Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

World Cup 2010

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 65
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 15 55 60 61 62 63 64 65 template Next
  • #961
    Re: World Cup 2010

    I stayed out of this yesterday because I didn't want to reply to every post, but I feel in light of many comments, not just on here, but on other forums and reports of the press reaction in The Netherland, I want to put some backing to my views here.


    I must start by saying I can understand the great disappointment of fans at losing a final. I find it massively disappointing when any team I support loses and knock out match, never mind the final of the world cup, so my condolences are sincere.

    Firstly, some people are saying that Howard Webb was a poor choice for the final, I do not want to say that he was the only choice, but the choice of this trio of referees can very much be justified.

    A large part of the reason this trio was selected was because of the linesmen. They have been extremely good in a world cup that has seen some truly dreadful decisions for offside. I know Mourning you claim that first ball was offside, I am sorry, I have watched in 4 or 5 times and in my mind there is no doubt at all, that when he makes contact with the ball for the pass there is no part of Iniesta's body that he his allowed to play the ball with that is beyond the final defender. He is onside, and I can't find an analyst that disagrees. These linesmen were throughout the tournement two of the best.

    Howard himself is a very well respected referee who has been on the big stage before. He refereed the Champions league final, he was considered before this world cup as one of the best in the world. He then had a very solid world cup. This, along with the linesmens performance made him a very legitimate option.

    Jose Mourinho openly said he is probably the best referee in the world with regard to his Champions league performances.

    Now some statistics for him.

    He is very unlikely to award red cards or penalties.
    This is statistically clear, particularly through this last season. Looking at the chamions league as that is a similar format to the world cup (people play differently in knock out games) he refereed in 7 games issuing no penalties and no red cards .... Now without watching all 7 of the games, we cannot judge weather these decisions were all correct, however, the arguement was put out before the final, that we do not want the world cup decided by a cheap red card or a cheap penalty.

    Early cards.
    He tends not to issue early cards at all. Only 2 within the first 15 minutes in the 7 champions league games he refereed.

    Yellow cards
    He issued 29 in 7 games during the Champions league, including the final where he issued 3 (ironicly one to Van Bommel). That is 4.1 yellows per game. Very slightly above average for the champions league but not in the top quartile for referees, and when you consider no reds he is almost exactly in the middle of the pack in terms of disaplinary action.


    The teams.

    Going into the final the two teams were on the oposite end of the foul spectrum. Spain had committed 62 fouls with 3 yellow cards, making them statistically the second cleanest team in the competition.

    The Netherlands however had committed 98 fouls with 15 yellow cards, making them statistically the biggest fouling team in the competition (even taking into account the no. of games).

    Admittedly thes statistcs cannot tell us anything about the match but they can tell us what to expect.


    The Match.

    Now, at great pain to my own brain and eyes, I have rewatched that final, to ensure that emotions etc. play as little part in my analysis as possible. Unfortunately, on second viewing, more than anything, it has cemented my views from the first viewing. This was a dreadful game of football.


    The 3 earliest yellow cards.

    Van Persie after 14 minutes. This was his second very poor tackle in 3 and a half minute. Each on their own could be justified as a yellow. In a final, with blood flowing, allowing the first to go is a good decision. Allowing the second to go would be paramount to having to allow the same level of leniency to everyone, which could have resulted in an even worse spectical, if that is indeed possible.

    Puyol after 16 minutes. I must admit, I got this one mixed up in my head. This was actually a slide tackle on Robben as Robben collected the ball. It was late, with the studs up and cought Robben clean of the side of his ankle. If that is not a stone wall yellow card then leg breaks would be even more common.

    Van Bommell after 22 minutes. This, as has been discussed was just simply unacceptable. I think in any other match it would be a straight red, but I think that something can be said of keeping played on the pitch in a world cup final where possible.

    The other cards.
    De Jong (27 minutes) was without doubt a red. Can't really say any more on that.

    Heitinga
    His first yellow (56 minutes) was a late tackle that I believe was of it's own right a yellow. Where I think Heitinga is unlucky is that he only committed 2 fouls in the game. Each getting a yellow. But unfortunately, this one was bad enough to warant it on its own.

