Okay, i found a clip that will do. All you have to do is tell us WHY this goal was scored.
Let's hear some non-players first that have only watched the game on tv. The idea is to show that non-players don't understand the game as well as ex-players and non-players can't give you the kind of insight that ex-players can.
&feature=related
Originally posted by uzlessNobody has tried to claim that watching once or twice on telly is enough to understand the game. The claim is that there is no magic barrier of understanding that cannot be passed without playing the game.
Come on now, let's hear you all put your money where your mouth is...all you guys that were going on saying the ex-player knowledge thing is BS. Ok fine, prove it.....!!!!
I'll quite happily admit I know nothing about ice-hockey. Not only have I never played it, but I've barely watched it at all. So any comments I'd make would prove nothing either way.
If the same goes for the others you were arguing with, this thread is pretty pointless 🙂.
Originally posted by uzlessI don't understand the question. The goal was scored because the offensive player shot the puck into the net. What kind of analysis are you looking for?
Okay, i found a clip that will do. All you have to do is tell us WHY this goal was scored.
Let's hear some non-players first that have only watched the game on tv. The idea is to show that non-players don't understand the game as well as ex-players and non-players can't give you the kind of insight that ex-players can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh7WQALmQdE&feature=related
Originally posted by uzlessWhy don't YOU tell us, master of the game.
Okay, i found a clip that will do. All you have to do is tell us WHY this goal was scored.
Let's hear some non-players first that have only watched the game on tv. The idea is to show that non-players don't understand the game as well as ex-players and non-players can't give you the kind of insight that ex-players can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh7WQALmQdE&feature=related
P-
1. A major thing was the bad pass by the defenseman that originally set up the play. The pass overshot the intended recipient, bounced off the wall, and Ovechkin was able to intercept it. Ovechkin then made a nifty spin move to get around the guy with him, and now had an almost clear path to the net.
2. A defender was able to catch up and checked Ovechkin to the ice. Ovechkin, however was able to drop his shoulder so that he could stay in front of that defender - and even though Ovechkin had gone to the ice, he was able to keep the puck in front of him, and very importantly never lost sight of the puck.
3. The next major thing was that the goalie should have stayed at the right corner of the net, but instead started moving to his left - probably because he was anticipating the collision with Ovechkin sliding towards him. But that little slide to the left created an opening, and Ovechkin, still more or less in control of the puck, was able to steer the puck into that slightly open right corner before crashing into the goalie.
another thing -- when Ovechkin went down, the goalie could have moved towards the play. Ovechkin would almost certainly have crashed into the goalie (creating interference that would've nullified the goal) before getting a shot off. But I'm not sure if there was enough time to think of doing that in the split second that it took for the play to occur
Originally posted by uzlessThis is very different than what you were arguing in the other forum. To be consistent with your previously absurd poistion, you need to show that no one who wasn't an ex-player can have an comprehension of what is going on that their explanation has enough meaning that they could enjoy watching the sport. No one would argue with you that most ex-players know more than Joe six pack what I found ridiculous is your claim that they an average person could not understand a sport.
Okay, i found a clip that will do. All you have to do is tell us WHY this goal was scored.
Let's hear some non-players first that have only watched the game on tv. The idea is to show that non-players don't understand the game as well as ex-players and non-players can't give you the kind of insight that ex-players can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh7WQALmQdE&feature=related
Originally posted by quackquackAm I the only one here interested in learning something here from uzless?
This is very different than what you were arguing in the other forum. To be consistent with your previously absurd poistion, you need to show that no one who wasn't an ex-player can have an comprehension of what is going on that their explanation has enough meaning that they could enjoy watching the sport. No one would argue with you that most ex-player ...[text shortened]... what I found ridiculous is your claim that they an average person could not understand a sport.
The underlying point of uzless's argument is that a person with direct experience is going to be aware of subtleties that the non-player is going to miss. Being that I have never played anything close to real ice hockey (and never will), the next best thing is to gather whatever insights I can from those who have played. And I am very interested in finding out about what I might be missing.
Originally posted by MelanerpesThe underlying point of uzless' ranting is utterly flawed.
Am I the only one here interested in learning something here from uzless?
The underlying point of uzless's argument is that a person with direct experience is going to be aware of subtleties that the non-player is going to miss. Being that I have never played anything close to real ice hockey (and never will), the next best thing is to gather whatever ...[text shortened]... m those who have played. And I am very interested in finding out about what I might be missing.
He chose an apt username.
He gets all pretentious about these mythic 'subtleties of the game' and then chooses a clip with a blunder and some individual magic.
Originally posted by uzlessExcellent example!
Okay, i found a clip that will do. All you have to do is tell us WHY this goal was scored.
Let's hear some non-players first that have only watched the game on tv. The idea is to show that non-players don't understand the game as well as ex-players and non-players can't give you the kind of insight that ex-players can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh7WQALmQdE&feature=related
Originally posted by MelanerpesThe question is not if uzless knows more about ice hockey than me. I couldn't care less about ice hockey. The question is if I, having never played the game, would be able to reach the same level of understanding than him.
Am I the only one here interested in learning something here from uzless?
The underlying point of uzless's argument is that a person with direct experience is going to be aware of subtleties that the non-player is going to miss. Being that I have never played anything close to real ice hockey (and never will), the next best thing is to gather whatever ...[text shortened]... m those who have played. And I am very interested in finding out about what I might be missing.
Obviously, the answer is YES, because my evidently superior intelligence (relative to uzless'😉 would eventually prevail over his fabled "experience".
Case closed.