Idrissa Sylla and Yeni Ngbakoto are in the QPR starting line-up for the game at Loftus Road.Sylla partners Matt Smith up front for Rangers, with Conor Washington dropping to the bench along with Pavel Wszolek.Bottom side Rotherham are without the suspended Joe Mattock. They have former QPR striker Dexter Blackstock on the bench.QPR: Smithies, Furlong, Onuoha, Lynch, Bidwell, Ngbakoto, Hall, Freeman, Luongo, Sylla, Smith.Subs: Ingram, Washington, Goss, Mackie, Wszolek, Manning, Morrison. Rotherham: Price; Vaulks, Ajayi, Belaid, Purrington; Taylor, Adeyemi, Frecklington, Newell, Ward, Yates.Subs: Bilboe, Warren, Smallwood, Forde, Bray, Morris, Blackstock. Ads by Revcontent Trending Articles Urologists: Men, Forget the Blue Pill! This “Destroys” ED x ‘Genius Pill’ Used By Rich Americans Now Available In Netherlands! x What She Did to Lose Weight Stuns Doctors: Do This Daily Before Bed! x Men, You Don’t Need the Blue Pill if You Do This x One Cup of This (Before Bed) Burns Belly Fat Like Crazy! x Drink This Before Bed, Watch Your Body Fat Melt Like Crazy x Follow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebook
Science goes through a chain of messengers from data to consumer. In between are fallible scientists, who speak often in incomprehensible jargon and often only partially understand what they observe, but often wish to gain notoriety with a major discovery (or need to publish or perish). Next, the institutional press offices decide what is significant and try to digest the jargon to layman level. The predigested stories are then delivered to science reporters, who sometimes sensationalize the filtered stories to make a name for themselves. Finally, the media outlets, prone to peer biases, dress up the products to grab the eyes of readers of their newspapers, magazines, or web pages. How much of the real scientific data remains at the end of this game of Telephone? Sometimes the bias is clearly evident, but often the product is delivered with all the presumptive authority of science. Once in awhile, a reporter comes clean about the dirty work involved. First, a lesson from history. “This year is Galton year –a celebration of Francis Galton, a genius – but a flawed genius,” Steve Jones wrote for the BBC News. Galton’s accomplishments, such as weathermaps and fingerprinting for detective work, have been overshadowed by his darker side as the father of eugenics, popular in its heydey, but viewed today with the perspective of history as a disastrous social quest to purify the race of the unfit. Galton also created an “ugly map” of Britain to help men avoid bad genes. He left an enormous sum of money at his death for the Laboratory of National Eugenics at University College London – later abandoned by the University, though it retains a Galton professorship. Francis Galton had good press in his time; today, his reputation is clouded. It’s a lesson that the tides of history can change the prestige of a scientist and his ideas. Speaking of prestige, there’s a fringe group of scientists who deserve more, according to William Laurance writing in New Scientist. These are the cryptobiologists: searchers for extinct or weird animals. “Yes, they chase bizarre creatures and flit around the fringes of conventional science,” he said, “but we ought to appreciate their adventurous spirit rather than be disdainful.” The prestige comes if and when they find something. There have been successes: the “coelacanth, mountain pygmy possum, venomous Cuban solenodon and giant terror skink” among them. One can imagine any given reporter giving a cryptobiologist good or bad press, depending on his or her bias. Among those getting the worst press in science media these days are the creationists. No attempt at covering bias was shown by an entry on PhysOrg, “Creationism creeps into mainstream geology.” The headline might have pointed out that a leading creationist with a legitimate PhD in paleontology led a successful field trip in Colorado at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, but instead, used a creepy verb and the ideological suffix -ism, while rarely applying the suffix to evolutionism. The article was filled with allusions to conspiracy and unscrupulous motives: “crafty” new “strategy” to pretend acceptance among “mainstream” scientists. As history shows, tides can turn, as well they might, if Darwinians continue to swim upstream against public opinion armed with nothing but leaking waterwings of just-so stories. In the climate of controversy surrounding intelligent design, presidential candidates need to guard their language carefully, as David Klinghoffer and Jay Richards advised in American Spectator. Controversial subjects are good places to watch for science bias. New Scientist wrote about “abuse, threats and hysteria” between scientists, politicians and the public in Australia over the issue of “climate science.” Not being quite as politically lopsided and ideology prone as creation vs. evolution, climate science has provided a bonanza for sociologists, philosophers and lay observers to watch humans behaving badly when it comes to claims of scientific authority. Hannah Nordhaus is one science reporter who has spilled the beans about reporter bias. Writing for Breakthrough Journal, she described how prepared she was to tar-and-feather big business for the collapse of honeybee colonies. Ready to take up Rachel Carson’s banner with the environmentalists, she was hindered from publishing by personal circumstances, but watched other colleagues go at it. Then she researched the story and found that, like most things in science, the subject is far more complex and nuanced than