|
suqit was a good lad i hope hes doing ok
|
# ? Nov 24, 2022 12:38 |
|
|
# ? May 4, 2024 12:28 |
Eau de MacGowan posted:suqit was a good lad i hope hes doing ok He was on the discord a while back he's doing grand. His son loled at the triangles post.
|
|
# ? Nov 24, 2022 12:41 |
|
Total Meatlove posted:I can’t even remember the cutlery posting but triangles is forever burned in my brain The internet is a magical place.
|
# ? Nov 24, 2022 12:55 |
|
Why was he posting photos of his cutlery drawer
|
# ? Nov 24, 2022 12:56 |
|
webmeister posted:Why was he posting photos of his cutlery drawer Shrapnig posted:The internet is a magical place.
|
# ? Nov 24, 2022 12:58 |
|
webmeister posted:Why was he posting photos of his cutlery drawer post ur fridge or gtfo
|
# ? Nov 24, 2022 12:59 |
|
wtf
|
# ? Nov 24, 2022 13:55 |
|
Total Meatlove posted:Triangles is a famous Suqit post, he’s a Barcelona fan and the point he posted it was probably the nadir of tiki taka football. For Barcelona, 90% of tiki taka's success was them having Messi in his prime able to unlock defences even when the other world-class players they had were just boring everyone to sleep tiki-takaing them to death. Spain were always much more boring to watch because they had all the tiki-taka midfielders but no Messi, so they just kept the ball for 90 minutes and won every game 1-0.
|
# ? Nov 24, 2022 14:27 |
|
They were also juiced to the gills!
|
# ? Nov 24, 2022 17:11 |
|
the sex ghost posted:Maybe you've caught a couple of games on TV and would like to join in but are daunted by the prospect of reading over a decade of cryptic TRP in-jokes to work out exactly who Glen Johnson is and what he's smiling about.
|
# ? Nov 24, 2022 17:12 |
lol
|
|
# ? Nov 24, 2022 17:14 |
|
webmeister posted:Why was he posting photos of his cutlery drawer we're not allowed to have soccer fyad any more, but for a brief moment it was beautiful other than the feetposting
|
# ? Nov 24, 2022 18:29 |
|
Bogan Krkic posted:This video is an interesting take on the idea that formations barely exist in modern football anymore, and while I don't necessarily agree, teams definitely often have two or more preferred formations even in the same game, depending on if they are in or out of possession. But yeah, formations are fine if you want a broad conceptual idea of who these men are and why they're spitting all over this particular piece of grass. In the real world, a top-level coach is going to have individual strategies for individual players and they're going to change and overlap and do a bunch of asymmetrical stuff depending on a bunch of situational factors.
|
# ? Nov 24, 2022 18:37 |
|
I grew up watching hockey and in that sport there were enormous anxieties in the late 90s around defence becoming "too good" and games becoming low scoring, dull affairs. Famously the New Jersey Devils won a Stanley Cup due to their employment of the Neutral Zone Trap. The National Hockey League brought in rule changes to break the Trap and increase scoring, such as increasing scrutiny on penalties that would slow players (ie. holding), and making it legal to do longer passes. Another recent rule change designed to weaken defence and increase scoring was to reduce the situations when the goaltender could play the puck out of their net. Football is of course another relatively low scoring game. I'm curious has there ever been some portion of the leagues/ownership/fans/players that have ever agitated for any rule changes with an attempt to increase scoring? I suspect that the context of the NHL, being not at all the number one sport in America, and being in tough competition with other NA leagues such as the NBA and NFL for attention, could have been a thing that would have driven a desire from the team owners to make the sport "more exciting" by increasing scoring (capitalism!). The same pressures don't seem quite so present for Football. But yeah even if rule changes would never happen, I'm curious if amongst the fans it's a speculative thing at all, if there are some minority in the pub that after a few drinks insist that the game would be better if they made this change or that change. Fans seem pretty happy with the rule tweaks the NHL made, though I feel there still is a bit of occasional murmur amongst the media, players and fans about maybe decreasing goalie equipment sizing or making the nets bigger to increase scoring opportunities.