    His second was of more contraversy. By the letter of the law, as soon as he raises his hand and places it on the shoulder of the attacker, he is in trouble. Iniesta has gone down far too easily, and I dislike that aspect of the game massively. So yes, I think Iniesta is at fault there, but the referee has no choice. From his perspective, Heitinga had raised his arm and pulled back on Iniesta shoulder, Iniesta has gone down. There is no other alternative for Howard Webb. Iniesta should be ashamed of himself for gamesmanship, but that is part of the game now, regardless of how much individuals like me hate it.

    This is made all the more contraversial by Robben, who to be fair to him, in a similar situation, stayed on his feet. Advantage was played and Robben missed the chance. His reaction, however, equally has no part in football and deserved to be punished. I must say, on one hand I am impressed he stayed up (although a large part of that I bet was because he thought he would score), but the other part of me thinks his reaction was disgraceful.

    Sneijder on Busquets in the 42nd minute. Was given a foul and a stern talking to. I include this, because there could have been more cards. I think this was a yellow as well, and some say it should have been a red.

    Also a quick mention of Van Bommel Leaving his foot in on Iniesta, i think if this is seen it's another yello, before Iniesta got up and took the law into his own hands. He didn't hit Van Bommel, or infact barge him hard enough to knock him over, but the reaction inself deserved the yellow.

    Anyway, enough examples, I have writen down all the cards and some of the other incidents here. I would like to know any examples of where a card cannot be justified by the laws of football, because in my eyes, I would not be able to argue against many of them.



    The aftermath.
    My point in this post is not to make Howard Webb out as the perfect referee. He isn't. Nor to say he had a perfect game. He didn't (missing that corner was nothing short of a farce). But I simply want to make the point that he had little choice in this game but issue those cards and make the decisions he did. It was dictated to him by the players.

    Referees have a near impossible job. Howard Webb is one of the best in the world, yet he struggled because of the nature of the game. Referees have come out supporting his performance, many saying they are glad they didn't have to try and control the game. Mark Lawrence refered to some of the players behaviour as child like.

    The referees association put out a statement saying "Howard Controlled the game firmly but with sympathy. It would be almost impossible to disagree with any of the yellow cards he issued."

    I do not think that there is a place in football for the way the The Netherlands played that match. I do not expect them to play "Total Football" if that is not the best style for their team. But I do think that the tackles and their apparent attitude was acceptable. You can play hard solid football without going to the extent the Dutch did this weekend. Conservative solid, defence driven football does not need to include dangerous tackles and constant fouling. For the record, I would rather suport a free flowing football team that "underachieved" in the eyes of the public than a team that went beyond what is acceptable for the game in my eyes.

    I do not want to get personal or attack any posters and I hope I havn't offended anyone in this post. I think it is an interesting discussion and debate, that hopefully we can have in a contructive way, without reducing it to a petty level.

    As always, Just my opinions.
    'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'
    Animal Farm, by George Orwell

    Comment

    • #962
      Re: World Cup 2010

      Forget all that if you wish and take it from arguably the greatest Dutch player in history

      Johan Cruyff said of this game
      Of course I'm not hanging all 11 of them by the same rope, but almost. They didn't want the ball. And regrettably, sadly, they played very dirty. So much so that they should have been down to nine immediately, then they made two ugly and hard tackles that even I felt the damage.

      It hurts me that I was wrong in my disagreement, that instead Holland chose an ugly path to aim for the title. This ugly, vulgar, hard, hermetic, hardly eye-catching, hardly football style, yes it served the Dutch to unsettle Spain. If with his they got satisfaction, fine, but they ended up losing. They were playing anti-football.
      'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'
      Animal Farm, by George Orwell

      Comment

      • #963
        Re: World Cup 2010

        i too don't think there was offside but i can't believe that the refs did not see some of the "corners" which should've been given to Netherlands...

        and that was my main gripe with the refs more than anything...

        Comment

        • #964
          Re: World Cup 2010

          I retract the offside statement. I was wrong. I think saw it from another angle, which certainly made it look offside. It was not offside.

