Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

by kwinigolfer Mon Nov 17, 2014 10:43 pm

First topic message reminder :

Sr,
1).Correct. Wonderful is right. Though in the American order of things behind the NFL, College Football, High School Football, NBA, College B'ball.
2).Not much of a market: 21,000 per home game.
3).But no other nations pay their players a fraction of this sort of bounty. He'll probably end up using PED's, just like his predecessor as highest paid.
Ridiculous money!

by kwinigolfer Tue Nov 25, 2014 9:57 pm

Disagree about Hart.
Who is better than him? Courtois, Cech, DeGea? Wouldn't say anyone else.

by super_realist Tue Nov 25, 2014 10:04 pm

I'd say David Marshall is probably better than him, he's a highly rated keeper, Fraser Forster at Southampton too, many people say Speroni at Palace is a fine keeper too. You might even add Howard in there whilst you are at it.

by pedro Tue Nov 25, 2014 10:17 pm

Aguenising for Bayern. Christmas came early for Citeh.

Hart is middle of the road, nothing more, nothing less. But davie, mentioning him in the same paragraph as those greats is close to blasphemy..

by kwinigolfer Tue Nov 25, 2014 10:53 pm

Speroni IS pretty good! Haven't seen much of Forster but Hart would have been crucified if he'd've made the mistake that Forster made Monday night.
There must be something that we don't know about Marshall - if he was that sh1t hot, he wouldn't still be with Cardiff.

by **navyblueshorts** Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:34 am

I don't understand any of the modern keepers, although to be fair it must be the way they're coached. None can (or even want) to catch the ball at any time and those shots they stupidly palm back out into immediate danger are simply pathetic - CATCH THE BALL!
Grobbelaar was miles better than almost all the current keepers.

by ralphjohn69 Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:46 am

navyblueshorts wrote:I don't understand any of the modern keepers, although to be fair it must be the way they're coached. None can (or even want) to catch the ball at any time and those shots they stupidly palm back out into immediate danger are simply pathetic - CATCH THE BALL!
Grobbelaar was miles better than almost all the current keepers.

Neville Southall was light years better than all the current keepers; brilliant keeper who very rarely made a glaring error, would be worth about £50 million in today's over-inflated transfer market.

Joe Hart makes some spectacular saves but also prone to regular howlers and makes very poor decisions at times.

by beninho Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:08 am

Joe Hart is ok, best English keeper for a long time. Goalkeeping has changed so much over the years though. I think the lighter modern footballs, which move and swerve more, make it so much harder to just catch them, and therefore its easier to punch or palm away. But goalies now need to be good footballers aswell. Look at Neur , best in the world, and plays the ball out of his box so ofetn, even taking people on. Victor Valdes was the same at Barcelona, and Lloris at Spurs, is a good sweeper Keepr. Big Fat Neville Southall would not fit in to todays modern football.

by westisbest Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:52 am

navyblueshorts wrote:I don't understand any of the modern keepers, although to be fair it must be the way they're coached. None can (or even want) to catch the ball at any time and those shots they stupidly palm back out into immediate danger are simply pathetic - CATCH THE BALL!
Grobbelaar was miles better than almost all the current keepers.

There was a shot at Guzan monday night, where he could have caught it, but decided to punch.

Was surprised.

by westisbest Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:54 am

super_realist wrote:I'd say David Marshall is probably better than him, he's a highly rated keeper, Fraser Forster at Southampton too, many people say Speroni at Palace is a fine keeper too. You might even add Howard in there whilst you are at it.

I think Marshall is quality, surprised he is not still playing premiership football.

by McLaren Wed Nov 26, 2014 12:50 pm

Does anyone think Hart is any good? He is england keeper, but that only means he is the best England can find.

On the subject of keepers I will admit to feeling rather smug about the rise of De Gea, the criticism of him when he first arrived just looks like some of the most idiotic analysis ever carried out. He was already doing well when he came and the English media couldn't cope with the fact he didn't fit the physique of the great English footballer.

by MustPuttBetter Wed Nov 26, 2014 1:19 pm

I though De Gea was rubbish when he first arrived. He was. There's a difference though between 'idiotic analysis' and a player improving/maturing and proving everyone wrong. Possibly the best in the league now and fair play to him.

