Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum

Denton Rovers RLFC

Coach
  • Content Count

    1,497
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Denton Rovers RLFC

  1. That's just crazy, 3 bed semi in Mill Hill is significantly less than that! Mates parents live there and he was telling me he was hoping his mum would sell up and get a bungalow near him and his wife in Watford so they could maybe benefit from that and not have to pay the £1200/month rent on their flat as well as she being closer so they can look after her a bit easier.. Even places like Borehamwood which is a bit like Stevenage for the most part has gone silly. It's not too bad here in the garden city but that's just comparative to the rest of the home counties, we're sort of on that cusp in some regards. A lady I visited through my charity owned an early 20thC 7 bed detached with over an acre of land with mature trees etc, it sold 3 years ago for £1.13M, that was in a nice part of Hitchin not too far from the town centre. That 20 miles difference geographically Northward makes such a massive difference despite the fact both SA and Hitchin are on a mainline into London. My other friend off the A41 wanted to move after his kids left school but he can't afford it unless they move right out the area or seriously downsize. People in the North don't really grasp sometimes how tough it can be, yes you might be lucky enough to have bought at the right time and your property is worth £xxx, but the reality is unless you want to move from your roots or downsize dramatically your're stuck and that's those who were lucky enough to get on the housing ladder in the first instance. A significant portion never could and there's never a chance for them, even less so now and their children/grandchildren are stuffed! The whole house price/rental costs does have a significant effect on the value of the salaries of the players at Broncos and IMO the dispensation of the SC isn't enough to balance that out, even if the London club could afford to pay it.
  2. it's ridiculous in Berko and everywhere in the London commuter belt, mate of mine and his wife sold up their Tring town house in '92/93 and moved to a large property just off the A41. Extended three bed, large garden, driveway etc, the town house is worth 10-15% more he was telling me! New build 3 bed bungalow's in Tring are £850k ffs!
  3. And the club should state player welfare as to reason they are resting due to extreme fatigue.
  4. Why can't it be another pair of teams? It seems rather unfair given that one of the teams is playing in a CC semi 5 days beforehand, the RFL should say no, choose two other teams to play on Thursday!
  5. I wore my Hull FC cycling jersey the other week whilst delivering my charities quarterly mag( I do all 700 by bike), went into one place and the women on reception says, oh you probably won't like me as I support Liverpool! I was thinking WTF, my shirt has Hull FC written on it, no other soccer team has this distinct design, not ever AFAIK, and yet you still mistook me for a nonceball fan. I told her that it's a rugby league cycling jersey,, "oh right" was her response. The local free paper gets write ups for the local onion teams and when North Herts Crusaders play they get a few column inches from what I've seen, but there's a lot of cricket, field hockey, tennis, soccer, bowls etc, there's no real big local paper. The biggest town in this side of the county is Stevenage but aside from Stevenage Town the nearest big sporting team is Watford around 25 miles away as the crow flies and Luton town which is in Bedfordshire about 12 miles West. Saracens sometimes get mentioned if they are doing something with some of the local clubs. There's a lot of connection with the London soccer teams by the local population in Herts, I guess that's due to the older family members who moved out of London to the new towns like Hemel, Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City and when the other smaller/older towns have expanded. I don't miss chatting RL tbh because I've been here 30 years now and have other interests though always missed playing especially when my condition prevented me from doing so.
  6. "confirmation bias", hahahaha, that'd be the people wanting to force you to wear a cycle helmet right, the people that want to penalise you and remove your innate human rights? The anti bike helmet lobby as you so gracelessly call it is in fact doing precisely the opposite than the zealots who insidiously push cycle helmets but ignore all world data and HAVE massively increase danger for human beings. Why don't you allay yourself of the actual facts instead of attacking people who have everyone's best interests at heart, particularly those who are subjected to attack whether on a sports field or on the highway or elsewhere? I presume you made your kids wear helmets whenever the got in a car or walk to school, to the shops given the actual risks involved, you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite eh!
