I recently suggested a British football team to put Scottish football fans out of their misery, predictably I was attacked for such heresy by the “Scots. Wha Haevers” but I still think the international team has gone too far, they have insulted us enough. There are two flair players who regularly feature, one, McFadden can’t get a regular game in the English second division and the other is Maloney who doesn’t always start for Celtic, Scotland is now a football backwater.
I received a cheeky email from a past adversary who worships the quicksand I might walk on someday because of my disdain for rugby, he suggests that as I have fallen out with football (not true) I should watch a real game i.e. Rugby, I responded by saying that after Scotland’s 41 – 0 victory over Canada I might find it too stressful, football is in the doldrums but Rugby is still played by those who are not good enough to play football, what does that make them ?
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
STILL THE BEAUTIFUL GAME BUT, NOT IN SCOTLAND.
Posted by Cllr Terry Kelly at Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Scottish people could never accept a British football team. The reasons aren't hidden, but they have become very seperate from the definition of Nationalism provided. (Scots Wha Hae etc.)
The reasons stem from the branding of national sport as the way to express and consolidate identity. As part of this branding process, which was escalated exponentially in the early 1990's, football has become a deeply ingrained part of a Scottish identity, which in turn has been completely seperate from British identity for hundreds of years.
the interesting thing is that Scottish identity appears to have undergone a similar process to football, that is the Scottish identity seems to be a complete fabrication, deliberately built up and branded to appeal to the Scottish people at the beiginning of the 19th century.
Argh, not this football/rugby canard again!?! They're different games, neither of which is played by people who weren't as good at one as at the other - they're played by people who prefer one to the other. You might as well say people who compete in karate competitions only do it because they weren't good enough to be ninjas.
“they're played by people who prefer one to the other”
Sure they are, that’s why every kid wants to grow up to be David Sole rather than David Beckam.
Thursday, November 27, 2008 1:31:00 PM
“Scottish people could never accept a British football team” Interesting use of the word ‘could’ are you some kind of sage ?
“Scottish identity, which in turn has been completely separate from British identity for hundreds of years” nonsense.
“that is the Scottish identity seems to be a complete fabrication” well done 1 out of 3 aint bad.
Do you know that a full highland kilt rig out with sporran, wee dagger and hairy socks (scowl optional) can run to a £1,000 or more, there’s one born every minute.
NYERGH! Football's been professional for a lot longer than rugby union, so it has more of the trappings of fame and fortune about it, which is attractive to some kids. As rugby union's profile increases, so does the adulation of players: Wilkinson, say, or Danny Cipriani.
In many countries, football doesn't really get a look in because rugby is more a part of the national consciousness: NZ, Australia and South Africa, for example. In India, kids would love to grow up to be Sachin Tendulkar rather than David Beckham. Cuban kids undoubtedly admire Victor Mesa more than Beckham. Does that mean football is played by people not good enough for rugby, cricket and baseball in those countries?
Whichever you prefer is surely personal preference,and isn't based on being 'not good enough' for something else?
“NYERGH! Football's been professional for a lot longer than rugby union”
Why was it much more popular than rugby when the players were paid the same as tradesmen ? Answer – because it’s “the beautiful game”
Some countries have no history of football so I don’t accept that argument, of course a kid will want to play whichever is the countries most popular game, in India that will be cricket if they cant do that they will look at something else athletics or whatever.
That’s what happens here in most cases, football comes first and failing that the player looks around, tennis, golf, boxing ? If they want to play a sport and can’t play football they look at rugby and say why not, you don’t have to learn it, there is no skill required, no real ability, just running around crashing into each other and it’s good fun and usually has a club house with a bar, where’s the harm in that ?
"Why was it much more popular than rugby when the players were paid the same as tradesmen ? Answer – because it’s “the beautiful game”
No, it's because it's a simple game. Whatever the attractions of rugby might or might not be, it's undeniably harder to play just anywhere, at least the contact version preferred by most players.
"If they want to play a sport and can’t play football they look at rugby and say why not, you don’t have to learn it, there is no skill required, no real ability, just running around crashing into each other"
How much nonsense borne of sheer ignorance can one man spout? Well, we seemingly haven't seen the limits yet. I coach an Under 16 team containing four county class football players, including one who's been trialled by a premier side. Thye can play football. They tried rugby and discovered a game far more rich in the art of tactics than a beuatifully simple game like football can ever hope to be. They are clever as well as athletic and rugby allows them to express both qualities. I suspect you already know this Terry. While TerryWorld continues to provide a haven for the terminally simple, surely one man couldn't hold the clever/stupid balance for all of Renfrewshire. Could he?
