Weblog Response: T.M.F.D.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

The fifth of Freaky Trigger's weblogs -

http://www.freakytrigger.co.uk/sport/

- it's about sports and games. This is the ongoing thread where people comment on its contents.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 9 September 2003 09:12 (twenty-one years ago)

B-b-but what does TMFD stand for?

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 9 September 2003 11:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Too Macho For Discus, from the front page.

What that means, I have no idea.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 9 September 2003 12:45 (twenty-one years ago)

not wanting to give too much away andrew, but that's only what it stands for this week ;)

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Tuesday, 9 September 2003 12:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Discus was always the effeminate field sport, consider javelin as SPEAR CHUCKA (and note Spam Javelin), Hammer as woodwork impliment and weapon Tha Mighty Thor and Shot Put being to heavy for wimps.

Discus was just plate throwing, which is for spoilt brats and greeks.

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 9 September 2003 12:56 (twenty-one years ago)

I tried the Different Acronyms thing once. I give it six weeks :)

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 9 September 2003 13:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Take Mr. Farrell Down.

― Tim (Tim), Tuesday, 9 September 2003 13:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Tim Must Find Death. (/Drink)

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 9 September 2003 13:45 (twenty-one years ago)

No! Not the dreaded [/Drink] tag! You beast!

― Tim (Tim), Tuesday, 9 September 2003 13:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Look! Look! I made an html joke! My life is ruined in every possible way!

― Tim (Tim), Tuesday, 9 September 2003 13:59 (twenty-one years ago)

In each END DRINK lies the possibility of a new BEGIN DRINK, grasshopper.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 9 September 2003 14:00 (twenty-one years ago)

I like the way you've made the sport blog PINK. I wholly approve.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 9 September 2003 14:06 (twenty-one years ago)

two weeks pass...

I am very sorry to hear about Burton Constabulary's decision to move the Exeter game to Friday night. Seems a bit odd.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller), Monday, 29 September 2003 17:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Not so odd if it gets on TeeVee. Burton are whores for the TeeVee (witness the spanking Barnet gave 'em last year).

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 08:51 (twenty-one years ago)

My understanding is that Exeter's next foray onto our screens is not until Boxing Day when they visit Hereford United for the big M5 derby.

― Dave B (daveb), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 08:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe Nigel Clough's got to go to a wedding?

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 09:16 (twenty-one years ago)

According to my sources, the game has been rearranged 'on police advice' because some of the stewards are stewards at Derby County Super Rams as well. So I suppose this would have led to a stewardless situation with both Burton and Exeter fans free to run amok and exceed the pie rations. Doesn't make much sense really, but I don't think it's to discourage visiting supporters, I think Burton were looking forward to a Bumper Pay Day. I am sorry Tim won't get to meet Billy Brewer.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 09:50 (twenty-one years ago)

My sources also tell me that Billy Brewer took part in this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/photo_galleries/football/2287348.stm

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 09:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Only this year's.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 09:55 (twenty-one years ago)

It's annoying because City offered to provide sufficient stewards to deal with our fans but the offer was turned down.

Apparently a band of 50 Hereford fans indulged in a spot of maurauding the other week and they've spoiled it for everyone.

― Tim (Tim), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 10:24 (twenty-one years ago)

We just received a catalogue book from Bonham's, it's for a sports auction. I noticed George Best will sell his uh... statues (or whatevah you call it). The estimation price is about 200.000 pounds!!!! WTF! (Boyfriend says: "Well George can see enouf of himself when he looks in the mirror, so it's a good idea to sell." Still WTF! 200 thousand pounds!!!) Beckham is also selling some sockah shoes/boots.

― nathalie (nathalie), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 11:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Hereford fans are like a bull in a china shop. The Exeter stewards were probably turned down because they would have shown up the Burton stewards (who I've never even noticed on the handful of occasions I've been there). Disappointing. I shall miss the feeling that I'm missing out on something, which I was looking forward to wallowing in on Saturday.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 19:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Burton Albion 3 Exeter City 4

!!!

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller), Saturday, 4 October 2003 19:19 (twenty-one years ago)

two weeks pass...

can whoever's in charge include me in TMFD, able-to-blog-wise?

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 21 October 2003 14:27 (twenty-one years ago)

(bump)

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 21 October 2003 14:59 (twenty-one years ago)

(done)

― Tim (Tim), Tuesday, 21 October 2003 15:02 (twenty-one years ago)

one month passes...

i think Dave B may be a little harsh regarding the nature of the Premiership now and the current three horse race. it was only a couple of seasons ago that Man Utd were languishing in 9th place, and the league table at Christmas was very much still a five horse race (Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, Leeds and Newcastle). have things changed that much since then? were it not for the disastrous chain of events at Leeds and Newcastle's opening hiccups this season I'm not convinced they have. it looks as if Newcastle will put in a good chase and i still expect Liverpool to make the top 5 at the end of the season also. alternatively we are looking at the prospect of Charlton and Fulham doing an Ipswich against considerable odds - the chase for a Champions League spot not completely out of the question. All in all this could make for a thrilling climax despite the strength of the top 3 right now.

