Random footie

[sussexpob]

And I think the difference between a Tendulkar and Maradona, is the level of affection. Is Tendulkar really that loved? Does that sort of deity existence come through sporting achievement of a personal nature? As for many years until very late, you could argue he was a great individual in an under performing team. He never lead India to a period of dominance as a cricketing nation.

And as a man, what did he achieve? Did he use the spotlight to strive for better conditions for the masses who idolized him? Did he use his position to heal rifts between the great cricketing neighbours Pakistan? I dont want to hate on Tendulkar, hes done things for charity, but I cant see how the depth of that love from his public can be there in comparison to a Maradona. The only political stances I know Tendulkar takes is occasionally turning up to places in his military uniform and undertaking quite horrendous nationalistic "god save the military" stuff that Dhoni also got into before retiring with the military hats.

It just occurs to me that Maradona had a deeper bond with those who idolized him. He was one of them, and fought for better lives for them.

[sussexpob]

The other things that staggers me was imagine if he had been caught? It's a yellow card offence at least - what's the backlash if your sporting god gets caught and penalised for cheating? If he'd been caught, and Argentina had lost, would he have been vilified instead? Obviously we'll never know

I guess it depends on where you see his popularity lying; was it the success he brought to the nation in winning, or the pride and relatability in seeing someone like them become the most famous and talented sportsman arguably ever. I have a feeling the second means more in South America, and the first really blows it on a world level.
You get the feeling reading the opinions of Argentinians, that they dont like Messi because he isnt representative of Argentina as much as the missing world cup. Even if he won them a world cup, he just doesnt have that same connection.... but then who knows, if he did win them one, then that might change. Cant really compare the two's legacies on that basis considering one has the trophy and the other doesnt.

[Alviro Patterson]

Watched the Diego Maradona documentary on Channel 4.

Often getting kicked on the shins whilst he had the ball, but still kept charging forward and not feigned injury or looked for a penalty.

Pure respect on that alone, Maradona would boss it on a cold Tuesday night in Stoke.

I never watched it, I have no idea why as I loved the Senna movie the guy did. I guess the most famous is the full on riot he had at Barcelona.... after being kicked all game, and it ends in a maul, you see the smallest guy on the field charging into the ruck with Bruce Lee kicks and throwing punches.

The man was insane. Totally bonkers.... but as you say, his bravery and flat out balls are truly something to behold. Never backed out of anything.

Channel 4 have re-uploaded the documentary on their demand service if you can access it

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/diego-maradona

[bigfluffylemon]

Not these arguments, but a similar abstract analysis of Maradona I've heard before used to justify the hand of god goal, but I'm not sure it works for me. Mainly because it excuses the kind of intolerance that sometimes seems evident in why England fans get so angry about it and are so unwilling to forget, despite the whole forest of gamesmanship that has grown up around this incident over the past 34 years

The point wasnt to justify the hand of God. He cheated, you cant really defend. But should that come to define him? As you point out, I could point out a cheater in every single game of football I ever watch; the wanton dives, the play acting etc. Someone who dives and wins a penalty, which happens in masses of games, indulges in the same level of cheating. The hype of the cheat to me lies in a sort of exceptionalism light that English people see themselves in. When Rooney scored 20 penalties for England from dives, he was a salt of the Earth honest Englishman, but Maradona was a cheater. There is sort of racial superiority view so neatly tied in with it.... a great motivator to ignore it in his legacy. I find people who want to dwell on it or define him by it largely have ulterior motives.

I never thought much of Rooney either, TBH. I can't stand all the diving in football. The only distinguishing matter there is that it can be very hard to see/prove a dive (which I guess is why it's so prevalent). You often can't know for sure if someone really did dive or not. Deliberate handball is pretty black and white.

Its so obvious because we are so happy to ignore it reflected in those we are more inclined to like. As an example, how many cricket fans would say Sachin is a cheater? Didnt he get busted for ball tampering at one stage? You never see that mentioned, yet Steve Smith will pay for it for the rest of his days. How different is the same act punished or remembered?

