Cowshed

Interesting club Paulton. They have created a broad youth set up and this season saw a sixteen year old from their development centre playing in the first team. Its not perfect or exact but some of their youth teams are very confident on the ball and looking to constantly play. That sort of football appears to be their long term goal, a non league modernist Paulton way of playing. Paulton v Frome new years day I think.

Breaking the game down into tasks improves focus. Our brains focus improves as it recognises rehearsed and repititious patterns. Trigger words spark physical and mental response. We can train the brain to unclutter the pre frontal cortex, which improves focus.

Highest education level One in 10 (10%) adults educated below degree level reported vaccine hesitancy. This was slightly higher than the rates of vaccine hesitancy for adults educated at degree level or equivalent, adults with "other" qualifications or no qualifications (8%, 7% and 7% respectively). You are arguing about a %. The underlined figure is those with no qualifications. I made no point about bigotry.

I answered. Here is the data. Coronavirus and vaccine hesitancy, Great Britain - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk) The least educated (no qualifications) had a lower rate of vaccine hesistancy than people with degrees. There is further data from differing timescales but it doesnt break down groups using education as a measurement. Coronavirus and vaccine hesitancy, Great Britain - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)

Is there? Vaccine hesitancy across groups with degrees was 8%. It was lower amongst the populace with no qualifcations at all at 7%.

Because his position alters. If he stays with the defending principle of face up and ball and man he can then impede the player more efficiently.

A technical point was made. Citys player does not look at the ball. The offending defending ignores the basic defensive triangle principle. If you cannot see both ball and man you cannot defend them. Its a penalty.

I reckon he had not heard of a lot of things till he got to Sporting Lisbon then Man Utd. And what you are highlighting is a psychological growth mindset. Endless training can be ineffectual. What Ronaldo was introduced to at Sporting Lisbon and Man Utd is deliberate practice. Its whys and how skill is internalised and produced on demand is psychological. What sets Ronaldo apart is his mindset. He is blessed physically as are millions of people but his psychological aptitude to practice and preparation is exceptional. In regards to his free kick yes, he used visualisation. He uses a routine. Steps, scan, ball position were used to cut out noise and doubt, but also to control his mind and breathing. He would visualise the task right down to striking the ball with the medial cuneiform just below the centre of the ball, how the strike felt and how success felt. That was couple with the deliberate intense physical practice over and over. It could also explain why since 2014 his success has dropped down to 5% from 16% pre-2014. His technique, the velocity of strike, angle etc appears not have changed so maybe his superhuman mindset has allowed human negative doubt to creep in.

Ronaldo uses visualisation techniques. He uses mental process as a routine including visualisation with his free kick taking.

Yes. If you do not adopt a growth mindset (Beswick uses the term) you will not improve. We choose to fight or freeze or flight. We choose to word hard, or not. Mental drives physical. Physical doesn't drive mental.

Childrens brains are not more aware of things these days. The brains development has not altered. It is a reason kids should not be exposed to complex issues. Psychologically they do not possess the comprehension skills to deal with complexity. Children should be allowed to be kids.

It was an example of a differing view and a relevant answer to your point. A poster asserted the words All Lives Matter can have a non literal undeniably racist meaning due to what occurs four thousand miles away. Within this thread you take exception to a multi racial group displaying banner displaying that phrase. You used the I'm not racist trope. You feel the phrase All Lives Matter is provocative. Others clearly have a differing views that it is not racist -. All Lives Matter can mean All Lives Matter. Again you tie yourself in knots. At no point have I said that. I see double standards. The scrutiny applied to the words All Lives Matter on a banner is an example.

To other individuals. Which is a reality isn't it? You are tieing yourself in knots. Another individual stated the slogan was undeniably racist. I disagree and so do others = It can mean something very different.

What else does the word privilege mean? Clearly those who have compiled dictionaries were not best placed to explain the real meaning of the word.

Because what occurs here shapes our communication, our lives and experiences. Our experiences and world view can alter with our postcode. Somebody living in BS8 V BS13 can see things differently. The poster was suggesting the alien, something from four thousand miles away shapes how somebody coming from a working-class area in Bristol should think. The taking the of knee. It is alien to the UK. It is imported. I have stated that it represents differing things to differing people. Not one thing, only one interpretation, one rule.

