'White players are lazy'

Do you agree with the sentiment that white soccer playing kids are lazy?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 17.2%

  • No

    Votes: 22 75.9%

  • Unsure

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Total voters
    29
Mila said:
If you were "sporty" you would have found some kind of sport to enjoy and be brilliant at. Most guys that excell in sport has to choose at one point which sport they will follow as a career, if children are forced to try they will soon know if they are "sporty" or not.

You are not an athlete if you were you would have found the PT or sport to your liking even if it were not “the sport” you were meant to play.
Click to expand...

hehehehehe............eSport for me :D
 
MartyMarts said:
So you can't compare tactics but you can compare rules? Or am I missing the point again?
Click to expand...

Yes you are. You can't compare number of tactics. They are not mandatory and also they are not finite. One tends to adopt/adapt to different tactics as the situation demands. E.G. when you are losing you adopt a different tactic to when you are winning.
Now stop belabouring this point...you know that for one to learn to play a sport one needs to learn the rules first (not the tactics). That's the determining factor as two whether a particular sport is complex or simple. More rules mean a more complex sport.
 
Djtay said:
Johannesburg - Les Grobler is not one to beat about the bush. Ask him where all the white soccer players have gone and you get a straightforward response from the former swashbuckling Moroka Swallows striker, according to a report on Timeslive.

"White players are lazy. They don't push like the black kids do."

"No one is blocking white boys from playing football. That is nonsense. They rock up for training today, tomorrow they are not there."
Click to expand...

Now there must be a reason for that. Maybe realizing there are a few dead rats or snakes abound.

PS: What do you say in Rugby about black players then?
 
Last edited:
Mila said:
If you were "sporty" you would have found some kind of sport to enjoy and be brilliant at. Most guys that excell in sport has to choose at one point which sport they will follow as a career, if children are forced to try they will soon know if they are "sporty" or not.

You are not an athlete if you were you would have found the PT or sport to your liking even if it were not “the sport” you were meant to play.
Click to expand...

I spent one year at a model C high school (not sure what they're called these days) and I was a member of the 'A' team under which age group I played for both soccer and basketball and excelled at both (soccer in winter and basketball in summer). We had choices in sport, yes rugby was the 'main one' but we still had choices. I returned to a government school the following year and my choices were rugby or hockey. The school didn't even have a 1st team soccer side but it was still a 'hobby' throughout my schooling for me.

I'm all for PT as part of a child's education but I don't consider being forced to play/learn how to play rugby 5 times a week throughout primary school as PT. I never said I didn't try - I did. I had bags of pace and agility so could out-sprint most of my peers when necessary. The problem I had was with someone my age but 1 and 1/2 times my size come hurdling towards me at full throttle with the sole intention of tackling me to the ground. I suppose I wasn't 'sporty' enough for that.

If a school caters specifically for only two sports I don't think it's solely the child's fault for not excelling at a sport other than those on offer.
 
JungleBoy said:
It is true... soccer is just too simple and has massive appeal. Why do you think it's the number 1 sport in almost every part of the world?
It's a fact - rugby is an elite sport played mostly at private schools.
Click to expand...

You still need the skills mate. There are some good skills required to play soccer on national level.
 
Last edited:
JungleBoy said:
Yes you are. You can't compare number of tactics. They are not mandatory and also they are not finite. One tends to adopt/adapt to different tactics as the situation demands. E.G. when you are losing you adopt a different tactic to when you are winning.
Now stop belabouring this point...you know that for one to learn to play a sport one needs to learn the rules first (not the tactics). That's the determining factor as two whether a particular sport is complex or simple. More rules mean a more complex sport.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that but yes, let's stop belabouring this point...
 
MartyMarts said:
I spent one year at a model C high school (not sure what they're called these days) and I was a member of the 'A' team under which age group I played for both soccer and basketball and excelled at both (soccer in winter and basketball in summer). We had choices in sport, yes rugby was the 'main one' but we still had choices. I returned to a government school the following year and my choices were rugby or hockey. The school didn't even have a 1st team soccer side but it was still a 'hobby' throughout my schooling for me.

I'm all for PT as part of a child's education but I don't consider being forced to play/learn how to play rugby 5 times a week throughout primary school as PT. I never said I didn't try - I did. I had bags of pace and agility so could out-sprint most of my peers when necessary. The problem I had was with someone my age but 1 and 1/2 times my size come hurdling towards me at full throttle with the sole intention of tackling me to the ground. I suppose I wasn't 'sporty' enough for that.