  7. So you have zero proof of what you you clearly think is correct, just make a silly comment and talk about something utterly different? Would you like me to present all of mine to show that you're 100% wrong with regards to cycle helmets, no, because people like you don't want to get into a proper discussion about a serious matter that effects everyone, even if you drive. Your type would rather stick their heads in the sand like anti vaccine people, ignore all incontrovertible evidence not just from one country but EVERY country, ignore the findings of Ben Goldacre Wellcome research fellow in epidemiology and David Spiegelhalter -Winton professor for the public understanding of risk who both state that in best case scenario cycle helmets have precisely ZERO effect on cycle safety. People like you will ignore the evidence shown not just in cycling but in other sports with regards to head protection garments that they increase the dangers to wearers. Yup, I know your type, plenty on waffle and zero on evidence except from those that have a vested interest to 'prove' what they wanted to find from the outset, give weight to peer reviewed research that was shown to be massively flawed (and did not, nor could not stand up to scrutiny when the actual stats themselves show us otherwise) and using methodology that has been slated at every avenue and the about turn in terms of the researchers own professional protocols for meta-analysis.. Go do some actual research on the subject matter, you can start at cyclehelmets.org if you like or here is a blog post that links a few other bits and bobs and talks about the reasons why the much used Thompson et al 'research' was a load of bunk 9and indeed why Jake Olivier should not be referencing this and using it in his meta-analysis amongst many other bogus bits of research https://theskepticalcardiologist.com/category/bike-ridinghelmets/
  8. I agree. We've had some good patches, the Horne, Cooke, Yeaman, King period, King one of the the biggest wastes of talents, Horne unlucky in some ways as he could have been the GB no.1 for years but we used him at 6 due to having Prescott at FB, Cooke was arguably the best 13 in the country for a time and Yeaman on his day was the best centre in the country. There was and still is an element of who you play for that gets you the nod at international level. We then had slim pickings for a while and then just before Pearson came to buy the club we had a great crop of youngsters in 2012/13. Shaul, Bowden, Green, Crooks, Cunningham, Hadley, since that we've had next to no-one, Adbul continued to be given the cold shoulder and others simply let by the wayside such that in the near 6 years of Radford's tenure there has been no player to debut in that period who you would consider to be a first XVII player, that really stinks! Last Hull player to come through the academy to play at international level was I think Kirk Yeaman!
  9. And was on a par with his predecessors including the much lauded Eddy Merckx who was a serial doper, Francesco Moser who was a serial doper - and had to admit it before he was exposed, much like Hinault who refused to dope test, much like Indurain who was a time-trial monster of 82kg who would destroy the likes of Armstrong in a TT but could climb like a 55kg Columbian in the mountains, he was just a pee take, clenbuterol Bertie, Bjarne Riis, they were ALL on it, Armstrong was simply an easy target yet his doping was no worse than any of the others.
  10. cleaner than soccer, tennis, golf, RU and athletics, oh and most of the big US sports such as gridiron/baseball/basketball/Ice hockey) and is the most tested sport on the planet. Cycling is a relatively poor sport, money talks! The tech is great but currently it's at the detriment of aesthetics, particularly disc brakes and the dropped seat stays.
