Olympics 2024
Comments
-
Yes that sums it up well for me - probably why I can enjoy watching Olympic sailing or shooting where I wouldn't normally sit and watch those sports even if it's the same level of competition or I'd rather watch my daughter play football than the Champions League.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Well most parents would rather watch their child self-learn to play recorder than anything else in the universe.
Would you rather watch Cwm Albion FC vs. Cwmfelin Press on a damp Sunday morning, or the Champion's League?
0 -
The recorder? Really? No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I mean, only if the sole measure for watching a sport was how tactical it is...
Given the popularity of football, I don't think that's it, somehow.
Most sports have a lot more tactical hinterland than you might expect once you get involved in them (cricket, I have found, is incredibly tactical, for example, and mostly in ways that wouldn't be obvious to a casual observer)
0 -
Have I misread it, or is this a post saying that tactics are not important in football?
0 -
If I had some investment in the outcome of such a low profile match - typically family involvement - I'd watch that in preference to the CL. Though football is a bad example really as I don't really watch it at all, bar high profile international matches, as the play-acting and harassment of refs etc. is tiresome and with never having played footy, I can't really relate to it at any level.
0 -
Possibly we are still discussing Cwm Albion FC vs. Cwmfelin Press, in Glamorganshire Reserve Team Division 5.
0 -
😁
That was quick!
I do know that tactics are very important in football, mainly because I am a British man so it is unavoidable.
In fact I think the fact that the main tactics (I guess, formations, width, depth, use of subs, passing in triangles and all that stuff) are pretty accessible to the layperson is one of the main reasons it's so popular, plus the low barrier to entry so most people have played at least at school - it's not like cricket where you have to explain why the ball is swinging (something which isn't even obvious at first) or why spinners might be more effective on day 4 on some pitches, or what a googly is, or field settings (although I guess that pretty obvious in principle) - and I think that's one of the main barriers to the sport. I also think re: cycling, of course it is very tactical but superficially it's just a bunch of blokes riding through the countryside, you need to get quite into it to understand where the tactics are coming from.
Both of those as opposed to football where the main concepts can be grasped quite quickly, and you can easily enjoy watching a game with little to no prior knowledge.
1 -
This is still unmatched in what football tactics look like if you haven't grown up with it.
1 -
In Planet Rick shouldn't footballers just be aiming to get the ball in the net as many times as possible? Tactics are over-rated.
1 -
It's as much about entertainment as anything else I reckon. If youre into tactics, then fine but not everybody is. That said there are a lot of amateur football tacticians.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That crowd fight was pretty much my introduction to football in the 70s (Brian Clough era at Forest). Was so traumatised as a young teen I've not been to many pro matches since.
0 -
-
Are all forms of racing with a slip stream effect necessarily tactical? And the ones without not tactical.
I'm so confused.
0 -
I mean, I have seen a fair share of really boring 0-0 draws... and e.g., 2-0 games that were incredibly dull, for my sins I've been to Man City a couple of times in hospitality with work and it's like 80% City possession, a goal in each half, and nothing else.
I suppose that's akin to some of the really uncompetitive Grand Tours (or Test matches) we have had, but even those have space for individual moments of brilliance that helps keep the interest.
0 -
Probably more for Olympics 2028! Not sure if I agree with this (in spite of the fact he is going to ride, and likely win medals for GB now). The Aussie programme has invested significantly in him and he has ridden and won medals on the track for them in various competitions. I know he has dual citizenship but seems very harsh on the Australian track programme that he can just switch.
0 -
Who cares if its tough on the Aussies? Especially if he's good 😊
(Anyone remember Zola Budd?)
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Slip streaming obviously adds tactical intrigue, as the dichotomy that being behind someone is faster/saves energy is in constant tactical conflict.
The problem modern F1 has is that running behind someone is disadvantageous because the dirty air means the cars run less efficiently over a lap for a given laptime. Hence all the gizmos like DRS etc to counter that effect.
In less aero formats like old touring cars, the effect of being behind someone was advantageous as you really could pick up some additional speed on the straights without affecting cornering performance much.
Part of F1's problem is we've arrived at a point where really the limiting performance factor is really how the car uses the tyres, and can the driver/car combination use the artificially restricted tyres more effectively than their rivals.
