Things In Football That Grind Your Gears

Paul Tergat · 13-10-2012 04:50PM

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Draws are absolutely stupid. The point of sport is about winners and losers.

Sometimes teams are so evenly matched a draw is a fair outcome. It would be daft to make them play an extra 30 mins or even a shootout to determine a 'winner'

Corholio · 13-10-2012 04:51PM

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Draws are absolutely stupid. The point of sport is about winners and losers.

Ridiculous suggestion. A league isn't about winning or losing every game. There always ends up winners and losers anyway.

Prick! · 13-10-2012 04:53PM

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Nope, its football.

Actually, if you're using football you have to call it association football.

Rugby is also football you know.

Paul Tergat · 13-10-2012 04:59PM

Prick! wrote: »

Actually, if you're using football you have to call it association football.

Rugby is also football you know.

Nope. Its football

Prick! · 13-10-2012 05:00PM

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Nope. Its football

Soccer is correct.

Richard Hillman · 14-10-2012 07:03AM

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Draws are absolutely stupid. The point of sport is about winners and losers.

Sometimes teams are so evenly matched a draw is a fair outcome. It would be daft to make them play an extra 30 mins or even a shootout to determine a 'winner'

A shoot out would be sufficient. I don't pay a subscription or admittance fee to see teams draw.

Paul Tergat · 14-10-2012 10:02AM

Richard Hillman wrote: »

A shoot out would be sufficient. I don't pay a subscription or admittance fee to see teams draw.

Watch another sport then. Ridiculous thing to say

alchemist33 · 14-10-2012 10:47AM

People using 4-3-3 to describe a 4-5-1 formation. If it doesnt have three strikers, its not a 4-3-3.

Dempsey · 14-10-2012 11:29AM

alchemist33 wrote: »

People using 4-3-3 to describe a 4-5-1 formation. If it doesnt have three strikers, its not a 4-3-3.

Whats the correct notation for wingers that arent expected to track back? :pac:

Is Theo Walcott a winger or a striker in your eyes?

14-10-2012 11:47AM

Dempsey wrote: »

Whats the correct notation for wingers that arent expected to track back? :pac:

Is Theo Walcott a winger or a striker in your eyes?

Neither, he's Lewis Hamilton moonlighting as a forward.

Al Capwned · 14-10-2012 11:56AM

It's 'football'

Danye · 14-10-2012 12:28PM

Richard Hillman wrote: »

A shoot out would be sufficient. I don't pay a subscription or admittance fee to see teams draw.

So would you be happy with seeing your team, the team you pay a subscription or admittance fee to see, loose every game? Once you get to see who is the winner and loser on any given day?

Prick! · 14-10-2012 12:28PM

Soccer.
Ok to call it football in England where there's no other national sport. Like in America there's American football or Australia, Aussie Rules

Paul Tergat · 14-10-2012 01:54PM

Prick! wrote: »

Soccer.
Ok to call it football in England where there's no other national sport. Like in America there's American football or Australia, Aussie Rules

Stupid logic.

Those games mentioned all have the ball predominantly in the hands. Same applies to Gaelic. You don't go changing the name of the game on the basis of what you posted.

Chancer3001 · 14-10-2012 02:33PM

soccer and football are interchangeable.

Paul Tergat · 14-10-2012 02:39PM

Chancer3001 wrote: »

soccer and football are interchangeable.

'gaelic soccer' then?

Blatter · 14-10-2012 02:42PM

Another thing is when people use a particular set of results in isolation to prove a team is better or worse than another team.

For example, I've seen people suggest that we're worse than the Faroes because they only lost 3-0 in Germany and we lost 6-1 at home to Germany.

Prick! · 14-10-2012 03:24PM

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Stupid logic.

Those games mentioned all have the ball predominantly in the hands. Same applies to Gaelic. You don't go changing the name of the game on the basis of what you posted.

Google football. football is short for association football, i.e soccer.

Rugby is football too you know, it's not called football though.

eugeneious · 14-10-2012 03:28PM

Tarring all fans from a club with the same brush because of the actions of a few idiots. Happens all the time when you hear 'fans' of a club sing an offence song aimed at another club and suddenly all fans of that club and the club themselves are condemned.

English punditry in general. Last season Alan Shearer honestly said on MOTD he didn't know an awful lot about Ben Arfa. If I was getting paid £40,000 a week to give my views on the Premier League I would certainly go and learn about one of the league's emerging talents. What is particularly pathetic about this is the fact that Ben Arfa plays for Newcastle, Shearer's club!

One other example that particularly infuriated me was after the City-Dortmund game the other week Adrian Childs said something along the lines of "We all hope Man City go through the group anyway". No we don't. I would personally like to see Dortmund and Real Madrid get through as I'm sure many other ITV viewers would. Not everyone is as in love with all things Premier League like every single pundit on English tv.

gnfnrhead · 14-10-2012 03:29PM

Blatter wrote: »

Another thing is when people use a particular set of results in isolation to prove a team is better or worse than another team.

For example, I've seen people suggest that we're worse than the Faroes because they only lost 3-0 in Germany and we lost 6-1 at home to Germany.

In fairness, it's not completely wrong. The Faroes are supposed to be a much worse team than us but went to Germany and lost 3-0. Considering we were at home, we shouldnt have lost by a larger margin yet we did. Looked like it was going to be double that until very late on.

