Messages

Also, why a fullback line should be involved in kickouts is just something i can't grasp.

They're meant to be defenders ffs. Their job is to nullify attackers, not be auxiliary midfielders.

You really are going back in time, everyone stand in their position, should defenders not be scoring, attackers not be defending, the game has evolved there is no defined positions now, even for the keeper.  Full backs can go up field under these rules and compete for the kickout, why is there an issue with them breaking into free space taking a quick ball from the keeper and starting an attack.

I think you'll find that in nearly every instance of every rule change, in every sport, in the history of the world, the reason for the rule change is to go "back in time".

Coaches find ways to take advantage of the rules. Other coaches copy. Game becomes boring. Rule makers intervene. Then we go again.

I mean following your daft logic, then soccer keepers should be able to pick up back passes as some of them had made an art form of it in the early 1990s. Daft. Completely f**king daft.

Also, why a fullback line should be involved in kickouts is just something i can't grasp.

They're meant to be defenders ffs. Their job is to nullify attackers, not be auxiliary midfielders.

Almost all field games allow teams to play in different ways. Long, short or a mix of both.

I think short and long kickouts should be allowed. Decision making is part of the game. Teams could then decide to press or not to press.

At the moment forwards have no decision to make. Just head back out and get onto breaks while hopefully pulling defense out of position.

Defenders 2,3,4 and 6 are virtually obsolete on kickouts now.

If they stay inside arc they are out of play completely, cannot receive the ball, miles away from their man and are allowing teammates further out the field to be double marked.

If they follow out the field, they have v little chance of getting ball (in a v high risk situation)and the team has a ludicrous defensive shape (none at all).

The new game is so far skewed in favour of forwards and the recent scorelines back this up.

Its Frankenstein Football on EPO.

The single, underlying and most emphatic reason why football is currently skewed in favour of forwards is because for the past decade forwards have had no choice but to become sharper, smarter, braver, stronger  more clinical, all because the rules were so heavily skewed against them.

If they're having fun now it's because they're reaping what they've been sowing.

It's now time for defenders to do likewise. Imagine marking a man and competing for the ball in front and with every last sinew? Surely it can't be that hard to imagine.

The skill then is for the attacking team to work it up for a score, the skill for the defending team is to stop them. There is zero skill in hoofing a ball 50 yards and hoping someone from your team wins a breaking ball.

For this to be in any way valid, then it requires the game (rules and culture) to follow a principle that every time a team gets a shot away, then their opponent gains an advantage of directly receiving the ball.

Basketball follows that principle. And it's a largely unwatchable sport until the final quarter.

Go watch basketball Pot. Most of us would prefer to watch a game that rewards conviction, challenges, and bravery.

——

Also if you think there's no skill involved in accurate long kickouts, high fielding, and winning breaking ball, then there's no hope for you. You're too young and you've been watching / playing  the wrong sport. Over time you'll understand..

Ditto for short kick outs, but those aren't allowed, just hoof it into a crowd, top skillset there.

There is zero skill involved by anyone when a keeper butts a 13m kickout to an unmarked teammate.

Zero.

None at all.

Zilch.

Stop describing long kickouts as skillless when your preferred alternative is the very and utter definition of skillless. Find some other bat to use if you may, but not this one.

Seems there are two types of people who follow football.

1. Those who can recall just how awful the game had become, especially in terms of lateral play.

2. Those with goldfish memories.

There is very little skill when it is more often than not spilled, there is more skill in in my opinion with a team working the ball up and the opposition trying to stop it than 4 or 5 lads crashing into each other spilling a ball. Before the mass defence there were defined positions, a long ball was usually competed for by midfielders now its just a mass of bodies crashing into one another.

Yes but your opinion is entirely clouded because of Armagh's most recent successful season. Same as Donegal ones a decade ago, Dublin ones for the best part of a decade, Derry ones a couple of seasons ago.

It's only when your team stops being successful that you can be objective about how absolutely f**king awful football had become under the old rules.

