Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    max 70 kg =( usually do 10x50kg. I've lost 10kgs in the past months too so I kind of feel weak :rolleyes: Now I weigh 71kg.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I hate these ego threads.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saintuntilidie)
    Wrong forum mate, check the rugby union vs league thread.

    While you're looking for it, why dont you think about something which backs up your statement instead of coming up with a comment like that.

    for the record: there is as much a drinking culture within union as there is in league.
    Tee hee. :p:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Susie Moroney = legend :cool:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    lol my lungs were weak as cheese from my asthma. It got them back up again so I could breathe properly
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by goku999)
    I like swimming but i have really bad eyesight which stopped me from continuing.
    I jus cant see in my goggles.
    Well, (i suppose this depends on just how much you love swimming) but you can pay out for goggles that have your lens prescription included. Obviously they are made to order and cost rather a lot but if you seriously love swimming i would reccomend it! I paid out years ago and they haven't snapped once! I managed to sort mine out through my swimming club but i am sure you can do it, even if you aren't a competitor!
    On the note of love for swimming, i adore it so much! I used to train for thirty two hours a week (real swimming geek i know!) and it was amazing but a heart condition forced me to slow down and my dream (and my parents dream) of me becoming a professional and paid swimmer went out of the window! However, i have recovered now and still like to pop down to the pool as often as possible! I find it amazing how i can swim for miles and miles and not find it tiring but running it= death for me!

    Lou
    xxx
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    As has been previously stated, BSkyB have huge funding worldwide, whereas Channel 4's revenue is primarily from its advertising features and the like.
    It's not about money. If there was genuine interest in the sport amongst youngsters, on a large enough scale, the ECB would rather have cricket on terrestrial television - regardless of how much more money Sky were willing to pay because it's vital to the development of the sport that the kids can see their heroes doing their stuff.

    Throughout this thread, albeit short, there seems to be the idea that recency dictates the long term future, whereas in reality, recency only dictates the next six months to a year.
    There is a danger that the nation will care about cricket for the duration of the Ashes and then forget about it. But interest has been steadily climbing since England's winning streak began in 2003 and has, predictably, peaked with the Ashes. That will be almost three years of much improved attention, and do you think that wouldn't continue if over the next ten years England performed like Australia have over the last ten, and of course, ALL of their games (even the winter tours) were on television channels that more than 30% of the country could watch.

    People lost interest in cricket because we had a poor side that underachieved. Now we have a very good side, with marketable stars, that will be good for the next 5-10 years. That is what will inspire interest in the sport as a whole in schools and among kids in general, and it is on that that the future of the sport will succeed or fail. If even a tiny percentage of the kids that watch this series get into cricket and start training, that's a huge increase in the talent pool in 5 years time.

    Cricket's recent increase has been largely as a result of the Twenty20 competitions, whose fast pace and aggressive style has forced this Test series to 'up the ante'. Not all Test series are 1981 Ashes battles, or tense, two-run victories on the last day. When England start to play India, New Zealand, and the West Indies again, whose pace is infinitesimally slower and less exciting, and thus less immediately gratifying, unlike other sports, than Australia's, Test cricket will fall from popularity.
    Twenty20 has nothing to do with the way test cricket is played in the modern era. The days of test matches seeing run rates of 2-3 per over are long gone. England have been a fast scoring side for a while now, and Australia always have. But it's not the run rate that necessarily dictates the tempo of the game and the likelihood of a result, it's the willingness of each team to attack and play positive cricket.

    New Zealand and the West Indies are never shy of playing attacking cricket. South Africa will always produce draws because of their mind-numblingly defensive tactics, but there's always one. Even so, there have only been about five non-weather-affected draws since the last tour of the sub-continent over five years ago.

