Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[dynamark]

First topic message reminder :

He came across very poor as did fellow lib Clegg with his constant sniping at the Brexit issue.
Good riddance to both.Libs may well be a non entity now.
Tories have to proceed with caution now and build up some confidence again.

Our fire guy at work is telling us today that they really should have gone for a full evacuation at an early stage but that runs right against all previous policy putting residents and fire staff in potentially greater danger.In Blackadder terms it would have been going 'over the top'

[super_realist]

I don't see any logic whatsoever to suggest footballers are in some way "worse" as professional sportsmen than boxers, basketball players, US footballers or rugby league players.
It's a bizarre suggestion, the demographic for these sports is mainly blue collar. You get examples of less intelligent/ostentatious players on all of them. Kyrgios is a bell end, Ben Stokes has sleeve tattoos. Cricket and tennis aren't immune from these kind of people. Didn't Rory go and buy a Ferrari as soon as he passed his test?
If you want to say working class people who go into sport are ultimately thick, tasteless and crass then that's an opinion, to suggest more of these people are in football than other sports is just a weird suggestion based mainly as far as I can see around a dislike for a sport (that he still watches just enough to make him an expert on).

I'd agree to an extent Diggers, but for every Kyrios/Tomic there's a Rooney, Cole, Gerrard, Sturridge,Terry or Joey Barton. Who were it not for football would be in jail most likely.

I'm not saying all footballers are oafs and morons, but it does seem at least from the coverage that we see that football as a disproportionate level of poorly educated and semi literate people than in cricket or rugby.

All I've said however was that Footballers and the term "cool" or "taste" don't really go together. I've seen virtually no footballers who fit into that bracket, and the long line of gauche cars and repulsively decorated houses pretty much bear that out. Certainly amongst British players. European players have a bit more style and are certainly more articulate from what I've seen.

[Diggers]

If you want to check out taste have a look at your average boxers attire, or the bling on a basketball player. African footballers are the same, as are West Indian cricketers, Aussie cricketers are really brash. It's just a cultural thing.

[super_realist]

Absolutely Diggers, I can't disagree with you, just on the balance of what we see, footballers are not known for being tasteful individuals, and British footballers compared to their continental peers are far worse.

[kwinigolfer]

Love this retweeted by Tony Johnstone. No horse power required:

https://twitter.com/ClintonV/status/904933714173546496

[Davie]

The generalizations going on here are truly astounding.

[super_realist]

It's not a generalisation, it's what I perceive from what we see of them.

You can't demonstrate to me that the majority of British footballers are stylish, articulate and cultured. What we see are guys who peddle cliché after cliché and tell us nothing about the game that isn't paint by numbers and they show no individuality, personality, charism or taste in how they appear to live either.

Ghastly people, and why anyone would claim them to be "role models" is quite laughable.

[kwinigolfer]

In school and uni those that played rugby were always the biggest bellends. I assume they don't vanquish their bellendishness after this.

Never went to college or uni so thankfully exempted from Mac's & super's generalisations.
Phew.

Wonder what the footie/rugby blokes felt about the rest of the students?

[super_realist]

Kwini, It seemed to be part of the ritual when you're a Uni Rugger Bugger to be a complete anus, especially in the bar (putting your manhood in a pint, drinking a pint of urine, being loud and boorish etc). It wasn't so much a generalisation as almost completely mandatory whilst wearing your dads blazer and slacks.

As for what they thought about the rest of the students, I doubt they noticed them as they were so obsessed with their own self importance.

[Roller_Coaster]

Running, catching and throwing.

Knobs in pints, dog5hit in pints, piss in pints.

At least you can stand next to an opposition fan and have a pint.

Of something.

[navyblueshorts]

The generalizations going on here are truly astounding.

I forgot, sorry. In today's world, you can't make any generalisations in case one of the group doesn't conform to the stereotype. Consider me told; I won't do it again.

[navyblueshorts]

Running, catching and throwing.

Knobs in pints, dog5hit in pints, piss in pints.

