Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Parafox]

2 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Surely research into the impact and correlation of heading the ball and dementia for players who played in the 60s and 70s is only valid then rather than now? The weight, denseness and design of the ball has evolved massively since then.

Agree with this. The old leather footballs, with an internal inflatable bladder and sometimes with laces are a thing of the past. When I played for my school and then youth teams, getting one of those balls smacked against your head as you went for it was like hitting a punchbag with your skull. I'd see stars after a header. Nowadays the balls are composite and much lighter and result in less of an impact. Still, it's sad that some players have brain conditions as a result of repeatedly heading a heavy object. Back then, who knew?

[oxford blue]

28 minutes ago, Parafox said:

Agree with this. The old leather footballs, with an internal inflatable bladder and sometimes with laces are a thing of the past. When I played for my school and then youth teams, getting one of those balls smacked against your head as you went for it was like hitting a punchbag with your skull. I'd see stars after a header. Nowadays the balls are composite and much lighter and result in less of an impact. Still, it's sad that some players have brain conditions as a result of repeatedly heading a heavy object. Back then, who knew?

Instinctively, this is what I thought being familiar with heavy, wet leather footballs. It made sense, but it seems modern research suggests that - because balls are lighter, so travel faster - the effect is similar, perhaps even worse:

 

“It’s the speed more than the weight that has the significance,” said Dr Willie Stewart, a consultant neuropathologist (at Glasgow University) who leads a study in the field. “The modern ball stays light, but if you hit it and it travels faster and lands at a higher speed, it may be causing more problems. People suggest that because the ball is lighter, or that players are training at higher intensity, that the risk has gone away. There’s nothing to support that at all. Quite the opposite. Maybe it’s got worse.”

 

 

[Parafox]

12 minutes ago, oxford blue said:

Instinctively, this is what I thought being familiar with heavy, wet leather footballs. It made sense, but it seems modern research suggests that - because balls are lighter, so travel faster - the effect is similar, perhaps even worse:

 

“It’s the speed more than the weight that has the significance,” said Dr Willie Stewart, a consultant neuropathologist (at Glasgow University) who leads a study in the field. “The modern ball stays light, but if you hit it and it travels faster and lands at a higher speed, it may be causing more problems. People suggest that because the ball is lighter, or that players are training at higher intensity, that the risk has gone away. There’s nothing to support that at all. Quite the opposite. Maybe it’s got worse.”

 

 

Oh well. Let's have corners and free kicks delivered at ground level. I agree we need to to minimalise risk but at what cost? There will come a time when headers are considered to be an infringement.

[bovril]

Ban headers and we might win the league again. 

[Mike Oxlong]

Sweet Caroline can fvck right off 

[Heathrow fox]

5 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Sweet Caroline can fvck right off 

Can’t seem to get away from it either 

[Phil Bowman]

1 hour ago, Parafox said:

Oh well. Let's have corners and free kicks delivered at ground level. I agree we need to to minimalise risk but at what cost? There will come a time when headers are considered to be an infringement.

It’d seem very odd, but I guess everyone would adjust. People probably complained when charging the keeper was outlawed.

If it ever did become clear that any heading at all led to a massively increased risk of injury to the brain (not that I’m saying I think that’ll be the case - I have no idea) then I don’t think there would be any alternative to banning heading.

[Corky]

21 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Sweet Caroline can fvck right off 

This plus infinity.

 

The song is crap and is seemingly at every sporting event you watch.

[Nalis]

2 hours ago, oxford blue said:

Instinctively, this is what I thought being familiar with heavy, wet leather footballs. It made sense, but it seems modern research suggests that - because balls are lighter, so travel faster - the effect is similar, perhaps even worse:

 

“It’s the speed more than the weight that has the significance,” said Dr Willie Stewart, a consultant neuropathologist (at Glasgow University) who leads a study in the field. “The modern ball stays light, but if you hit it and it travels faster and lands at a higher speed, it may be causing more problems. People suggest that because the ball is lighter, or that players are training at higher intensity, that the risk has gone away. There’s nothing to support that at all. Quite the opposite. Maybe it’s got worse.”

 

 

Thanks, interesting counter theory I didnt know about.