|
# ? Nov 24, 2022 23:58 |
|
Femtosecond posted:Football is of course another relatively low scoring game. I'm curious has there ever been some portion of the leagues/ownership/fans/players that have ever agitated for any rule changes with an attempt to increase scoring? Pretty much every American marketing genius who's even gotten involved in football has farted out ideas for more goals (because you see, people like goals the most so let's have more of them!) Larger goals, changing the field size, more penalties, offside changes and so on
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 00:03 |
|
lol
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 00:05 |
|
webmeister posted:Pretty much every American marketing genius who's even gotten involved in football has farted out ideas for more goals (because you see, people like goals the most so let's have more of them!) Yeah a lot more interesting if speculative changes to the game are coming not from outsiders, but from within the fanbase, or even moreso, the players themselves. Edit: Never been a die hard enough NHL follower to feel confident to speak on behalf of the fanbase, and certainly wasn't during the late 90s when they made these changes, but my impression of the various rule changes the NHL made has always been that the fans were more than happy about them as they saw real problems with the game developing with the strategic innovations the NJ Devils had introduced. Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Nov 25, 2022 |
# ? Nov 25, 2022 00:09 |
|
Another observation relating to hockey. In hockey google says that the odds of scoring on a penalty shot are about 33%. In Football the odds of scoring a penalty kick are around 75-85%. Has anyone ever mused "hey penalty kicks seem kinda op? Should we change something?" (oh god looking up that stat makes me feel even worse for Alphonso Davies missing his penalty kick against Belgium)
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 00:25 |
|
Something to remember re tactics and formations if your only exposure to football is the World Cup, tactical systems tend to be simpler and less involved than in club football, which is where the drive for tactical innovation really occurs. That is where you will see the true form of modern tactical ideas that are pushing the metagame forward like Man City’s positional play, coordinated counter-pressing and so on. Because there is so little time to train together as a group for international teams (especially with the short turn around in this mid-season World Cup), you’ll see some more basic cookie cutter tactical systems in Qatar.
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 00:26 |
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:But yeah, formations are fine if you want a broad conceptual idea of who these men are and why they're spitting all over this particular piece of grass. In the real world, a top-level coach is going to have individual strategies for individual players and they're going to change and overlap and do a bunch of asymmetrical stuff depending on a bunch of situational factors. Yup. https://youtu.be/4wAG5ZUJ4eI
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 00:40 |
If you're interested in tactics and formations the Tifo IRL channel do all kinds of tactical and statistical nerdery all along the spectrum from "huh that's interesting" to "wat" I particularly like their videos that cover specific matches and how they were won/lost etc and they're usually good at explaining the stats they're on about and how they're being applied.
|
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 00:55 |
|
Femtosecond posted:Yeah a lot more interesting if speculative changes to the game are coming not from outsiders, but from within the fanbase, or even moreso, the players themselves. The grounds changed a lot. The pitches were muddy pits of slowness, especially in front of goal, which obviously favoured defenders. Not sure when exactly the level raised to today's standards, or exactly why, because teams naturally want home field advantage when the fancy dans come to town. The other big change has been in reffing. You used to get away with A LOT. Flying tackles through the shins and the ref tells the player to get up, it's a man's game. Not only that but defenders were "clumsier" and would "accidentally" stand on a foot or poke someone in the eye. Just accidents, like. Attacking players were getting destroyed by brutal challenges all over and orders were given to clamp down on that poo poo. The downside is this is when diving really came into the game because the ref wants a clean game but can't see everything so players will make a meal of things to get him to blow the whistle. The game's gone when you can't just elbow a player in the chin anymore, it's sad.