It doesnt mean the Faroes are a better team, it just means we should be worried about our chances on Tuesday and in the group as a whole. We could have been bottom of the group right now had we not gotten a dodgy penalty against Kazakhstan.

Paul Tergat · 14-10-2012 03:41PM

Prick! wrote: »

Google football. football is short for association football, i.e soccer.

Rugby is football too you know, it's not called football though.

lol. still wrong but can see you wont see the light

Prick! · 14-10-2012 03:49PM

Paul Tergat wrote: »

lol. still wrong but can see you wont see the light

k

Paz-CCFC · 14-10-2012 05:10PM

The idea of making fun of so called "minnows" because some/all of their players have jobs other than football.

What's wrong with having a second job? The vast vast majority of footballers in the world do not earn their income solely through football, if even at all. Players earning tens of thousands a week are in the tiny majority. The people making these jokes most likely aren't professional footballers themselves, so what's so funny about someone earning a few hundred euro from the sport, on top of his other job as an accountant or an IT manager or a builder?

Chancer3001 · 14-10-2012 09:25PM

"Soccer," by the way, is not some Yankee neologism but a word of impeccably British origin. It owes its coinage to a domestic rival, rugby, whose proponents were fighting a losing battle over the football brand around the time that we were preoccupied with a more sanguinary civil war. Rugby's nickname was (and is) rugger, and its players are called ruggers-a bit of upper-class twittery, as in "champers," for champagne, or "preggers," for enceinte. "Soccer" is rugger's equivalent in Oxbridge-speak. The "soc" part is short for "assoc," which is short for "association," as in "association football," the rules of which were codified in 1863 by the all-powerful Football Association, or FA-the FA being to the U.K. what the NFL, the NBA, and MLB are to the U.S.

Apparently

Hamadeusentman · 15-10-2012 01:55PM

The 'shoulder' is automatically given as a foul nowadays. I loved this element of the game when you had two lads running for the ball in the same direction and one gives the other a fair charge. Absolutely nothing wrong with this I think.
I'd love to pin-point the exact moment when players went soft and referees became strict.

Corholio · 15-10-2012 03:49PM

Hamadeusentman wrote: »

The 'shoulder' is automatically given as a foul nowadays. I loved this element of the game when you had two lads running for the ball in the same direction and one gives the other a fair charge. Absolutely nothing wrong with this I think.
I'd love to pin-point the exact moment when players went soft and referees became strict.

I think the problem is that it's not always shoulder to shoulder. A lot of the time its a shoulder from the back whereas before it was sort of a free for all, in that any shoulder contact was let go. But I agree it's given too much when it is even shoulder to shoulder.

Corholio · 15-10-2012 03:51PM

The phrase 'sign of a good team' when a team plays bad and gets a win. It's not a 'sign' if it's only used when a bigger team plays bad and wins, but if a smaller team does it, this phrase is never used.

grenache · 22-10-2012 02:34AM

The fact that so many people have problems getting the name of this team right:

"Nottingham Forest"

Its quite a simple name, yet I continually see people (especially on boards) refer to the club as "Notts Forest". There is and never was any "Notts" in the title. The only club in Nottingham with that name is County. Brian Clough in his time corrected a few reporters who made this faux-pas.

Even worse when people for some odd reason decide to spell our second name with two 'r's (I blame that Forrest Gump movie). The name is on our crest FFS! In BIG, BOLD LETTERS! There is even one particular poster on this forum who persistently refers to the club as "Notts Forrest".

Lord give me strength! :rolleyes:

Father Damo · 22-10-2012 04:00AM

eugeneious wrote: »

.

English punditry in general. Last season Alan Shearer honestly said on MOTD he didn't know an awful lot about Ben Arfa. If I was getting paid £40,000 a week to give my views on the Premier League I would certainly go and learn about one of the league's emerging talents. What is particularly pathetic about this is the fact that Ben Arfa plays for Newcastle, Shearer's club!

One other example that particularly infuriated me was after the City-Dortmund game the other week Adrian Childs said something along the lines of "We all hope Man City go through the group anyway". No we don't. I would personally like to see Dortmund and Real Madrid get through as I'm sure many other ITV viewers would. Not everyone is as in love with all things Premier League like every single pundit on English tv.

I really fail to see the point of English punditry. A bunch of yes men towing the official line. When was the last time anyone even said anything mildly heated or controversial?

Fact is with the rules English tv has to abide by Dunphy and co probably would not even be allowed on!

The_Kew_Tour · 22-10-2012 07:49AM

grenache wrote: »

The fact that so many people have problems getting the name of this team right:

"Nottingham Forest"

Its quite a simple name, yet I continually see people (especially on boards) refer to the club as "Notts Forest". There is and never was any "Notts" in the title. The only club in Nottingham with that name is County. Brian Clough in his time corrected a few reporters who made this faux-pas.

Even worse when people for some odd reason decide to spell our second name with two 'r's (I blame that Forrest Gump movie). The name is on our crest FFS! In BIG, BOLD LETTERS! There is even one particular poster on this forum who persistently refers to the club as "Notts Forrest".

Lord give me strength! :rolleyes:

lol

I remember being at a reserves match between Forest and Sheffield United in Sheffield.

Forest got late winner and the guy over the intercom goes "Goal for Notts Forest scored by.........". The manager looks over to find the guy who says it waves his fist and says something like "Its Nottingham Forest you plonker" each word taking about 5 seconds to finish at top of his voice.

If only there was video cameras back then.

Things In Football That Grind Your Gears

Comments