Bostik Bailey
-
Posts
1,172 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Bostik Bailey
-
-
21 minutes ago, LeeF said:
It’s far from “awful” if you take your blinkers off for more than 5 seconds. There will still be movement between what is now the SL and the Championship but hopefully far less “boom and bust” and some longer term planning.
Without the exact specific detail but applying a reasonable amount of common sense I can easily see where a top Championship side would have scored higher than the bottom SL side in some recent years.
One tweekI would make is switch the top two championship on field performance points with the bottom two super league points
-
What are people on here’s opinion about James O Brien (LBC)? I do listen to him and my politics are broadly aligned with his, but I can’t help thinking he has had it very easy with material and discussion points with Brexit, and the car crash of various tory PMs. Take this away and what has he got.
I can’t help thinking that he is just a Waitrose Alan Beswick.
-
4 hours ago, Alan Robertson said:
I thought it was a fairly convincing win by Saints. Not Dragons' strongest side but you can only beat the team in front of you.
I think Penrith will take Saturday's game very seriously. As a Wigan fan, I can't say that I've ever spent too much time wanting Saints to put in a good performance. As an ex-pat, based in Australia, who always wants the best for English RL, I'm sure that next week will bring mixed feelings regardless of who wins.
I think the Panthers are heavy favourites, being the home side and also one of the most dominant sides for a 'long, long time'.
Saints will give it everything for 25 minutes but won't be able to maintain Penrith's workrate, I believe.
I think the weather will also play a big part expected high 30s-40 C, Saints will wilt under that heat.
It will be the reverse of when we beat the Broncos in the snow and hail at Bolton.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Old Frightful said:
The Barrow flier looking good.
The Barra Arra, to join that other saints great signed from Barrow Les Quirk
-
4 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:
I have listened to the hype and the IMDB rating hype
Expected it to be amazing so we started first 2 episodes of series 1 last night
It is good but blimey it's grim. It's really dark and should be named Non- happy Valley
I quite like the West Yorkshire scenery and the story but not sure I have the stomach to watch again tonight......might leave me too depressed
Did exactly the same dropped it after 2 episodes far too depressing. I don’t mind drama but not this. I was actually surprised that Phil Redmond had nothing to do with it, since it was straight out of his depressing “realism”
-
1
-
-
On 09/01/2023 at 13:35, Roughyed Rats said:
It's clearly not yours
http://snowbrains.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/32791-sea-and-beach-big-wave
You are confusing waves - caused by disturbance of the surface (via wind) or the body of the water (via landslides etc) with tide. Tide is the gravitational pull of the moon acting on the water in the world’s oceans and drawing it toward the moon.
-
16 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:
As long as the water is distributed equally
Physics not your strong point
-
4
-
-
3 hours ago, gingerjon said:
That's all fair but I'd argue runs the risk of minimising 1066 and its aftermath which, obviously, was a pretty big deal and, sort of the point I'm getting at anyway, still going with the myth that you can draw a straight line between, say, the culture and world of Beowulf and get to the English nation of today (or, in the myth makers' usual nostalgia fest, the English nation of about 1950 before nasty multiculturalism turned up).
I'd also never say or suggest that the Dark Ages were dark. What they were, and are, is a mostly alien culture to today's though.
You only have to look the the English language to appreciate how multicultural this country has always been.
The English language has many worlds for the same thing, with origins in Latin, Germanic, Nose, French, Urdu and many other languages that English has assimilated (strangely there aren’t many British words in English)
english has a richness of words that other pure languages don’t possess.
-
55 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
Never met an Edward, Harold or Carl I presume? Never been to a place with "ham" or "field" at the end of it's name? Indeed you can't have been many RL towns and cities, which I am surprised at.