          Regarding Cruyff let me say this:
          I respect the mans accomplishments both as a player and a coach. He comments immense respect throughout our whole country. He's also pretty broadly seen as an icon with a vision on how The Netherlands should play that's attractive to the eye and very offensive-minded. He wants to play with 3 defenders for example. In modernday football that equals committing suicide.

          He's also widely known for giving his critism and opinion, but never to have accepted the coaching job for The Netherlands, twice being asked and twice after lengthy consideration turning it down. Now I don't like to attack him, but the way he wanted us to play we probably would have been lucky to have gotten out of the group fase, so I'm sorry for not falling for his opinion when it comes to him and how The Netherlands should play. If it were up to him defenders would be practically attackers just further away from the goal. It's like he's stuck in the 70's regarding the national team. But, maybe he knows it better and just for fun the Dutch national soccer association (KNVB) should just offer him the job again, fully knowing he'll shy away from it again, because critisizing from the sidelines is so much more convenient and easy then actually taking up the challenge yourself.

          I also want to understate that he has HUGE roots with Spain aswell, so he could just pick what he likes best between these two sides.

          He brings enormous knowhow and wisdom to the game, but when it comes to this, yeah, I ignore him with a light smile on my face, like millions of countrymen do.

          On a sidenote. I've truly had enough with getting knocked out prematurely, but playing entertaining soccer. Let others play that entertainment role for 30 years like we have done. I would say it's almost our right to play more defensive and much more result oriented now. I would prefer beautifull soccer too, but you know all those German, Italian teams playing UGLY soccer... they did win it all those times. We haven't won a single time with our beautifull soccer. Not once.

          So, to me and a lot of others here it's: results first, nice soccer later. And if it's a good result and ugly soccer then good. Losing with beautifull soccer, no thank you, been there, done that since 1974. Time for another team to do that now.

          Going to those WC finals three times, ending up with 0 wins, don't mind me being a bit bitter about it.

          Also I think there wasn't much advantage to be gained by Robben when he was grabbed by Puyol anymore, because Casillas (superb keeper btw) was allready upon him. It's totally moronic a player would have to fall to get that defender that yellow card. He was clearly touched and hindred on a breakthrough play. That should be an automatic yellow.

          Wasn't Webb also the ref who screwed Poland over bigtime in the last European Championship? Not sure.
          Last edited by Mourning; 07-13-2010, 01:07 PM. Reason: spellcheck
          2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

          2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

          2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

          Comment

          • #965
            Re: World Cup 2010

            Originally posted by The Hustler View Post
            I do not want to get personal or attack any posters and I hope I havn't offended anyone in this post. I think it is an interesting discussion and debate, that hopefully we can have in a contructive way, without reducing it to a petty level.

            As always, Just my opinions.
            And I respect your opinion, but your summary was rather one-sided when it came to fouling. The Spanish I guess deserved only one yellow card (Puyol)? Let's say I don't aggree with only bringing up Dutch fouls and then bring forward one Spanish foul to compensate .
            Last edited by Mourning; 07-13-2010, 11:34 AM.
            2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

            2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

            2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

            Comment

            • #966
              Re: World Cup 2010

              Originally posted by Mourning View Post
              And I respect your opinion, but your summary was rather one-sided when it came to fouling. The Spanish I guess deserved only one yellow card (Puyol)? Let's say I don't aggree with only bringing up Dutch fouls and then bring forward one Spanish foul to compensate .
              Sorry, I didn't intend to only bring up one spanish foul (although if i want to be picky i can point out that I said iniesta deserved one too ). I stand that from what I saw the spanish cards were justified as well the dutch ones. I have writen down in my notes two bad challenges from Ramos and I also should note that Busquets committed 5 fouls, a number only matched by Van Bommel (also 5).

              Interestingly, Netherland commited 28 fouls and Spain 19. Every outfield player to play for The Netherlands committed at least 1 foul.

              So yes, I apologise for mainly bringing up the bad tackles by the Dutch. Neither team were faultless. But I must say I thought the dutch were the worse culprits.