Peter Shilton always used to say he felt his best matches were the ones where he'd not had to make any saves, because it meant he had communicated and organised his defence well. This, i wonder, is possibly where Hart is weak. He makes spectacular saves at times but as good as that is, it is a symptom of a problem sometimes

by **navyblueshorts** Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:30 pm

beninho wrote:Joe Hart is ok, best English keeper for a long time. Goalkeeping has changed so much over the years though. I think the lighter modern footballs, which move and swerve more, make it so much harder to just catch them, and therefore its easier to punch or palm away. But goalies now need to be good footballers aswell. Look at Neur , best in the world, and plays the ball out of his box so ofetn, even taking people on. Victor Valdes was the same at Barcelona, and Lloris at Spurs, is a good sweeper Keepr. Big Fat Neville Southall would not fit in to todays modern football.

Ah, phooey! They're just poor keepers. Most of them have fabulous reactions and are excellent shot stoppers but decision making (as was highlighted earlier) and simple catching abilities are awful. Some ball iterations in the recent past have been a joke (the World Cup ball in SA for example) but most of the ball movement is entirely predictable and yet they don't even attempt to catch it. Many have also taken on the pathetic physicality, when jostled in a crowded box, that's worthy of even the softest outfield player.

McLaren wrote:...On the subject of keepers I will admit to feeling rather smug about the rise of De Gea, the criticism of him when he first arrived just looks like some of the most idiotic analysis ever carried out. He was already doing well when he came and the English media couldn't cope with the fact he didn't fit the physique of the great English footballer.

I will admit to feeling a bit bored with your continued promotion of all things Manchester Utd as exceptional.... kiss

by pedro Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:12 pm

It's far riskier to try catch the ball than punch it. Why take that risk?

It's also easier and less risky for the defender to just kick the ball away rather than try something fancy in front of own goal.

Today it's all about getting the results rather than play pretty.

by MustPuttBetter Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:45 pm

pedro wrote:It's far riskier to try catch the ball than punch it. Why take that risk?

How about to acquire possession, start a move, give the defenders a break, give the team a chance to reorganize/compose etc etc.... Not to mention that a lot of the 'safe option' punches just bounce back into the danger area.

Pedro wrote:It's also easier and less risky for the defender to just kick the ball away rather than try something fancy in front of own goal.

Surely you don't think the least risky option should always be the chosen one?? Would you have your defenders never attempt a pass?

by pedro Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:00 pm

MPB,
There's a lot of sandbagging going on in modern football. I don't say I agree. But it seems more players would rather avoid being the villain than trying to become the hero.

by westisbest Thu Nov 27, 2014 8:12 am

Sad news about Philip Hughes.
Only 25. These things happen in cricket.

by beninho Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:01 am

RIP Phil Hughes. Such a tragic thing to happen. Just an awful accident. Also feel for the bowler. I do hope they don't change crickets bowling laws though.

by GunsGerms Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:08 am

Was he well known? Did he play for Oz?

by westisbest Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:17 am

Read that he played 26 times for Australia.

by GunsGerms Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:22 am

westisbest wrote:Sad news about Philip Hughes.
Only 25. These things happen in cricket.

Wow really? Didnt realise it was so dangerous.

by pedro Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:25 am

Wickedt.

by beninho Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:31 am

Very talented player not a regular for oz but part of touring squad for a while. Toured England last ashes over here. Almost won a game with the no 11. It's a freak accident. It is not something that regularly happens in cricket though.

by westisbest Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:49 am

GunsGerms wrote:
westisbest wrote:Sad news about Philip Hughes.
Only 25. These things happen in cricket.

Wow really? Didnt realise it was so dangerous.

Yeah, sorry made out that it happens quite often, but it has happend a couple of times before.

by westisbest Thu Nov 27, 2014 10:10 am

Mickey Rourke making a comeback in the ring aged 62 saturday, against 29 year old Elliot Seymor.

Would'nt mind watching that.

by Davie Thu Nov 27, 2014 10:13 am

westisbest wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
westisbest wrote:Sad news about Philip Hughes.
Only 25. These things happen in cricket.

Wow really? Didnt realise it was so dangerous.

Yeah, sorry made out that it happens quite often, but it has happend a couple of times before.

