Jump to content

Brian Carney Vs. Phil Clarke. Hosted by a model.


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

So if Carney's beard is completely grey does that mean he'sdying his (completely brown) hair? 

Again. An interesting point to consider.

"Australia is a spoiled nation. They can expect my revenge. I'm not crazy when I say this, they are the crazy ones who give you hot sausages before the match when it's 40 degrees celsius outside."

--------------------------

"Shifty Matty Petersen trying to get in there with a little five-fingered discount." Franklin Field, Philadelphia, 30/11/2004

--------------------------

FourthThird Second Best Statement Ever: Student Ram 02/06/2004 (Without a trace of irony): "... because, when you think about it, really... Wakefield is kind of the centre of the universe. You know, both ways, you've got..."

Followed by a half a minute justification of this point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


9 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

This is the great debate of our age.

On one hand Clarke is a science graduate. On the other, he frequently utters outlandish statements with little basis in reality.

No doubt both Clarke and Carney ham it up for the cameras but Clarke in particular is an enigma.

I moved back to Leeds recently, & the locals hate him - which provides an immediately admitted bias, as on the one hand; it's fun to wind them up, and on the other; they Don't Understand The Game.

In true $h:t-sandwich mode, I would say that Clarkey has an incredible blind-spot when it comes to commentating on Wiggin, & where the result of any game that Wiggin care about, does indeed, makes this decent bloke sound like a fan topped-up on Stella with jager bombs.

The final layer of my sammich; I'd say that when he comments on any matter not involving an Wiggin interest, I've found his analysis to be observant, articulate & erudite. He's a good fella, & the Lions losing him to injury was a tragedy for him & the game as a whole. I like him.

PS Possibly also for "being a /<n0b as a fan thing" too. Sure I've done it as well. ?

"Australia is a spoiled nation. They can expect my revenge. I'm not crazy when I say this, they are the crazy ones who give you hot sausages before the match when it's 40 degrees celsius outside."

--------------------------

"Shifty Matty Petersen trying to get in there with a little five-fingered discount." Franklin Field, Philadelphia, 30/11/2004

--------------------------

FourthThird Second Best Statement Ever: Student Ram 02/06/2004 (Without a trace of irony): "... because, when you think about it, really... Wakefield is kind of the centre of the universe. You know, both ways, you've got..."

Followed by a half a minute justification of this point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cas Vegas said:

I moved back to Leeds recently, & the locals hate him - which provides an immediately admitted bias, as on the one hand; it's fun to wind them up, and on the other; they Don't Understand The Game.

In true $h:t-sandwich mode, I would say that Clarkey has an incredible blind-spot when it comes to commentating on Wiggin, & where the result of any game that Wiggin care about, does indeed, makes this decent bloke sound like a fan topped-up on Stella with jager bombs.

The final layer of my sammich; I'd say that when he comments on any matter not involving an Wiggin interest, I've found his analysis to be observant, articulate & erudite. He's a good fella, & the Lions losing him to injury was a tragedy for him & the game as a whole. I like him.

PS Possibly also for "being a /<n0b as a fan thing" too. Sure I've done it as well. ?

I’m from Leeds and agree with your sentiments generally. I can look past his background and through some of his deliberately controversial statements...............and he’s far more knowledgeable and insightful than nearly all the Sky commentary team (granted, that’s not saying much). Him, Wells and Carney are the only ones worth listening to, although Brooks interviews are now pretty good I must admit 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was an interesting debate which highlighted all the problems of screen contact for discussion of any kind.

The football example was telling because that's just a contact not an impact sport. I also think there are more examples from RL research than they gave credit for but they might involve more reading to come to relevant conclusions.

I do find the idea that you can argue for more matches, closer together and  attempt for the season to be as close as it can be to the original as anything like player welfare.

And just because we used to play 3 matches in 4 days doesn't mean it was sensible, the right thing to do or did the players no harm.

As someone said once our players have far more to look forward to than tennis elbow when they retire and even if some of our former greats who find it difficult to even get out of bed in the morning say it never did them any harm doesn't mean we have to agree with them.