[tom27111]

5 minutes ago, Phil Bowman said:

It’d seem very odd, but I guess everyone would adjust. People probably complained when charging the keeper was outlawed.

If it ever did become clear that any heading at all led to a massively increased risk of injury to the brain (not that I’m saying I think that’ll be the case - I have no idea) then I don’t think there would be any alternative to banning heading.

Football would die without heading being allowed. 

 

It's incredibly sad that so many players from the 60's and 70's have been diagnosed with illness' linked to heading a ball, especially as they weren't financially rewarded as well as today's players are.

 

Ultimately, even though balls have got lighter and risk may have decreased, it should be the players choice.

 

You can't ban heading a football if you're going to allow two blokes to punch the shit out of each other in a boxing ring.

[Phil Bowman]

Just now, tom27111 said:

You can't ban heading a football if you're going to allow two blokes to punch the shit out of each other in a boxing ring.

I know what you mean, but two wrongs don’t make a right.

[Phil Bowman]

2 minutes ago, tom27111 said:

Football would die without heading being allowed.

It’d be a bit different, sure, but I think it’s a good enough, an interesting enough and a popular enough sport for it not to die. There’s barely any heading (often none at all) in youth football, and it’s still very definitely and recognisably football.

 

[tom27111]

1 minute ago, Phil Bowman said:

I know what you mean, but two wrongs don’t make a right.

Absolutely, but where do you draw the line? 

 

Boxers know the risk and there's a reason that a fights purse is worth tens of millions.

 

Banning heading in under 16's games could be a compromise. I haven't been involved in kids football for years, but hasn't it moved to smaller pitches and a more futsal style for the younger kids anyway?

 

Then when you get to a high standard as an older youth, maybe introduce heading there? 

[Langston]

4 hours ago, tom27111 said:

As this is the Unpopular Opinion thread...

 

Whilst it doesn't mean I like West Ham in any way whatsoever, their fans rendition of 'I'm forever blowing bubbles' was far more impressive than Liverpool's "famous Kop" singing 'You'll never walk alone'.

 

Still both crap songs, but obviously relevant to each club.

 

Keep Right On at Brum is one of my favourite football chants at full whack.

[Phil Bowman]

1 minute ago, tom27111 said:

Absolutely, but where do you draw the line? 

 

Boxers know the risk and there's a reason that a fights purse is worth tens of millions.

 

Banning heading in under 16's games could be a compromise. I haven't been involved in kids football for years, but hasn't it moved to smaller pitches and a more futsal style for the younger kids anyway?

 

Then when you get to a high standard as an older youth, maybe introduce heading there? 

It’s certainly not straighforward, and I’m not meaning to suggest it is.

Youth football moves up in stages from tiny pitches with small footballs, yeah. And heading in training is banned now up to somewhere around thirteen, I think. And very limited once it’s allowed.

 

Playing out from the back has got to help - not nearly so many huge high kicks upfield for centre halves and centre forwards to head!

[Strokes]

On 15/08/2021 at 16:00, Koke said:

 

Politically, people on the right. They are usually the ones who cry about being censored and silenced. They also tend to claim that most apolitical people would agree with them. 

I think they are dubbed the silent majority because they’re side win elections but they tend to be outnumbered online.

The truth is probably that if the left/centre left united, instead of playing oneupmanship amongst itself and basically stopped voting LDs greens or anything other than Labour. That title would disappear on its own.

Its just whether you’re right or centre right, you only have one box to tick unless you’re an extremist.

[tom27111]

4 minutes ago, Phil Bowman said:

It’s certainly not straighforward, and I’m not meaning to suggest it is.

Youth football moves up in stages from tiny pitches with small footballs, yeah. And heading in training is banned now up to somewhere around thirteen, I think. And very limited once it’s allowed.

 

Playing out from the back has got to help - not nearly so many huge high kicks upfield for centre halves and centre forwards to head!

 

I'm not disagreeing with you at all.

 

Maybe heading should only be allowed for youngsters once they're at a certain age and signed to a clubs academy.

 

Then there's a chance, although still slim, that they'll make it as a pro?

[The Bear]

Probably should be banned until 18 tbh. The brain doesn't stop developing until about 21.