Might have happened on a few village greens where people take inadequate precautions but I don't believe it has ever happened in top class cricket

by **navyblueshorts** Thu Nov 27, 2014 1:03 pm

Davie wrote:
westisbest wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
westisbest wrote:Sad news about Philip Hughes.
Only 25. These things happen in cricket.

Wow really? Didnt realise it was so dangerous.

Yeah, sorry made out that it happens quite often, but it has happend a couple of times before.

Might have happened on a few village greens where people take inadequate precautions but I don't believe it has ever happened in top class cricket

This particular injury is very rare. Period. Let alone in a cricket context. Freakish. Sounds like he was a very likeable guy too. Great shame.
Feel for the bowler but I assume someone is talking to him.

by golfermartin Thu Nov 27, 2014 2:53 pm

Cricket Australia stated that all players on the field at the time are receiving counselling

by McLaren Thu Nov 27, 2014 4:02 pm

Don't bowlers aim for the head with a bouncer? What did the cricket world think would happen if you kept doing that?

by kwinigolfer Thu Nov 27, 2014 4:29 pm

Mac,
Unfortunately the more we clad our sportsmen in armour (especially American Football) the more we invite the opposition to take liberties.
In "Football" players use their head as a battering ram because their helmets are so sophisticated that, by and large, it won't hurt - yet we're "surprised" when players get paralyzed or turn into vegetables in their retirement. It will destroy (good) the game with all the lawsuits coming up.
And the bouncer is used as a routine weapon that it never was (at least with the current level of acceptance) before cricketers started to wear helmets.

But then I'm early enough to read about the horror of Danny Hearn's injury . . . . . . . .

Contact sports will always carry risks. Any ideas of how to mitigate?

by incontinentia Thu Nov 27, 2014 4:42 pm

Is cricket a contact sport??

I would imagine the governing bodies in cricket will learn from this incident and introduce some sort of padding for the neck area of the batsman. Or maybe not depending on whether it's practical.

I've always thought pitchers in baseball would be quite badly hurt if the batter caught it flush and the ball came directly back at them at 150 mph. They don't wear any protection at all, except maybe an athletic cup!

by McLaren Thu Nov 27, 2014 4:47 pm

Kwini

I agree that there is always a risk of injury playing sport and with the rest of the points you make in your post above.

It was the cricket world acting surprised that a player could suffer a serious head injury that I struggled to understand when they spend time intentionally firing heavy objects at peoples heads!

I am not trying to blame anyone, but who is actually shocked that an object weighing a few 100 grams and travelling at 100mph can cause serious harm?

As you say, it seems bowling at the head was thought to be "safe" because players had protection.

by kwinigolfer Thu Nov 27, 2014 4:48 pm

inco,
The risks in baseball and cricket very similar - there has been the incredibly rare fatal accident, but always of a very freakish nature.

But any time you're encouraging a bowler/thrower/pitcher to hurl at a batter's body/head at 95% mph, accidents will happen. So that's what I had in mind with "contact".

by incontinentia Thu Nov 27, 2014 6:52 pm

It was neck moreso than head from my understanding mac. According to the BBC article I read, that type of injury is extremely rare, something like 100 documented cases of it ever happening and only 1 by cricket ball before this incident.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri Nov 28, 2014 9:06 am

incontinetia wrote:...I would imagine the governing bodies in cricket will learn from this incident and introduce some sort of padding for the neck area of the batsman. Or maybe not depending on whether it's practical...

I doubt it's at all practical to introduce protection of any significance in the region where Hughes was hit. A batsmen needs a lot of freedom of movement for their head, both to actually bat and to avoid the ball, if necessary.

McLaren wrote:Kwini

I agree that there is always a risk of injury playing sport and with the rest of the points you make in your post above.

It was the cricket world acting surprised that a player could suffer a serious head injury that I struggled to understand when they spend time intentionally firing heavy objects at peoples heads!

I am not trying to blame anyone, but who is actually shocked that an object weighing a few 100 grams and travelling at 100mph can cause serious harm?

As you say, it seems bowling at the head was thought to be "safe" because players had protection.

Eh?? No-one has said they're surprised injuries occur (stop exaggerating and/or misquoting, as usual). What they are shocked about is the severity and the freakish nature of this particular injury. Have you actually bothered to look up how rare this is?