  11. As a keen cyclist for over 35 years I will never ever wear a plastic hat, I am absolutely saying that you are better off without a helmet. ALL the global evidence proves this despite some very dodgy attempts by individuals organisations and even governments to force helmet wearing and stating they are essential for cycling. It couldn't be further from the truth!, The lies/distorting of the truth go so far as to changing the way the measures and what actually constitutes a head injury to get the result the 'researcher' wanted to achieve - given the one big name in so called cycle helmet meta-analysis is sponsored by a state gov that make millions of dollars from fining people not wearing helmets and using police to chase people on bikes not wearing a lid as opposed to the criminals in motors doing the harm. it's hardly a surprise he will stop at nothing to slant the facts, he even makes up 'head injuries' by using cut lips/mouth injuries and injuries to ears in his counts at hospitals, despite the fact these could not be prevented by a helmet in most cases. This particular individual ignores sound/peer reviewed research and overstates/misinterprets research that was debunked - such as Thompson, Rivera and Thompson which is one of the better known helmet research papers which was proven to be a load of bulldust, yet this individual ignored his own professional protocols on meta-analysis at all avenues so that he could produce his resultant, he even came up with a differing format to prove his case using 'odds ratios'. It's perverse, yet he is allowed to continue with his lies and twisting of the facts, all to the detriment of those in his country which has an all age helmet law and is one of those countries that proves to us that helmets simply do not work due to the blanket use and that we had data pre helmet 'laws' In professional and amateur racing and also non competition in all formats helmet wearing not only puts people off from cycling but there are increases in rates of injuries and incident numbers. Those who compete and children are at worse risk of harm when wearing helmets, they take far greater risk wearing than when they don't and from that are involved in more incidents. Due to the fact helmets are feeble and have a very, very low tested threshold as to the forces they can absorb and only in limited areas this is not enough to offset the increased risk of incident/injury through wearing. Pro road cycling has shown a significant increase in deaths post compulsory helmet wearing and the crashes and traumatic injuries (to all body areas incl head). The old chestnut of 'a helmet saved my life' is simply not true, the forces involved that would kill you due to traumatic brain injury and even the forces on the skull massively exceed the tested limits in the lab in best case scenario. That pedestrians show higher rates of head injury than unhelmeted cyclists shows us what a nonsense the whole cycle helmet thing is, on top of that the number of serious head injuries from the wider population dwarf serious head injuries from cycling, the vast majority of which are cased by criminal motorists. 1.3million reported head injuries in E&W, 160,000 hospitalisations. According to STATS19 there are just over 3100 serious cycling injuries in the UK, depending on which org you put weight to, serious head injuries from that are between 800-1200. Now compare that to those numbers I gave earlier. it would seem that all walks of life including motorists need helmets before people on bikes do. That's just the start of it, it causes victim blaming, it diverts focus away from those that do the vast majority of the harm on our roads, police and CPS would never dream of blaming a parent of a child killed by a motorist either on a pavement or in a car when crashed into by a criminal motorist for not wearing a helmet, yet that's precisely what happens if it's a child on a bike. We know that children die of head injuries in cars more often than children on cycles of all injury types, something they don't like to talk about when it comes to motoring helmets! Women is crushed by a lorry when the driver ignores her/doesn't look in his mirror and crosses a cycle lane, one of the first things mentioned is she wasn't wearing a helmet, now transpose that to a disabled person in a wheelchair on a footway (or pavement if you like), it would be heinous/disgusting to suggest that they might have survived if they'd have been wearing a helmet. Helmets twist the laws, the way the justice system is implemented and also compensation claims that are not applied in any other walk of life. Cycle helmets to me are disgusting and the worse thing to happen in cycling since motors were allowed to go above 10mph
  12. Yup, classic risk compensation, it's displayed in all aspects of life but in competitive sport and youngsters it's at its most extreme, gridiron has been the most 'protected' sport and the resultant has been utterly disastrous. Studies in Ice Hockey in the US found even from the 60s and 70s that head/neck injuries went up post helmet/mask wearing though it reduced the number of cuts to the head, this is replicated in amateur boxing, concussions went up massively though there were more cuts. I'd sooner suffer lacerations than continually having my head battered and the resultant from that! That's the sick thing, they've known for decades that wearing headgear does not ultimately work and that players take greater risk/do more harm in contact sports or activities were there is a higher chance of being struck/hitting ones own head (walking as a pedestrian for example which has a higher rate of head injury than cycling). And yet there's a continuance of the ignoring of the facts over decades, over many differing activities all leading to the same conclusion. In fact it's got worse, were blame to the victims of the crime/physical attack is being seen as the norm, absolving criminals and those that have done wrong. So instead of changing the behaviour of those doing the damage it's change the behaviour and the type of attire the victims/potential have to wear. As I've said before it's like asking women to wear an anti-rape device to stop them from being raped but knowing that it doesn't work to protect women from being raped but the women still being blamed for being raped if they don't wear one. An extreme analogy but nonetheless it is correct. I would also like to see how the concussion protocols are used in the other sports in that link upthread regarding suspending rugby due to head injuries. It's easy to simply look at numbers and state right, there's a problem, ban it. The rate of participation has a huge influence and how protocols with respect to concussions are implemented can make a significant difference in the stats. With respect to those compiling the numbers, it doesn't actually make clear as to the actual numbers of concussions that have occurred and those that were suspected concussions as it lumps them altogether. What can be a neck injury, even heat exhaustion/dehydration could easily be listed as a concussion when it was actually something else that made a player go down and show symptoms (grabbing/putting their hands up to their head) particularly at a lower level when the accuracy may be slanted due to interpretation.