The arch should go completely, keepers should be able to do short kick outs, if the opposition don't want them to do that they press up, all we are getting is hoofs down to the side or middle and balls spilling, brings nothing to the game.  There is no skill with 4 or 5 lads jumping for the same ball all similar size and build.

Skill?

The thing is, there is infinitely more skill in "4 or 5 lads jumping for the same ball", than there is in kicking or receiving uncontested 13m kickouts.

Basketball is one of the most repetitive and boring sports ever devised. We were most of the way down that tunnel. Thank f**k we've turned around.

I don't buy into the notion that geographical proximity means you have to support someone.  There's plenty from "down the road" who are cnuts.  Best and Higgins were flawed to say the least.

Growing up in Holywood even in the 1990s McIlroy wouldn't have been widely exposed to Irish identity.  Let's face it, "Former Sullivan Upper Pupil Says He's British" isn't a big story.  You don't become bar manager at Holywood Golf Club if you're a dyed in the wool Republican.

Fair play to McIlroy, he was born with a serious talent and has worked hard to make the most of it.  He deserves his success.

Exactly, McGregor is the worst image for a sports man Ireland has ever produced, at the top of his sport at a time, and people here still like him, follow him and so on, Michelle Smyth also got a hard time and split loyalties, even Mary Peters had death threats, Barry McGuigan is another one loved and hated on the island. Didn't Higgins say he was going to have Taylor shot lol?

If people don't like people, that's ok, be handy to have a reason behind it though

The reason isn't complicated. He doesn't fit the average six counties Catholic's view on how a six county Catholic should walk and talk.

Because he grew up in a community with differing views and outlooks to their own, while focusing on a sport that doesn't concern itself with words and shows of national pride, he is never to going to reflect their narrow spectrum of northern nationalism. And instead of just accepting this as the inevitable cultural outcome and getting on with it, they have to mistrust him and even dislike him.

Rory if he's up to 4 shots either side of the lead on a Sunday, it's always entertaining.

Aberg has potential to become something similar.

Hovland has some of this. As does Bryson. Speith had it but can't find enough of the good stuff anymore.

I wouldn't consider myself a passionate fan of any of them but I'll tune in if it's happening and I'll root for any/all when it's on.

Most golfers though bore the shit out of me. To be honest I think I'm just looking at the course most of the time.

Would there be a grading system in terms of golf courses? Like the major courses are the most difficult?

I also find golf a bit random in that the best players won't necessarily win. Like most sports are a competition based where you will have the best teams win the Champions League, best player win Wimbledon but there feels like there's more randomness to golf at times.

There is grading. Kiawah Island for example is rated about 10 shots more difficult than even most of the PGA tour courses for the "normal" golfer. But that's mostly to do with length and the majority of pros can negate any length thrown at them.

What they struggle to negate is the elements, and treacherous rough.

Sandwich is a perfect example of this. when Darren Clarke won his Open there, he was one of three players under par. 10 years later, Morikawa won and was one of 40 players under par.

Links golf can play very easy for these guys (save for the occasional bad bounce) but it can also destroy them. And truth is nobody really knows what way an Open course is going to play until the weather makes up its mind.

The US Open was always the home of treacherous rough, and the same courses that regularly get taken apart in tour events can turn into unbreakable monsters, once 6" of growth is added in and fairways are narrowed. That said they seem to have eased up a little on this in recent years, partly no doubt due to the run of journeyman winners in the noughties.

Your point re surprise winners is true. There tends to be one comes from the pack every couple of seasons. But that's golf. Every single player on the tour would decimate any club golfer in every aspect of the game. They're just all exceptionally good at everything. Even the worst putters are better than anyone you'll meet at putting. So when a course is playing really tough, if one of the pack can keep it straight and keep bogeys to a minimum then he'll be in contention. When the best players are more likely to pick up doubles than eagles when being greedy, it's a hell of leveller. For they can't afford mistakes either.