that. She even found reporters using a fraudulent quote by Einstein, failing to research adequately, and committing other egregious journalistic sins, excused because it was perceived to be a noble cause. She saw similar excursions into journalistic license with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Ending with a sermon for her colleagues, she wrote, “By engaging in simplistic and sometimes misleading environmental narratives — by exaggerating the stakes and brushing over the inconvenient facts that stand in the way of foregone conclusions — we do our field, and our subjects, a disservice.” Exercise: Compare and contrast the Breakthrough Journal take on the oil spill with that of National Geographic, which alleged faulty science on the part of the BP oil company and other experts. What facts were included or ignored to give the desired slant? What questions were asked or not asked? Creation-Evolution Headlines does not deny having a bias, because everybody does. What we do is provide a service – even to those who disagree. As Darwin himself said, “A fair result can only be obtained by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” That cannot happen with a press unified on one side of a given controversial issue. Since the mainstream media are almost without exception Darwin toadies, you owe it to yourself, even if a staunch evolutionist, to hear both sides. You will find facts here that are ignored by the press, and learn to assess the relevance of facts used in arguments. You will learn to ask questions the pro-Darwin side never thinks about. You will watch our Baloney Detector applied to Darwinist arguments, and learn to practice using your own B.D. on ours. That’s fine; far be it from CEH to push easy-believism on either side. Facts, history, and philosophy are far more interesting and detailed than simplistic presentations often portray. Even if you remain an evolutionist, hopefully by reading CEH regularly, you will learn how to avoid winning our award for Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week.(Visited 49 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
More evidence that institutional scientists, journal editors and reporters live in an echo chamber that betrays their ideals of unbiased knowledge generation.There have been so many articles displaying worldview bias in Big Science that we couldn’t cover it all in our 12/23/16 article, “Big Science Blind to Its Bias.” Let’s turn to politics. Shouldn’t scientists be neutral when it comes to political parties and candidates? The evidence shows that scientific institutions are essentially a cheering section for the Democrats – so much so, that they don’t even need to explain why. It’s merely assumed that president-elect Donald Trump is evil and Republicans are a hate group. For a group of people assumed to respect evidence and logic, this attitude is highly unscientific and illogical – especially for Darwinians.To see why, consider Science Daily‘s article, “Hard-wired: The brain’s circuitry for political belief.” If the claims of psychologist Jonas Kaplan from USC in this article are to be believed, scientists simply follow the political beliefs in their social circles, which are hard-wired into them. It’s all just a matter of brain networks and neuronal responses going on in their amygdalas. If Darwinians accept the physicalist, irrational basis for their political beliefs, how can they be impartial? They become like the mindless sheep they assume characterize Republicans. Their own beliefs are equally unscientific and illogical. His Yoda Complex in high gear, Kaplan never turns his claim onto himself. If, as the article says, “The findings can apply to circumstances outside of politics, including how people respond to fake news stories,” he has no way to distinguish his theory from fake news. His own brain must be a victim of its peer group. On what basis could he claim otherwise?Anti-TrumpismBig Science’s knee-jerk hatred of Donald Trump and the conservative movement he represents provides a case in point of irrational, illogical groupthink. No matter what side one takes on the election, this response should be disturbing. What you find in the journals is a choir singing in unison: Trump is bad, populism is bad, nationalism is bad, conservatism is bad, everyone who voted for Trump is a stupid hater, and we should do everything to stop him, because his followers are ruining the climate and don’t like globalism. Is that what “science” should be saying?Researchers baffled by nationalist surge (Jeff Tollefson in Nature). In his opinion piece, Tollefson sounds like Clinton on the campaign trail, labeling Trump with xenophobia and other deplorable things, even playing the Nazi card. He witnesses the Trump phenomenon, the rise of Marine Le Pen in France, Brexit and other movements as an outsider. He doesn’t get it, nor do his friends; “researchers [i.e., his fellow leftists in Big Science] are struggling to understand why these disparate forces have combined to drive an unpredictable brand of populist politics.” A photo caption reads, “Donald Trump’s US election win stuns scientists.” Question: what does this reveal about their scientific credibility? They didn’t see any of this coming. They are out of touch with the feelings of hundreds of millions of people. Some scientists!Science advocacy: get involved (Chris Woolston in Nature). While this article doesn’t address Trump’s win specifically, Woolston interviews three science insiders telling their peers to become politically involved. Some of their “scientific” positions have merit (fighting pollution from microplastics), but the other