Posts by Kyle Matthews
-
God, Taylor's in wicked form though, he must be one of the most consistent ODI batsmen in the world right now.
Our top ranked batsman, but only at 23. I don't know how it works, but he must be top 20 surely?
Styris is 26. Man hasn't played in months.
-
Though I read a story which listed the Australian team's schedule for the rest of the year. Players that make the international top six club competition thing are pretty much playing and travelling for about 9 months straight. Must be hell if you have a family who can't travel with you.
-
I really like how players get to challenge a decision in tennis games (three challenges per set), couldn't this work for cricket matches as the Broom decision was shocking.
Contrary to what most commentators seemed to think, I liked the challenge system that they've been trialling. And three goes an innings seems about right.
The change that I thought was needed was to change the definition of when a challenge becomes successful. It should be "when the umpire has clearly made an error". Aka, lbw off an inside edge, Haddin yesterday.
That would speed up the process. If the TV umpire can look at two or three times, from different angles, he'll soon know if the umpire clearly made a mistake. No clear mistake, reject it, keep on playing. Should reduce the stoppages to a minute or so, rather than the 5 minutes we had during the Windies tests.
-
When did the various national leagues become national? Ice hockey was way after railway, but that had more to do with the difficulties of having an ice rink in California, Texas, Florida etc.
-
And no-one can convince me that home brew is a suitable alternative to decent store bought
Certainly that's the case for my homebrew. Some of the last batch of cider I did I tossed it was approaching undrinkable. I'll try again in a month when the apple tree throws about 20 buckets of apples at me, if that doesn't work I'll try beer.
But I have a friend who has a whole shed full of alcohol, including what apparently isn't a half-bad whiskey, given it's only a couple of years old. (I don't like whiskey, but local experts have assessed it _thoroughly_)
And he can turn just about anything into a reasonable wine.
-
I'd like to know why in these tough economic times you want to get so many people out of work. Have you no heart?
Yes, we should all be concerned for professional footballers and their multi-million dollar contracts in these difficult times ;)
Why would we want to change American Football to be like rugby?
I never said to be more like rugby. I said rugby, rugby league etc all demonstrate that some of the peculiarities of American Football aren't there for need, they're just peculiarities.
Which isn't a bad thing, but my thesis is that changing them would make the game better. It wouldn't be any more like rugby, it would just take an hour less and have half as many players.
-
Don't think they've managed to do that deterred from crime survey yet...
There's lots of evidence that potential penalties have a limited effect in preventing people from committing crime. Try google.
-
Of course there is. They're not playing international rugby because tackling is all they do and that ain't good enough, but why would you think it impossible?
I don't think it's impossible. Indeed, there's sufficient breaks in rugby that it would be possible. If the rules changed, you could have a specialist goal kicker who only came on to do that job. You could have different offensive and defensive first-fives, who changed when there were stoppages of play.
But I suspect everyone would think it was silly. And wouldnt' add anything to the game. And yet this is the way American football works, which strikes me as very curious.
Netball, hockey, football are all sports that don't change teams when they go from offense to defence. There are players in those sports that are primarily there for one purpose, but they don't sit down during the rest of the time.
Ice hockey goalies (who can't pass half way) occasionally score goals, and frequently get assists. I've seen a soccer goalie score as well.
I wasn't sure how many times I could write: "If you want to watch rugby, watch rugby"
I was ignoring it because it's a silly argument Haydn.
If you took American football, and both made the players play both ways, and reduced the breaks, it clearly wouldn't be rugby. It would be American football with some minor rule modifications. Indeed, the game would largely look the same, the players would just have to play it a little differently.
You could have a similar effect by changing the interchange rule in League, or the replacements rules in Rugby, both of which have been done with it still staying essentially the same game.
-
If you have players on both sides they lose their specialisation.
Not necessarily.
That's like saying Daniel Carter should only kick goals, he should never tackle or run the ball, or kick in open play.
Or Beckham should only take free kicks, never play the other 99% of the game.
Or McCullum should only bat, never keep wickets.
Even if there is some small loss of specialist skills through making most of the positions play both way - would the game be any worse? After an adjustment period of a few years, I'm sure the game would be just as good.
I can't think of another sport where players normally only play offense or defense, not both. And I can't think of a good reason for it, other than, football has enough money that they can afford to have a roster of a gazillion players for a sport with... 11 on the field?
-
Kyle, I think you are missing Craig's point. If the DHB Chair had been found guilty of corruption he would have missed out on being elected, but only just. Like the Alaskan senator guy.
Yes I see now.
And apparently he was appointed by the Minister anyway so... I've lost Craig's point if he had a valid one.