T9 - three two four five

A friend once made a joke about one particular group of middle-eastern appearance who were cat-calling, name-calling and at one time resisting arrest from police (though I also regard police as the lowest level of decency but props for being the highest form of corruption in the public service).

This was comparing their support for each another’s actions to assuring their sucking each other off was okay because it was Halal. Hey its okay, they revealed that it was okay to harass others in the public streets. To ensure that it is okay by a trusted individual or a role model was to have a guarantor for pubescent attitudes on who had the bigger balls to do something more stupid.

They look at each other for approval, high-fiving each other with no thought on the consequences of their actions. What do I think? Is that all you really have? If it isn’t handing out names for passers-by then its the grinding of the fight showing how much of a man you are to your mates. But don’t worry, your mates will come by your side as you beat up on a kid half your size. Is that your strategy?

Hey its ok, it only happens in the area, but like stupidity and idiocy, it is infectious, like the shiny bald head of Howard that was for years the Australian icon or the trademark stupidity of Bush that has brushed all “Americans”. This blog entry will question:

Revealing your side’s strategy before the game has begun

IN WAR

The aim is to attack the enemy with stealth, yet there are constant reports on army movements that alert the enemy. It is meant to be a sort of game strategy in which you provide as little information to your enemy/opponent as possible.

I understand that there is a form of signaling which is often provided to the opponent but in doing so, you also offer the history of providing a signal and providing history for acting upon that signal. Doesn’t this create the predicament of becoming predictable and thus thwarted in the heat of war strategy?

IN SPORT

Often a coach or marquee player will answer reporter’s questions on how the team will play the game and which players they will target. Again similar to war, the field is the battlefield. Often game players will deviate from the set plans of the team and create their own objective based on their strengths. Hey sometimes it may work but if their opponents are ready for this type of play, well they will demolish this play and take advantage of the prior knowledge gained from the press conference.

Also, from these small information pools given at press conferences on the style of play that the team may be playing, their opponents having studied this team well, will counter with the possible strategies that are still left for this team. Or, based on the capacity and capability of this team, form possible strategies that this team can have.

So what are the positives and negatives of giving information to your opponent/s?