leftist positions are merely assumed: fighting climate change, increasing funding to Big Science, etc. As shown in Part 1, these scientists are blind to their elitism. They don’t have a mind to listen and learn. Education must all go one way, from “scientists” to “people.” (Scientists aren’t people per se; they are Yoda clones on pedestals, dishing out wisdom from on high.)Simply studying populism is no longer enough (Matthijs Rooduijn in Nature). While Trump supporters rejoice in hope for economic vitality and a new birth of freedom, Nature lets this sociologist write about the “darkening political mood” his election brings. While Rooduijn allows some good in populism, his dark rhetoric sees evil coming in “nativism” and “right-wing politicians” that threaten liberalism, to the point he consciously abandons his impartiality. “So I have changed my mind and my approach,” he says. “I will remain as neutral as possible in my academic work, but I increasingly feel obliged to take part in the public debate about this topic, and to warn in the media of the increasing tension between populism and liberal democracy.” What disturbs him the most? The idea that countries should protect themselves from invasions by terrorists.Glee to gloom: Climate and the ‘Trump effect’ (Phys.org). The science media are all in for Obama, and all out to attack Donald Trump, this short article illustrates. Trump is bad simply because he dares to question global warming and might threaten to not go along with the globalist, internationalist, warmist conspirators at the Paris Accords. No debate here; the science is settled, according to the elitist insiders. Disputers are evil by definition. One whiner says, “Even if Trump doesn’t do a complete about face on climate, ‘we are likely to see a slowing down of progress compared to what would have happened if Clinton had been elected,’ said [Michael] Oppenheimer [Princeton].” Needless to say, “progress” is a loaded word.How Woody Guthrie can help us fight for science (Jacqueline M. Vadjunec in Nature). The bizarre headline reveals something of Vadjunec’s hippy roots. Notice the presumptive political elitism in the subheading: “After the election of Donald Trump, Jacqueline M. Vadjunec offers a message of resistance and hope from deep within the US Bible Belt.” Resistance? Yes, against the Trump voters. Hope? Yes, of winning the backwoods sheeple in Oklahoma over to leftism. “If Woody could use his voice to speak up, so can scientists,” she says. She is on a resistance campaign, fighting the “mood of anti-science” she feels in the Trump camp. It’s wonderful that Vadjunec wants to be nice in her indoctrination tactics. “We also need to accept different ways of knowing or even talking about climate change: ways that open doors to start a conversation; ways that are more context specific, culturally sensitive and nuanced than science in general might be comfortable with.” (Most scientists, this indicates, think they should be more pugnacious.)Donald Trump’s choice for head of the US environment agency is dismaying (Editorial in Nature). Any bipartisanship here? Any desire to reach out and cooperate with the new Trump administration and his cabinet pick Scott Pruitt? Any accommodation to readers who may not be leftist, globalist warmist alarmists? None. “The bad news just keeps on coming,” the editors say. They can count on their pessimism because they merely assume there aren’t any Republicans or conservatives among their readers. Trump represents their “worst fears” coming true: “at this stage it is getting harder to give Donald Trump the benefit of what little doubt remains about the kind of US president he will be.” It may well be that “Pruitt has demonstrated a wilful disregard for science, and has repeatedly put the interests of fossil-fuel companies ahead of those of his own constituents.” We don’t know. CEH doesn’t take a position on Pruitt. But what is clearly evident is Nature‘s flagrant political bias – its emotional outburst against Trump and his cabinet, coupled with a complete absence of any criticism of what the Democrats have done to America for eight years.Does it matter if Donald Trump has a science adviser? (Alexandra Witze in Nature). This article illustrates how Big Science acts like a special interest group with a leftist bent. Witze praises Democrat presidents who picked science advisers, but criticizes Republican presidents who were slow to pick them. She’s worried about funding. She criticizes President Bush who put a damper on funding for embryonic stem cell research, failing to mention anything about the ethical controversies involved.Is Donald Trump pushing more scientists towards political activism? (Emma Maris in Nature). Theme of this article: scientists are so “distraught” with Trump’s win, they are forging their scientific plowshores into swords to enjoin the fight against the conservatives. They call this the “Trump Effect.” To her credit, Marris gives one paragraph to someone who “thinks that researchers should offer to help Trump for the sake of society.” But then she quickly turns back to praising the ones fighting him.US earth scientists plan for uncertain future under Trump (Jeff Tollefson and Alexandra Witze in Nature). Do you get the picture that Big Science identifies as Democrat? That they are unified against Trump, Republicans and conservatives? That man-caused global warming is a given? Read this if unconvinced. Tollefson and Witze use bellicose rhetoric, seeing “science” doing battle with the new administration. “It feels like a war on science, and on climate science in particular,” says Alan Robock, a