|
Post by Craig Herbertson on Jul 7, 2010 20:36:33 GMT
I might close my shop if I was a bookie. That octopus is going to be worth millions tomorrow.
Watching Spain play football was almost as good as sex or pizza. What a brilliant, brilliant display of the beautiful game.
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Jul 8, 2010 8:46:10 GMT
Holland through (and I missed the punch up!) and the octopus has picked Spain.... don't think there was all that much to the punch up, FM. some of the Uruguay lads tried to get at Mark 'studs-up' Van Bommel to congratulate him on avoiding deserved straight red cards in consecutive matches but their heart wasn't in it. Certainly nothing to rival the Argentina-Germany post-final whistle flare up of four years ago. If Holland go on to win it don't see how anyone can complain - they're the only unbeaten side - but was gutted for Uruguay who brought plenty to the party. Diego Forlan in particular had a magnificent World Cup. Last night's semi. understandably cagey first half but great credit to Germany for living with Spain in the second half when, as Craig says, they really turned it on and were certainly better than pizza. But if you're seriously trying to tell me you'd take 45 minutes of flowing football over a night of passion with Paul the psychic octopus ....
|
|
|
Post by Craig Herbertson on Jul 8, 2010 10:45:48 GMT
I'd sell my soul to the octopus just to watch Hearts play like that for ten minutes...
|
|
|
Post by mattofthespurs on Jul 8, 2010 18:35:23 GMT
I might close my shop if I was a bookie. That octopus is going to be worth millions tomorrow. Watching Spain play football was almost as good as sex or pizza. What a brilliant, brilliant display of the beautiful game. True, very attractive to watch but also very ineffective. First 25 mins they had 75% of possession, nearly all of it in their own half, and only had one shot on goal. Their goal comes from a set piece, a corner. One kick, one header, goal. Hardly the most attractive football (unless you are a Wimbledon, Bolton, Sheffield United fan). Simply put Spain have the better players but Uruguay, Argentina, Germany have played the far better football regardless of how much of the ball they have had. Reminds me of a match last season. Spurs, in the entire 90 mins had a possession of 78%. They had 14 corners, 12 free kicks, and 32 shots on goal against Hull. The match finished 0-0. Conversely a match 2 months later Spurs had 50% of possession, 4 corners, 4 free kicks and 12 shots on goal. They beat Wigan 9-1. Make of that, if you can be bothered on a horror book site , what you will.
|
|
|
Post by Craig Herbertson on Jul 8, 2010 22:57:51 GMT
You bought Dave Mckay from us many years ago. Great player.
I can't agree though. Entertainment in a gung ho way - Germany. It's an efficient fast flowing young football team that have really tried to make a difference but they didn't when faced with superior skill and superior tactics. Argentina - imaginative clever, skillful but a heart without a brain. I'll accept that Uruguay are nearly the equal of Spain on a number of levels but perhaps the belief in winning is not quite there.
These things need to be ironed out over several pints to get the full venom and exaggeration into gear. Or better still bring a ball...
|
|
|
Post by franklinmarsh on Jul 12, 2010 12:38:48 GMT
Dem - was the final violent enough for you? Holland certainly went for it. Shame they turned into whingers at the end. I think Spain deserved victory.
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Jul 15, 2010 6:53:52 GMT
Dem - was the final violent enough for you? Holland certainly went for it. Shame they turned into whingers at the end. I think Spain deserved victory. Talk about saving the worst 'til last! as Johan Cruyff put it, from total football to anti-football. 14 yellows, one red and Howard Webb still gets criticised for leniency! And how praiseworthy were Uruguay and Germany to give their third & fourth place play off everything they'd got. Perhaps the most exciting games of a very strange tournament.
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Aug 22, 2011 17:08:53 GMT
Tony Thornton – The Club That Wouldn't Die: Barnet F. C. From Barry Fry To Disaster And BacK (Tiger, 1994) "The supporters don't matter as far as I'm concerned. They just pay the entrance fee. I don't care whether they come to Barnet or not" Stan Flashman, Radio 5, November 1992 in response to enquiries from fans and players as to where all the money had gone and chants urging his prompt resignation. A tragicomedy of a different kind. Barnet under the chairmanship of notorious ticket tout Stan Flashman. Fat Stan's satanic reign saw Barnet finally make it out of the then Vauxhall Conference and into the football league in 1990, their triumph largely due to the efforts of the manic Barry Fry who re mortgaged his house and suffered two heart attacks (one pushing the team coach) in the process. One Christmas night found Fry driving a tractor across the pitch in preparation of the following days fixture versus Wealdstone. Unfortunately he didn't think to notify anyone else of his intentions and eight PC's were despatched to Underhill to deal with a mad drunk causing "a million pounds worth of damage" to the famous Barnet slope. After only two seasons as a league side, Barnet won promotion to the old division III ... whereupon the achievement turned to nightmare. Flashman's fluid way with book-keeping and distribution of FA Cup final tickets earned those he'd left behind crippling sanctions from a vindictive Football League and a proud club, founded in the year Jack the Ripper was making a name for himself, was very nearly kicked into almost certain oblivion. Thornton's perspective on it all is, obviously, fans eye, but he's commendably even-handed and his warnings for other clubs ring even truer today than they did in 1994. while we're on the subject, a worthy petition: our lovely Tory government seem very keen to suppress certain documents relating to the terrible tragedy at Hillsborough in 1989 which saw ninety-six Liverpool fans crushed to death during the FA Cup semi final versus Nottingham Forest. if you think they should change their minds. Full disclosure of all government documents relating to 1989 Hillsborough disaster
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Aug 25, 2011 11:46:38 GMT
i note it's reached the 10,000 mark and so will be subject to debate in the house - hopefully, the truth will out (though we all know that it amounts to the police being out of their depth and not caring as it's only footie fans - there's a documentary from that period about hooliganism and policing that sums it up - i'll try and dig it out for reference). did you see the other week that it claimed another victim as some poor guy who's given a mate his ticket - and the mate died - killed himself afteryears of depressive illness?