Horsepower, raw driver speed etc seems to have become secondary to the "way you use your tyres" and that in turn has also limited the variance in driving styles that are available. That in turn dramatically reduces the realistically available tactical choices. It really just boils down to track position and finding "gaps" to pit in, in line with how you expect your car to handle the tyre performance, with another axis for when you take the tyre performance (aka, undercut or not).
If styles make fights, F1 is really struggling.
0 -
I find it interesting that you feel the need to explain this to me, as someone more techy than you who has told you I follow F1.
F1 was about the tyres a long time before Pirelli were instructed to make them out of cheese. How do you think Ferrari/Schumacher were so dominant? Or McLaren before them?
And long before you would remember, F1 races were fuel efficiency races where the amount of turbo boost available was king. Lots of people could be fast, but it was harder to be fast and also make it to the end of the race.
It still came down to how skillfully the driver used their right foot.
It is quite a narrow view of F1 to think that the ultimate measure is lowest single lap time, when a race is 50 laps.
0 -
I don’t think this iteration of F1 is especially tactical. You may disagree but I think there used to be much more room for affecting the result beyond raw pace.
I don’t disagree there are big periods where f1 is not that competitive. I was a hardcore fan from 96 to 2009 so I’ve seen both sides of that. Began to lose interest in the 10s and by the time it was Hamilton vs Rosberg I had largely given up.
0 -
Reliability used to be much more of a factor.
Don't agree it is any more or less predictable or tactical than it ever was, to be honest. The races tend to all be much closer than at some stages in F1 history. I recall Damon Hill once lapping the field, for example. Was it tactical then? Was it less about the car? No.
Fwis I think F1 needs less power, less mass, less grip and fewer regulations.
0 -
Harsh on those who've come up through the GB system too if one of them misses out due to him being parachuted in. Surprised he's defecting to be honest.
0 -
Yeah, he will surely take up a place, demoting another rider. From his quotes, I don't think it is an emotional pull to represent GB. He must feel the switch gives him a better chance of turning silver into gold, especially as at 25 he probably only has one more peak Olympic cycle left. Agree, seems a bit harsh to various other parties.
0 -
I suspect the motivation is turning gold into cash. I'm presuming there is more cash for cyclists in Europe than Oz.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It doesn't sit well with me either, but in a world of easy travel, relatively easy re-settling in other countries, dual-nationality being common etc. I think it's just the "way of the world". Lots of companies invest heavily in training folk who then b*gger off for brighter lights, greener grass etc.
At least MR has delivered some serious good for his former "employers". Jack McMillan (gold medal for GB via swimming the heats of the 4*2 relay in Paris) is from NI, and thus eligible for Ireland or GB. For the Tokyo games, he was nowhere near good enough to qualify via the GB system, but was good enough to qualify for Ireland. So he ticked the "Swum at Olympics" box via that route. Having ticked the box, he threw his hat into the ring to swim for GB, in the hope he'd make the aforementioned relay squad and potentially bag an Olympic medal. It all worked out for him at Trials, and he got his gold medal.
Can't help thinking it was all a bit cynical. He chose to swim for Ireland as an adult, when he could have declared for GB at the time. But, he was eligible, did what was needed at Trials, and did his one job at the OGs to perfection.
1 -
And crucially, Hoogland and Van den Berg will be 35 and 39 by the time LA rolls round, so NL likely not the force then that they have been recently. (VbB is only 6 months younger than Sir Jason.)
1 -
Yes, I think you are spot on, GB have clearpy identified him to spearhead the sprint events in 2028 in anticipation of the Dutch potentially being in decline by then.
0 -
I think both cases are a bit cycnical. Seems to be a bit opportunist, taking advantage of the best resources and programmes to suit oneself. I know there will be the argument that these are elite athletes and it is in their nature to be selfish and exploit advantages like dual nationality. I fully agree for someone who is a junior and then maybe switches allegiance at senior level. When you are well into a top level senior career though, having taken advantage of a top class programme and all the support on offer, making a switch at that point feels a bit off to me.
0 -
In MR's favour, he is apparently romantically involved with Emma Finucane, so there's more than just a "flag of convenience" for relocating to the northern hemisphere!
0 -
The thing is a four year Olympic cycle can throw up new people (Finucane wasn’t really on the radar at the top level when the Tokyo games were happening and that was only 3 years ago). It would be amusing if he failed to make the squad in 2028.
I’m not a fan of athletes jumping ship once they’ve already represented one country. It’s different if they have become citizens due to asylum or by marriage (although even that is dubious for me).
0
