Maximus Decimus
-
Posts
8,483 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Maximus Decimus
-
-
What with the GF being on, I missed the most controversial moment that being the Ben Whittaker draw.
From what I've seen, he was struggling against a fighter he was expected to beat and then they both went head first over the ropes, where Whittaker was injured and had to retire.
The fight went to the scorecards and it was scored a draw which most see as fortunate for Whittaker. Not only that but he's being accused of faking being hurt and effectively quitting.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:
Very interesting article about the progress by the NFL academy in Loughborough amongst its spread of 16-19 year old prospects.
The hope is that more and more of these athletes will be picked up by the top US colleges and processed through the US collegiate system.
This is seen as more likely to lead to pro athletes from in the NFL from around the world rather than mid 20s rugby union talent trying to adapt.
Interestingly the article suggests that currently the ratio of applicants to places is high so the NFL are looking at a global academy structure including one opening on the Gold Coast in Australia.
In order to prove their ability the coaches at the academy at Loughborough are organising top quality matchups against their US high school contemporaries such as the highly esteemed De La Salle Spartans.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/oct/13/tackles-and-textbooks-inside-the-uk-nfl-dream-factory
They were pushing this at the game last Sunday without explaining much about who either side were.
Just looked it up and De la Salle won 31-9.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:
Beterbiev won the fight to me and that’s backed up by the stats although I believe Eddie Hearn was upset at the end.
I would have given Bivol maybe 5 rounds but it was Beterbiev who got more on top from round 3 and delivered the more telling shots.
He was starting to hunt down Bivol and always carried the greater power to me and his great footwork allowed him to roll away and never allow Bivol enough of an opportunity to tee off with a straight right or right hook at the start of an exchange.
Bivol had some joy of course at times but it was never sustained particularly in the last three ‘championship’ rounds which Beterbiev won for me.
A lot of the rounds were close but I always felt Beterbiev was coming back stronger at the end of more rounds than Bivol including the closing minute.
Another telling factor was that Beterbiev had that ‘go forward’ advantage that he was visibly more and more pushing the tiring Bivol closer to ring edge even when Bivol attempted to stand and exchange in the centre.
While British judges may ignore that I’ve seen too many world title fights were international judges are more influenced to award aggression.
It was a close fight on the whole where neither man can say he truly dominated the other (no knock downs for example), I’m not sure we’ll get a rematch but it certainly would be interesting.
I backed Bivol pre fight and stood to win a bit of money had he won so I watched him quite keenly tbh. I watched the fight on TNT (Paul Dempsey commentary really) and Richie Woodhall, Anthony Crolla and the rest of the panel as it was saw a Beterbiev win.
I think it's that old thing about what judges prefer, the cleaner shots or the aggression.
I was rooting for Bivol, and think he did really well but there was always an inevitable feeling that Beterbiev was going to come strong. I actually put a bet on after round 2 for Beterbiev because the odds had Bivol as the favourite, but I thought he was going to find it hard to keep up.
I'm OK with the result but it could've gone either way. While the cleaner shots came from Bivol there were also longer periods where he did very little but cover up. On the DAZN coverage, they had it very close and the last time I remember seeing it thought Beterbiev would win if he could get the last 2 rounds.
The main reason I was surprised, was because betting wise they seemed to think Bivol had got it. I only stuck a tenner on Beterbiev and the whole fight they were offering me about £9 to cash out. By the time of the decision it was like £4.50.
The whole aggression vs clear shots seems to be about the fighter and pre-fight expectations a lot of the time IMO. The classic example of this is Mayweather. When he fought, it didn't seem to matter that the other guy was more aggressive because Mayweather did the better work.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:
Word should be spoken too about the absolute pathetic nature of the attempted wrestling style promo between Eubank Jr and Conor Benn.
For those not old enough to remember or be there at the time, I can quite honestly say that the anticipation of the Benn-Eubank fight fought by their fathers even overshadowed football for a short time.
Two very different men with different styles captured the imagination on ITV like nothing had in boxing at that time eclipsing everything for hardcore and casual boxing fans.