climatologist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. “That’s very upsetting.” Maybe Tollefson and Witze will attempt some semblance of balance further down in the text. Nope. Considering who Trump will pick to run NASA, NOAA and the USGS, they say:“Those are places to insert a progressive agenda into an otherwise kind of ugly and cloudy landscape,” says Daniel Kammen, an energy researcher at the University of California, Berkeley.McNutt advises scientists to stay clear-eyed as they confront whatever challenges the Trump administration brings. “I see so many people in this country freaked out,” she says. “That is exactly what those who want to disrupt science are hoping to achieve.”Is it science’s job to “insert a progressive agenda” anywhere? Any mention of hundreds of millions of voters who turned away from the Clinton-Obama-Paris progressives? No; just the minority who were “freaked out” when Trump won. The New York Times posted a map of “change from 2012”, showing all the states that turned red (Republican) away from blue (Democrat). A larger mass movement could hardly be found. Some analysts noticed that all of Clinton’s popular vote majority came from one state: California. Big Science and its Big Media reporters, identifying with leftist liberal Clinton supporters, position themselves in opposition to a lot of people. That doesn’t make them wrong. It does, however, make them overtly partisan, contrary to the ideals of science. They are so partisan, they don’t even make any attempt to identify or seek the views of conservatives. How can that be scientific?Big Media’s Dirty HandsThese articles show Big Science Media running what amounts to campaign ads for Clinton.Pro-Trump bot activity ‘colonised’ pro-Clinton Twitter campaign: study (Phys.org). Well, if it’s a “study,” it must be true. This article pretends to find evidence that Trump rigged the election using automated Twitter accounts. The “study” was conducted in the halls of Big Science. Any word about the overt election fraud strategies of paid Democrat operatives revealed in undercover videos from Project Veritas? Crickets. Any mention that the recounts gave Trump more votes, or that Clinton lost more delegates to rogue electors in the Electoral College than Trump did? More crickets. The article seems geared to cast doubts on the legitimacy of the Trump campaign.Seizing environmental opportunities under a Trump presidency (Phys.org). This article takes the “glass half full” view, saying that it is “not all doom and gloom for the environmental community” after Trump’s “shock win” for president. How to seize the opportunity? Whatever you do, don’t help Trump! Instead, “forge ahead with implementing the climate treaty signed in Paris, irrespective of the US position.” It’s almost a call for civil disobedience. Question: why does the reporter think its readers will automatically view this as a good strategy?Congressional Tweet About ‘Disgraceful’ Article Ignores Science (Laura Geggel at Live Science). Geggel places all her bets on “climate scientists” who tell her not to trust anything coming from Congressional Republicans or her “far right” rival, Breitbart News. Her hero is Michael Mann, a climate activist. Her trusted advisers are Democrats. Don’t expect scientific objectivity in this hit piece. It would be nice if she made her political affiliations overt, but she presents herself as a neutral science reporter. Geggel’s article ends, “Live Science reached out to the committee for a comment on scientists’ criticism of the tweet, but did not hear back by press time.” Rather than delay press time till she got an answer, she printed it anyway. Hardly scientific.ACA repeal could cost California more than 200,000 jobs (Phys.org). It’s no secret that Trump and conservatives want to “repeal and replace Obamacare” which passed in 2009 without a single Republican vote, and with Obama personally making empty promises to the last Democrat holdouts in order to get their support. In order to salvage Obama’s legacy, articles like this scare readers into worrying about what might happen if Republicans get their way. This “study” comes out of UC Berkeley. It wouldn’t be so partisan if it presented both sides. But unscientifically, it mentions nothing about the millions of jobs lost because of Obamacare, when employers laid people off or reduced their work to part time to avoid the stiff costs of the ACA. Republicans point to Obamacare as one of the biggest job-killers in the country. You won’t hear that in this Phys.org piece.Take any Republican hot-button issue: abortion, free markets, religious liberty, whatever – and you will find Big Science and Big Media fighting it. They want unlimited money for unlimited research on embryonic stem cells, three-parent babies, aborted baby body parts – the whole works (see Science Magazine‘s tidbit about limitations on fetal tissue research from Planned Parenthood as one of the “Breakdowns of the Year”). Their positions mirror those of the Democrat party platform. They are all for imposing global restrictions on individual countries’ energy policies. They support things that have nothing to do with science, and even violate common sense, like open borders that invite terrorists and transgender rights that let men walk into women’s showers with videocams. They use Democrat/progressive buzzphrases with reckless abandon: marriage equality, denialist, reproductive health.Big Science and their lapdogs in Big Media have shamed themselves into becoming leftist/progressive arms of the Democrat party and the EU globalists. Fortunately, Big Science does not speak for individual scientists, a non-trivial minority