AS fans it's our job to expect players to give their all and their best when they play as human beings it's our duty to ensure that they are as safe as possible while they're doing that. As pundits it's what they're supposed to do to make it sound as dramatic as they can and distract us all as much as possible right now.

So good on Brian and Phil for doing all that but they should have finished on a song.

 

 

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Oxford said:

I do find the idea that you can argue for more matches, closer together and  attempt for the season to be as close as it can be to the original as anything like player welfare.

And just because we used to play 3 matches in 4 days doesn't mean it was sensible, the right thing to do or did the players no harm.

As someone said once our players have far more to look forward to than tennis elbow when they retire and even if some of our former greats who find it difficult to even get out of bed in the morning say it never did them any harm doesn't mean we have to agree with them.

I don't think the concept of increasing the frequency of the matches to reduce the intensity should be dismissed out of hand.

(before I continue, I am not discussing the quality of the Rugby League product but the impact on the players).

Yes, the players play fewer games more closely together than they did in the past when two games a week was not uncommon and, due to fixture backlog, potentially more.  But even with these reduced frequency matches, more and more players are being forced out of the game early due to chronic injury.  The reason for this is that while the games are less frequent now, the sport is tougher physically than it has ever been.  We have all enjoyed watching games from previous era's on YouTube during this time and it is clear that the physical element of the game was nowhere  near what it is today and that takes a toll on the players body.

Take Ice Hockey as an analogy.  That is a physical game with some high impact contact made during a game but the overall burden on the players body during a game is not the same as Rugby League which means players can player circa 80 games a season and the highest appearances in the NHL are some 1,700 games.  Greg Inglis and Sam Burgess (two modern greats) have recently been forced to retire from Rugby League due to chronic injury with around 300 games played by each.

Then look at heavyweight boxing.  There is no chance that an elite boxer is going to be able to compete for 12 rounds every single week.

There is clearly a balance between the intensity of a sport and the frequency in which that sport can be played.  And that correlation is going to be bi-directional.  If we increase the frequency of the games I believe that the intensity will reduce as players will be conditioned for stamina and resilience rather than the high impact games we see today.

The toll on a players body should not be measured purely on the number of minutes they play but also on what the body is expected to go through during those minutes.  I don't know what the answer is and I am not actually advocating for more matches in a season but, as I say, to dismiss it out of hand is naïve. 

 

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

I don't know what the answer is and I am not actually advocating for more matches in a season but, as I say, to dismiss it out of hand is naïve. 

I picked this out only because it seems to sum up your argument.

If we're talking the ecnomic needs of the game more matches closer together may be the answer.

Player welfare is something else entirely and the game has not been great at that for most of it's history. There are always plenty of counter arguments in this though most of them seem related to the lack of evidence rather than anything else.

Older, retired players are often seen to laugh off their body's legacy from the game, all well and good but we need to do more than provide a few tragic jokes for people who were our heroes.

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I don't think the concept of increasing the frequency of the matches to reduce the intensity should be dismissed out of hand.

(before I continue, I am not discussing the quality of the Rugby League product but the impact on the players).

Yes, the players play fewer games more closely together than they did in the past when two games a week was not uncommon and, due to fixture backlog, potentially more.  But even with these reduced frequency matches, more and more players are being forced out of the game early due to chronic injury.  The reason for this is that while the games are less frequent now, the sport is tougher physically than it has ever been.  We have all enjoyed watching games from previous era's on YouTube during this time and it is clear that the physical element of the game was nowhere  near what it is today and that takes a toll on the players body.

Take Ice Hockey as an analogy.  That is a physical game with some high impact contact made during a game but the overall burden on the players body during a game is not the same as Rugby League which means players can player circa 80 games a season and the highest appearances in the NHL are some 1,700 games.  Greg Inglis and Sam Burgess (two modern greats) have recently been forced to retire from Rugby League due to chronic injury with around 300 games played by each.