That was real and what we saw last night was a terrible attempt to manufacture the same thing but with two infinitely worse fighters and it descended into farce.
I'm not even joking, my 10 year old came in as I was watching that and asked whether it was WWE.
-
1
-
-
Until the decision.... don't agree with that.
-
1
-
-
Safe to say it was worth it. What a fight!
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:
Wardley demolishes Frazer inside a round tonight.
Like Dubois he’s not got the usual big amateur background yet isn’t far away from a world title fight now.
Beterbiev vs Bivol up next for all the Light Heavyweight belts.
A real shock and very disappointing. I only got the PPV because I saw that fight and the last one was a classic. Hard to argue with his power, but I didn't like the way he caught him after he'd been turned round.
Hopefully, the big fight lives up to the hype.
Either way, it hasn't cost me anything because I made a deal that if I won my GF bet I'd get the PPV!
-
Apologies if you haven't heard it and now will, but whoever is doing that incessant tap-dripping drum beat needs a kick in the balls.
If anyone at the game is near, I'll pay your legal fees if you do any damage.
-
I'd love to see Hull KR do it, but my head says a comfortable Wigan win. It's just about the occasion and how often Wigan have been there.
KR we're lucky to get through Wire last week while Wigan breezed through.
Hoping for a good game and something to shout about.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:
The fact that they've only appointed him interim for now, doesn't necessarily mean they didn't or don't think he could do the job full time. There is the huge shadow of Guardiola looming over this situation, and in my view that is what has made the FA go for an interim manager.
If we could get Guardiola next summer, I think pretty much everyone would want that. So why would you appoint anyone full time right now, even if you thought they would do a good job? That applies to Carsley, Potter, Howe, anyone. You're still going to think, yeah but Guardiola would be even better, if we could get him.
So it makes perfect sense from their perspective to make Carsley interim manager, because it buys them time (waiting to see if Guardiola is available), because you can easily slot him back into the U21 role.
If he performs well and Guardiola doesn't become available, fans will be calling for him to be considered for the job full time - so at that point they have the option to appoint him. Or they could go with a Potter etc. if they choose.
But anyway, I just find the pile on of Carsley, a bit ridiculous. Maybe I could understand it more if we'd been watching absolute brilliance from England teams under various managers for 30 years or more. But we haven't. Every one of them has dished up some utter rubbish.
I think you've just outlined the whole issue. He's only the interim manager and as such a stop gap.
I think your arguments would make sense if he had been made full England manager. If he had I would have agreed it was an overreaction to a friendly and that he needed time to he judged.
My point is simply that to make the jump from interim to full manager, you have to impress in the role. Because it is such a limited time, one very poor performance is very damaging to his prospects, and I suspect probably too much.
He only has a few games to prove himself, and if one of them is a game where Greece at home got the ball in the net 5 times, you can hardly expect the FA to announce they're giving him the job full time.
I can't see Guardiola taking the role, it's one of those too-good-to-be-true things and a huge risk for him. He's only 5th favourite anyway. At this point, it's looking like Tuchel is the front runner.
-
41 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:
I'm sorry but I just think that's reactionary nonsense. Are we really going to decide that he's awful and not up to the job, based on one game?
I'm not saying he should get the job full time - that will depend also on who else is available and willing to put their hat in the ring (if Guardiola is available, I'm having him as my first choice), when this interim period comes to an end - but to write Carsley off because of one game, just seems ridiculous to me.
He's managed England U-21's for three years. Of course that's far less pressure than managing the full team, but you can't be successful at it like he has, if you're completely clueless tactically or can't manage a team. He's earned his chance and I'll judge him over his entire time in charge.
What's going to happen if we appoint Guardiola next summer and he has a shocking game, as plenty of England managers have done in the past? It's not as if this is the only poor performance and bad defeat that any of us have ever seen. Are we going to get rid of him too? He obviously wouldn't be up to the job, if we apply the same logic.
I think you're making the mistake that Carsley is the presumptive heir to the England job. He's the interim manager, which carries no expectation that he'll be given the job and is often simply to hold the fort while a new manager is selected.