    This is consistent throughout the thread;
    - Ricky Ponting is a world class player and improving captain - whilst some of his performances as captain have been lacking more recently, his wonderful defiance of England in his 156 led the team by example. The notoriety of Steve Waugh's success will hang over Ponting as Australia edge ever closer to an Ashes defeat, but with the return to full form of Glenn McGrath and Brettt Lee, alongside his team's realisation that England are a genuine, but conquerable, threat, Australia should be able to replicate the huge successes of the first Test, which seem to have faded from some of the more patriotic English members of this board.
    I think Ponting is a supremely talented stroke-maker, but lacks the mental strength to be an exceptional captain or to perform to the desired standard when it really matters. His magnificent 156 was one of the [thankfully] rare occasions where he is the backbone of the side.

    - The England selectors have made two major mistakes; Bell & Jones above Thorpe & Read.....
    I agree on both. Thorpe has been England's best and most dependable batsman for the last decade after the first test I think the selectors realised the gravity of their mistake. I have nothing against Bell, he's a good player, he's just not worthy of a place ahead of Graham Thorpe.

    As for Geraint Jones, I like him and he is a good batsman. But he makes too many mistakes with the gloves and we can't afford for that. Up until recently I still believed he was the right choice (you have to give players a good run instead of chopping and changing all the time) but his recent displays show how different things could be with a more reliable keeper.

    TMS rocks! How can anybody prefer the dull, dreary discussion of Michael Atherton and Geoffery Boycott to the enthusiastic, brimming with life, Henry Blofeld.
    TMS is cricket. Simple as that.

    Another interesting topic for discussion - do the central contracts harm county cricket?
    I don't believe they do. Sure they take a county's best players away for most of the season, but it's the same for everyone and their absence means young players have a chance to play half a season and that helps their development. The international players are also around the counties for the rest of the season helping these youngsters to develop.

    You could, of course, argue that people would be a lot more interested in watching county cricket if familiar names were playing, but you can't have everything and it's more important to the country that they perform to the best of their ability at international level, and I believe that is best achieved through central contracts.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sparkly_tiara)
    I used to train for thirty two hours a week
    :eek:

    How on earth did you manage that? I only trained for 26 hours a week for the Olympic trials!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gexko)
    Oh ok, as my coach always used to say "the rower is inherently stupid."

    he was a cox...
    Yep, basically :p:

    I have no co-ordination skills
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    wow^^. talking about the Sky contract from c4, did the Sky commentators ever talk about how it will affect cricket nationwide? (will be interesting what they say)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hello,

    Is anyone running the Great North Run this September? I'm running in aid of Childline.

    Be good to hear from anyone else who's going through the training and preperation!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Obviously ate whilst swimming. :rolleyes:
    That is a great amount of time for training. I admire sime folks dedication.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChelseaBabe)
    That is a great amount of time for training. I admire sime folks dedication.
    I never thought of it as that much time, it really doesn't seem like it once you get into a routine. It was only after I stopped that I realised how much free time I had and wondered 'what exactly does the rest of the world do in their free time?'

    Even since then I've only really ever filled it with sport. What do people that don't like sport do with their lives? Isn't it incredibly empty and dull? :p: (probably not the best forum to ask that in )
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by goku999)
    I like swimming but i have really bad eyesight which stopped me from continuing.
    I jus cant see in my goggles.

    me too.the bad experience is that i cant find where the locker room is. :eek:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    *Opens big tin of testosterone based whoop ass*

    The leg press at the gym doesnt have enough weights (goes up to 250kg) for me to find my max lift :cool:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zurich)
    It's not about money. If there was genuine interest in the sport amongst youngsters, on a large enough scale, the ECB would rather have cricket on terrestrial television - regardless of how much more money Sky were willing to pay because it's vital to the development of the sport that the kids can see their heroes doing their stuff.
    But it is very much, in the interest of Sky, all about money. If they have a monopoly on professional cricket - County Championship, NCL, C&G, Twenty20, One Day Internationals and Test - then they are comprehensively the only broadcaster that can make money from cricket. Of course the ECB would prefer terrestrial viewing made available to the general public, not least because of Channel 4's unwavering faith in English Test Cricket. The deal is set, however, and Sky have their monopoly till 2009, when its success on Sky will fund future broadcasting rights, or will be let go, forcing C4 to increase their offer.

