Today was the big grand-final match of indoor soccer. This being my first final series, and thus also my first final of playing indoor, i was particularly psyched about this match.
Before the match, i didn't really fancy our chances. We were playing Cardno, the team that beat us 9-1 in the normal season, and quite comprehensively beat nearly every other team by a wide margin. We were truly the underdogs.
There was a little pre-match drama, as a few of the Cardno players weren't qualified to play in the final. Apparently, you have to play at least 5 games for the team over the season in order to be able to play in the final. I think that they only had 5 eligible players, but I think the centre 'umpire' allowed them one more in order to have a sub.
We started the game brilliantly, getting the first goal. They equalised pretty quickly, and then took the lead, before we equalised to end the half at 2-2. It was a particularly rough encounter, with the opposing team using their brawns a little more than their brains at times (to put it lightly).
I was fouled quite seriously twice in the first half: firstly copping a missed timed jab to the lower regions, and then getting absolutely hammered trying to round their big enforcer. Both times i ended up on my back, the latter quite winded.
The game was tense and was poised on a knife-edge for anyone to take. Most of the second half went by without any more goals scored, both teams having quite good chances. We had more chances than they did, and should really have been ahead, but I guess a combination of bad finishing by both sides, as well as both goalkeepers playing really really well, kept the score goal-less.
We finally made the break-through with about 8 or so minutes to go. I chased a ball that was heading away from the goal toward the right, dragging the last defender with me, and with me facing the right net, i had a quick look and saw Elliot in some space, and very cheekily back-healed the ball across net to him, to which he quickly dispatched into the goal. 3-2 to us.
We scored two more goals pretty quickly, me setting up one of them, and then controlled the game till the final whistle. Rolando did give away a goal in the last second, practically giving the ball to an opposing player right before the final siren, and we ended up winning the game 5-3.
I was really happy with my performance today. Compared to the less than average displays of late, I really got in there and chased players down, defending well and pouncing on balls when I got it. Overall everyone on the team played great, especially Rolando in goals in the second half saving more than a fair share of quality attempts by the other team that kept us in it, and Elliot grabbing the vital goals that pulled us clear.
As a trophy, we all got large beer mugs with 'Premiers' on it.
After the match, went to Church to attend the Vespers of Forgiveness. It was quite a good ceremony marking the entry of the Church into Lent. All the lights in the Church are turned off for a good amount of time during the service. Afterwards there was a supper in the Respite Centre with an ample amount of food.
By the way, we are looking to change our team name for next season, so any suggestions would be welcome (post them as a comment if you like!).
18 thoughts on “We are the Champions!”
Andrew has suggested to me tonight the name: 'The Burninators'.
I quitle like that one. Or maybe: 'The Trogdors'
heh...something along the lines of this, perhaps?
ump: 'cardno, d.beckham hasn't played 5 games for your club, he can't play'
cardno: *mumbling and swearing*
Hey i did not 'give' the ball to them, i just didn't kick it very well.
and how about 'The Brothers Strong'
or 'The Homestarmy'
i like 'The Burninators' though.
If one and a half chickens can lay one and a half eggs in one and a half days, then how many eggs can nine chickens lay in nine days?
Looking at a portrait a dude says "Brothers and sisters I have none but this man's father is my father's son." Who is the portrait of?
Through using only one slash (of a pen) change "5 + 5 + 5 = 550" into a true statement. note you may not change the equals sign.
Find two integers, both less than 10, whose produc is 43.
and now for the one I need help with:
A cow is tied to the side of a circular silo by a ten-meter rope. The silo itself has a ten meter radius. How much grass can the cow eat?
I'm going to make an idiot of myself, because I'm always really stupid with things like this.
How can you have half a chicken, or half an egg? But if so, the answer is 9.
He's looking at a portrait of himself.
IS that possible.
And the one you couldn't get, i don't like maths.
it is not a pic of himself, it is of one of his offspring.
chickens: a half a chicken can't lay an egg, so one chicken must be able to lay a normal-sized egg and a half-sized egg
portrait: Lucas is right, he is looking at a pic of himself.
slash of a pen - maths sucks...but has it anything to do with either the '!5' thing or with the 5 to the power of 5 thing?
integers: no idea (assuming that integer means whole number).
cow: Lucas is right again, maths (still) sucks.
get me politics, philosophy or theology and i'll have a real shot. until then...
it is not possible for it to be of himself.
break the statement down:
'brothers and sisters i have none...', so he's an only child.
'...my fathers son.', is himself.
'...this mans father...', ie. the man in the portrait
so the father of the man in the portrait is himself. yes?
therefore it cant be a pic of himself but of HIS son.
all correct but the conclusion. oh, and the syntax of the premises.
no brothers and sisters.
this chap in the portrait's father has a son, but the chap has no siblings. hence, 'my father's son', through lack of any other alternative, can only be self-referential.
Actually Rolando's right, the guy in the picture is the person's (the one who is looking at the picture) son.
no brothers and sisters doesn't mean no offspring.
it's not. in the generational matrix, he goes up, then down.
how can it be about _his children_ when he says '_my fathers son_'?? (emph. mine).
for it to be about his children, he would have to say 'this man is my son'.
for it to be about his grandchildren, he would have to say 'this man's father is my son.'
but the fact that he says 'this man's father is my father's son' means that the comment is entirely self-referential.
[fyi, it's a known joke, with an equally known conclusion.]
if he said "this man is my son" that would make it redundant to tell the riddle, because you give away the ending. the way that he says it makes you think, instead of giving it away. it does not make it entirely self-referential.
it is a known 'joke', but the conclusion is incorrect.
okay okay Andrew is clearly taking it the wrong way. Let me put my view step by step.
Let The Man looking at the portrait be 'Man A'. Let the Man in the portrait be 'Man B'.
***The question asks who is the man in the portrait.***
We all know that Man A has no siblings.
Man A says: that Man B's father is Man A's father's son. Because Man A's father has only one child, then 'Man A's father's son' is himself (Man A).
Therefore simplifying the above statement: Man A says that Man B's father is Man A.
Therefore the Man in the portrait (Man B) must be the son of the Man looking at the potrait (Man A).
that's exactly my point.
*hack* *fails* dagnabbit.
i'm putting you all on *block* >:( (:P)
btw, related link with most possible derivatives: http://www.geocities.com/oosterwal/puzzle/dadsonq.htm
related link where they bash out the riddle: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/132085
What's this???? Andrew conceding an argument??? :O!
Take a screenshot of this page everyone, because this is truly a rare event! lol
at this point, i'd like to point out the reason that it's such a big event when i concede an argument.
i'm usually right.
on a slightly different topic, i note with some degree of mirth that this is the most commented post - whooping the proverbials off the da vinci code by (with this one) four posts! this should make the anti-d.v.code people happy 😀