Obviously, it would be naive to think that interim managers never get the job, and often if they impress while being in the interim role they'll get the job. Southgate was seen as having steadied the ship (from a very low ebb) and unlucky not to have beaten Spain.
My point about Carsley is simply that he probably won't get the job now because he hasn't impressed in his short time on the job. Whether or not this makes sense long term isn't really the point, because he isn't the full England manager and as such doesn't get the benefit of time to change the system.
There's got to be some justification in promoting him from interim manager to full manager, otherwise why not just make him full manager in the first place?
Edit: I also meant to say that it's actually his third game and other than a decent start against Ireland, the other performances were underwhelming.
-
2 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:
It's only one game. It's a Nations League group game, not a World Cup or European Championship knockout game.
If we're not going to try different things during a Nations League game, then when?
Well played Greece. You deserved your victory.
The difference is that this is like an extended job interview for Carsley. Trying things is one thing but he also needs to impress and this just looked bad.
I think he's likely blown it.
-
8 hours ago, Irish Saint said:
Chiefs News: Everything we know about the new bill for a Kansas stadium - Arrowhead Pride
Like RedRooster says all about the money. One day those billionaires will discover there is no pockets in shrouds.
Some interesting points in the comment section.
I've played a bit of NFL VR and one of the things I love is seeing the different stadiums. The most impressive I've seen is the Minnesota Vikings.
I've watched a lot of videos on US stadia, and it's striking not only how much they cost but also how short a shelf life they're expected to have.
When I went Chicago last year, it was at a stadium that had undergone a $600m refurb in 2003. Now, it is viewed as one if the worst stadiums in the NFL and in desperate need of change. I thought it was nice enough. Don't get me wrong it wasn't as nice as Tottenham but it was light years ahead of say Goodison Park or Elland Road.
-
10 hours ago, Irish Saint said:
Red Rooster,. I think it was Florio who reported last year that Kansas City Chiefs were trying to get the local "council" to upgrade or build a new stadium. The "council" suggested introducing a tax to pay for some of this which was rejected by the local residents.. Be interesting to see does the owner move the team.
Billionaires asking the public to build them a stadium you couldn't make it up.
It's unfathomable that they would move out of Kansas City, especially after their recent run of success. Any other moves of this nature have been for largely failing or mediocre franchises.
-
3 hours ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:
Jacksonville rolling into town for Chicago (a) and New England (h). If your wondering what owner Shad Khan gets out of London see the video below where he has successfully played the "Super Stadium game" a dance which most NFL owners have with their municipal authorities.where the local auithorities will chip in $625 million to the $1.25 billion project. Jacksonville, which won't levy any new taxes to fund the rebuild, would chip in another $150 million in deferred maintenance to get EverBank Stadium ready for construction in 2026
Of course Shad is no better or worse than the other owners, for example Stan Kroenke played the same gfame with his St Louis Rams being the original London "Anchor Tenant" before Stan got that prime real estate in Inglewood to build So Fi stadium. In both cases the qwners, though denying it publicly, were content enough to let the re-location to London rumours persist to try to pressurise the municipal authorities into giving them a "pigskin palace". Shad being more successful than Stan but in Stan's case was it all a smokescreen?.
Certainly when Mark Davis and the Oakland Raiders tried it on the City of Oakland to renovate the Oakland - Almedia Stadium the municipal authorities thought that School, Hospitals, and other municipal services were a greater priority and the Raiders promptly set off for Las Vagas.
American life is about winners and losers, Winners get luxury suites and super stadiums where the wealthy can watch the Gridiron. The NFL TV deal is such that if they wanted they could open the gates for free but that would get in tjhe way of revenue.
If your a loser, you will not be able to afford to go and not even afford a cable subscription to watch your team. So if your feeling a bit ripped off by the prices remember it's all about the money and if your not a big enough earner in the UK or USA then the Circus will leave Town.
I'm pretty sure they get to watch almost all of their local team games on FTA TV along with a few games across the Thursday, Friday and Monday?
I think there are teams for which moving city would never happen but play this game with different local areas (say the 49ers and the Bears currently) and those that would even be willing to move to another state if the opportunity came up, like the recent moves of the Chargers, Rams and Raiders.