The Tendulkar incident was ridiculous - the BCCI cried racism and used its political might to make the ICC back down, as the reaction in India was one of outrage at the umpire, not Sachin. The differences I guess are that firstly Smith's offence was clearly part of a premeditated and ongoing plan to cheat, to the extent of bringing foreign objects onto the field to tamper with the ball. Tendulkar's may have been, but there's no proof. The other is the reaction at home - the Australian public were horrified. Smith was pretty popular in Australia before the incident - not revered like a god, but definitely one of the more adored members of the team unlike Warner. So the public were predisposed to like him, but the condemnation was swift and brutal.

It's funny how people can have such different perspectives on the same incident. For some people, Murali is the greatest ever spinner, more so than Warne, while for others he's a cheat with an asterisk against every single one of his eight hundred wickets.

We're all willing to forgive our own sporting heroes while condemning the opposition's. How many times have we complained against a marginal call for our side, while been quite happy to let cheating or umpiring errors in our favour stand. Kasprowicz probably wasn't out in 2005. Stokes was wrongly given not-out lbw in 2019 at Headingley (with Australia having no reviews left), and was awarded six runs in the World Cup chase from the overthrow incident when he probably shouldn't have been. Are we complaining? Or are we interpreting events in our favour to support our own biases?

And yet the hand of god still stings.

[sussexpob]

The Tendulkar incident was ridiculous - the BCCI cried racism and used its political might to make the ICC back down, as the reaction in India was one of outrage at the umpire, not Sachin. The differences I guess are that firstly Smith's offence was clearly part of a premeditated and ongoing plan to cheat, to the extent of bringing foreign objects onto the field to tamper with the ball. Tendulkar's may have been, but there's no proof

Well the match referee in question might have found other things, but the investigation was halted when he was sacked independently from a supporting ICC who wanted him to continue, South Africa being almost bribed into it on the threat of losing revenue with India throwing their weight around. I believe the subsequent matches were stripped of test status by the ICC on these grounds .... .. but thats by the way side, I think the reaction and arguments provided by India showed a certain level of guilt. My personal take.

What I do find interesting is, well for me anyway (this isnt a personal attack), iis what I see as a contradiction in your reasoning. If one should see cheating as cheating and not try to rationalise the pressures a man is under, then why should the pre-meditation or nature of the act also be weighed up? I dont think there should be much difference, if someone sets out to cheat and cheats its no different to if someone looks at the scoreboard seeing a game slip away and in the spur of the moment pick at the seam. The severity is in the intended result, not the manner conducted. Pre-meditation and a history of doing it should, imo, just be looked as multiple incidents of cheating each taken as their own with an accumulation of punishments.

Smith was pretty popular in Australia before the incident - not revered like a god, but definitely one of the more adored members of the team unlike Warner. So the public were predisposed to like him, but the condemnation was swift and brutal.

I feel like I need to point out before saying what I will, that this is meant to be no damning judgement on Australian culture in particular. I have already stated my disgust at English people doing the same thing. Its a uniquely first world western problem where people have a sort of inbuilt superiority and inability to recognize their own flaws. But....

I find the outrage in Australia at the issue rather puzzling. I didnt find it genuine at all. If people really did care about playing hard but fair, as the much touted quote goes, then why did they overlook the toxicity of the culture for so long? For me this is a sort of cleansing of collective guilt and an attempt to rebrand oneself as innocent and showing principles , when in actuality the only problem anyone had is the team got caught and everyone got embarrassed when it was uncovered. If the team hadnt got caught, I doubt many people would have cared.

We're all willing to forgive our own sporting heroes while condemning the opposition's. How many times have we complained against a marginal call for our side, while been quite happy to let cheating or umpiring errors in our favour stand. Kasprowicz probably wasn't out in 2005. Stokes was wrongly given not-out lbw in 2019 at Headingley (with Australia having no reviews left), and was awarded six runs in the World Cup chase from the overthrow incident when he probably shouldn't have been. Are we complaining? Or are we interpreting events in our favour to support our own biases?

Of course that helps. I honestly think I judge things objectively, much to some peoples disgust here. Of course my bias comes into play a lot too, I cant deny that.

Although the only real instance consistently is English rugby Union, who I am convinced get so many unbelievable bad calls against them its some sort of proof of ref bias. GJ has pointed out to some effect that bias clouds some decisions they get, but I remain convinced to some extent.

