually go back to link with the back three/four/five when the ball is being played out from the back. When you are being pressed or semi-pressed it is the duty of all midfielders to go back and link with the defenders. Otherwise they will have to hoof it up the park. Since ordinary English midfielders (including wing-backs) never do that, we'll have to play both Henderson and Dyer against the better teams. Ridiculous of course but Gareth won't listen to me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Auro=Saloon bar
Hattie=Cocktails lounge
Ishmael=Blues bar
Mick= Singles bar
Scotty=Speakeasy
Wiley=Dive bar
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
| Wile E. Coyote wrote: | Auro=Saloon bar
Hattie=Cocktails lounge
Ishmael=Blues bar
Mick= Singles bar
Scotty=Speakeasy
Wiley=Dive bar |
Sounds like I've been barred.
Bar humbug.
Goodbye.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Which one was Boreades?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Hmmm
Boro= Zee Big Boobies bar
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
We shall never see his like again. Apart from Auro, Hattie, Ishmael, Scotty and Wiley.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
The last time an Australian cricketer cried in public was Kim Hughes back in the days of Packer. He was thoroughly pilloried by Ocker Australia. Now it is de rigeur (David Warner joined in last night) so the question before us is 'Do we approve of this lurch into modernism by our last redoubt of stiff upperlippery?'
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