  13. It's always going to be a clutch call, it's even worse than putting five names up for a penalty shootout in soccer. Boult was for me a default and I hesitate to say even a cop out choice as he'd got smacked around at the end. It was on the basis of what he had done, afterall he's the No.2 ranked bowler currently in ODIs so it's totally understandable why Williamson would choose him. He could so easily have taken a wicket and reduced England to single digits from the SO. The gravitas of that single over really puts the captains (and obviously the players) under a shed load of pressure, IF he'd have picked CdG, England scored 15 and England win then you can guarantee that a large proportion would have slated Williamson. It was in so many ways the right decision but you could say it turned out to be the wrong decision basing that on what had actually happened when the black caps were in the field. Even taking into account the dot balls given how Stokes had indeed caught Boult at the back end it would in the eyes of a cold calculating captain be the obvious choice to pick CdG. All ifs and buts and plenty of hindsight, similarly to the total runs on the overthrows which should have only being 5 apparently (I haven't read of someone has already mentioned this here) I wasn't sure if it was when the 'act' occured as it hitting Stokes' bat but apparently it was when the fielder released the ball as to the relevancy if the batters had crossed and the run in progress counted https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/world-cup-umps-got-it-wrong-taufel-20190715-p527g9.html as stated in some of the comments, if Stokes gets sent back to the non delivery end the next ball could have been anything, 6,4, a wicket, dot ball, it never happened so no-one can know the outcome for something that didn't occur, just as not picking CdG to bowl.
  14. well actually you did, you inferred that by saying "De Grandhomme bowled the most economical spell in a 50 over final" why would you use that as an example as to why you think the pitch was a wrong un? You like others have used the state of the pitch as to some sort of reasoning as to this aberration/happenstance, please don't insult me, that's a dig at De Grandhomme, that it shouldn't be a bowler of his ilk, one that isn't good enough to being the most economical. 15 overs between boundaries, so what, again, that's down to good bowling/fielding/captaincy and batters who are under pressure and aren't getting to grips with the pitch or the good bowling!
  15. Exactly, get down to 9/10 players within the first 20minutes and get absolutely mullered you'd hear the tators screwing over the officials actions, well except Clarke because 'laws of the game', and yet it'd be the players cussing out the officials that would have caused that state of affairs and the following fall out of unavailable players for the next 4-6 weeks! Swearing would fall off a cliff, and you could replicate that for other offences, particularly tackling around the neck/head etc, with the welfare of players foremost we really need to change how players tackle, it simply is not acceptable the way things have let slide over the last 20 years or so.
  16. And the gripping finale was because both teams had to adapt and fight hard for it, if anything a pitch like that levels any imbalances between sides, one could argue that England had the superior batting side and NZ superior bowling. But it boils down to slating a international bowler and saying he's ten a penny at county level is just nonsense. So what if he bowled the most economical spell, good for him, that shows you like virtually all sport in the history of human kind that sometimes you underestimate your opponent and come off second best, it sounds like you and others think that the England batters should have taken him to the cleaners, somewhat disrespectful and ignorant if you ask me. It was the batters fault they didn't score the runs off the so called 'rabbit' of the attack, it had nothing to do with the pitch, it was their inadequacy, the bowler should get far more respect than the commenters on here are giving which is basically none.
  17. Should have been a straight red and a six match ban plus hefty fine, it should be considered no different to a player saying a ref/touchie is 'bent' or calling into question their sexuality. If you want to stamp this out, much like other offences then you need to ensure the players know these actions will get you a severe punishment and is not tolerated in the slightest.