[sussexpob]

I guess it is interesting how that sort of exceptionalism culture does affect how different countries see cheaters too. I guess in English speaking worlds there is almost an appreciation that cheating to the point of it being hard to prove or bending the meaning of the rules is fair game. So we see things like the professional foul at the half way line in a football match as fair game too, even though the reality is a lot of these situations are very blatantly cheating. But the rules are often applied to punish that form of cheating with a yellow card, so take the booking and everyone will laud the intelligence being displayed by the defender.

I get the feeling in places like Brazil or Argentina, a player who cheats for the good of his team is far more likely to be seen as displaying a sort of street-wize nature. There isnt really that level of condemnation or morals attached to it, they just appreciate flat out the game is there to be won, and winners do everything to achieve that.

I find that more honest. Because lets face it, both are doing the same. Everyone does everything to win, conduct is often dubious

[Arthur Crabtree]

We're all willing to forgive our own sporting heroes while condemning the opposition's. How many times have we complained against a marginal call for our side, while been quite happy to let cheating or umpiring errors in our favour stand.

Including the world outside of sport, there is pressure to do this. If you take a stand which is negative to your birth country, you are often accused of doing your country down or lacking patriotism by those who mistrust objectivity in this respect. When the motivation really is to make your country better so you can actually take some pride in it. This impasse means the UK always remains divided. Same elsewhere.

So I don't think everyone does this, because lots of people are despised for not doing it.

Personally, I hate it more when it is England/UK cheating.

[Durhamfootman]

me too

I despise the notion that being honest in sport is something to be ridiculed or considered stupid

[Arthur Crabtree]

Or naive.

[bigfluffylemon]

The Tendulkar incident was ridiculous - the BCCI cried racism and used its political might to make the ICC back down, as the reaction in India was one of outrage at the umpire, not Sachin. The differences I guess are that firstly Smith's offence was clearly part of a premeditated and ongoing plan to cheat, to the extent of bringing foreign objects onto the field to tamper with the ball. Tendulkar's may have been, but there's no proof

What I do find interesting is, well for me anyway (this isnt a personal attack), iis what I see as a contradiction in your reasoning. If one should see cheating as cheating and not try to rationalise the pressures a man is under, then why should the pre-meditation or nature of the act also be weighed up? I dont think there should be much difference, if someone sets out to cheat and cheats its no different to if someone looks at the scoreboard seeing a game slip away and in the spur of the moment pick at the seam. The severity is in the intended result, not the manner conducted. Pre-meditation and a history of doing it should, imo, just be looked as multiple incidents of cheating each taken as their own with an accumulation of punishments.

[/quote]

I didn't say that. I said that one could look at the circumstances and the pressure one is under to understand why someone did something. But that doesn't mean you condone it. I was also trying to explain why the different incidents were interpreted differently and will have different effects on the respective players' legacies. Premeditation is generally considered worse than 'spur of the moment' action (see how several legal systems treat premeditated murder v heat of the moment) because you've conducted a rational assessment of your action and decided to cheat and that you can get away with it. That seems to be how the public perceive things. In terms of psychology, that's probably fair - you've heard of the fast and slow thinking systems? There's a good deal of research that says when we act quickly/impulsively, we don't do a rational assessment of the potential costs and benefits of our behaviour, but work on assumptions and shortcuts. But we still punish wrongdoing where there was no premeditation.

I think what stuck in a lot of people's craw was that there was never any remorse shown. If Maradona had said 'yeah, I got away with one there, it was cheating, I shouldn't have done it but I can't go back in time and change it', it might have been a different story from the actual reaction, which was basically two fingers up at the English.

Smith was pretty popular in Australia before the incident - not revered like a god, but definitely one of the more adored members of the team unlike Warner. So the public were predisposed to like him, but the condemnation was swift and brutal.

I feel like I need to point out before saying what I will, that this is meant to be no damning judgement on Australian culture in particular. I have already stated my disgust at English people doing the same thing. Its a uniquely first world western problem where people have a sort of inbuilt superiority and inability to recognize their own flaws. But....