At least you can stand next to an opposition fan and have a pint.

Of something.

That's right, conflate the behaviour of stupid student rugby players with your average rugby-watching fan. Yep, makes plenty of sense.

[Davie]

The generalizations going on here are truly astounding.

I forgot, sorry. In today's world, you can't make any generalisations in case one of the group doesn't conform to the stereotype. Consider me told; I won't do it again.

What on earth makes you think I was talking about you? Get over yourself

[raycastleunited]

In school and uni those that played rugby were always the biggest bellends. I assume they don't vanquish their bellendishness after this.

Got to agree with you there, and their boorish behaviour and loutish "rugby games" were always incredibly sad. Not to mention they were only playing Rugby because they were too fat and lacking in the skill to play football.

This is true. It's also true that football is an infinitely more skillful game than rugby.

Of course, it's worth pointing out that football is the only sport I know where spectators frequently resort to violence.

[navyblueshorts]

The generalizations going on here are truly astounding.

I forgot, sorry. In today's world, you can't make any generalisations in case one of the group doesn't conform to the stereotype. Consider me told; I won't do it again.

What on earth makes you think I was talking about you? Get over yourself

No words necessary.

[navyblueshorts]

In school and uni those that played rugby were always the biggest bellends. I assume they don't vanquish their bellendishness after this.

Got to agree with you there, and their boorish behaviour and loutish "rugby games" were always incredibly sad. Not to mention they were only playing Rugby because they were too fat and lacking in the skill to play football.

This is true. It's also true that football is an infinitely more skillful game than rugby.

Of course, it's worth pointing out that football is the only sport I know where spectators frequently resort to violence.

...says the expert in both. They're completely different skill sets.

[super_realist]

Why the hell does everyone have to take everything so ruddy literally? It is assumed you use your own common bloody sense isn't it?

Every single one of our opinions is based on less than 100% evidence, of course there is a degree of generalisation in there, but it doesn't for a minute mean we are tarring ALL people who play football, rugby, cricket, tennis etc with a particular brush, it merely reflects our experience of what we have seen.

Calm down and put it in perspective for a change people. We shouldn't have to couch everything with a caveat to explain what we mean, you should be able to make an inference without jumping on the "oh what a crazy generalisation bandwagon.

[kwinigolfer]

About the smartest bloke I ever worked for would only employ/recruit a candidate if that individual played or had played a competitive sport.

I kinda agree with that.

Regardless of (sporting)skill level or IQ almost everyone who plays a sport learns lifelong life lessons, whether it's working as a team, esprit de corps, being competitive and goal-oriented, leadership, I'd say he was pretty much spot on.

Think about it . . . . . .

Incidentally, we live in a sporting back-water here, very touchy feely, and it shows in almost every walk of life.

[super_realist]

I would rank that very low Kwini. If you've ever played Saturday or Sunday football you come up against some truly hateful people who display the sort of characteristics no one would want in the workplace.

I do think there are good lessons to be learnt from competitive sport, but I don't think it's a pre-requisite.

I'd recruit more on whether the person had a wide range of interests rather than one who solely focussed on sport.

[kwinigolfer]

[quote="super_realist"]I would rank that very low Kwini. If you've ever played Saturday or Sunday football you come up against some truly hateful people who display the sort of characteristics no one would want in the workplace.

I do think there are good lessons to be learnt from competitive sport, but I don't think it's a pre-requisite.

I'd recruit more on whether the person had a wide range of interests rather than one who solely focussed on sport.[/quote


Trouble is, you also find "truly hateful people" in the corridors of power also, among the captains of industry. Usually find they're totally lacking in the type of empathy that you find in sport, even football; at least when I played.

[Be_the_ball]

At the risk of generalising ( ) I would say people that play team sport tend to be better at working in a team.

[raycastleunited]

In school and uni those that played rugby were always the biggest bellends. I assume they don't vanquish their bellendishness after this.

