DoomMerchant wrote:Mikhail Chigorin wrote:freshie wrote:Herb wrote:Foreverinbluedreams wrote:
Micah could've signed the new contract City put on the table last season and then sat on his arse collecting his wage for the next few years if he was the type Herb is making him out to be.
Dear foreverupjoesarse, please note that he was offerred a contract but he wouldn't sign it - so didn't stay at the club he loves with the fans he loves (yada yada) - because it didn't pay him enough for him to be sufficiently encouraged to do that did he.
The bulked up bullshitter is absolutely loaded - he has more money than most folk could ever dream of and he was offerred a role with us for the future but he preferred to sod off and take more money from someone else - that's where he's at so get real.
Read this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... 1267/.htmlYou may change your opinion of Micah
At times, a lot of people use a mindless comparison between football and chess.
However, I'll use a meaningful chessic term in this instance by saying that the article quoted has left Herb in a veritable 'zugswang'.
for me, as an outsider who didn't grow up with these games, cricket is more like chess. Football in comparison is like...i dunno...Hungry Hungry Hippos. Or Chutes and Ladders (i think you call it Snakes and Ladders? Spaztics).Played while pissed and a little bit hungry.
cheers
Nice thoughts Doomie and colourfully phrased.
I've always thought of football as being a bit of a tribal encounter, especially with regard to the fans and the way they support their team. Of course there's artistry, skill, style and flair involved but the game also contains a bit of warfare as well.
Chess is the same, in that respect and different players have different styles and outlooks; some want to play with flair and imagination and to win as brilliantly as possible, even at the risk of losing. Others just want to grind out a win by any means, often by taking no risks at all and are totally different from the gamblers in the game. The parallels with football in this regard are apparent.
However, the big difference is that chess, apart from not being a physical 'sport' (fisticuffs is not to be recommended at any time during a game), is not a spectator sport in the normal meaning of being a spectator. I've never watched, for example, Australian Rules Football but if I sat down with someone who could explain briefly what was happening on the pitch, during the course of the game I might glean some spark of what was going on and what it was all about - and this is not, in any way, intended to denigrate that, or any other sport.
With chess, you've got to be able to play the game to be able to understand what's happening on the board of, say, a Tournament or World Championship encounter between GrandMasters. The better you are as a player, the better you can comprehend the strategy and tactics which are evolving between two opponents, because many possible variations are so complicated and deep that it takes a lot of calculation to determine if they are sound and playable.
Suffice to say, it's totally different from a Tony Pulis team banging the ball down the middle to a big target man, or using the long throw as a tactical weapon.....which brings me, via a roundabout way, to the point about football being wrongly compared to a chess game. Quite often a football game is likened to chess because one team nullifies the efforts of another by various (tactical ?) and, although there's a lot of probing going on, there's not a lot of full blooded action and excitement taking place. The inference from such is that the game is considered boring and, by the same inference, chess is also boring when, in both instances, this is not necessarily the case.
I just wish people would stop using such comparisons between the two games because it's akin to comparing chalk and cheese.
Anyway, here endeth this tome-like rant....apologies to anyone who found it too monumentally boring to either read or comprehend.