Conversely, if the course is playing easier, then the best players tend to dominate the leaderboard.

Not a big golf fan and never really warmed to McIlroy either. However, can appreciate that it's a good achievement to win the four majors. In terms of all-time lists, how would you compare him to someone who maybe won more majors but didn't have the grand slam?

There's of course a wide aspect of subjectively in this. But here goes.

Nobody owns the majors in golf. It's a tradition that started somewhere most likely with Bobby Jones and took off after Arnold Palmer made it a big thing in the 1960s. And the reason there can't be a fifth major is simple enough. Arnie, Jack and a few others who made professional golf into what is, can't go back in time and win those fifth ones. So to become acclaimed as a better golfer than Jack, you have to beat Jack according to the principles that Jack adhered to. It'll never change.

Does this make them a good yardstick of a great golfer?

Short answer is, absolutely.

Longer answer is that by design (Palmer) the 4 tournaments involved are very different tests of golf. The sheer brutality of the US Open, the sheer randomness of the Open, the sheer and exclusive test of the Masters, and the complete  lack of exclusivity, and lesser challenge of the PGA, meaning a siege of lesser golfers can score well.

And whilst majors were always hard to win, it has never been more so the case in the post Tiger era, where there are now dozens of extraordinarily coordinated and focused gym bunnies all vying for and capable of taking a place in history. Tiger changed the game forever by bringing in exceptional wealth and then matching it with exceptional focus on every aspect of his game.

Rory is the first person to complete the set in the post Tiger era. So to summarise. It's a hell of an achievement. He's in the top 10 golfers of all time now. And with a few more titles, could go top 5.

Who's your top 10? I assume we're ignoring pre-war golfers?

Jack
Tiger
Palmer
Seve
Sarazen
Player
Watson
Faldo?
Mickelson?

Hogan, Palmer, Nicklaus, Player and Woods are automatic picks. Watson and Sarazen pretty much much there too.

Then it's open field.

I'd have Rory way above Seve myself. Seve was a showman who peaked for 5 years or so. Rory is a more complete golfer, also a showman, and has been mr longevity.

Not a big golf fan and never really warmed to McIlroy either. However, can appreciate that it's a good achievement to win the four majors. In terms of all-time lists, how would you compare him to someone who maybe won more majors but didn't have the grand slam?

There's of course a wide aspect of subjectively in this. But here goes.

Nobody owns the majors in golf. It's a tradition that started somewhere most likely with Bobby Jones and took off after Arnold Palmer made it a big thing in the 1960s. And the reason there can't be a fifth major is simple enough. Arnie, Jack and a few others who made professional golf into what is, can't go back in time and win those fifth ones. So to become acclaimed as a better golfer than Jack, you have to beat Jack according to the principles that Jack adhered to. It'll never change.

Does this make them a good yardstick of a great golfer?

Short answer is, absolutely.

Longer answer is that by design (Palmer) the 4 tournaments involved are very different tests of golf. The sheer brutality of the US Open, the sheer randomness of the Open, the sheer and exclusive test of the Masters, and the complete  lack of exclusivity, and lesser challenge of the PGA, meaning a siege of lesser golfers can score well.

And whilst majors were always hard to win, it has never been more so the case in the post Tiger era, where there are now dozens of extraordinarily coordinated and focused gym bunnies all vying for and capable of taking a place in history. Tiger changed the game forever by bringing in exceptional wealth and then matching it with exceptional focus on every aspect of his game.

Rory is the first person to complete the set in the post Tiger era. So to summarise. It's a hell of an achievement. He's in the top 10 golfers of all time now. And with a few more titles, could go top 5.

Ireland's greatest ever sportsman. Was already. Tonight, beyond reproach.

f**k the begrudgers. They don't even know why they begrudge.

Well done Ruairi.

I don't think Tyrone will throw it away, but 9-10 points is precarious enough with that breeze.

BBC commentators mustn't have been watching the National League.