Then look at heavyweight boxing.  There is no chance that an elite boxer is going to be able to compete for 12 rounds every single week.

There is clearly a balance between the intensity of a sport and the frequency in which that sport can be played.  And that correlation is going to be bi-directional.  If we increase the frequency of the games I believe that the intensity will reduce as players will be conditioned for stamina and resilience rather than the high impact games we see today.

The toll on a players body should not be measured purely on the number of minutes they play but also on what the body is expected to go through during those minutes.  I don't know what the answer is and I am not actually advocating for more matches in a season but, as I say, to dismiss it out of hand is naïve. 

 

I think the other interesting point, that is often forgotten, is that players still partake in training matches in between games so it’s not like they do not partake in physical activity in between games. Yes it’s not the same intensity but nor would it be if they played competitively 2-3 times a week. 

For me the overriding factor is that fans would find it oversaturated and would not tune in so much to watch lower quality games. We already see that with our extended season of loop fixtures and meaningless games. Get rid of the loop fixtures and see if the rest can be finished in a reasonable time without a requirement for regular mid week games 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, DoubleD said:

I’m from Leeds and agree with your sentiments generally. I can look past his background and through some of his deliberately controversial statements...............and he’s far more knowledgeable and insightful than nearly all the Sky commentary team (granted, that’s not saying much). Him, Wells and Carney are the only ones worth listening to, although Brooks interviews are now pretty good I must admit 

Yeah, Brook's game has really stepped up, and Wells (also a graduate) has been a breath of fresh air - particularly the post-match stuff as he gets the players to open up about what they were trying to do in a given situation. Really helped with my coaching to be honest. As a result of listening to that stuff, we won a final that we'd no right to win.

Being a bit harsh on Barrie & Terry though, there, aren't you?

"Australia is a spoiled nation. They can expect my revenge. I'm not crazy when I say this, they are the crazy ones who give you hot sausages before the match when it's 40 degrees celsius outside."

--------------------------

"Shifty Matty Petersen trying to get in there with a little five-fingered discount." Franklin Field, Philadelphia, 30/11/2004

--------------------------

FourthThird Second Best Statement Ever: Student Ram 02/06/2004 (Without a trace of irony): "... because, when you think about it, really... Wakefield is kind of the centre of the universe. You know, both ways, you've got..."

Followed by a half a minute justification of this point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Oxford said:

It was an interesting debate which highlighted all the problems of screen contact for discussion of any kind.

The football example was telling because that's just a contact not an impact sport. I also think there are more examples from RL research than they gave credit for but they might involve more reading to come to relevant conclusions.

I do find the idea that you can argue for more matches, closer together and  attempt for the season to be as close as it can be to the original as anything like player welfare.

And just because we used to play 3 matches in 4 days doesn't mean it was sensible, the right thing to do or did the players no harm.

As someone said once our players have far more to look forward to than tennis elbow when they retire and even if some of our former greats who find it difficult to even get out of bed in the morning say it never did them any harm doesn't mean we have to agree with them.

AS fans it's our job to expect players to give their all and their best when they play as human beings it's our duty to ensure that they are as safe as possible while they're doing that. As pundits it's what they're supposed to do to make it sound as dramatic as they can and distract us all as much as possible right now.

So good on Brian and Phil for doing all that but they should have finished on a song.

 

 

Yep. Totally with you there about the post-career issue.

A big do was taking place for a true great (multiple Challenge Cup wins & a front & centre of the 1970's Ashes Tour win) & I was asked to contact a number of his former colleagues to surprise him. I was fuc/<:n' dismayed.

So many of them had dementia &/or alzheimers, and were in Nursing Homes. I've attended the funerals of three of those blokes from that Tour in the last year.

It was also heartbreaking as I wondered about the futures of the lads I've been coaching. Am I herding them onto The Titanic?

Anyway, as for finishing on a song, to finish on a cheerier note, did you mean like this @Oxford? ?
 

