|
Post by jdl on Dec 13, 2017 13:42:47 GMT
So (stretching a point), he was a prolific assister. That is very different from being a striker. Mills, for instance must have had a few assists in his time, but no one would have called him a striker. Heskey was a prolific Centre Forward. There we go, doesn't imply he was scoring the goals now. You still (technically) have to create/produce something tangible (e.g. goals) to be 'prolific'. You can be a good centre forward, or even a great centre forward, but you can't be a prolific centre forward. Pedant, where the hell are you when you're needed?!
|
|
|
Post by nws on Dec 13, 2017 16:02:08 GMT
Heskey was a prolific Centre Forward. There we go, doesn't imply he was scoring the goals now. You still (technically) have to create/produce something tangible (e.g. goals) to be 'prolific'. You can be a good centre forward, or even a great centre forward, but you can't be a prolific centre forward. Pedant, where the hell are you when you're needed?! Oh dear. Passes, strikes, headers, saves etc. are all every bit as tangible as a goal as they can all lead to earning points and climbing the table. I would suggest everyone stops bothering now. JDL has been answered. He is incorrect. Spurstone was correct.
|
|
|
3g update
Dec 13, 2017 20:31:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by spurstone on Dec 13, 2017 20:31:07 GMT
Dear oh dear. If you play a game, shall we say football, you can strike a ball. If you strike the ball a lot then you are prolific at striking it. You could thus be termed as a prolific striker. If you play football, you can score goals. If you score lots of them then you are prolific. You could thus be termed a prolific goalscorer. When striking a ball you may not necessarily score a goal but you may still be prolific at striking. Hence you can be a prolific striker without being a prolific goalscorer. Spurstone was 100% correct with his original prolific striker comment. The prolific striker is producing lots of strikes. The prolific goalscorer is producing lots of goals. Thank you, kind sir.
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Dec 13, 2017 21:43:44 GMT
Dear oh dear. If you play a game, shall we say football, you can strike a ball. If you strike the ball a lot then you are prolific at striking it. You could thus be termed as a prolific striker. If you play football, you can score goals. If you score lots of them then you are prolific. You could thus be termed a prolific goalscorer. When striking a ball you may not necessarily score a goal but you may still be prolific at striking. Hence you can be a prolific striker without being a prolific goalscorer. Spurstone was 100% correct with his original prolific striker comment. The prolific striker is producing lots of strikes. The prolific goalscorer is producing lots of goals. Thank you, kind sir. Unfortunately, not - to be prolific, you have to produce something tangible - a 'thing' (or things, as, technically, as a single thing would hardly be being prolific!). Goals are tangible things, strikes, I would argue, are not. A strike is just a kick of the ball - some may consider it having the purpose of becoming a goal, others may consider it merely a misplaced attempt, or even just a pass - or in some cases, an inexplicable volley into row YY. It only becomes a tangible product/thing/creation when it results in a goal - at which point, of course it stops being a strike and becomes an entirely different entity - a goal. All footballers (well. OK, most footballers) kick the ball frequently during a game - you might even say it's their job - but are any of them 'prolific' at kicking a ball? Clearly not. Ippso facto, you can be a prolific goal scorer, but not a prolific striker (or defender, or midfielder*). You can be a great striker, a clever striker, an awful striker, but you can't be a prolific striker. (*If anyone would like to argue if you can be a prolific goalkeeper, don't let me stop you...).
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Dec 13, 2017 21:53:15 GMT
I was drawn to this thread in the expectation of reading some news concerning 3g developments. Much more of this crap and the forum will lose its appeal to all but a very few !
|
|
|
3g update
Dec 13, 2017 22:04:12 GMT
via mobile
Post by spurstone on Dec 13, 2017 22:04:12 GMT
Unfortunately, not - to be prolific, you have to produce something tangible - a 'thing' (or things, as, technically, as a single thing would hardly be being prolific!). Goals are tangible things, strikes, I would argue, are not. A strike is just a kick of the ball - some may consider it having the purpose of becoming a goal, others may consider it merely a misplaced attempt, or even just a pass - or in some cases, an inexplicable volley into row YY. It only becomes a tangible product/thing/creation when it results in a goal - at which point, of course it stops being a strike and becomes an entirely different entity - a goal. All footballers (well. OK, most footballers) kick the ball frequently during a game - you might even say it's their job - but are any of them 'prolific' at kicking a ball? Clearly not. Ippso facto, you can be a prolific goal scorer, but not a prolific striker (or defender, or midfielder*). You can be a great striker, a clever striker, an awful striker, but you can't be a prolific striker. (*If anyone would like to argue if you can be a prolific goalkeeper, don't let me stop you...). Good case. Although how, for example, a fantastic knock down from a 40 yard pass to set up your fellow strike partner for an easy tap home could not be considered a tangible input to that goal is beyond me. Anyway, I am going to bed now as I am a prolific sleeper 😉
|
|
|
Post by Tstone on Dec 13, 2017 22:13:30 GMT
tangible = touchable
prolific = numerous
|
|
|
Post by stonepaperscissors on Dec 13, 2017 22:16:56 GMT
Listened to Oliver Ash on Radio Kent this morning, who very very sensibly and logically about the benefits of 3G, unlike the negative waffle spouted by a couple of blokes from Dover and Ebbsfleet whose names I forget.
|
|
|
Post by steveh21 on Dec 13, 2017 22:38:00 GMT
I really think the Dover and Ebbsfleet chairmen's anti 3G views are more anti Maidstone United. They dont like the fact we could reach the EFL before them.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Dec 14, 2017 8:14:38 GMT
Thanks guys for getting back on topic
|
|
|
Post by La femme de Vic Jobson on Dec 14, 2017 10:24:37 GMT
I really think the Dover and Ebbsfleet chairmen's anti 3G views are more anti Maidstone United. They dont like the fact we could reach the EFL before them. May be a psychological issue. When you oppose an idea that has been shown to have demonstrable value you either have to be big enough to admit you were wrong, or keep opposing it in the face of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by headstone on Dec 14, 2017 11:50:32 GMT
What, like the Remoaners? (Who I originally thought were a tribute band for The Ramones).
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Dec 14, 2017 12:44:02 GMT
I really think the Dover and Ebbsfleet chairmen's anti 3G views are more anti Maidstone United. They dont like the fact we could reach the EFL before them. May be a psychological issue. When you oppose an idea that has been shown to have demonstrable value you either have to be big enough to admit you were wrong, or keep opposing it in the face of evidence. For example - the psychology of the extreme Leavers is rather revealing revealed by the front cover of today's Daily Rant...
|
|
|
Post by steveh21 on Dec 14, 2017 18:49:35 GMT
A debate about 3g pitches becomes a debate about loving or hating the EU!! Quality.
|
|
|
Post by pedant on Dec 14, 2017 19:40:13 GMT
A debate about 3g pitches becomes a debate about loving or hating the EU!! Quality. To be fair it never reached the level of a debate, on 3g pitches or anything else.
It was started as information about a forthcoming meeting which, because of the weather, is still forthcoming. Not difficult to see how with nothing actually happening it got sidetracked.
Even so how we got sidetracked on to the EU escapes me as well.
|
|