What you describe is very accurate to describe what happened to the Celts of (most of) England since 410 yes, but there is a reason the English of the 11th Century didn't become the Normans. I can see an argument that "English" culture is the fusion of an Anglo-Saxon populace with a Norman elite, to make it distinct from the form of that existed before 1066. So your Guillames and Robèrts become William and Bob
The Norman conquest was barely more impactful on English society as the Danelaw or the North Sea Empire had been, or the Angevin Empire that followed it. A feudal society existed beforehand, just as one existed afterwards. 1066 is neat because there is a more linear path with what came afterwards and it serves as a nice bookend to segway into teaching History, but the changes are often overstated because of that. Every other society within the cultural reach of Medieval France and the Holy Roman Empire adopted some of its traits and traditions, there's no reason to think England under Harold Godwinson or Harald Hardrada takes a significantly different path in that respect.
People go on about castles, churches, monasteries and the names of things like the Anglo-Saxon and Norse rulers of the previous 2 centuries hadn't done these things. The system of government in England was exceptionally sophisticated compared to others in Europe, all the Normans did was plonk their people in charge of the existing administration and (re)introduce Latin as the legal and administrative text.
1066 being revered as some sort of huge change is part of a long running misconception that before that we were in the Dark Ages and everything was bad. Nothing could be further from the truth. Likewise it is a focus of history almost entirely on the rulers of the land, which doesn't speak for society at large.
Nail on head. Marc Norris has some very good and accessible books on this
-
On 27/12/2022 at 12:57, Eddie said:
The ruling classes aren’t but us plebs in the main are. There was less immigration into Britain during the whole period from 1066 to 1945 than there has been in any single year since Blair first won the election in 97.
I haven't seen any figures on this but I can well believe that the figures do back up this statement.
However there is one massive flaw in this statement, for the majority of the period mentioned there was no way of getting accurate statistics on immigration since there were no passports and no established state control of the masses you could (if you had the money) move about with very little state interference. indeed we only started do something about this in 1905 - even then is was just a verbal authorisation. The interesting point is the cut off date as 1945 most probably when records began accurately to log immigration for the start of the welfare state.
For accuracy the statement should read 'There was less recorded immigration into Britain'
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, gingerjon said:
If you're going that way then the English lost in 1066 and the name of the country 'England' is simply a nostalgic reminder for a lost and destroyed culture.
No they didn’t Harold Godwinson was half Norse his bother Tostig most probably convinced Harold Hardrada to invade (battle of Standford Bridge) . The last true pure Anglo-Saxon king was Ethelred the unready. He married Emma, daughter of the Duke of Normandy and their son was Edward the confessor (hence the hereditary link to the house of Normandy) after Ethelred, Cnut, Harold I, and Harthcnut were Norman/Dane. Over this period time the land was generally called England and the language was already an assimilation between Anglo-Saxon and Norse. The destroyed culture was only in the upper echelons of earldom( I.e all Harold II cronies ) the feudal system was already establish in England and although the victory of the Norman’s would have had general upheaval for the population it would have been no different to the many danish invasions in the east of the country that had been commonplace for many years beforehand.
One thing that William did bring was a long period of political stability for the general population, free from armed interventions from others.
-
2
-
-
The Norman conquest was actually a (very distant) relative of the king (Edward the confessor) claiming the crown from a usurper Harold Godwineson, who had no hereditary claim the the throne whatsoever. In the years leading up to Edwards death Harold put all his cronies into all the major earldoms etc. so in reality the Norman conquest was just restoring the ‘rightful’ hereditary line to the throne.
-
3 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:
I never even watched any of it after series 3. Got through about 2 and half of the books as well and gave up. The thing that initially appealed to me about Game of Thrones was it was fantasy without all the magic. At least it was for a season or so then all the usual facets of fantasy crept in.
Off topic but Joe Abercrombie’s stuff is worth a read if you want fantasy without the too much (unexplained) magic.
-
1
-
-
Zak Crawley just proving that he is just a flat track bully
-
1 hour ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:
To elaborate.
