Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And great tactic to throw everyone forward when we got a penalty anywhere near their half.
I love it when rugby heads talk about soccer :-)
After two games, they are on behind Italy on alphabetical order.
What a line! And what a game! It was great to see New Zealand do it with smarts. If there's a team that does more with what it's got - including playing with three strikers because they're amongst the best eleven players available - I have yet to find it. Well done all, but especially Herbert. Take a bow.
(Love to talk more, so long as nobody mentions the Brazil result for I don't get to see it till later.)
If anybody's keen to hear the Italian reaction, could they go either here or here and copy the links for what look to be the game reports? Just so I don't find out about Brazil - none of my Italian friends are online right now.
-
Yes, I thought he might want to clip that one. He's not going to start though, unless Herbert is double bluffing. Can't wait for the game. Divided loyalties, here I come!
-
By my count at least 4 matches so far have been on the issuing of a red card.
Speaking of which, wasn't Kewell just adorable after his goalline save against Ghana? What did he reckon Rosetti would have done if he had in fact looked up at the replay on the big screen - send him off twice?
-
If you can translate some of the before-and-after coverage for us, I'll fix it so you win some o' that Toi Toi wine ;-)
I can try a little summary. The report by Gazzetta dello Sport on the game against Slovakia was very positive on the All Whites', much lauded for their personality if not for their technical skills. Some harsh words for Paston, and the observations that Paraguay and Italy ought to win against both teams, but praise for the All Whites' application and intelligent approach to the game. In yesterday's press conference De Rossi declared that Italy 'must win every time against New Zealand', but it sounded more like he was trying to rally the troops than belittle the opposition. Coach Lippi stated the obvious, warning against the threat posed by the physical stature of the All Whites, as has Nicola Cecere for La Gazzetta ("Italy, watch out, these Kiwis are giants"), who remarked also that Fallon's and Killen's propensity not to retreat behind the midfield would have Criscito and Zambrotta at right and left back licking their chops. But watch out for Vicelich, Nelsen, Reid on set pieces besides the tall lads up front.
Cecere also thinks that Brown ("the Kiwi Pirlo") will play. That would be a major upgrade.
-
A win for the All Whites against Italy tonight in the second round of World Cup group play would be like the Netherlands beating the All Blacks in pool play at the Rugby World Cup -- it isn't going to happen.?
Oh, no, there is a far greater likelihood of the All Whites beating Italy in this or any other world cup draw than there is of the Netherlands beating the All Blacks. There's no comparison, really. And I honestly think they have a shot. Killen, Fallon and Smelz are ideally suited to bother Italy on attack. Were I Lippi, in fact, I would counter that with three defenders, inserting Bonucci for Criscito - that's how I worried I would be.
Of course at the other end of the park you have to worry about Lochhead going against Pepe, Camoranesi or Zambrotta, or Paston being peppered from outside the box. It could turn ugly, especially if Italy score early. But don't write the All Whites off - the Italian press isn't for sure.
-
But I NEVER EVER said it was the helmet's fault. I said the studies showed that it was the effect of the compulsory cycle helmet law!
Really, I do get it. But still to me the only reason to repeal the law is if in fact the helmet doesn't offer significant protection to the cyclist. (Which sounds like might well be the case.) But if it in fact does, then it makes perfect sense to recognise it in law, as we do for things like motorbike helmets and safety belts on cars, and then deal with the problem of promoting greater use of bikes some other way (cycling routes, higher road costs for cars, free use of bikes sponsored by the municipality, advertising campaigns).
-
But then you use other methods to promote cycling. It's still not the helmet's fault! Besides what Rob and others have said about the larger trends involved in the fact that people drive and are driven around more.
-
We apoligise for the disruption
Goes to show that it is in fact the hardest word.
-
We must be talking at cross-purposes here!
What I said (or certainly meant to say) is that the studies indicate that the negative health consequences of stopping cycling (i.e. coronary disease, diabetes, etc) are much greater than the negative health consequences of continuing to cycle without a helmet (i.e. slight chance of an accident).
No, I got that. I was just making the point that if you accept that so long as you cycle, it's safer to do it with an helmet, the law itself doesn't seem misguided to me. If it's turning people off cycling, it's because they've made their choice, good hair vs. longevity. I don't find this enormously problematic, even if it costs us money. That shouldn't be the paramount consideration in my view. (Otherwise you pretty quickly go down the road of "let's not cure the fatties".)
If on the other hand you demonstrate that helmets aren't that useful for protecting you on the road, then I could get behind repealing the law on the ground that it's misguided. Since its purpose surely was never to promote cycling, rather to promote the safety of cyclists.
-
Just went back and read the comments. I'm genuinely astonished at how much praise was expressed for something so irrational, offensive, hateful and casually demeaning.
From all the mentions of very mildly critical posts that were deleted, and from that the author herself says, I get the impression she just removed most comments in that thread - anybody who wasn't supportive was booted out of the discussion without leaving a trace. That will skew things somewhat.