England should be keeping the ball and resetting it. Building from the back has progressed the team. The personnell last night lead to slow play. Rice is no pivot and Mings lacks range. Where is the distributor? The outcome was predictable. The patterns predictable up back across etc. In regards to allowing the opposition to set up. Hungary were not rigid they slid and screened following the possesion. Grealish dribbling horizontally in the second third and taking multiple touches made it easier for the opposition to screen in lines. It was not fast and direct its was slow and indirect. Playing one two touch would speed patterns up. I would have kept him on but his withdrawal had some merit behind it.

I have responded to your use of All Lives Matter as being undeniably a racist slogan. The points and questions posed you have ignored. Its is easily deniable. It is illogical to use your rules where no other alternative can be considered. A mixed race group were using a undeniably racist slogan - All Lives Matter. That is nonsense. The group has been called various things. Most are that nonsense. As per politics forum. Why call people something they are not? What were the consequences? What was be implied/inferred? Were this group members of St Annes Conservative club?

You still have not answered the earlier questions regarding undeniably racist. I am calm. Yes, the group have been called racists according to Bristol antifascists they are notoriously racist, a poster in the sub forum called the group fascists. So yes, there is merit in consistently pointing out what are facts. Again, you have made an assertion. I know the banner creator as others do and as several pointed out last year, I think it is highly likely that the creator would not be aware of why you perceive All Lives Matter to be undeniably a racist slogan. You are importing and extrapolating context from another continent. The context is what occurred here in BS1. The words meant exactly what they say .. All Lives Matter.

Its half time.. All Lives Matter is a thing in America well a context is its four thousand miles away. However, you decide that this should define the use of language here. You want to enforce your rules of speech. Society uses due process. Facts. The facts I posted are the context. The group was multi racial, the wording on the banner was unambiguous and clearly not racist. Facts. A context you then decided was irrelevant. Your rules. These were working class bloke, not linguists. People can have a different world view to yours and have different standards. Not wrong different.

You are telling me I cant write whatever. You do not control the English language. I stated a fact. You state context matters greatly after stating its irrelevant in your first sentence. As expected a lot of rules. Your rules. Its nonsense.

It isn't analogous. The context is the words were included on a banner stating what the group was, a message for a police Superintendent and this was displayed in BS1 by a group that was not exclusively white. This group cannot be perpetuating anything associated with racism, it’s quite the opposite. The group was multiracial. There was no aid given to any racists. None. Bristol has no far-right groups of any significance. The racist oddballs in caves that there are would loathe knowing who bought the banner, their backgrounds, knowing they were not anything to do with the far-right. Unfortunately, there are left wing groups who don't like it as well. There is your division. As Steve highlighted in the article.

Recently Bristol Manor Farm Avon Youth league teams had no referees for games. Manor Farm were not the only club affected. Entire divisions had no refeerees allocated to them. This stretched across age groups. No refs. The reason was the disgraceful behaviour displayed towards referees including refs of fourteen and fifteen by coaches and Managers. Referees are being driven away from the game at grass roots level and if they progress up levels they have Managers like that to contend with.

No I see nothing racist in a mixed race group using the words All Lives Matter. How can that be a clearly racist act? Literally it is not. There is no reference to race. Its illogical to suggest it was undeniably racist. The slogan used by a non far-right multi racial group was undeniably anti racist. The words meant exactly what they say .. All Lives Matter.

An assertion was made. The group which was present at the Cenotaph used a undeniably racist slogan. A fact is the group was multi racial. Mr Rees confirms the organiser has a black wife. The slogan used contains no reference to race. Yet its asserted the group are committing a undisputed racist act. How?

I will waste time as I know the individual in the article. He is not a fiend, he is an acquaintance. I think its fair to defend these people and as an acquaintance I can spot an obvious flaw in the posters argument. A fact as Mr Rees observes here - Mayor met 'Football Lads' protest organisers 'to hold the city together' - Bristol Live (bristolpost.co.uk) The organiser. His wife is black. People in the groups at the Cenotaph were Black and Asian. How can a group of White, Black and Asian men be using a slogan in All Lives Matter that is undeniably racist?