-
On 09/10/2024 at 17:52, THE RED ROOSTER said:
I was actually there, one of the 33,000 who attended this privately arranged game for the Global cup. Do not think I paid more thanm £ 30 IIRC as a teenager.
You always have to remember though the NFL is a league that cares only for revenue generation. To give you an example, Shirts were being sold for £ 105 in the shop but normally retail for about £ 84 with a discount code online and at shop at the New York Jets Tailgate in shoreditch in an cramped area not much bigger than my back garden (and no I do not live in a mansion) retailed for £ 160.
Minnisota Viklings though did a decent job of selling themselves as the "home" team and I got quite a few autographs of legends, current players and cheerleaders.
The NFL in London is unique in two ways
- Its the diverse sport with attendees from all ages, genders and races. That does not virtue signal over it but just accepts it as the norm
- What other sport gets capacity crowds at Tottenham and over 80,000 at Wembley and next to no national press coverage
And to answer Maximus point about Americans, they attend in large numbers but many are expatriates most of whom live in London and thev South East so when they go they are counted as UK fans because of the postal address used.
Exciuting finish but not a great game, Rogers as when he came with the Green Bay Packers two years ago did not seem on the same page as his wide receivers and Darnold looked like his old Jets self and not a QB of a 5-0 team. If the NFL show was still on then the Vikes would not pass the Osi "sniff test"
Funny, I came away thinking I was very like the demographic of the sort of people who were at the NFL in the UK. It did make me wonder what was so attractive about a very foreign and American sport to this particular demographic. I think it's part indulging in Americana, part rejection of more negative British sports and because it's a fun experience overall.
As for the Vikings, I completely agree. They came within one game winning drive of losing to a team who didn't get a first down for something like 25 minutes. Once their star RB went off injured, they were pretty ineffective.
Still I'd love the Jets to be an overachieving 5-0!
-
49ers, Bears, Buccs, Ravens, Packers, Titans, Texans, Eagles, Chargers, Steelers, Falcons, Cowboys, Bengals, Jets
-
21 hours ago, Liverpool Rover said:
The 49ers should be straight on the phone to Salah.
I knew he was under pressure but wow that was quick and has been almost universally panned as a decision.
The defense has obviously been great but the offense was dire on Sunday for almost a whole half.
I always liked the guy, but it's a brutal business.
-
OK, apologies for the clickbait title!
Like most people here, I'm a fan of multiple teams across multiple sports. However, as a very awkward person, I sometimes find it hard talking with other people about them and it basically comes down to pronouns.
I often think with being a sports fan, there is a certain level of willing suspension of disbelief involved. For instance, we often develop an intense relationship with a sports club as if we are an active part in it. We cheer a try or a goal as if it really matters to us on a personal level. The reality of course, is that we contribute absolutely nothing to the performance of the team and other than maybe contributing in a small financial and vocal way, all we have to demonstrate our effort is in loyalty to that team over years and years.
When talking about Widnes RL or England in a number of sports, I have no problem in saying something like 'we've been rubbish today' 'that ref had it in for us' or 'our kicking game has been dreadful' (note the negatives...). After all, I'm a Widnesian and I'm English, I didn't really choose these teams, they represent where I'm from.
On the flip-side, I recently rediscovered a love for the NFL and one of my two main teams of choice is the Jets who I've followed for about 4 years. There is no way I can say 'we' for the Jets, it just doesn't feel right. I rarely even say I'm a fan or supporter really, and tend to use the term follower. I think I feel like I could get caught out as a fraud. However, I recently saw a video of a UK Jets fan and he had no problem with this. In theory, I could see a time when I'd followed them for so long that I felt comfortable switching.
My most difficult example is with Everton. I've been an Evertonian since a child, I've been to games and at times it has been my main sporting club. Even with this, I find it difficult saying 'us' or 'we' and tend to use a more passive 'they' most of the time. I think this is because I don't follow it really closely and I'm surrounded by very passionate Liverpool, United and Everton fans who do and don't like the idea they could be thinking I'm not a real fan.