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 14:21 (twenty-one years ago)

But Steve the point is that the system is set up in such a way as it will tend to produce the situation you can see not working in Scotland. Certainly there will be various few-season wonders, in much the same way that Aberdeen under Ferguson were (at least) neck-and-neck with the Old Firm. It looks increasingly likely that it will take interventions on the scale of Abramovich's to change things significantly at the top of the Premiership. This makes their 'product' worse.

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 14:41 (twenty-one years ago)

How else is the system changeable other than through financial power/influence? Arsenal and Man Utd also owe their dominance to wealth ultimately. Poorer clubs doesn't necessarily result in a more exciting, entertaining title race. 11 years ago Norwich and Aston Villa took Utd to the wire on strong management and admirable resolve and that was fantastic to see. Could it happen now? Never say never - I shall retain some optimism but I do see your point about how money has more say now and how that is a shame. All the more reason to cheer Charlton (over Fulham) I guess?

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 14:52 (twenty-one years ago)

It's the disparity that's the issue (I think) and the fact that the system seems designed to encourage disparity rather than to encourage comparability. Great teams built on less money will still come through, though I suspect it'll be less often and less effectively.

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 15:01 (twenty-one years ago)

There always used to be a correlation between resources and success over time; this would mean that by virtue of being located in major urban centres, clubs with larger fanbases will be more likely to prosper.

This was mitigated by redistribution - gate sharing being the main one, as was better differentials between different leagues to enable stable progress (or decline) without it killing the club.

This was abandoned in England as it was in Scotland; as a result, the natural tendencies of the sport have been exacerbated by the removal of the very mechanisms designed to counter them to ensure better competitiveness.

The old system allowed for outliers - look at the success Clough had at derby and Nottingham Forest; look at Wimbledon's rise to the top flight. All possible because the game rewarded talent by making the gap between the currently successful and the less successful bridgeable. It's now a chasm and so things aggegate. This eventually bites you on the ass, as soon enough, games which aren't competitive as they're more slaughters than games don't sell out, and no-ojne pays to watch on TV, and the whole thing starts to wind down.

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 15:06 (twenty-one years ago)

i see that - it completely sucks but i'm not sure it's really affecting the top half of the Premiership much (the rest of the league, most certainly) as we've seen Utd, Arsenal and any other team from Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle and Chelsea contest the top 3 for the last 7 years or so - that third team usually posing a serious threat until at least the New Year. Of course they all received and spent a huge amount of money to get in that position. Looking back, it's amazing how Norwich came as close as they did - what do you put it down to? Mike Walker has hardly proven to be a managerial/coaching genius, players like Ruel Fox or indeed Chris Sutton never quite fulfilled their potential. Ipswich and Charlton have come closest to mimicking that in recent times - in my experience though it's always been deemed a 'freak' rather than something that is expected to happen every year (so even if things reverted to how they were it wouldn't guarantee a wider title race).

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 15:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I put it down to the fact that Norwich did it in 1993, and thus the first year of the Premiership, before the virtuous circle of success got going. Look at the league in the 1960s and 1970s - look who almost won it. It's quite astonishing. Look how that continues in the 1970s. Then look how the wheels come off in the 1980s as the redistributive mechanisms start to be removed as Thatcherite thrusters come in and want to smash such socialist nonsense. Then look how it mushrooms in the 1990s.

For the bible on this one - see Walter Neale, “The Peculiar Economics of Professional Sports A Contribution to the Theory of the Firm in Sporting Competition and in Market Competition.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 78 (Feb 1964): 1-14. Absolutely seminal and long understood by US sports, but utterly unknown in this country.

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 15:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Trueness. The lower divisions tend to have this lottery feel to them in terms of who's having the best promotion charge or worst relegation battle any given season - apart from teams like Wigan who got the big cash injection. In the Premiership that lottery aspect comes down more - perhaps even solely - to which club attracts which tycoons (i would say investors but not sure how apt that term really is).

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 15:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Even in this tied-up Premiership, though, there's an element of sporting randomness, isn't there? It's name is Liverpool.

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 15:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Ew, "it's". I mean that given spend and history and fanbase and (apparently) available cash and cultural capital and everything Liverpool should be in the very top tier but they are in the next tier down. Shame.

