Oi! Stop jacking the thread, or I'll show you both a little one handed bitch slapping of the break!
2004 Dates Are Out
- Thread starter LARSEN
- Start date
We have a word fpr people like that in Holland, it's "spiegel-rukker".
I'll let you figure that one out for yourself.
I'll let you figure that one out for yourself.
At no point did I advocate playing "pussyball", whatever that might be. I assume it's some sort of make it to your intial bunkers and wait game. I'm all for set game plans that are worked out in advance and power moves that can make or break your win.
I'll say it again, there is no reason to remove the back bunkers to force teams to play aggressive, there are other things you can do to the fields such as add ladders, put large bunkers on the 50's, have snakes that run the length of the field, to make the field exciting to play and watch. Quite a few people are convinced you just remove all the back bunkers and like magic the field is fun to play and watch, WRONG!
I will get hold of Warren Maxwell and find out what it is.
The fields in Miami were spot on, really aggressive and they had lots of stand up back barricades. I disagree that you need to force people to play aggressively, Sweden was not an aggressive event, as i saw plenty of people sitting back defensively, the fields just meant that people sitting back were uncomfortably positioned
Nick, u just took the words right outa my mouth....the world is truly now becoming a strange place
Eeeeehhhhh ?
I didnt mean there were NO barricades at the back. Just that they were so small, like sausages and tiny blocks that they were pretty much useless anyway.
Eeeeehhhhh ?
Sam brought up the Miami fields. They were very well designed in my opinion. They had stand up back bunkers, but they didn't cause games to go to stalemates because the fields were designed well. It was easier to attack on these fields then to defend, which would satisfy your point Nick.
Why should we remove ALL the stand up back bunkers? I have no problem with having some small and some large back bunkers. But I don't see the reason to remove all of them. It's very easy to shoot out the back stand up corners when the tape bunkers allow for the player to move into their opponents 40's and 30's, regardless if the other team has a strong back line.
If we are going to get rid of all the stand up back bunkers lets just make the entire field half moons, then we'd be back to the ESPN world cup days, now that was fun to watch!
I should clarify myself, I meant to say stand up back bunkers. Of course you have to have some sort of back bunker, otherwise there are no bunkers
Sam brought up the Miami fields. They were very well designed in my opinion. They had stand up back bunkers, but they didn't cause games to go to stalemates because the fields were designed well. It was easier to attack on these fields then to defend, which would satisfy your point Nick.
Why should we remove ALL the stand up back bunkers? I have no problem with having some small and some large back bunkers. But I don't see the reason to remove all of them. It's very easy to shoot out the back stand up corners when the tape bunkers allow for the player to move into their opponents 40's and 30's, regardless if the other team has a strong back line.
If we are going to get rid of all the stand up back bunkers lets just make the entire field half moons, then we'd be back to the ESPN world cup days, now that was fun to watch!
Well Takedown
-Ron
True, we can't debate on those particular fields. I'll maintain that removing the large back bunkers doesn't buy us anything accept an easy out for aggressive field design and you'll maintain we don't need large back bunkers any longer because small back bunkers encourage aggressive play.
-Ron