of whom are conservative or Republican, but who dare not say so out loud in their peer group. If they had the freedom to speak out, science would benefit from the debate, and journalism would return to doing its job: reporting the news.Here at CEH, when we report on climate change, we analyze scientific papers that agree with human-caused global warming, not climate “skeptics” and “deniers.” We weigh their evidence. Live Science never takes seriously any critics of the Big Science consensus positions. Their writers serve the warmist alarmists as their press agents, showing little objectivity. The same is true for all the press departments of the ivory tower, whose job it is to make their leftist scientists look good. That material then feeds into the organs of dissemination of “science media,” like Phys.org, Science Daily and EurekAlert. It’s a big racket.The sources we cite above, from Nature on down to Phys.org, all operate within a leftist echo chamber. When talking about genes, molecular machines and birds and animals, much of what they say is good. But take any controversial topic with political overtones, and blue blood leaks out. We’re not against people taking positions, but Big Media and Big Science should admit their bias. For organizations whose ideals should reflect the public interest, and the taxpayer money that feeds science, they should at least try to make an attempt to be objective. Reporters should make an attempt to hold scientists’ feet to the fire and evaluate their claims critically. These self-serving, mutually reinforcing institutions do a great disservice to the public. To borrow a political phrase, it’s time to drain the swamp.Next, we will look at Big Science’s blindness to its philosophy of scientism and other self-refuting positions.(Visited 63 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
On the last Saturday night in March, millions of people around the world switch off their lights and electronic devices for an hour. Earth Hour is once again near, and people are being encouraged to take this step in joining the movement to put an end to climate change. Everyone can join Earth Hour by switching off their lights and electrical appliances. (Image: WWF South Africa) • Nigerian student builds solar car from scrap • Cape Town is the greenest city in Africa • Star power lights up UNAids’ Fast-Track Targets • Khi Solar One: renewable energy for the ages • One million solar lamps light up Africa Priya PitamberSouth Africans are no strangers to darkness. But while Eskom’s load shedding forces us to turn to candles, on the last Saturday of every March people are encouraged to switch off the lights willingly.More than 160 countries have thrown their weight behind Earth Hour, which is held each year on the last Saturday night in March. For South Africa, the hour runs from 8.30pm to 9.30pm on 28 March this year.Founded in 2007, the Earth Hour movement “encourages hundreds of millions of people to voluntarily turn off their lights for an hour as a synchronised global gesture of concern about the devastating consequences of climate change, which are already affecting each and every one of us”.This is the eighth consecutive year that South Africa is taking part in the initiative. All life is dependent on basics such as food, water, clean air and energy. But as temperatures rise around the globe and climate change takes hold, the Earth is less able to produce these life-giving elements.The frightening consequences of climate change have prompted the Earth Hour movement to encourage everyone to participate:Famous faces show supportCelebrities around the world have shown their support for Earth Hour. In South Africa, football player Phil Masinga and band Freshlyground, among others, have stood up for the movement on social media.Post by Freshlyground. Post by Soccer-Laduma.Unique challengeAlthough South Africa faces an energy crisis of its own, and the national electricity utility, Eskom, has implemented load shedding across the country, the WWF urges all people in the country to participate in Earth Hour“Regardless of whether or not Eskom has turned off our lights, we will be marking the symbolic hour of darkness to show our support for a new energy plan that not only seeks to solve our energy problems but also to make inroads into our climate crisis,” said Saliem Fakir of WWF South Africa.“The energy crisis in South Africa should not make us all raise our hands in total despair. Yes, we have to fix Eskom and ensure Eskom uses less coal in the future. Changing our energy profile away from coal dependence must be the biggest task before us.”In a call to action worth bearing in mind, US President Barack Obama noted at the UN Climate Summit in 2014: “We are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it.”Climate change poses a new challenge to humanity. (Image: WWF South Africa)
Venus Williams’ chances of adding a first French Open title to her collection of seven grand slams faded on Sunday after the 36-year-old was beaten 5-7, 6-2, 6-1 by Swiss Timea Bacsinszky in the French Open fourth round.It was the second year running that Williams, seeded 10th and competing in her 20th French Open, lost to the Swiss in the Roland Garros fourth round even though she fought back from 5-1 down to rattle off six straight games to win the first set.”She just played well. She just came out with great tennis a lot of the time. The risk was rewarded for her,” Williams said. “I feel I played well today but I did not quite figure out the solution in time.”Williams, whose sister Serena is not playing in the tournament as she is expecting her first child, ran out of steam in the last two sets.The 27-year-old Bacsinszky, who had wasted two set points in the first set, frustrated the American by playing a string of drop shots and won the next two sets with ease. The Swiss clinched the match with a delectable drop shot.”The first set I had a big lead but I started making catastrophic errors,” Bacsinszky said.”I then threw some cold water on my face and told myself not to finish the Sunday like that. So I came back and played a more versatile game.”Bacsinszky, the only woman to have reached the Roland Garros quarter-finals in 2015, 2016 and 2017, will face local favourite Kristina Mladenovic in the last eight after she eliminated defending champion Garbine Muguruza.advertisement
