blonde poker forum

Easy to turn this into a Townsend/Owen/Soccer Saturday bash-a-thon, but I was thinking about this in more general terms the other day.

I can't abide when the summariser in football, cricket, rugby, golf, NFL, etc, watches the player miss the target narrowly and decries,

"That was unlucky"

How, exactly, was it unlucky? Was he not aiming for the goal? Did the goal move out of the way? Did a sudden gust of wind take it off course? Did the ball change shape and lose aerodynamic trajectory? No. He missed.

Lots of things in sport are down to luck but this really isn't one of them.

(http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1097330/25801613/1419478459557/henry_miss.jpg?token=4vsMGeRpApOx0zRADR0sJIeiZwg%3D)

Any better ones?

That's better

To be serious.

All of the English commentators always go on about English teams not playing the ball out from the back or defenders being comfortable on the ball.

A defender misplaced a tight pass leading to a goal cue said pundit "should have put it in row z".

Great logic

When a commentator makes the mistake of "literally"

He literally has no left foot

He literally took his head off there

Hmmmmm

Two I don't like:

1) the general commentary approach to Barca.  30 minutes in and they are 0-0 at home to Granada or some such and you can just sense the comms getting ready for the Barca breakthrough when they can burst into fake wondrous joy with the pre-prepared lines about how wonderful they are.  Really gets my goat.

2) Willie Thorne banging on about in play frame betting.  "he's just gone favourite with that shot".  Even though he was 1.3 before the shot happened.

"And that just sums up his day..."

Poor old Willie didn't get warned-off for being a shrewd bettor.

Now highlights of Leicester's stunning 3-1 victory over Manchester United. If you don't want to know the score, look away now.

It was unlucky though. 

This. What is even more annoying is that because of these fools using the word incorrectly, the OED has changed the meaning of the word 'literally' to literally include 'not literally'.  ;grr;

Everything.

Would be quicker to compile a list of commentators who enhance rather than detract from the action:

Richie Benaud

Can't think of a second.

I hate you Tal.

I might spend the next 48 hours making posts for this thread.

One to begin with.

Zonal marking at corners.

If the ball is successfully cleared, nothing is mentioned.

If there a goal is conceded when the defending team is using man marking, it is down to an individual error.

If a goal is conceded and the team is using zonal marking, it is always the faul of the system apparently.

"Argh, Arsenal trying to useg zonal marking there when Charlie Austin scored."

Baseball.

When a home run is scored, it is down to the pitcher "making a mistake".

It is never good hitting, it's because the pitcher "hung a curve ball" or "put a fast ball right down the middle of the plate".

What if those pitches were called by the catcher?

Why is the hitter not ever given credit?

I was going to write a long post about momentum, but I came across a more annoying sub-category at the weekend.

The score is 0-0, when Team A scores.

The commentator said "they've got all the momentum now"

2 minutes later Team B equalises. The dimwit comes out with this.

"Not only have Team B scored, more importantly they've snatched back all the momentum"

I would have fired him on the spot.

Amongst numerous other results orientated/after timing comments the classic is 'the first goal in THIS game is crucial to the outcome' or something similar.  I have always wanted to ask these over paid comms 'which game isn't the first goal crucial to the outcome of the game?  can you give me an example'

They talk like there are certain games were if the first goal was scored the pre match odds for the game wouldn't change in running at 1-0.

Can't think of any, but if I gave it 110% bet I could think of one.

That's a bad time to score.

2-0 most dangerous lead in football (no any lead by one goal is more dangerous)

Always harder to play against 10 men (again no)

10 men one is very tilting.  Never heard it said about 9 men so never understand the logic when they say it about 10 men.  The upside of all these sayings/phrases is that it creates so many punters who actually believe them which makes it easier to win gambling!

I think what they really mean is playing against 10 men isn't as easy as you think so if teams get complacent they will be shocked.  Ditto defending 2 goal lead.  Think that's what it meant originally but has now morphed into nonsense.

 ;applause;