Got to agree with you there, and their boorish behaviour and loutish "rugby games" were always incredibly sad. Not to mention they were only playing Rugby because they were too fat and lacking in the skill to play football.

This is true. It's also true that football is an infinitely more skillful game than rugby.

Of course, it's worth pointing out that football is the only sport I know where spectators frequently resort to violence.

...says the expert in both. They're completely different skill sets.

Pure comedy gold navy. How do you define expert? I played rugby for Wasps and was playing semi-pro football but obviously had to give that up for the rugby. My brother in law was a premiership footballer. One of my close friends has been CEO at several premiership rugby clubs so part of his job was to manage sport recruitment and identify the rugby "skill set" compared to competing sports. He's also a former international. We are neighbours and chat about this sort of stuff all the time, usually (rather appropriately) while watching our kids playing sport together. Is he expert enough? But we have to be experts to comment? You might as well shut down the forum today.

[navyblueshorts]

In school and uni those that played rugby were always the biggest bellends. I assume they don't vanquish their bellendishness after this.

Got to agree with you there, and their boorish behaviour and loutish "rugby games" were always incredibly sad. Not to mention they were only playing Rugby because they were too fat and lacking in the skill to play football.

This is true. It's also true that football is an infinitely more skillful game than rugby.

Of course, it's worth pointing out that football is the only sport I know where spectators frequently resort to violence.

...says the expert in both. They're completely different skill sets.

Pure comedy gold navy. How do you define expert? I played rugby for Wasps and was playing semi-pro football but obviously had to give that up for the rugby. My brother in law was a premiership footballer. One of my close friends has been CEO at several premiership rugby clubs so part of his job was to manage sport recruitment and identify the rugby "skill set" compared to competing sports. He's also a former international. We are neighbours and chat about this sort of stuff all the time, usually (rather appropriately) while watching our kids playing sport together. Is he expert enough? But we have to be experts to comment? You might as well shut down the forum today.

Fair play. Impressed, if true. You might be one of the few on here in position to comment accurately on the differing skills.

I guess my point was that most comments on the 'football is more skilled than rugby' are non-informed, mine pretty much included. I've certainly played neither at anywhere close to the levels you're talking about having done. Any serious sport requires exceptional skills to be genuinely good at; they're just different skills in most cases.

[raycastleunited]

Football has a much deeper talent pool than any other sport in the UK. And it pays a lot better too, only really the McIlroy's and Hamilton's can compare. The level of skills required to be a professional rugby player has increased massively in the last 20 years, I'd get nowhere near Wasps today, but it's still a long way short of footballers.

If you ever played football with a top quality player, it is impossible to get close to them when they are running with the ball. It's not just about pace, it's their ability to accelerate into space, anticipate gaps, change direction with quick feet, maintain a low centre of gravity, just glide across the pitch. All this and I've not even mentioned control of the ball. These attributes make good rugby players. Although we all love to hate footballers, it's embarrassing how naturally gifted they are as sportsmen.

[Diggers]

You can also factor on the fact that modern footballers are amazing athletes. I was watching an FA youth final last year, the number of kids who were former national youth sprint finalists or winners was amazing. I'm sure this is also true to a degree in rugby.

[kwinigolfer]

You want "Teamwork", this is teamwork - Delta flying in and out of Irma.

https://twitter.com/i/moments/905487561182908416

Very, very cool.

[Be_the_ball]

The poor dog is in therapy

https://youtu.be/RhiWGK4hioc

[super_realist]

Football has a much deeper talent pool than any other sport in the UK. And it pays a lot better too, only really the McIlroy's and Hamilton's can compare. The level of skills required to be a professional rugby player has increased massively in the last 20 years, I'd get nowhere near Wasps today, but it's still a long way short of footballers.

If you ever played football with a top quality player, it is impossible to get close to them when they are running with the ball. It's not just about pace, it's their ability to accelerate into space, anticipate gaps, change direction with quick feet, maintain a low centre of gravity, just glide across the pitch. All this and I've not even mentioned control of the ball. These attributes make good rugby players. Although we all love to hate footballers, it's embarrassing how naturally gifted they are as sportsmen.