It's a dangerous sport. The players know what they're getting in to and, I would think, that's entirely up to them.

by McLaren Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:52 am

Navy

My argument would be it as not at all freakish for someone to eventually suffer a serious injury if you keep bowling at the head, in fact it may well be inevitable.

by Davie Fri Nov 28, 2014 12:21 pm

You don't really seem to grasp statistics and probability very well Mac

Just because something is freakish, doesn't mean it's not inevitable - and vice versa

It was a freakish accident in that the odds against it were perhaps millions to one. But the fact that it has a probability, no matter how high, still means it can (and eventually will) happen.

This sort of thing would probably not happen again for a hundred years - on the other hand, statistics say it COULD happen again tomorrow. It's just highly unlikely

by McLaren Fri Nov 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Davie

If you have an actual number for the odds of this happening I would be keen to see it?

by Davie Fri Nov 28, 2014 1:49 pm

No I don't - but it's widely reported that it's a rare and freak accident. The fact it's never happened before (to my knowledge) would seem to back that up

by golfermartin Fri Nov 28, 2014 2:00 pm

Does anybody know whether the delivery behaved unexpectedly? Or did he just miss it? Presumably he was trying to play it, otherwise he would have just ducked it

by Davie Fri Nov 28, 2014 2:11 pm

Think he tried to play it, was too quick through the ball and his head was already partly turned to expose back of head/neck

by 1GrumpyGolfer Fri Nov 28, 2014 2:23 pm

According to the all knowledgeable BBC website he tried a pull shot and missed.

by beninho Fri Nov 28, 2014 2:35 pm

Bowlers do not aim for a person's head with a bouncer. It is a legitimate tactic in trying to get someone out or stop them from scoring. Has been in the game for years. I'm guessing mclaren isn't a big cricket fan if he thinks this is the case. It's only limited to one or two short balls an over anyway. Unfortunately Phil Hughes had a reputation as struggling against the short ball this is why his test career never really took off. It's just a very tragic accident. And was not an inevitability.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri Nov 28, 2014 4:11 pm

Bouncers are part of the game although I'm not convinced, if you were inventing the game today, that they'd be allowed. Bowlers say they aren't aimed at the head and while this may true some of the time, it's really just baloney. If they aren't aimed at the head/neck area, what are they aimed at? If a batsman knew they weren't/couldn't be aimed at their head, they'd be a lot less nervous about them.
Some deliveries are undoubtedly aimed around the chest area but get a bit big so go past the batsman head high, or above. Some though, are definitely aimed at the head and it's pretty weak for players to say that's never been the case.

by golfermartin Fri Nov 28, 2014 4:18 pm

A ball aimed at the head is a beamer and when bowled it is humble apologies all round - I know, I broke a guys nose with one. It was head high and wide and he tried to play it. The ball caught up with the shoulder of the bat and ricocheted into his face. Not something I'm proud of or likely to forget!

by **navyblueshorts** Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:28 pm

golfermartin wrote:A ball aimed at the head is a beamer and when bowled it is humble apologies all round - I know, I broke a guys nose with one. It was head high and wide and he tried to play it. The ball caught up with the shoulder of the bat and ricocheted into his face. Not something I'm proud of or likely to forget!

That's just a specific type of ball aimed at the head - plenty of bowlers bowl bumpers trying to get the ball at the batsman's face/head.

by incontinentia Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:30 pm

Has anyone ever been killed by a golf ball?

by kwinigolfer Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:54 pm

golfermartin,
Are you sure it wasn't me??!!
If it was at a certain East Surrey club, it probably was. Complete rearrangement, but never hurt at all, so no complaints!

by golfermartin Fri Nov 28, 2014 7:21 pm

kwini

I can't remember where but it was in the London Consultants' League. I have to say it was all a bit bloody!

by kwinigolfer Fri Nov 28, 2014 7:31 pm

Not me then, I ended up at Mayday Hospital and they were appropriately unsympathetic!

by lorus59 Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:53 pm

incontinentia wrote:Has anyone ever been killed by a golf ball?

There was a guy whose life was saved by getting hit by a golf ball. He was being treated by a doctor for concussion when the doctor noticed he had a lump on his throat which turned out to be a cancerous tumor. He mightn't have noticed until it was too late.

by Sponsored content