    (Original post by Zurich)
    There is a danger that the nation will care about cricket for the duration of the Ashes and then forget about it. But interest has been steadily climbing since England's winning streak began in 2003 and has, predictably, peaked with the Ashes. That will be almost three years of much improved attention, and do you think that wouldn't continue if over the next ten years England performed like Australia have over the last ten, and of course, ALL of their games (even the winter tours) were on television channels that more than 30% of the country could watch.
    Very much so - but the percent of public viewing figures doesn't affect Sky policy. Indeed, as a result of their monopoly, they're likely to get further subscriptions if interest in cricket continues to grow.

    (Original post by Zurich)
    People lost interest in cricket because we had a poor side that underachieved. Now we have a very good side, with marketable stars, that will be good for the next 5-10 years. That is what will inspire interest in the sport as a whole in schools and among kids in general, and it is on that that the future of the sport will succeed or fail. If even a tiny percentage of the kids that watch this series get into cricket and start training, that's a huge increase in the talent pool in 5 years time.
    Again, I agree in principle - England have a strong side presently, with "marketable" stars - but it seems unlikely to me that this will be sustained. Once Flintoff, Pieterson and Harmison leave the squad, which I acknowledge will be in the considerable future, then England will struggle - as Australia are doing, with the retirement of their stars - the Waughs, Lehmann, and the impending McGrath and Warne. In my opinion, once these England stars are dropped, or retire, it will be difficult to replace them, despite a greater interest in cricket.

    (Original post by Zurich)
    Twenty20 has nothing to do with the way test cricket is played in the modern era. The days of test matches seeing run rates of 2-3 per over are long gone. England have been a fast scoring side for a while now, and Australia always have. But it's not the run rate that necessarily dictates the tempo of the game and the likelihood of a result, it's the willingness of each team to attack and play positive cricket.
    Not necessarily just Twenty20, but the increased number of ODIs and the more aggressive cricketers that feature in every major squad have also contributed towards the increased tempo of cricket. Before Flintoff, England's previous big hitter was Botham - and once Flintoff is gone, I predict a similar downturn in interest and English performance.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Lifting bricks isn't an effective way of gaining muscle mass.
    And why not? lifting anything heavy in the correct way along with eating will make anyone big.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    probs about 13.

    fastest on my hockey team, thats all i know
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've met Dorian on several occasions he does seminars at our gym some times and let me tell u he is a MEGA Pain - Flex is 10,000 sq foot of pure gym.

    As for most drs not knowing **** - I beg 2 differ - only steroid heads say that - it is doctors who develop these drugs, it is doctors who find out what they do, what side effects they have etc, it isnt body builders developing these drugs and maybe ur friends dr didn't know about a specific steroid but if he looked up it's medical name he'd know exactly what the androgenic properties etc would be and he wouldn't have the mindless attitude "oh it's ok - gear is good 4 u" like every other juice head in the gym - I'm sure uve come across them, every gym has them.

    Enough roid heads down my gym say - Doctors dont know **** - ive been on gear for 15 yrs and im ok - really? Even tho u have an enlarged heart and a liver that is probably dying. No if I was going 2 listen 2 any 1 it would be a dr and in my case - my friend specialises in pharmaceuticals and as he is a gym head he has an active interest in such issues.

    I have met several pros, Ernie Taylor, Jason Corrick, Mike Sheridan and Milos Sarcev to name but a few. Jason Corrick and Sarcev went into detail about how much juice they take - u would not believe the amount of **** they put into their bodies - Insulin, roids, HGH - everything. Mr. Corrick told me he injects more than 5 times per day and on top of all that they take T3\T4 which can F**K ur thyroid - Pro Body building is a mugs game man - I would never put my body in such danger. Sarcev was telling us about how close he has been to an insulin induced coma and he laughed about it - I just thought "great body - but a total idiot".

    Hope every 1 is training hard!

    T

    Edit by Chelseababe Sport mod, please use less of the bad language and then I won't have to edit your post, thanks Tal.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Susie Moroney = legend :cool:
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: March 28, 2006
The home of Results and Clearing

1,047

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Quick link:

Unanswered sport threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.