blues-clues wrote:The source of your confusion is clear.
You believe that people who are expressing an opinion are experts. That appears to me to be where you made your mistake!
sweenyuk wrote:the technique was spot on, hit it hard and low in to a crowd of players and likley hood is it will get through and probably pick up a deflection on it's way. If we were 0-0 or losing you could question the decision, 2-0 up it was the right thing to do
Rag_hater wrote:sweenyuk wrote:the technique was spot on, hit it hard and low in to a crowd of players and likley hood is it will get through and probably pick up a deflection on it's way. If we were 0-0 or losing you could question the decision, 2-0 up it was the right thing to do
Probably assumes nothing definate,so whether it was the right thing to do or not in your opinion does not deflect from the fact a certain amount of luck was needed to achieve hitting the ball with spot on technique and luck is the issue that is up for debate.
Rag_hater wrote:sweenyuk wrote:the technique was spot on, hit it hard and low in to a crowd of players and likley hood is it will get through and probably pick up a deflection on it's way. If we were 0-0 or losing you could question the decision, 2-0 up it was the right thing to do
Probably assumes nothing definate,so whether it was the right thing to do or not in your opinion does not deflect from the fact a certain amount of luck was needed to achieve hitting the ball with spot on technique and luck is the issue that is up for debate.
Original Dub wrote:Oh dear God
Ted Hughes wrote:Rag_hater wrote:sweenyuk wrote:the technique was spot on, hit it hard and low in to a crowd of players and likley hood is it will get through and probably pick up a deflection on it's way. If we were 0-0 or losing you could question the decision, 2-0 up it was the right thing to do
Probably assumes nothing definate,so whether it was the right thing to do or not in your opinion does not deflect from the fact a certain amount of luck was needed to achieve hitting the ball with spot on technique and luck is the issue that is up for debate.
That goal was a bit lucky as the keeper MAY well have saved it. What wasn't lucky was Kolarov hitting the 1st man with every corner or blazing over the bar from free kcks when we had 5 players lined up to head in v a small team. That was shite & most other teams would do better.
If a goal is deflected, it has an element of luck about it, whether it's a set piece or not. If the ball is passed & someone intentionally hits it on target & scores without a lucky deflection etc, then obviously it's not lucky, irrespective whether it's a set piece or not. I shouldn't have to explain this to you, as it's obvious.
You don't need to be an 'expert' to know this stuff, everyone bar you & your mate knows it. Ask them.
Rag_hater wrote:
I'd say you have it wrong again and someone with your expertise shouldn't make such basic errors.You say if the is no deflection and its on target and a goal is scored then its obviously not lucky.I'd say your wrong,lets take goalkeepers for this example.
Lets begin with the case of:
Paul Robinson in England vs Croatia,
Scot Carson against England vs Croatia
David Seaman the WC game and Goofy did him,no bobbles,no deflections just a soft shot.
David James against they mighty Austria,
I'm sure there's more, like the own goals our own legedary Richard scored and all are examples of bad luck in this case.Luck nontheless.
Luck and skill are linked.
And there are some teams and players who are luckier than others.
To dismiss it in an aim to make me look foolish ain't doing you any favours.
There's examples of some kind of luck in every game.
Wonderwall wrote:Rag_hater wrote:
I'd say you have it wrong again and someone with your expertise shouldn't make such basic errors.You say if the is no deflection and its on target and a goal is scored then its obviously not lucky.I'd say your wrong,lets take goalkeepers for this example.
Lets begin with the case of:
Paul Robinson in England vs Croatia,
Scot Carson against England vs Croatia
David Seaman the WC game and Goofy did him,no bobbles,no deflections just a soft shot.
David James against they mighty Austria,
I'm sure there's more, like the own goals our own legedary Richard scored and all are examples of bad luck in this case.Luck nontheless.
Luck and skill are linked.
And there are some teams and players who are luckier than others.
To dismiss it in an aim to make me look foolish ain't doing you any favours.
There's examples of some kind of luck in every game.
Attacking players job is to create the chances and to strike on target, its their job. Its not about luck. If you dont strike the ball towards to goal, then you are not going to score many in a season, are you?
Defending players job is block and clear the ball from danger, its their job. if they dont cleanly clear or block the ball, they are leaving themselves open to a goal being scored against them.
Seems simple to me
john68 wrote:If my memory servers me right (no guarantee included). 1955, FA Cup Semi Final, City v Sunderland.
City are awarded a free kick...a laced old fashioned case ball whish was tied with a lace. Boots over the top of the ankles, fashioned in quarter inch thick leather and a rounded toe cap harder than steel. Forget bending that bastard with those bastards.
Roy Clarke steps up and wellies it hard and low into the area. Deflections...GOAL...We are in the Cup Final.
When asked later, Roy said that he knew if he hit it hard and low, there was a chance of a deflection and posiibly a goal. Luck or calculated gamble. Every shot is a risk, playing the calculated odds game is a relevent part of football now, as it always has been.
Rag_hater wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:Rag_hater wrote:sweenyuk wrote:the technique was spot on, hit it hard and low in to a crowd of players and likley hood is it will get through and probably pick up a deflection on it's way. If we were 0-0 or losing you could question the decision, 2-0 up it was the right thing to do
Probably assumes nothing definate,so whether it was the right thing to do or not in your opinion does not deflect from the fact a certain amount of luck was needed to achieve hitting the ball with spot on technique and luck is the issue that is up for debate.
That goal was a bit lucky as the keeper MAY well have saved it. What wasn't lucky was Kolarov hitting the 1st man with every corner or blazing over the bar from free kcks when we had 5 players lined up to head in v a small team. That was shite & most other teams would do better.
If a goal is deflected, it has an element of luck about it, whether it's a set piece or not. If the ball is passed & someone intentionally hits it on target & scores without a lucky deflection etc, then obviously it's not lucky, irrespective whether it's a set piece or not. I shouldn't have to explain this to you, as it's obvious.
You don't need to be an 'expert' to know this stuff, everyone bar you & your mate knows it. Ask them.
I'd say you have it wrong again and someone with your expertise shouldn't make such basic errors.You say if the is no deflection and its on target and a goal is scored then its obviously not lucky.I'd say your wrong,lets take goalkeepers for this example.
Lets begin with the case of:
Paul Robinson in England vs Croatia,
Scot Carson against England vs Croatia
David Seaman the WC game and Goofy did him,no bobbles,no deflections just a soft shot.
David James against they mighty Austria,
I'm sure there's more, like the own goals our own legedary Richard scored and all are examples of bad luck in this case.Luck nontheless.
Luck and skill are linked.
And there are some teams and players who are luckier than others.
To dismiss it in an aim to make me look foolish ain't doing you any favours.
There's examples of some kind of luck in every game.
Return to The Maine Football forum
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Stan and 124 guests