All draws, results, ladders and statistics can also be viewed at the TFA Sporting Pulse website which can be accessed using this link: TFA SPORTING PULSE WEBSITEThe 2006 Seniors National Touch League kicked off today with beautiful weather, only a handful of injuries and plenty of exciting games of Touch Football.We continue to be amazed by the ever-present skill of some of our elite senior players and amazed at the fitness, agility and commitment they all show.While there are plenty of braces and strapping to be found, each and every tournament the players are learning to manage their injuries and prevent future injuries, allowing them to continue to perform at an elite level.MENS 30’s: The Mens 30’s had a busy opening day at the 2006 NTL, with three matches each.. The Sydney Mets were the only team to make it to the end of day one with that perfect starting record still in tact.Their 9-5 win over the Cobras to start the day was the closest anyone got to them, while the Cobras, Scorpions and Suns are also looking promising.The Cobras narrowly defeated the Suns 3-2 but then stumbled to the Scorpions 9-3 looking as though three games in one day were just too many for them.With three tough opening games though, the Cobras and also the Suns will look to challenge on day two.After a 5-2 opening loss to the Southern Suns, the Scorpions recovered to post wins over the Rustlers and Cobras and will also look to challenge their cross town rival, the Mets, on day two of the Mens 30’s NTL.WOMENS 30’s: Pre-tournament favourites, the Sydney Scorpions, managed three wins from their first three matches, however their 3-2 win over the Hornets was proof to the remaining teams that there is no doubt they can be beaten.The Southern Suns are also looking strong, their 11-1 win over the Barbarians and 6-1 win over the Cobras were very impressive.While the Sydney Mets lost to the Scorpions 6-2 in their first match of the tournament, they recovered to post two wins and climb up the day one ladder to third.MENS 35’s: After two rounds in the Mens 35’s only two teams remain undefeated, the Sydney Mets and the South Queensland Sharks. With the Mets becoming stronger in the senior Mens divisions each year and the Sharks being lead by players the caliber of Scott Notley, then the competition in the Mens 35’s will no doubt reach boiling point come finals time.The Rustlers and Scorpions are also undefeated, having played only one game each and having their bye on day one.The Northern Eagles struggled on day one, facing the might of the Sharks 13-0 and the Mets 11-1. WOMENS 35’s: The Womens 35’s looks to be the closest division at the 2006 NTL, with all 5 sides proving they will be fighting for the two grand final positions.The Hornets and Sharks are leading the way with the two sides fighting out a 3-2 win to the Hornets mid way through the day.However, the Eagles and Suns have both shown they have the potential to win and any of the five teams could be there come grand final day. MENS 40’s: The Mens 40’s is a tough division, with one pool of ten meaning a lot of competition for the teams. After two games each on day one only the Sydney Scorpions, Southern Suns and Northern Eagles remain undefeated.The defending champions, the Scorpions, inflicted a 12-0 win over the Rustlers, while several other matches produced some very close results.The Sharks held off the Defence side 4-3 and then lost 5-4 to the Southern Suns, while the Defence side recovered to beat the Barbarians 6-5.For the Barbarians it was an unlucky start to the tournament, their 6-5 loss to the Suns followed a 6-5 loss to the Cyclones…a case of so close, yet so far.WOMENS 40’s: After two rounds in the Womens 40’s it is the Cobras who sit undefeated at the top of the ladder. They won 5-2 over the Eagles and 6-2 over the Rustlers.However the Suns and Scorpions are hot on their tail, both winning their first match before drawing 6-6 in an exciting encounter to close their day one action.MENS 45’s: Well, you couldn’t have any clearer distinction than the Mens 45’s. There are 4 teams (the Mets, Cobras, Eagles and Suns) with two wins each and 4 teams (ACT, Cyclones, Rustlers and Sharks) with two losses each from day one.All of the top four teams were equally impressive and day two will certainly be interesting as the leading teams begin to face each other, while the lower teams get some respite against the other struggling teams.MENS 50’s: In the Mens 50’s it is the Hunter Western Hornets aiming for their fourth straight title and after a bye in round one they kicked off their tournament with a 7-3 win over the Southern Suns. The Brisbane City Cobras are sitting on top of the day one ladder with two wins, although the competition will heat up tomorrow when they play the Mets and the Suns. Amazingly both of their day one wins were tight ones, 2-1 over the Scorpions and Rustlers. Keep an eye on the TFA website for all the news from Coffs Harbour!