Simplicity. It is a very easy game to understand compared to most other sports. As has been pointed out, there are maybe only 3-4 critical rules to the game functioning. Anyone can understand a game of football whereas a lot of people will be turned away from rugby due to the complexity of it. You can't just sit down having never watched a game of rugby and immediately know what's going on.
To enjoy the game you don't need to follow the game to the letter of the law when playing either. You can take a small part of the game and just play that; stick your mate in goal and just take random shots at him. With RL, you could just kick goals over a post fair enough, but kicking the ball, going and retrieving it, kicking a goal etc etc would get very boring. You could run with the ball and see if you get past your mate in defence and score a try but it really seems that taking just a small part of RL and playing it feels like just doing a training drill over and over whereas taking shots at your mate and trying to score more and more elaborate goals and your mate trying to make extravagant saves would be a lot more fun.
Accessibility. There are so many different ways to play the game. You can have any number of players to play a form of football including just playing on your own if you can't find anyone to play with.
You don't need all the correct equipment to play the game. You don't need goalposts or a ball even, all you need is a couple of markers of some description, whether that be a couple of stones or a couple of twigs, or holes in the ground or even just kick the ball against a wall with a couple of chalked lines or even just find a couple of trees close together to kick through. I remember once seeing a show in Africa (I think it was) and kids were just playing with a blown up carrier bag as a ball but it worked for them.
The amount of football teams also makes it a heck of a lot more accessible. I think I saw a stat recently that said in England (I think it was just England) there is over 700 football clubs and 1,000 teams. The local non-league team to me is just a walk away and costs just a few quid to get in. They are a 10th tier team and even at that level regularly get 300 people in attendance. There is a local amateur RL team close by as well but I do live in the heartland of course so a good lot of people in Britain will be nowhere near a rugby team.
Just some of the reasons football is so popular.
Marvelous isn't it, small boys on the park jumpers for goalposts, rush goalie, time for tea -next goal wins,
-
2
-
-
47 minutes ago, BD20Cougar said:
I hate to be negative about attendances but this game was shown as having low availability on the ticket website. Dread to think what the crowds will be like for the medium/high availability matches.
I think the pricing structure is starting to bite for these group matches
-
1 hour ago, SydneyRoosters said:
already a fifth of the way to beating 2000 World Cup two games in. Goes to show how terrible and poorly organised that World Cup was.
Was that the Jason Harbarrow one
-
2 hours ago, Jughead said:
Is Bradley Wiggins still a fan? There was a time where he got as much screen time as half the Wigan team during a game on Sky.
Yeh but he has sort of kept a low profile after the suspicions were raised over the contents of “that package “.
-
All they need is someone to come up with artist’s impressions of their new stadium
-
5
-
1
-
19
-
-
19 minutes ago, JohnM said:
Yes, and had Leeds a creative half-back combination..and a plan...the result would have been much closer. Credit Smith too, for getting Leeds to the GF in such a short time at the helm.
Compare Smith’s approach to a failing Leeds team to that of Powell’s to a failing Warrington team
-
13 hours ago, bobbruce said:
Yes I think that’s a good shout it would be a real shame if players had to miss out especially through foul play.
What is someone had a broken bone through foul play do we player the GF months later?
-
2
-
-
Never ascribe you malice that which can easily be explained by incompetence
A clever person solves the problem, a wise person avoids it.
-
1
-
-
This went over quite a few heads
-
5
-
-
I have just finished Leigh Bardugo’s Grishaverse series (Shadow and the bone etc)
I am not that into fantasy but these are excellent stories and characters, but the Shadow and the Bone series does contain some rather pathetic teenage romance writing, and it is testament to the strength of the story that you can read through that.
the six of crows however is a fantastic heist story.
non-fiction Soccermatics by David Sumptor us and interesting read even if like me you don’t have that much interest football.
IMG Grading Unveiled
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
most sports clubs don’t turn in big profits all their income is generally reinvested, either players, facilities, long term projects.