When do you feel comfortable going all in and saying 'we' for a sporting team? This is not a judgement by the way, I'm definitely not saying people should or shouldn't do it at any point. As I said, I'm quite an awkward person and this isn't something I'd consciously noticed I do until I watched that video.
-
As for the event, I thought it was fantastic and much much better than I anticipated. The stadium was great and the atmosphere was too. The people that I went with seemed to be of the impression that it was night and day with the Wembley game they attended the previous year.
I had anticipated that it would be a very neutral event with a lot of different clubs represented and as such a pretty subdued crowd, maybe akin to a RL international outside the heartlands. Instead it really felt like a Vikings home-game and I hadn't ever thought that I would feel like an away fan like I did. I do think that maybe this was unusual for a London game. There were a lot of Americans, and according to some data I've seen it's usually only about 3%.
There were plenty of Jets fans, although they were outnumbered. Next most was the Packers which may be down to the Rodgers link. There were only two shirts I didn't see - Panthers and Jaguars. I know they have two games of their own, but I suspect it is likely a poorer atmosphere is because the Jaguars just aren't very popular over here.
As for the game, well for 28 minutes of the first half the Jets were dire and at 17-0 I thought I was going to witness a massacre. From that perspective, I was pleased just to get something to cheer about and a bit of genuine tension at the end when it looked like they just might pull it off. Rodgers didn't have a great game, but I think he's really hampered by the complete lack of a running game. They're constantly 2 & 9, or 2 & 11 and then playing catch up. There was a genuinely poor decision at 10-0 down not to go for an easy 3 on 4th & 2 when they had barely made a yard with the running game. From that (and by benefit of some fortunate calls) the Vikings were suddenly 17-0 up. It wasn't a classic, but it was decent enough.
I'm gutted now that I didn't get tickets for the Bears now. As they are my other team, and are the home-side next week I'd have been really interested to see what that looks like and whether there are a lot of Bears fans in the stadium (there was a good smattering yesterday). I'll defo try to go to Tottenham again, but I'm not sure how much not being a fan of one of the teams will affect my experience. Even as a regular watcher of the NFL, the number of stoppages can be a lot at times.
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, The Future is League said:
Would I be right in suggesting it was another sell out crowd again?
I was talking about this yesterday. When it first started in 2007, they would have one game a year and it wouldn't quite sellout, although it was highly attended with the first game getting 81,000. In 2011, they 'only' managed 76,000. Usually, with things like that you would expect the novelty to start wearing off. However, the opposite has happened with the NFL and I think it might have actually contributed to the growth of the NFL in the UK.
Now, it is akin to something like the Oasis ticket fiasco where there are hundreds of thousands in a queue waiting to see if they will get a chance to get tickets. Yesterday, was a sellout but they all are now.
-
1
-
-
That moment when you reluctantly put a bet on Wire at +4, you win your bet but Wire still lose!
-
1
-
-
After 6 games, there are 5 teams still without a win in the PL, including all of the newly promoted sides. Sign of a growing gap or just a statistical anomaly?
By contrast, out of 32 teams in the NFL only 1 side hasn't won a game after 4 rounds.
Totally different systems of course, but it does seem a bit mad.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Irish Saint said:
Enjoy yourself, To be honest the Jets are such a basket case i didn't even apply for a ticket. Interview with Rodgers on GMFB this week. Have a feeling this will be his last season, mind willing but the body has had enough. A lot looser and friendlier in that interview that what he has been in some others in the past.
Yeh something doesn't seem right to me. I didn't know him that well at GB but he seems really quite grumpy when things don't come off and I do wonder if he respects Salah and Hackett.
The biggest problem for the Jets seems to be the complete lack of a running game. Twice recently they've failed at first and goalline on the 1 after going for it 4 times.
NFL
in Any Other Business / Any Other Sports
Posted
Very pleased with the Bears performance yesterday. After a slow first quarter, they dominated and easily won a game that they were slight underdogs for.
I have a mate who went both the last two weeks and he said while there were probably more Bears fans than Vikings fan last week, it felt like less of a home game.