 

Maybe youth teams will concentrate more on skills with the ball on the floor then as well. 

[tom27111]

2 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Probably should be banned until 18 tbh. The brain doesn't stop developing until about 21.

 

Maybe youth teams will concentrate more on skills with the ball on the floor then as well. 

 

But imagine signing a 6ft 6 centre back as a 15 year old, with tons of potential, because of his size, then he basically turns out to be as capable of heading a ball as an octopus.

 

It's a tough one.

 

Surely the technology and information is there to make a ball relatively undangerous to head?

[The Bear]

2 minutes ago, tom27111 said:

 

But imagine signing a 6ft 6 centre back as a 15 year old, with tons of potential, because of his size, then he basically turns out to be as capable of heading a ball as an octopus.

 

It's a tough one.

 

Surely the technology and information is there to make a ball relatively undangerous to head?

I think it's just pure physics. Unless the balls are light under-inflated floaters, then they have a certain amount of force needed to head them. 

[tom27111]

Just now, The Bear said:

I think it's just pure physics. Unless the balls are light under-inflated floaters, then they have a certain amount of force needed to head them. 

 

I'm a middle aged man, this shouldn't make me think of poo and giggle.

 

Fair point though 

[Strokes]

10 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

I think I'd say they're two sides of the same coin without being as aggressive about it, to be honest. I sort of agree, I think there's a smug, self-satisfied undercurrent to the Safehouse that probably wasn't intended when it was first made.

 

I think there needs to be a bit more tolerance for the fact that we're all quite clearly emotionally invested in football and Leicester City. Probably to a level that a lot of people in our personal lives probably think is excessive and maybe a bit silly. I know my missus just can't relate when I'm lobbing the remote across the room and storming off in a huff because we've conceded a ridiculous fourth, I know my dad's missus thinks he's equally ridiculous and has a good chuckle at his case of the mardies. I imagine a lot of you experience the same.

 

Foxestalk is supposed to be a place where we're all City, that cuts both ways. It should mean less attacking each other but it should also mean more tolerance for each other's obsession. I mean we're all here with thousands of posts talking about the club, all day and night, 24/365 because we care a hell of a lot. We should be emotionally invested.

 

To that end, I don't really care how theatrical and over the top the match threads get. I know I get drawn in to it myself. I can forgive all the hysteria afterwards as well, when you know five or six different people are going to start melodramatic threads preaching about how there's a need for drastic change. 

At the end of the day, these people are just hurting and need to process. If part of your process is ranting on the internet for a few hours while you come to terms with things? I mean, that's alright really isn't it? Given that domestic violence cases go up by something like 25% minimum when England play and about 40% when they lose, we should probably be happy that folk are just crying with their fellow nerds on the internet instead of venting their frustrations more physically on people they love. Because, that's how passionately some people feel about the sport.

 

I agree that Foxestalk can get ridiculous, when it's midweek, people have had time to calm down, and they're STILL trying to convince you that Rodgers needs to be sacked, that Vardy is finished, that Tielemans is crap or that Cags is just a liability? Yeah, okay, they're idiots. But in the heat of the moment after a painful loss? Let people have their moment to let off steam.

 

But equally, and this is important too, if how you process is trying to distance yourself emotionally, find a bit of zen and convince yourself that those over-reacting are a bit foolish then that's alright too. Better they be doing it in an easily-avoided, separate thread in a completely different part of the forum riffing about quiche, crumpets and tea than just openly rowing with everyone in the main forum.

 

Bottom line, whatever people need, if they're not hurting anyone - just let them be. We all work through pain in different ways and I imagine we can all agree that last night's result was pretty painful.

What you’re basically saying is, we are all cùnts but some of us think we are better than the other cùnts.

[don_danbury]

ayoze perez is a brilliant player

[tom27111]

1 minute ago, don_danbury said:

ayoze perez is a brilliant player

There's unpopular and then there's deluded. 

[Finnegan]

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

What you’re basically saying is, we are all cùnts but some of us think we are better than the other cùnts.

 

I mean, I suppose so. 

 

I've always thought I'm better than all of you. 

 

Especially you.