 

"Australia is a spoiled nation. They can expect my revenge. I'm not crazy when I say this, they are the crazy ones who give you hot sausages before the match when it's 40 degrees celsius outside."

--------------------------

"Shifty Matty Petersen trying to get in there with a little five-fingered discount." Franklin Field, Philadelphia, 30/11/2004

--------------------------

FourthThird Second Best Statement Ever: Student Ram 02/06/2004 (Without a trace of irony): "... because, when you think about it, really... Wakefield is kind of the centre of the universe. You know, both ways, you've got..."

Followed by a half a minute justification of this point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I don't think the concept of increasing the frequency of the matches to reduce the intensity should be dismissed out of hand.

(before I continue, I am not discussing the quality of the Rugby League product but the impact on the players).

Yes, the players play fewer games more closely together than they did in the past when two games a week was not uncommon and, due to fixture backlog, potentially more.  But even with these reduced frequency matches, more and more players are being forced out of the game early due to chronic injury.  The reason for this is that while the games are less frequent now, the sport is tougher physically than it has ever been.  We have all enjoyed watching games from previous era's on YouTube during this time and it is clear that the physical element of the game was nowhere  near what it is today and that takes a toll on the players body.

Take Ice Hockey as an analogy.  That is a physical game with some high impact contact made during a game but the overall burden on the players body during a game is not the same as Rugby League which means players can player circa 80 games a season and the highest appearances in the NHL are some 1,700 games.  Greg Inglis and Sam Burgess (two modern greats) have recently been forced to retire from Rugby League due to chronic injury with around 300 games played by each.

Then look at heavyweight boxing.  There is no chance that an elite boxer is going to be able to compete for 12 rounds every single week.

There is clearly a balance between the intensity of a sport and the frequency in which that sport can be played.  And that correlation is going to be bi-directional.  If we increase the frequency of the games I believe that the intensity will reduce as players will be conditioned for stamina and resilience rather than the high impact games we see today.

The toll on a players body should not be measured purely on the number of minutes they play but also on what the body is expected to go through during those minutes.  I don't know what the answer is and I am not actually advocating for more matches in a season but, as I say, to dismiss it out of hand is naïve. 

 

Good points, all, @Dunbar. A few years ago Jamie Peacock was televised with a microphone & GPS. They reckoned he went through the equivalent of about 40 35mph car-crashes in within an hour & twenty minutes. Yet we have eejits who constantly want to speed up the game.

"Australia is a spoiled nation. They can expect my revenge. I'm not crazy when I say this, they are the crazy ones who give you hot sausages before the match when it's 40 degrees celsius outside."

--------------------------

"Shifty Matty Petersen trying to get in there with a little five-fingered discount." Franklin Field, Philadelphia, 30/11/2004

--------------------------

FourthThird Second Best Statement Ever: Student Ram 02/06/2004 (Without a trace of irony): "... because, when you think about it, really... Wakefield is kind of the centre of the universe. You know, both ways, you've got..."

Followed by a half a minute justification of this point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, DoubleD said:

I think the other interesting point, that is often forgotten, is that players still partake in training matches in between games so it’s not like they do not partake in physical activity in between games. Yes it’s not the same intensity but nor would it be if they played competitively 2-3 times a week. 

For me the overriding factor is that fans would find it oversaturated and would not tune in so much to watch lower quality games. We already see that with our extended season of loop fixtures and meaningless games. Get rid of the loop fixtures and see if the rest can be finished in a reasonable time without a requirement for regular mid week games 

Totally.

"Australia is a spoiled nation. They can expect my revenge. I'm not crazy when I say this, they are the crazy ones who give you hot sausages before the match when it's 40 degrees celsius outside."

--------------------------

"Shifty Matty Petersen trying to get in there with a little five-fingered discount." Franklin Field, Philadelphia, 30/11/2004

--------------------------

FourthThird Second Best Statement Ever: Student Ram 02/06/2004 (Without a trace of irony): "... because, when you think about it, really... Wakefield is kind of the centre of the universe. You know, both ways, you've got..."