I find the outrage in Australia at the issue rather puzzling. I didnt find it genuine at all. If people really did care about playing hard but fair, as the much touted quote goes, then why did they overlook the toxicity of the culture for so long? For me this is a sort of cleansing of collective guilt and an attempt to rebrand oneself as innocent and showing principles , when in actuality the only problem anyone had is the team got caught and everyone got embarrassed when it was uncovered. If the team hadnt got caught, I doubt many people would have cared.

I think there is an element of that. Of course if the team hadn't got caught no one would have cared, as by definition no-one would have known about it. But I don't think it's fair to say people did entirely overlook the toxicity. A lot of Australian fans I knew were not very happy with the team's attitude. The whole 'headbutt the line' thing, and the four fingered hand was considered by many to be pretty embarrassing. But it's easy to overlook your team's flaws when they're beating the English. Biases and double standards abound, that's what the whole discussion has become about.

Of course, in (not particularly rational) contrast to my condemnation of Maradona's lack of remorse, I also found Smith and Warner's reactions ridiculous. Those tears were over the top, and IMO probably staged. If it was a genuine emotional reaction, it was probably to the condemnation, rather than remorse for the action itself. You can't win

We're all willing to forgive our own sporting heroes while condemning the opposition's. How many times have we complained against a marginal call for our side, while been quite happy to let cheating or umpiring errors in our favour stand. Kasprowicz probably wasn't out in 2005. Stokes was wrongly given not-out lbw in 2019 at Headingley (with Australia having no reviews left), and was awarded six runs in the World Cup chase from the overthrow incident when he probably shouldn't have been. Are we complaining? Or are we interpreting events in our favour to support our own biases?

Of course that helps. I honestly think I judge things objectively, much to some peoples disgust here. Of course my bias comes into play a lot too, I cant deny that.

Of course, a belief that we are less biased than others is in itself a known bias.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-10937-008

[sussexpob]

Premeditation is generally considered worse than 'spur of the moment' action (see how several legal systems treat premeditated murder v heat of the moment) because you've conducted a rational assessment of your action and decided to cheat and that you can get away with it. That seems to be how the public perceive things. In terms of psychology, that's probably fair - you've heard of the fast and slow thinking systems? There's a good deal of research that says when we act quickly/impulsively, we don't do a rational assessment of the potential costs and benefits of our behaviour, but work on assumptions and shortcuts. But we still punish wrongdoing where there was no premeditation

Actually the opposite is true, BFL. As murder requires the mens rea of malice aforethought, it is defined very specifically as an act that requires some form of premeditated malice. The legal test revolves around someone intending to cause death or injury to another, so intention itself proves premeditation. Which makes sense, because if someone intends to cause a certain level of injury to another, then they would have to at least had some form of thought process where they are deciding to act in a certain way to achieve a certain goal, then acting on that thought process; so irrespective of how long that process exists or takes, the action is a result of a premeditated plan. I want to kill you, therefore I stab you. Premeditation in various legal structures can range from years to milliseconds, we shouldnt confuse premeditation with larger time frames. Although some legal systems treat lengthy premeditation as an aggravating factor in sentencing, which has no justification at all imo.

So in those terms, why should the decision to cheat before a match be any different to deciding in the moment? I am not sure why both should be separated.

Of course, a belief that we are less biased than others is in itself a known bias.

Seems entirely natural considering so much bias is unconscious, that people would notice it more in others. Although in general, I am not sure this sort of point is that helpful for scientists to point out. On a philosophical level, surely people's subjectively held beliefs involve a rejection of other knowledge, therefore having an belief or opinion in/on anything itself is a manifestation of bias towards our own thoughts.

[Durhamfootman]

for yuppie, because I know he likes to follow these things

Karl Darlow is having one hell of a season for Newcastle. He has to be their player of the season so far. His form has been right up there all season and he spends much of every game keeping his side in matches. I have no idea what happened to Dubravka this season (I presume he was injured), but he won't just walk back into the side while Darlow is playing as well as he is.

[yuppie]

Finally started to show why Newcastle paid good money for him.

[Durhamfootman]

I note that having been handed the easiest QF in the league cup, Newcastle were beaten 1-0 and played off the park by a Brentford side that rested half their first team for the occasion.

well done boys....... good job

[Durhamfootman]

I read somewhere that Newcastle average 39% possession this season.

39%!

thank goodness no-one can go to watch it. Every cloud and all that