Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

It's all semantics

 

semantics
/sɪˈmantɪks/

noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them.

 

Semantics is the study of meaning in language. It can be applied to entire texts or to single words. For example, "destination" and "last stop" technically mean the same thing, but students of semantics analyze their subtle shades of meaning.

  • Like 1
Posted

I think the main thing you can say about Mr Vardy, is that his game has improved as he has aged. Other footballers careers have plummeted, when they have reached their early 30’s. Gabby Agbonlahor being a prime example :D

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Jesus wept!

 

Are you lot still going on about this?!! Talk about being triggered. :rolleyes:

Couldnt agree more, state of the last three pages. Fvckin embarrassing, move on.

  • Like 2
Posted
30 minutes ago, davieG said:

It's all semantics

 

semantics
/sɪˈmantɪks/

noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them.

 

Semantics is the study of meaning in language. It can be applied to entire texts or to single words. For example, "destination" and "last stop" technically mean the same thing, but students of semantics analyze their subtle shades of meaning.

That’s how football punditry makes it’s money. Start a bunch of arguments that nobody can win and allow for as many people as possible to wade in to that debate.

 

I saw a video on YouTube the other day that said “who is faster, rugby or NFL players?”

No context, no figures, no conversions of yard/m coverage. Just alternate clips of rugby and NFL players running breakaways. The comments section had several opinions though. And that’s ultimately all it is, opinions.

 

What is the definition of a natural finisher? Someone who doesn’t ever have to work at or practice finishing in training? Or just someone who makes it look easy?

 

Load of pish. TalkSport just trying to spark discussion/argument/confrontation as always.

  • Like 2
Guest Chocolate Teapot
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Nobbyburton said:

 Steve Bull wasn't a natural finisher :ph34r:

David Hirst was a much better player.

Edited by Chocolate Teapot
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bert said:

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying he’s not a natural finisher, he’s got some aspects of it. But wouldn’t say he’s an all round natural finisher. I would say deadly more than natural. 

Serious question: what’s the difference? 


Vardy can score with either foot, from inside or outside of the box, and has a decent number of headed goals for a striker his height.

 

He goes through dry spells but so does every other striker. Hell, most of Agbonlahor career was a dry spell. lol

 

Natural, deadly, efficient, whatever word we use to describe him, he’s one of the best strikers of his generation and an incredible goal scorer.

Edited by The_77
Took me three tries to spell Agbonlahor’s name correctly.
  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, The_77 said:

Serious question: what’s the difference? 


Vardy can score with either foot, from inside or outside of the box, and has a decent number of headed goals for a striker his height.

 

He goes through dry spells but so does every other striker. Hell, most of Agbonlahor career was a dry spell. lol

 

Natural, deadly, efficient, whatever word we use to describe him, he’s one of the best strikers of his generation and an incredible goal scorer.

I was an unnatural finisher but deadly. Deadly at shanking a shot to the corner flag from 10 yards and skying it over from 6 

Posted
13 minutes ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

David Hirst was a much better player.

Struck one of the hardest ever shots recorded.

Posted
36 minutes ago, The_77 said:

Serious question: what’s the difference? 


Vardy can score with either foot, from inside or outside of the box, and has a decent number of headed goals for a striker his height.

 

He goes through dry spells but so does every other striker. Hell, most of Agbonlahor career was a dry spell. lol

 

Natural, deadly, efficient, whatever word we use to describe him, he’s one of the best strikers of his generation and an incredible goal scorer.

I’m certainly not disputing any of the last paragraph. Maybe more so he’s had to work hard to become a natural finisher even though that doesn’t make sense in context. 

  • Like 2
Posted
25 minutes ago, Bert said:

I’m certainly not disputing any of the last paragraph. Maybe more so he’s had to work hard to become a natural finisher even though that doesn’t make sense in context. 

Fair— I get that.  :schmike:

Posted

Good on ya FT, you've shown this nonentity from Villa what may not be said about our GOAT.  Job done :thumbup:

 

handbags-serviette.gif.dccbf23afeb2c187b8784f796d48172f.gif

 

Shall we move on?  What’s next on the agenda?

Posted
3 hours ago, Bert said:

I’m certainly not disputing any of the last paragraph. Maybe more so he’s had to work hard to become a natural finisher even though that doesn’t make sense in context. 

Fair point, that. I think I know what you mean. From what I've seen of his non-league days a lot of his goals were quite similar. He's had to work hard to adapt his game to higher levels but the talent was always there.

Posted
2 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

All this natural finisher stuff is crap, all the matter is the number of goals you score.

I could understand it if it were a striker who was the best of the generation. Like, there's an argument to be had with Wright and Shearer. 

 

But Bent? Baffling. 

Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

I could understand it if it were a striker who was the best of the generation. Like, there's an argument to be had with Wright and Shearer. 

 

But Bent? Baffling. 

Bent Ratio 0.38 goals per game, Vardy 0.48 goals per game.

 

Ends the argument for me. 

Edited by coolhandfox
Posted
16 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Bent Ratio 0.38 goals per game, Vardy a goal every 0.48 goals per game.

 

Ends the argument for me. 

Of course it does. Striking is about goals and to argue with Vardy, 14th highest in the Premier league history, is just crackers. 

 

There are 13 better than him and if they're not in the discussion it's not a discussion. How Darren Bent is in the equation is baffling. 

  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, foxile5 said:

Of course it does. Striking is about goals and to argue with Vardy, 14th highest in the Premier league history, is just crackers. 

 

There are 13 better than him and if they're not in the discussion it's not a discussion. How Darren Bent is in the equation is baffling. 

Bent is in the equation because he also works for Talk Sport.

  • Like 1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...