on happier notes - barry fry! lunatic. madman. a cockney lower league cloughie. he's an arse if your lot are playing against him, and a miracle worker if he's on your side. keeping peterborough afloat cost him his house and his health, and although he gets stick for it that club wouldn't exist unless he'd put money in and then found a backer. and look at them now!
barnet, though... flashman was great tabloid fodder but an idiot in many ways. i don't think the club has ever really recovered, and to even be in lg2 (or div4 as we like to call it) is punching above their weight. the local council haven't helped, with the wrangles over the ground redevlopment that saw them nearly refused promotion from the conference because of the state of it. i've been there to see brentford, orient and doncaster against the bees, and it really is a tip. but not the chairman's fault, as he's fighting an uphill battle. cracking club...
now, has fry written an autobiog? i want to know the truth about gypsy curses and pissing on the corner flags at birmingham!
|
|
|
Post by helrunar on Jun 11, 2020 13:15:48 GMT
Can't find a cricket thread, so I'll park this question here. Feel free to ignore.
I am re-reading Simon Raven's novel The Troubadour, lovely 1993 HarperCollins paperback edition. Unusually for Raven, he is describing a young women's (or "girls'") cricket match:
Carolyn's first two balls (off-breaks) were swept over square leg's head for four. The third ball kept straight on and toppled the batsman's leg stump.
"That's my good girl," Ivan Blessington [her Dad] said.
I gather this translates into something like "Her first two balls were strikes. The third one was a hit." The syntax, or indeed actual meaning, of that first sentence completely defeats me, however.
What I'm wondering is if the "batsman" had suffered an unfortunate amputation and had been fitted with a leg prothesis, which the saucy lass knocked right out from under the poor girl. Somehow I don't think that is what the words mean, but it would certainly qualify for my longstanding view that "sport is horror."
cheers, H.
|
|
|
Post by cromagnonman on Jun 11, 2020 14:10:05 GMT
Can't find a cricket thread, so I'll park this question here. Feel free to ignore. I am re-reading Simon Raven's novel The Troubadour, lovely 1993 HarperCollins paperback edition. Unusually for Raven, he is describing a young women's (or "girls'") cricket match: Carolyn's first two balls (off-breaks) were swept over square leg's head for four. The third ball kept straight on and toppled the batsman's leg stump."That's my good girl," Ivan Blessington [her Dad] said.I gather this translates into something like "Her first two balls were strikes. The third one was a hit." The syntax, or indeed actual meaning, of that first sentence completely defeats me, however. What I'm wondering is if the "batsman" had suffered an unfortunate amputation and had been fitted with a leg prothesis, which the saucy lass knocked right out from under the poor girl. Somehow I don't think that is what the words mean, but it would certainly qualify for my longstanding view that "sport is horror." cheers, H. Cricket has its own uniquely weird and wonderful terminology Steve which doesn't travel well beyond the "boundaries" (hoho) of the game. And even though they are both bat and ball games comparisons with baseball are awkward. Basically the three sticks with the two bits of wood on top are the wickets which the bowler is trying to hit with the ball. The middle stick is the middle wicket (self explanatory), the outside stick on the same side as the batsman's feet is the leg stump and the other one is the off stump. So toppling the batsman's leg stump translates as hitting the first stick with the ball which means they're out. Out in cricket and baseball meaning exactly the same thing. Off breaks are balls aimed at the third stick which the batsman slogged over the fielders standing side on to the wicket. As the ball bounced before reaching the boundary it counts four runs. Had it carried over the boundary without bouncing it would have counted for six which is a closer counterpart to a strike. I'm no connoisseur of the game by any means - which Nick Hancock famously dissed with the observation that its the only sport you can play for five whole days and still not get a result - and I'll leave it to others to qualify how accurate my descriptions are. You're not alone in being baffled by the terminology. Commentator Brian Johnstone once received a furious letter from a listener berating him for making fun of the batsman's disability. When he queried what on earth they were talking about he was told he'd said that the batsman had two short legs, one of them square. These are fielding positions not physical handicaps. As a connoisseur of language though I think the terminology is marvellous. Although in the current ridiculously febrile climate I doubt many cricketers are going to be bowling a Chinaman anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by helrunar on Jun 11, 2020 14:15:30 GMT
Thank you, Richard. You explain it all very well.
There are a couple of Raven's novels (maybe more than a couple) that have climactic scenes set at cricket matches. (At least one has a climactic scene set at a horse race, which seems to involve less technical jargon of the impenetrable variety found in the cricket sequences.) I always think, "Bloody Hell, I'll just quickly flip through this bit" and then find myself reading it all anyway because Raven's language is so marvelous.
But there are whole paragraphs of the stuff I quoted here and I have almost no idea just what the hell is going on.
cheers, Steve
|
|
|
Post by helrunar on Jun 11, 2020 14:18:39 GMT
Also, though I obviously know very little about any of it, I may opine that golf trumps (haha) cricket for sheer pointless ridiculousness. I remember reading decades ago that James I, who was already on my hit list for other reasons, was responsible for bringing golf to England's very occasionally sunny pastures.
Steve
|
|