(Jim Lewis) 30/11/08
“How much nonsense borne of sheer ignorance can one man spout” ?
We already know Jim that you are far better equipped to answer that than me.
“I coach an Under 16 team”
You are going too far here, you might train them in fitness and stamina etc. but coach them ? what is there to coach ?
Were you on the edge of your seat with minutes to go against Canada when it was only 41 – 0 - I watched in total disbelief as rugby people, players and managers discussed this farce as if it was serious – get real Jim, it’s nonsense, there’s more skill involved in mud wrestling.
Prima facie your abbreviation is, exempli gratia, ipso facto reversible.
I rest my case. Ipso fatso.
You’re a rough tough rugby type right enough Jim aren’t you.
I don't know about rough or tough. These seem to be the adjectives beloved of those who don't really know anything about the sport. They're certainly not words I would direct at myself. However, poking fun isntead of debating seems to make you happy, and it's your blog, so fill your boots.
Rugby is a game that I enjoyed playing for 39 years, never at a distinguished level, but I guess it muts have made me happy. I've further enjoyed 15v years soi far coaching at youth level, and many happy and successful lads and lasses are testament to the spirit engendered by this as with other team sports. With a handful of exceptions, I haven't encountered the thuggishness with which so much of modern football appears to be plagued. That's not a comment on football per se, but it is a sad indictment on the type of eejit who likes to think himself a sportsman, with so little grasp of what sport means. What it is, though, is a wonderfully simple game with none of the complexity of many other games.
I don't know if you ever played rugby, Terry, but you certainly seem to like having a bash at it. So much so that it almost seems to be obsessive for you. I'm sorry to hear that, but here's a personal challenge. Why don't you come and observe the real nature of the game close up and watch our Under 16s play. Afterwards, get yourself on the outside of some hot soup or a hot dog and we'll see if you changed your mind? If you need an incentive, at least two of my lads are your constituents. Are you up for it?
(Jim Lewis) 17:39
“I don't know about rough or tough” Well Jim you certainly talk tough.
“I don't know if you ever played rugby, Terry, but you certainly seem to like having a bash at it”
Yes I’ve played rugby before and it was about as exciting as watching the fire go out. Despite that I have no problem with others playing it, watching it and enjoying it, my problem is with those, not just in rugby who make extravagant claims about how tough, and skilful their sport is and dare to compare rugby in terms of skill, fitness and tactics with football.
These people are the real ‘eejits’ do you know any?
Then simply accept my offer and come along. If you wish you can listen in on a pre game talk and learn something of the complexity of the tactics and laws. The offer remains open.
By the way, by all means enlighten the reader as to exactly which words of mine you deem tough.
(Jim Lewis) 08/12/08
I can’t find any enthusiasm for rugby at all, I am not interested in the so called tactics but here is a tip for your next tactics talk.
Introduce your new signing to the lads, “right lads, this is Henry ‘Hacksaw’ Haggerty, as you can see he’s 7 ft. tall and weighs twenty stones, when the game starts I want you to give him the ball and stand clear, he will run to the other end flattening opponents as he goes and place the ball between the goal posts. When the game restarts I want you to do the same thing again and again OK ? I’m off to see what price we are in the bookies”
“which words of mine you deem tough”
Well, from my background personal insults could lead to trouble but don’t worry Jim I know by now you don’t mean it.
"Introduce your new signing to the lads, “right lads, this is Henry ‘Hacksaw’ Haggertym etc etc..."
What're you talking about? You're duffing up a right strawman there. Even a giant like Jonah Lomu could be neutralised by the right defensive strategy (a man-marked flat/rush approach from the oppsoing winger, with the fullback covering the inside channel, if you're interested).
So, to football, "the beautiful game". Chelsea won the Premier League under Mourinho by playing anything but an attractive game: grinding out 1-0 victories and sitting 10 men behind the ball doesn't offer much spectacle.
The lower standard teams in the Premier League often resort to lumping the ball up route one, a la Wimbeldon in 80s and 90s. Not much finesse there.
Below the Premier League, the standard of sport on offer is even worse. I watched Birmingham play Preston last weekend, and it was tedious in the extreme - for a stretch of about 10 minutes, the ball was simply being hoofed into the air by defenders and midfielders, with no thought to tactics, style or play.
Lets face it, the only consistently attractive football played in the UK comes from Arsenal and Manchester United. The rest of it's about as fun as watching Scotland's first XI take the field.
