PDA

View Full Version : A study in contrasts, but who is right?


Enki
2 May 2009, 16:15
A few days ago I read this (http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews/its-the-kickers-not-the-ticker/2009/04/29/1240982277580.html) article by Jake Niall and found myself agreeing with it for the most part.

Quite coincidently I read this (http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews/kamikazes-fly-the-flag/2009/05/01/1240982409569.html) one by Nathan Buckley a couple of days later, espousing what amounts to a diametrically oppossed view. I usually like Buckley's articles and having read Niall's a few days prior I could help but compairing the two distinct viewpoints. I would recommend reading both in full, but the final paragraph of each provides good insight into where they are coming from:

Niall wrote:
Decrying a lack of courage or character is the natural emotive response to any defeat. But it is often wrong. The game is called football.

Buckley wrote:
So do you want to win or not? Well, to a man, be a kamikaze and put your body on the line, because without that, all the skill in the world won't win you the big games.

So who you think is right? I have accused Essendon of letting teams like Carlton and Collingwood make games look closer than they should have because of our poor skills. Obviously you need both skill and toughness (and neither writer denies this), but I feel we are entering an age where Niall's analysis is more accurate than Buckley's old school view.

Thoughts?

james_omahoney
2 May 2009, 18:08
Obviously you need both skill and toughness (and neither writer denies this), but I feel we are entering an age where Niall's analysis is more accurate than Buckley's old school view.

Thoughts?

On a side note, Buckley is definitely old-school, not that it's necessarily a bad thing, but I'm finding more and more that he's out of touch with the modern game from a commentary point of view. Happy to put myself on record to say he's a flog. Enjoy his commentary less each time I sit through it. Your assessment above reinforces my views.

Murph_S13
3 May 2009, 10:14
Much as it hurts me to do so, can I add this article by Captain Obvious (http://www.theage.com.au/news/rfnews/courage-under-fire/2009/04/30/1240982346086.html) on the same topic. I would say that I'd agree with him perhaps 1% of the time. This is it. It's more on the Buckley end of the scale.

(BTW, listening to the Captain do comments on Hawthorn-Carlton was painful. He would have been better placed in the middle of the Carlton cheer squad. Pathetic.)

In answer to the question posed, I think it's a mix of both (splinters in my arse!!). Poor field kicking delivers the ball to the opposition, so can't be tolerated in the modern game. There are fewer contests in the modern game, but teams that stamp their authority on the game with effective defensive pressure (including kamikaze acts) across the field, rarely lose.

So, a kamikaze brave team that can hit targets is going to be a good team! Geelong currently?