If a school caters specifically for only two sports I don't think it's solely the child's fault for not excelling at a sport other than those on offer.
Click to expand...

At the high school I went to sport was compulsory. You had to participate in at least one sport every single term. You also needed to do at least one "cultural" thing. Like Chess Club or Debating Society.

It is a good practice honestly. I was always happy to play sports and would have done them anyway but I would never have done anything cultural had that rule not been in place.
 
porchrat said:
At the high school I went to sport was compulsory. You had to participate in at least one sport every single term. You also needed to do at least one "cultural" thing. Like Chess Club or Debating Society.

It is a good practice honestly. I was always happy to play sports and would have done them anyway but I would never have done anything cultural had that rule not been in place.
Click to expand...

Sport was compulsory in the model C school I spent a year at. I didn't have a problem being 'forced' to play a sport and was thrilled that I actually had a choice. No problems with that.
Returned to the good old government school and two choices, neither of which were compulsory.
 
MartyMarts said:
Sport was compulsory in the model C school I spent a year at. I didn't have a problem being 'forced' to play a sport and was thrilled that I actually had a choice. No problems with that.
Returned to the good old government school and two choices, neither of which were compulsory.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. The school I went to was private but very small so our selection of sports wasn't big. We basically got 2 sports to choose from each term. I was a swimmer and I played rugby so I was set for my entire school career with swimming in the summer and rugby in the winter. I wanted to play soccer in matric in addition to the swimming as most of my friends joined the team and it would have been more exercise but my exams were more important.

We used to get clubbed every weekend at rugby though which means I basically spent the whole of winter every year covered in bruises but it was worth it just to be able to play rugby.

I think sport should be compulsory. Get kids out and exercising instead of running home to play video games. At the risk of sounding like my father: "it builds character" *dies of cliche*.
 
Positively Negative said:
Black kids are just miles ahead with football in this country compared to whites.it's a simple fact.as an avid follower of the PSL... there is simply a HUGE difference in skill,speed and overall potential with black ppl.
I've played football since high school and there were many many many moments where i just thought it was unfair how good they are.We honestly have some of the best potential in world football but the facilities are pathetic compared to overseas.but to stick on topic...no ways anyone can tell me whites can even compete in the bigger picture.lmao...
Click to expand...

Interesting - so its race-based?

But when some idiot says basically the same thing about rugby then its clear its because rugby is a racist sport
 
Positively Negative said:
Black kids are just miles ahead with football in this country compared to whites.it's a simple fact.as an avid follower of the PSL... there is simply a HUGE difference in skill,speed and overall potential with black ppl.
I've played football since high school and there were many many many moments where i just thought it was unfair how good they are.We honestly have some of the best potential in world football but the facilities are pathetic compared to overseas.but to stick on topic...no ways anyone can tell me whites can even compete in the bigger picture.lmao...
Click to expand...

If you started in high school, you never stood a chance.
Started club when I was four.
 
"I see stupid people...they're everywhere...they walk around like everyone else...they don't even know they're dumb."
 
porchrat said:
At the high school I went to sport was compulsory. You had to participate in at least one sport every single term. You also needed to do at least one "cultural" thing. Like Chess Club or Debating Society.

It is a good practice honestly. I was always happy to play sports and would have done them anyway but I would never have done anything cultural had that rule not been in place.
Click to expand...

In most of our schools in the township, Rugby, Boxing, Cricket, Athletics were more popular than soccer. You had to choose two compulsory sports unless you had medical reasons not to compete. I had boxing and cricket LOL.
 
Last edited:
dlk001 said:
In most of our schools in the township, Rugby, Boxing, Cricket, Athletics were more popular than soccer. You had to choose two compulsory sports unless you had medical reasons not to compete. I had boxing and cricket LOL.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you lived in a pretty affluent township. :p
 
porchrat said:
Sounds like you lived in a pretty affluent township. :p
Click to expand...

:p not at all but it is interesting that a township had a fully functional rugby league with A + B sides. maybe its because we had to find something to kill the loneliness and sport was only thing. The first time we ever listened to live sport was radio broadcast of Big John Tate defeating Gerrie Coetzee. We celebrated, toyi-toyi like it was end of apartheid. :p
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X