              On a nicer note for everyone not English like me ... I feel after my ranting I should say both teams clearly played better throughout the World Cup than we did. As frustrated as I was by the tackling of particularly the dutch in the final, at least they held defensive positions with disipline most of the time and were able to pass the ball consitently over 10 yards. This is more than we could do.
              'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'
              Animal Farm, by George Orwell

              Comment

              • #967
                Re: World Cup 2010

                Originally posted by The Hustler View Post
                Sorry, I didn't intend to only bring up one spanish foul (although if i want to be picky i can point out that I said iniesta deserved one too )
                Hehe. Ok, true .

                Originally posted by The Hustler View Post
                So yes, I apologise for mainly bringing up the bad tackles by the Dutch. Neither team were faultless. But I must say I thought the dutch were the worse culprits.
                Agreed. But, reading from the international press it's like we were the ONLY culprits, I do take issue with that .

                Originally posted by The Hustler View Post
                On a nicer note for everyone not English like me ... I feel after my ranting I should say both teams clearly played better throughout the World Cup than we did. As frustrated as I was by the tackling of particularly the dutch in the final, at least they held defensive positions with disipline most of the time and were able to pass the ball consitently over 10 yards. This is more than we could do.
                I was actually amused by one of your papers, I think it was the Daily Telegraph, which wrote "Dutch soccer is dead". IF Dutch soccer is dead after reaching the finals then what does that make English soccer?
                2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                Comment

                • #968
                  Re: World Cup 2010

                  Originally posted by Mourning View Post
                  I was actually amused by one of your papers, I think it was the Daily Telegraph, which wrote "Dutch soccer is dead". IF Dutch soccer is dead after reaching the finals then what does that make English soccer?
                  I must admit that is amusing. I can't comment on the rest of that article as I read the Times, but I think that Dutch Total football is dead. I think that was inevitable, a shame for the neutral, but completely understandable.

                  English football (I can't bring myself to call it soccer) hasn't existed for decades. English football in the true sense would most likely have made the Dutch team this weekend look soft. Not for sliding in or anything like that, but shoulder checking, powerful tackles and a fairly large amount of personal abuse.
                  'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'
                  Animal Farm, by George Orwell

                  Comment

                  • #969
                    Re: World Cup 2010

                    Originally posted by Mourning View Post
                    I also want to understate that he has HUGE roots with Spain aswell, so he could just pick what he likes best between these two sides.
                    I thought it was a given that Cruyff was rooting for Spain to win the WC? Was it not the way his stance was perceived in the Netherlands?

                    I mean, he practically is Catalonian. He's lived in Barcelona for more or less 30 years, his son's name is Jordi (Catalonian for "George", the protecting saint of Catalonia), and until recently he was the honorary president of FC Barcelona. And he writes a weekly column for the Vanguardia, Barcelona's most important daily newspaper.

                    Heck he even coaches the Catalonian "national" team, which boasts many players from the Spanish national team (Valdes, Pique, Puyol, Busquets, Xavi and Capdevilla, for those who were on Spain's WC squad).

                    And Spain's playing style pretty much is Barcelona's, and Barcelona's current playing style is the direct result of the time Cruyff spent there as a coach in the early 90s.

                    I don't know, if I was Dutch I might consider him to be somewhat of a traitor to his own country.

                    Comment

                    • #970
                      Re: World Cup 2010

                      Well... that would be too harsh. He does write columns here aswell, regularly gives comments on Dutch tv like forexample Shearer does on the BBC.

                      He has been letting his opinion on the Dutch national team known way too much for years now, so I saw those comments of him coming. He looks pretty opportunistic to me.

                      Btw his son, Jordi, also played for the Dutch national team (luckily not very long ).

                      I don't dislike the man at all, but I do take his opinion when it comes to our national team with a HUGE TRAINLOAD of salt .
                      2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                      2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                      2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                      Comment

                      • #971
                        Re: World Cup 2010

                        yes this game needs three umpires........................................... ....
                        Loreal Mascara
                        Revlon Lip Gloss

                        Comment

                        Previous 1 15 55 60 61 62 63 64 65 template Next
                        Working...
                        X