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 00:57 |
greazeball posted:The grounds changed a lot. The pitches were muddy pits of slowness, especially in front of goal, which obviously favoured defenders. Not sure when exactly the level raised to today's standards, or exactly why, because teams naturally want home field advantage when the fancy dans come to town. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygVgxYa3mlo I forget whether he was booked for this or not but he definitely wasn't sent off. I think pitches really started improving in the late 90s when undersoil technology improved and grounds started putting in better drainage following on from the various capacity improvements made at different grounds after the change to all seating. Turf stopped being pure turf as well and was replaced with hybrid stuff that doesn't tear up as easily. Indoor sun lighting rigs got cheaper. The Premier League brought a lot more money into the English leagues allowing for more elaborate stadium improvements, both the pitch itself and the stands. Old Trafford went from something like 45k capacity seated to 57k in the 90s and then jumped twice again to the current 75k.
|
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 01:10 |
|
proposal: you can't just elbow a player in the chin anymore reality: a man falls through the roof and into a bar in spain. taking a beer from the fridge he spies table upon table of fans. grasping the nearest by the shoulders, he shakes them madly, yelling "oh hey bud, have u ever watched concacaf"
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 01:10 |
|
Is there another team sport where they’re constantly innovating the ball because that’s been a huge thing in the Premier League era too.
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 01:17 |
Shrapnig posted:Is there another team sport where they’re constantly innovating the ball because that’s been a huge thing in the Premier League era too. Good point. Between pitch improvements, boot technology and the footballs themselves, the game, the style and the pace of it has changed considerably in just 30 years. When we talk about "being able to play in the modern game" now with how much it's evolved you suddenly find players like Ince and Keane, Tony Adams, Peter Schmeichel etc in the conversation when names like George Best and Bobby Charlton or Emlyn Hughes used to be the ones around "could they play in the modern game". For the record I think Schmeichel does alright in the modern game he played as a striker before becoming a keeper he did OK with the ball at his feet. Or he could just throw it to the halfway line. NinpoEspiritoSanto fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Nov 25, 2022 |
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 01:20 |
|
For all the talk of innovation I think the offside rule was the last time the nature of the game really changed. And that was so long ago. Everything else has been tweaks around the edges.
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 01:32 |
|
Bring back the W-M imo
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 01:34 |
|
Vegetable posted:For all the talk of innovation I think the offside rule was the last time the nature of the game really changed. And that was so long ago. Everything else has been tweaks around the edges. I feel like VAR might count, especially if they ever manage to work out the kinks and actually implement it as designed so that the unspoken longtime tradition that was "you can get away with shithousery as long as the ref doesn't see" goes away.
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 01:37 |
Vegetable posted:For all the talk of innovation I think the offside rule was the last time the nature of the game really changed. And that was so long ago. Everything else has been tweaks around the edges. Backpass rule, goal line tech and VAR without a shadow of a doubt. e: I read something somewhere where if VAR had been a thing United could have had something ridiculous like 7 straight league title wins, flaws and all VAR has changed the game significantly. NinpoEspiritoSanto fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Nov 25, 2022 |
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 02:13 |
|
Here is a fantastic article on the backpass: https://theathletic.com/3397785/2022/07/20/thirty-years-of-the-backpass-rule/ Basically a dude timed how much time was spent on keepers and defenders backpassing over and over during the ‘90 WC and sent the numbers to FIFA because it was so loving boring and actually managed to build momentum to change the game. In one game a keeper held the ball for 42% of his team’s possession. Riven fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Nov 25, 2022 |
# ? Nov 25, 2022 02:20 |
|
NinpoEspiritoSanto posted:Backpass rule, goal line tech and VAR without a shadow of a doubt. half of VAR decisions are bollocks anyway so I wouldn't be so sure of that
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 02:45 |
|
Also the backpass rule cost several keepers their jobs because they had no idea how to handle the ball with their feet and couldn’t do any good kicks except goal kicks.
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 03:03 |
|
Femtosecond posted:Another observation relating to hockey. I have mused this all the time but I don’t know how to make it better. I absolutely despise the rules for penalty kicks. It makes no sense that it’s the same foul for: 1. Slide tackling a dude from behind as he’s about to score the game winning goal 2. Accidentally touching a dude’s heel while he tries to pass the ball from the box to a guy outside the box 3. A cross bouncing off an attacker into a defender’s hand, while the defender has no idea that the ball is even close to his hand The idea of a “soft” penalty makes me physically ill. And there are some fouls where the correct “penalty” should just be a given goal. For example, Ronaldo didn’t deserve a goal today, and Luis Suárez should be in jail and Ghana should’ve made a World Cup semifinal.