Followed by a half a minute justification of this point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/04/2020 at 09:21, Harry Stottle said:

Interesting that the guy who played in the 'engine room' as a second row forward sees it as a lot lesser of an issue to play more than once a week, than a winger who would have had a lot lesser physical involvement on the field.

carney is wind up merchant who seems to have an agenda against wigan, if he knocked on my door with the best offer ever i would tell him to pss off.

Through the fish-eyed lens of tear stained eyes
I can barely define the shape of this moment in time(roger waters)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/04/2020 at 12:56, my missus said:

?

??

"Australia is a spoiled nation. They can expect my revenge. I'm not crazy when I say this, they are the crazy ones who give you hot sausages before the match when it's 40 degrees celsius outside."

--------------------------

"Shifty Matty Petersen trying to get in there with a little five-fingered discount." Franklin Field, Philadelphia, 30/11/2004

--------------------------

FourthThird Second Best Statement Ever: Student Ram 02/06/2004 (Without a trace of irony): "... because, when you think about it, really... Wakefield is kind of the centre of the universe. You know, both ways, you've got..."

Followed by a half a minute justification of this point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/04/2020 at 12:57, my missus said:

??

???

"Australia is a spoiled nation. They can expect my revenge. I'm not crazy when I say this, they are the crazy ones who give you hot sausages before the match when it's 40 degrees celsius outside."

--------------------------

"Shifty Matty Petersen trying to get in there with a little five-fingered discount." Franklin Field, Philadelphia, 30/11/2004

--------------------------

FourthThird Second Best Statement Ever: Student Ram 02/06/2004 (Without a trace of irony): "... because, when you think about it, really... Wakefield is kind of the centre of the universe. You know, both ways, you've got..."

Followed by a half a minute justification of this point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/04/2020 at 12:57, my missus said:

carney is wind up merchant who seems to have an agenda against wigan, if he knocked on my door with the best offer ever i would tell him to pss off.

I disagree. We have four Wiggin former players commentating on Sky. I think that Brian, Barrie & Terry show neither bias towards or against Wiggin. Clarkey is the better of the four, but I think he wears his heart on his sleeve when it comes to situations involving Wiggin.

That said, who doesn't like a rugby fan?

We all are on here, & we all have our views coloured in some ways (either "they're great" or "they should be better, when wearing THAT shirt") when talking our favourite team. ?

"Australia is a spoiled nation. They can expect my revenge. I'm not crazy when I say this, they are the crazy ones who give you hot sausages before the match when it's 40 degrees celsius outside."

--------------------------

"Shifty Matty Petersen trying to get in there with a little five-fingered discount." Franklin Field, Philadelphia, 30/11/2004

--------------------------

FourthThird Second Best Statement Ever: Student Ram 02/06/2004 (Without a trace of irony): "... because, when you think about it, really... Wakefield is kind of the centre of the universe. You know, both ways, you've got..."

Followed by a half a minute justification of this point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Cas Vegas said:

???

don't know what the hell keeps happening with these posts it's like they are on a delay.

Through the fish-eyed lens of tear stained eyes
I can barely define the shape of this moment in time(roger waters)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

NHL players only play about 20-25mins per game though (outside of Goalies)

Im not sure that we would see such a change so that the game would just become less intense and so able to play more frequent games. I think we would get through and player welfare is obviously more than just saying play x number of games. 
 

We obviously shouldnt do it though. People just arent desperate to watch an inferior quality of RL. You arent going to get a bid crowd on a wednesday night to watch tired players and reserves play in the 3rd meeting of the season. I would bet that even when the isolation ends many people will be slower to come out of this 'hibernation' than currently expected anyway. There has always been a balance between the ticket sales and broadcast. This has put a finger on the scale and broadcast has become so much more important. 

Again, the NHL comparison is interesting. During the regular season, teams play opponents within their division a minimum of four times and in some divisions there are 5 games againt the same opponents. 

Yet we find the idea of playing the same opposition three times in the regular season intolerable.  It is a very different mindset.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.