About the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say Brighton striker Murray: Potter system a huge learning curveby Paul Vegas24 days agoSend to a friendShare the loveBrighton striker Glenn Murray says the players are still adjusting to manager Graham Potter’s methods.He says there is still work to do to hone a playing style preferred by Potter.Murray told The Argus: “It is all a huge learning curve.“We have come so far in the three months the gaffer has been with us and we are going to have afternoons like this (the 2-0 defeat at Chelsea). But we will keep doing it our way and hopefully we have more successful afternoons than not.“It’s full focus on Tottenham. Looking towards picking some points up and then another international break, which is more time to learn the philosophy and get it right.“It is a constant learning curve. Obviously, opponents we come up against are different every week and there are different ways of trying to break them down and get possession of the ball and control the game.”
With two outs in the fourth inning and a runner on first base, John Kuchno toed the rubber on the mound Wednesday at Bill Davis Stadium. Kuchno quickly stepped off the rubber, fired the ball to first and picked off Oklahoma State’s Devin Shines to end the inning, capping off his best start of the season. This was not a situation Kuchno imagined he would be in two years ago. Back then, he was playing his first year of high school baseball as a senior for St. Paul’s in Maryland. The next year he attended Wake Forest. Kuchno was a 6-foot pitcher who planned to walk on to the baseball team, but he failed to earn a spot. The Ellicott City native grew four inches in his first year at Wake Forest, and his luck began to turn last summer. His new height helped him add speed to his fastball, which is about 92 mph now, and he played well in a showcase event in Indianapolis, attended by new Ohio State pitching coach Mike Stafford. Kuchno said he got the call from Stafford while in a hotel room with his best friend. “He pulled up the Ohio State website, and there’s a picture of Nick Swisher on it, and I was like, ‘Nick Swisher did not go there,’ like, this is not happening,” Kuchno said. “It was a great moment, and I’ll hold it for my life.” Now, as a full-time Division I pitcher, Kuchno is coming off his best start of the season. He held the No. 19 Oklahoma State Cowboys — who hold a team batting average of .302 — to one run in five innings. “Wednesday you saw a step in the right direction,” Stafford said. “He has come a long way. Last year, he was just a student without playing baseball at Wake Forest, and now he is in a Buckeye uniform, pitching quality innings for us in midweek games.” Coach Greg Beals said that outing was exactly what he was looking for. “That’s the potential we saw in John, and hopefully he can build on that,” he said. “He could have a bright future ahead of him if he keeps pitching like that.” Kuchno has has his struggles this season and with that outing he reduced his ERA by almost a point, moving it to 6.68 from 7.62. He said he worked on his mechanics late the night before his start against the Cowboys and that Stafford suggested he adjust parts of his delivery. “Me and my teammate Jacob Hayes came up and just (kept) working on mechanics,” Kuchno said. “I changed something. Coach Stafford had the idea, and my delivery went over the head from the wind up and just moved my hands down in the stretch.” Stafford said Kuchno’s ability to keep his pitches low in the strike zone was the reason he succeeded. “I give all the credit to Greg Solomon,” Kuchno said. “He tells me to work below his shoulders all the time in warm-up pitches, and that’s really helped me out a lot recently.” As of now, the Buckeyes would be the fourth seed in the Big Ten Tournament. Beals said Kuchno would be more likely to get a start if the Buckeyes fell into the losers’ bracket. The way the tournament is set up, a team would have to win four to five games to make it to the end. “John, with that outing today, starting to show something, may be that fourth-game starter in the tournament,” Beals said. “That will be a big game when we get there too.” Stafford said Kuchno likely will be the starter in today’s matchup against Toledo in the Buckeyes’ last home game of the season. This year, Kuchno has appeared in 10 games, starting in seven, and holds a 1-4 record with 31 innings pitched. “I kind of imagined it, but it was more of my friends who were always telling me: ‘You can do it. You’re going to be good someday,’” Kuchno said. “It’s just a great opportunity to be here, and I’m really blessed to have it.”