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 03:13 |
|
Femtosecond posted:I grew up watching hockey and in that sport there were enormous anxieties in the late 90s around defence becoming "too good" and games becoming low scoring, dull affairs. Famously the New Jersey Devils won a Stanley Cup due to their employment of the Neutral Zone Trap. Not at all a hockey expert, but weren't the changes that hockey implemented as much about making the neutral zone trap less important as it was about increasing scoring? I.e., while I am sure they appreciated the increase in the number of goals, the main "benefit" was speeding up gameplay? Because that is the tricky thing about all the so far suggested changes to soccer: none of them fundamentally make the game any different or exciting, even if number goes up.
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 03:32 |
Aggro posted:I have mused this all the time but I don’t know how to make it better. I absolutely despise the rules for penalty kicks. It makes no sense that it’s the same foul for: Why does it make no sense? It's obvious and very simple. A foul by the laws of the game is a penalty when committed inside the penalty area. The Suarez one sucked because the penalty was missed but them's the breaks.
|
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 03:32 |
|
Aggro posted:I have mused this all the time but I don’t know how to make it better. I absolutely despise the rules for penalty kicks. It makes no sense that it’s the same foul for: I have to disagree with the idea that a goal should ever just be given. If a goal wasn't scored then a goal wasn't scored, and the correct thing to do is give a penalty (which, as noted, has a high chance of becoming a goal) and penalize a player for improperly stopping a goal, if that's what happened. Suarez getting a red card and Ghana getting a penalty was 100% the right outcome there. It's a shame that Ghana weren't able to score the penalty and go through, but that's the nature of football. The reason I say you should never just "give" a goal is that unpredictable things happen in football all the time. Take this video for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPx4ZNIsBGM If a defender dove in and stopped the ball with his hand after the striker shot it and the goalkeeper failed to save it, it may seem like they're preventing a goal, but they actually aren't because a goal wouldn't have been scored due to the weather and the pitch condition. The hypothetical defender would still be committing a penalty and/or red card offence but the ball didn't actually cross the line and the ref shouldn't give a goal when it hasn't. It seems like this should be a different scenario than Suarez's famous handball, but in principle it's the same thing: a ball heading towards the goal gets stopped illegally before crossing the line. The ref doesn't and shouldn't have the power to predict the future and award the goal, because their job is to judge what has happened on the field of play, not to predict what might have happened if the players behaved differently.
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 03:33 |
|
Femtosecond posted:Another observation relating to hockey. i've always been kinda surprised that indirect free kicks in the 18 yard box weren't proposed as a solution to challenges that didn't prevent clear and obvious scoring opportunities. right now it's only for goalkeeping offenses and 'dangerous play without contact' or similar such stuff. its a tough task though because 'clear and obvious scoring opportunity' is, unlike the verbiage suggests, kind of vague. the ref can't look into the future and see if that play would result in a pass that would result in etc etc. if i'm honest, i'd like to see the concept expanded upon, but i understand why its not and would never push for it. its just something thats always stuck with me from when i played field hockey
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 04:27 |
|
greazeball posted:The grounds changed a lot. The pitches were muddy pits of slowness, especially in front of goal, which obviously favoured defenders. Not sure when exactly the level raised to today's standards, or exactly why, because teams naturally want home field advantage when the fancy dans come to town. has there ever been given a reason why the ref crew consists of the a single ref, two linesmen and a fourth? obviously they have VAR now i guess, but that's only for plays subject to review, as opposed to moment to moment fouls. my guess is always that they wanted the game to be pretty much the same at all levels, and a minimal amount of judges reduces conflict and speeds up the decisions. its just bugged me for like the last 30 years that you have this huge pitch and only three sets of eyes
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 04:35 |
|
|
# ? May 4, 2024 12:28 |
|
Would be interesting if they moved the penalty spot back 6 years, so you take them from the 18 yard line rather than the spot at 12 yards. You could potentially keep the spot for outrageous, red card level offences (and shootouts), while the soft crappy pens like Ronaldo's yesterday would have to be taken from further out.
|
# ? Nov 25, 2022 05:40 |