  18. There was nowt wrong with the pitch, only poor/average batters and bowlers blame the pitch. It's a pitch you want for a final, for the very best players, it tests you both as batter, bowler and captain, it's precisely what a GOOD wicket should be IMHO. How is having an easy wicket that batters can just waft the ball left, right and centre with predictability knocking off 7/8 an over a 'good' wicket, it makes batting too easy and frankly it's boring. It was a great game and the pitch was a contributing factor to that, it made the batters and bowlers work hard for it, bloody fantastic seeing top end players struggling to get to grips but when they did it was quality at both ends.
  19. sitting with the squaresi in W7, no thanks, it might be cheaper than sitting in East without padded seats (why is that?) and same as South stand again without padded seats but it's a sterile part of the stadium from personal experience. they must be desperate to fill that section? But yeah, those prices are shocking, however if you buy through the club they get 25% of the sale price, if you book through Leeds FC get nothing.
  20. Hanley played with a 13 on his jersey for Wigan but was not and never will not be a LF, not ever. Superb athlete, superb endeavour but simply not of the same skill level and qualities that a greatest ever LF requires.
  21. If the throw had been more accurate/at the stumps, NZ would have won, ergo it was NZ poor fielding that cost them.
  22. Hanley at 13 hahaha, sorry but is that a joke? Not even in the top 6 13s the UK has ever produced, he's a glorified second rower just like Wayne Pearce was for the ockers! I would never play him there, not in a month of Sundays, not good/skilled enough for the role by a long, long way, second row or winger, absolutely.but in the LF role he's not fit to lace the boots of the likes of Reilly, Whiteley, Kauralius et al. As for Cam Smith being the GOAT, again, another silly statement, he's a great player, he isn't the greatest, most valuable in his era, you might have a shout. In any case it's silly to start talking GOAT because no-one really agrees on what basis that is decided upon.
  23. Before we do anything, we need to check the level of CTE to that of others from a non contact sporting background. We need to also look at overall health benefits from participating in sport/active lifestyles to that of not at all. Whilst CTE/concussions etc is an issue that we can do better on particularly in the tackle, when you compare to such sports as gridiron and even Ice Hockey were they both went down the route of using helmets for protection, RL is nowhere near in terms of brain/head injury problems. Gridiron particularly has had a huge shift in head injuries and all body injuries post helmet wearing, their decision to wear was based on small numbers of serious head injuries, the deaths mentioned at the time actually were in the vast majority NOT from head injuries. Post helmet/headgear wearing head injuries went up and the repercussions of massively worse brain injuries both short and long term. this is replicated in every sport/activity that copies such, cricket, Ice Hockey, Boxing, cycling, skiing, lacrosse. We already know that casual cycling has a significant increase in head injuries and all injury types with those that wear helmets to those that don't as well as the competitive environ. I just hope that the reaction to CTE is not trying to introduce head-gear because that has proven to be utterly disastrous, reducing the contact around the head in the first instance must be the way to go and to do that we must adapt the rules and the officials MUST penalise AND their be more serious repercussions to make it absolutely clear that contact around the head/neck is not tolerated, currently that is not the case and we wonder why there are significant increases in injuries particularly around the head in the last couple of decades. Of course there are instances were accidents do happen, I had one in a game of masters two weeks ago, opposing players moves his head lower and sideways at last split second to avoid contact from one of my team mates coming to tackle and I was lowering my head to make a classic round the midriff tackle. His cheekbone and my upper jaw collided with a decent amount of force, luckily it was just a lump under his eye and a couple of broken sockets of my teeth and a slight buzz and claret. My first ever head clash. However we cannot remove these incidents completely, it would be silly to presume we could, in the general England and Wales population there are a reported 1.3Million head injuries to a medical person annually(which in itself is a massive under-reporting of head injuries), from that we have circa 160,000 hospital stays. Far and away the vast majority of these are from pedestrians, motorists and those doing normal/ordinary things in and around the home/work.
  24. Sorry but you're wrong and clearly don't understand human psychology. We've tried it your way and things have gotten worse, we've tried it your way in various facets of life and it's got worse. Please for goodness sakes go ask someone with a modicum of understanding on the matter to explain to you why you're wrong.
  25. Norwich City were -4 and came in third in the premier league in 1993/94
×
×
  • Create New...