I hope for Liverpool's sake that their financiers are better than Leeds's.

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 16:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Houllier's a lovely guy but I don't think he's cutting the mustard (ha!) anymore so I'm tempted to suggest a change of coach, a clearout of chaff (Diouf was a waste of money for example) and a couple more shrewd purchases (one GREAT defender and one GREAT midfield playmaker and Liverpool will be good to go once more.

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 16:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Good to go down?

Any more mustard jokes off you and there'll be trouble (I'll set Mr. Lasagne on you).

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 16:33 (twenty-one years ago)

That's the trouble though isn't it? You're advocating *precisely* the route Peter Ridsdale took with Leeds and it's plainly a massive gamble.

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 16:35 (twenty-one years ago)

how do you mean? i'm suggesting Liverpool sell their crap players and use the money to part-fund just the few decent ones they'd need to remount their title challenge. maybe all they're missing is blummin' Baros who knows? As for changing the coach, I never understood Ridsdale's decisions, but then I was constantly baffled by Ken Bates's as well, but he was soon vindicated by Ranieri who was starting to get a pretty solid team and system together even before Abramovich turned up. Surely Liverpool should be looking to follow that route even though they don't quite have the same amount of cash at their disposal.

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 16:49 (twenty-one years ago)

What Ridsdale did was replace a manager who'd spent very heavily with another who proceeded to spend very heavily. As Leeds found, when you pay high wages it's not very simple to get rid of under-performing players so you end up with lots of expensive rejects.

The point is that sacked manager (pay off) / new manager (hefty wages) / new players (spending spree) / not managing to even give away pricey old players is what Leeds did in an attempt to get back onto the Champions League gravy train. If it works then Bob's your uncle but if it fails, well, look at Leeds...

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 17:00 (twenty-one years ago)

I love football.

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 17:00 (twenty-one years ago)

well football don't love you.

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 17:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I honestly can't see who Liverpool would get in, though. The new breed of management wunderkids do seem to be quite loyal to their teams, which I'm guessing will lead to the situation you have in Italy: the same 10 managers are passed around the top 5 teams, and young, promising managers manage to get their teams into the top half of the table simply because they're not rehashing ideas from 1995.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 17:06 (twenty-one years ago)

That may well be the truest thing you've ever said, shirtboyblueski.

Dom: I agree but a course of action not making any sense hasn't been too much of an inhibition to many football clubs over the years.

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 17:08 (twenty-one years ago)

the problem is Liverpool surely have to do SOMETHING, so what's the BEST option? stay as they are, probably sacrificing their season (tho i think they'll win at least one cup) AND losing Owen in the process, or take a bigger risk. I agree there's no real decent candidate for the Liverpool post right now though. They should not be looking at Souness or Keegan. O'Neill yes but just not the right time (maybe their inkling is to stick it out this season, sell Owen and use the profits to bag O'Neill and start afresh next Summer).

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 17:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Am I the only person who thinks that O'Neill won't leave Celtic until they've won a European trophy?

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 17:15 (twenty-one years ago)

only one candidate for Liverpool = Martin O'Neill Unfortunately I don't think he'll come, he's on to a good thing at Celtic.

Mind you he might turn us into a team of cloggers, oh hold on.....

― chris (chris), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 17:16 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.freakytrigger.co.uk/sport/index.html#107027639468284951

bah, you beat me to it dave. i was reading this yesterday and thought, "hold on, this is boyler's piece from TMFD"...

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:36 (twenty-one years ago)

< broadcast news >We say it here, it comes out in either the Guardian or the Observer < / Broadcast news >

― Dave B (daveb), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:18 (twenty-one years ago)

two weeks pass...

We haven't had any sports news for two whole weeks :-(

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 08:45 (twenty-one years ago)

one year passes...

bump

tim H are you around? I sent you some mail...

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 11 April 2005 14:27 (twenty years ago)

tim is in oude dutchland

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 11 April 2005 14:38 (twenty years ago)

ok anyone happen to know when he'll be back?

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 11 April 2005 14:42 (twenty years ago)

when he has finished his raw paaling

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 11 April 2005 14:44 (twenty years ago)

ah.

anyway, we'll done everyone the blog is doing great.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 11 April 2005 14:53 (twenty years ago)

four months pass...

[spam links deleted]

― credit loan no school, Thursday, 11 August 2005 23:14 (nineteen years ago)

three months pass...

Hi! Nice work! If you looking cheap price on drug look here

― Luigio, Thursday, 17 November 2005 12:40 (nineteen years ago)

Cool!

― Dave B (daveb), Thursday, 17 November 2005 13:33 (nineteen years ago)

spam

― Norman, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 12:07 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.