I completely disagree that Football has a deeper pool of talent than other sports. To say that a footballer has a deeper level of talent than a tennis player for example is hilarious.  It's hard to compare sports, but Football, by virtue of being a team sport is by definition less skilled than the people who make it to the top of individual sport where they rely completely on themselves to get to where they are. You can get away with being out of form on a football pitch and still win because you are supported by other players and in a team game and you might only get a dozen touches in a game, none of which have to be decisive, you can't get away with that on the golf course, tennis court, boxing ring, gymnastics etc. As for being "top athletes", I'm so sick of hearing that a footballer can't play 3 games a week. Compare their exertion to what Farah would run or Froom puts in on the road in a week and you see how low down a footballer actually is in terms of athleticism.

I'd also disagree Hamilton is that good, no doubt he's a great driver, but unless an F1 driver is in the top team, or one very close, he's as superfluous and makeweight as England in an international football competition. It was the same with Vettel. It's a coin toss. F1 drivers have talent, but the car is the most important factor, no matter how talented you are, if you aren't in the right team, you're not winning and no one cares about you.

[pedro]

This is for you super

https://www.instagram.com/p/BYxYuVzAnCv/

[Diggers]

Available talent pool pool and talent required to play a sport (or a subjective opinion of the talent required) are completely different things.

[super_realist]

This is for you super

https://www.instagram.com/p/BYxYuVzAnCv/

He brands himself as a bumhole by using the word "epic". Plank.

[Be_the_ball]

Hamilton is one of the most unlikable sportsmen in the world today.

[beninho]

The best car is usually with one if tge best drivers in f1. Its part of what makes the car the best. The drivers dont just sit in and drive it. They are involved in the stages of development and its set up. If it was all about the car then why pay hamilton or vettell over 30m when you can give it to ocon or weirleihn for under a million.

[pedro]

Nothing is black or white. But it's probably 80% the car and 20% the driver. With so much money involved in the car development why not go the extra mile for a good (but not necessarily the best) driver. You see it when dominant drivers leave the good teams for more mediocre teams.

[super_realist]

The best car is usually with one if tge best drivers in f1. Its part of what makes the car the best. The drivers dont just sit in and drive it. They are involved in the stages of development and its set up. If it was all about the car then why pay hamilton or vettell over 30m when you can give it to ocon or weirleihn for under a million.

It's not always like that at all. Alonso is always touted amongst the best drivers, but rarely wins these days. Button also won the Championship simply because he had the best car.

Almost every year bar this one, the competition is limited to the drivers of the same team. That's a terrible advert for any "sport" where it is so uncompetitive and where the playing field is not remotely level. Even in the usually lop-sided world of football, a minnow like Leicester won, can't see that in the engineering competition that is F1.

[beninho]

F1 is about making the best car and getting the best driver to race the car. Thats what its always been. The team make it and the driver is involved in set up of the car.

The best car with the best driver will usually win and thats how it always has been.

I love f1 knowing that its rare to have a really close championship, and I would guess most fans are the same. The skills of the drivers are supreme and fitness would stand up to most sports.

[super_realist]

I'm sure they probably would, but it doesn't make F1 interesting and competitive. This is the first year in a very very long time that it hasn't been two team members fighting it out.

The fact that one team is usually dominant makes it even more predictable than the Scottish Premier League.

Turgid guff.

Of course it doesn't help that Lewis Hamilton is a Grade A W.anchor.

[raycastleunited]

De Boer gone after just 4 games. Incredible.

I know Palace lost all 4 and hadn't scored a goal, but I watched the game against Burnley on MOTD last night and Palace dominated. Didn't look like he had "lost the dressing room", actually looked like a decent performance and just a bit unlucky not to win.

Hodgson isn't really an inspired choice. Am sure he will steer them to safety, but not a long term solution to take them to the next level.