“Chelsea won the Premier League under Mourinho by playing anything but an attractive game”
There is certainly an element of truth in this statement but, football can and often is the beautiful game, whereas Rugby will never be anything other than a bunch of guys clobbering each other and rolling around like a bunch of night club bouncers mud wrestling.
“Lets face it, the only consistently attractive football played in the UK”
Arguable but, there is no such thing as an attractive Rugby match, anyone can walk on and play, football needs skill and finesse, years of practice and improving one’s skills. How many ways are there to bash into someone or wrestle someone to the ground?
"there is no such thing as an attractive Rugby match"
Obviously, I'm going to disagree! For example, watching the All Blacks in full flow is brilliant: all the movement off the ball, angled runs to cut through defences, amazing off-loading and handling skills, the precision of the physicality... It's as inspiring as watching Brazil carve lesser teams apart on the football field.
"How many ways are there to bash into someone or wrestle someone to the ground?"
If by that you mean tackling, loads. There's the last-ditch ankle tap; the classic round the legs stopper; wrapping up the arms so the ball can't be passed. And so on.
Then there's the matter of tactics: do you commit two or more men to a tackle a la rugby league? It could stop the ball emerging, but also leaves big holes in your line if the offensive pressure continues. What defensive system are you running? Drift, channel, man marked? If the line is split between the blind and the open sides, who's watching for loops or overlaps?
And that's before we even get to rucking or mauling strategies... It's a game full of nuance!
Claptrap, there is no skill in knocking someone over, handling skills? Someone catches a ball thrown to him, wow! All these bogus references like loops and ankle taps are a pathetic attempt to make it sound as if it’s difficult, rucking and mauling are so skilful that lots of people practice it outside pubs on a Saturday night.
I think you're confusing rucking and mauling with fighting, a skill well practiced by the likes of Joey Barton, Lee Bowyer and Kieran Dyer.
Is there much skill in tackling someone in football? You just have to prod the ball away or, if you're Paul Scholes, scythe through the back of the other player's legs.
Why is using a technical term from a game pathetic? A loop is when a player moves off the ball after passing it to create an overlap. Getting it right's quite tricky. A bit like timing your run into the box, or jumping for a header.
“ I think you're confusing rucking and mauling with fighting”
Oxford Dictionary – Ruck = Brawl - Maul = Treat savagely or roughly. Nothing at all about skill I’m afraid.
Trying to compare the skill involved in a tackle between football and rugby is a joke. A high speed fifty fifty tackle with no quarter asked or given is one of the most skilful and dangerous things in sport.
“A bit like timing your run into the box, or jumping for a header”
There is not one single manoeuvre in rugby which comes anywhere near timing a run into the box or jumping for a header.
Those are definitions which don't refer to rugby... And aren't they drawn from the days when football and rugby were the same game - before the codes split? Tom Brown's School Days has a good passage on these simpler times.
"A high speed fifty fifty tackle with no quarter asked or given is one of the most skilful and dangerous things in sport."
I quite agree, but what about football?
So timing a run onto a through ball and picking the right angle to beat the defence isn't analogous to, erm, timing a run onto a pass and picking the right angle to beat the defence?
Jumping for a header is just jumping into the air, isn't it? Similar to a fullback jumping into the air to take a high ball, but without the added pressure of other tacklers flying in...
Timing a run into the box to meet a cross with you head and direct it past a goalkeeper in to a confined space while being challenged by defenders is IMO a wee bit more skilful and difficult than using your hands to catch a ball and place it somewhere between the corner flag and the goal post.
You are well out of your depth here.
On the other hand, finishing off the approach play by timing and angling your run onto a ball in order to beat a defensive line, then looking for an offload to a player who has moved off the ball to create an overlap is a lot more difficult than prodding a ball into a net with your foot.
I reckon that, by your definition, netball is one of the most skillful games going. You have to pass the ball into the scoring zone, where one player who can only pivot on one foot must then beat a goal keeper to put the ball into a space more tiny than any football goal! Truly, the beatiful game...
Why am I out of my depth? I played football and rugby at the same level when I was a lad. Neither's better than the other - they're different, but demand equal levels of skill.
You are way out of your depth with this argument, enjoy your rugby, this is now finished.
Ah well, thanks for the chat! It's not as important an issue as the current wrecking of the Gaza Strip, I'll grant you.
As an independant observer I am so glad that Cllr Terry does not represent my area. seems far to dogmatic, inflexible and closed to informed discussion..hmmmm on second thoughts maybe he is perfectly qualified to be a politician.....
Wednesday, October 03, 2012 9:07:00 AM
If that's what passes for a serious contribution from you I'm glad I don't have to represent you.
Post a Comment