Junior forward Ryan Dzingel (18) attempts to get open during a game against Michigan State Jan. 11 at the Schottenstein Center. The teams tied, 1-1.Credit: Kelly Roderick / For The LanternA week after going on the road to face the No. 1 team in the nation, the Ohio State men’s hockey team is traveling again, this time to Madison, Wis., to face No. 9-ranked Wisconsin.The Buckeyes (11-8-1, 1-4-1) fell in both games against top-ranked Minnesota last weekend, while the Badgers (13-6-1, 4-2-0-0), are coming off two wins against No. 14 Michigan Jan. 10 and 11.Freshman goalie Matt Tomkins, who made 26 saves in Friday night’s loss, said the way the Buckeyes competed against a team like Minnesota demonstrates just how small the gap between success and failure is in the Big Ten.“It shows how close the league is as a whole, and how close we are to being one of the top teams in the nation,” Tomkins said. “We just need to focus on the little things to put us that much higher up in the standings.”Like his teammate Tomkins, sophomore forward Anthony Greco said the key thing the Buckeyes must do in order to overcome the Badgers this weekend is look within themselves.“Our focus is really on us, and what we need to do better,” Greco said. “We’ve got to play as best we can and hopefully get two wins out of it.”The Badgers — much like the Gophers — are an elite team. They enter this weekend having lost only once at home in 14 games and averaging 3.55 goals per game, tied with the Buckeyes for second in the Big Ten.The two games against the Badgers this weekend will hold some added significance for OSU head coach and Wisconsin alumnus Steve Rohlik as he returns to the school where he won a national championship as a player. But despite Madison being “a special place” for him, Rohlik said his only focus is preparing his team to play a Badgers squad that has multiple strengths.“They’re as well coached as any team in college hockey. They stick to their systems and they’re very disciplined,” Rohlik said. “You’ve got to earn every inch on the ice against these guys.”After the disappointment of last weekend, Tomkins said getting positive results in Wisconsin would be “huge” for the Buckeyes, but he knows they’ll have to pass a demanding test to achieve that goal.“We’re expecting a hard-nosed, skilled, and fast team,” Tomkins said. “They’re ranked pretty highly for a reason, so we’ve got to come ready to play.”Puck drop for this weekend is set for 9 p.m. Friday and 8 p.m. Saturday.
David Silva has admitted that this will likely be his final World Cup ahead of making his 122nd appearance for Spain against Iran on WednesdayThe Manchester City playmaker has represented Spain at international level since his debut in the 1–0 friendly home defeat to Romania in November 2006 and has continued to rank in the number of games after having contributed effectively over the past 11 years.Silva was a member of Spain’s “Golden Generation” that saw the likes of David Villa, Andres Iniesta and Xavi Hernandez spectacularly win three successive major tournaments between 2008 and 2012.Heading into his third World Cup appearance, the 32-year-old admits that time is running out for him now and doubts that he will feature for his country at football’s biggest stage again.“Do you see me in another World Cup? I’m enjoying playing football with the team at this moment but I don’t believe I’ll play at another World Cup,” he told Marca.Quiz: How much do you know about David Villa? Boro Tanchev – September 14, 2019 Time to test your knowledge about Spanish legendary forward David Villa.Despite his age, Silva played a key role in Spain’s qualification campaign for the World Cup by scoring nine times in 12 matches under the now-departed Julen Lopetegui.And the former Valencia star feels that he is a much better all-around player nowadays due to the experience he has gained over the years.“I think I’m a better footballer now for all of my experience. You gain know-how from playing matches because every moment of a football match has its own rhythm. Knowing how to handle that is crucial, the more you play then the better you read games. I prefer the David Silva of 2018 because he’s experienced a lot of top-level football. The peace of mind that this brings is fundamental to success and I’ve played more than 120 matches with the national team.”Spain ended their first game of the World Cup with a 3-3 draw against Portugal last Friday.