[wiretapper]

De Boer wanted to change the Palace philosophy and I am guessing since they hired him the board bought into that.

However they then failed to back him with only four signings, two of which were loans.

When they saw what was on the park they realised that a change of philosophy was with these players going to take a long time and probably result in relagation.

So they had a choice, let things carry on and back him in January with signings to suit his style of play. By then however they could be so far behind it wouldn't matter.

The alternative was to get rid of him and bring in a manager whose style suits the players already there. Yes there is payoff however that will be much cheaper than a massive splurge in Janauary and a potential relegation.

I am not saying this move will definitely keep them up but I think it will give them a better chance than keeping him.

Ultimately though the fault lies with the board. If they bought into his philosophy they should have backed him in the summer. If they didn't they shouldn't have hired him.

[pedro]

De Goer

[beninho]

Its ridiculous, I saw bits of the Burnley game, and If Dann had scored the sitter at the end they would have got a point, and i've read the goal was from a ridiculous back pass, these are things that the manager should not be blamed for.

Palace are an average team, who seem to struggle most seasons, they appoint a new manager and still struggle, its a nonsense to sack him.

[super_realist]

De Boer gone after just 4 games. Incredible.

I know Palace lost all 4 and hadn't scored a goal, but I watched the game against Burnley on MOTD last night and Palace dominated. Didn't look like he had "lost the dressing room", actually looked like a decent performance and just a bit unlucky not to win.

Hodgson isn't really an inspired choice. Am sure he will steer them to safety, but not a long term solution to take them to the next level.

Hodgson is a complete and utter clown. I used to have a bit of respect for him but he really has become a buffoon. Palace would be absolutely mental to take him on, but perhaps they want someone as much as a loser as they are.

They are a team which are going to be fighting relegation every single year in reality, with perhaps the odd mid table season in them. What exactly do they expect to be getting in the Premier League?

[kwinigolfer]

De Boer gone after just 4 games. Incredible.

I know Palace lost all 4 and hadn't scored a goal, but I watched the game against Burnley on MOTD last night and Palace dominated. Didn't look like he had "lost the dressing room", actually looked like a decent performance and just a bit unlucky not to win.

Hodgson isn't really an inspired choice. Am sure he will steer them to safety, but not a long term solution to take them to the next level.

Hodgson is a complete and utter clown. I used to have a bit of respect for him but he really has become a buffoon.  Palace would be absolutely mental to take him on, but perhaps they want someone as much as a loser as they are.

They are a team which are going to be fighting relegation every single year in reality, with perhaps the odd mid table season in them. What exactly do they expect to be getting in the Premier League?

Hodgson confirmed.
I think they've hired just about every retread known to football: Bruce, Warnock (2), Pulis, Allardyce, Holloway, Pardew, Hodgson, Hart. Whoever next? McCarthy??

[pedro]

Alf Ramsey didn't return their calls.

[super_realist]

Based on his previous managerial record, Palace are already down. He wins about 34% of his games, and with 34 games left, not a good omen.

[Davie]

34% of 34 games is approx 11-12 games so say 33 points. Add in a few draws and they will be safe

Not doubting your analysis, I think they will go down .. just disputing your statistics :-P

[Davie]

34% of 34 games is approx 11-12 games so say 33 points. Add in a few draws and they will be safe

Not doubting your analysis, I think they will go down .. just disputing your statistics :-P

[beninho]

Roy will do his thing, make them hard to beat and set them up. He did it well with fulham and baggies. They wont go down. Probably be about 14th. Sacking a manager after 4 games only shows that the board fked up.

[beninho]

Brighton, huddersfield and unsure on the third

[super_realist]

Exactly, you need around 40 points to be safe, so can't really see them getting 7 draws. Their next 3 games are against something like Chelsea, Man City and Man United, so they could have nothing after 7 games, by which time your average fragile footballers brain could already be looking for a new club.

[super_realist]

Brighton, West Ham and Palace. Not many teams as bad as those three.

[Sponsored content]