Silva

[Rag_hater]

Rag Hater,
You do love your creative writing...:-)
I never told you anything about Howard Webb...never even mentioned him. Nor did i mention Mr Clittenburg. In fact neither the De Jong incisent nor the Rooney incident were mentioned by me...and neither did I express any views on any part of anything that you accuse me of telling you. You just made that lot up out of your own head mate.
You are right, people in the stands miss quite a lot, I missed a fair bit the other night when I went for a piss and then got a burger, but guess what...I never said they didn't in the 1st place.
Finally, we make some headway. You freely admit that stats are not the complete picture (your words)...Thery are only a part of the picture....and my point was just that.
Ypou see, the parts of the picture that stats cannot fulfill, are those parts that I identified earlier. The parts where a plyer does something, usually, off the ball.
Now think on this my friend...In a 90 minute game, the average time a player has on the ball is around 2 mins. That is 2 mins when the stats can record his actions...How do stats record his actions during the other 88 mins? He would rarely be still, the runs he makes and the positions he takes up will undoubtedly have an effect on the game...but if your stats are unable to record it...and this applies to all 22 players, it makes the recorded stats only a very small (but important) part of the game.

I think if one spends time looking what a player did in the 88 minutes that he doesn't have the ball it can be found out.If people look at heat maps distance run by a plyer etc...it is possible to find out what a player does during a match.
And also as you have told me that our David e.g makes runs that are not so visible on the tv(I disagree-I think its a matter of amount of attention you give the coverage)a half decent commentator tells me that aswell.Thats what he is there for.Some of the things these people say may be of little relevance but what they say and how they illustrate the game is a factor in making the more complete picture.

Perhaps the players can all have cameras strapped to their heads in future.

The sooner they do the better.Only a matter of time .We won't be waiting to long methinks.

[Wonderwall]

I think if one spends time looking what a player did in the 88 minutes that he doesn't have the ball it can be found out.If people look at heat maps distance run by a plyer etc...it is possible to find out what a player does during a match.
And also as you have told me that our David e.g makes runs that are not so visible on the tv(I disagree-I think its a matter of amount of attention you give the coverage)a half decent commentator tells me that aswell.Thats what he is there for.Some of the things these people say may be of little relevance but what they say and how they illustrate the game is a factor in making the more complete picture.

RH, being at the game and watching on television is comparing apples with oranges. You get to see "what happened" (goals etc) from several angles and several times with TV coverage, but when you are there you can see everything that is going on off the ball and there is no way you can possibly compare watching on TV to being there from that perspective.

[Rag_hater]

I think if one spends time looking what a player did in the 88 minutes that he doesn't have the ball it can be found out.If people look at heat maps distance run by a plyer etc...it is possible to find out what a player does during a match.
And also as you have told me that our David e.g makes runs that are not so visible on the tv(I disagree-I think its a matter of amount of attention you give the coverage)a half decent commentator tells me that aswell.Thats what he is there for.Some of the things these people say may be of little relevance but what they say and how they illustrate the game is a factor in making the more complete picture.

RH, being at the game and watching on television is comparing apples with oranges. You get to see "what happened" (goals etc) from several angles and several times with TV coverage, but when you are there you can see everything that is going on off the ball and there is no way you can possibly compare watching on TV to being there from that perspective.

What's going on of the ball is decribed generally so that for me is not a convincer.It is also only a small part of the overall picture so is not IMO a major part of the things going on.Your right comparing being there and watching on TV do not equal each other at all.TV is much better.For me and what I want to see,TV ticks all the boxes.
If going to the match gives you a complete experience of the game then I am envious of you because whenever I go to a match it leaves me feeling I have missed quite a few things.I don't get the same feeling when I watch us on telly.

[glossopblue]

think the little fella is superb. what will he be like next season with a year under his belt?

[Original Dub]

The real football fan who relishes the whole analytical part of the game will go to every match possible and then watch it later on TV.

This is because there are things you will miss at the match AND also on TV.

The fact you don't care or acknowledge what you miss by just watching on TV says more about your ability to fully analyse the game than anything else.

Both are very important in order to grasp the entirety of the game. And you're right to be jealous that you are only an armchair fan. I am too.

[Rag_hater]

The real football fan who relishes the whole analytical part of the game will go to every match possible and then watch it later on TV.

This is because there are things you will miss at the match AND also on TV.

The fact you don't care or acknowledge what you miss by just watching on TV says more about your ability to fully analyse the game than anything else.

Both are very important in order to grasp the entirety of the game. And you're right to be jealous that you are only an armchair fan. I am too.

Your'e right.It pains me a little to say that.
However I think that the few things I miss by not being there is tolerable.
And if it was one or the other and there was no other option,I would choose TV.

[Wonderwall]

I think if one spends time looking what a player did in the 88 minutes that he doesn't have the ball it can be found out.If people look at heat maps distance run by a plyer etc...it is possible to find out what a player does during a match.
And also as you have told me that our David e.g makes runs that are not so visible on the tv(I disagree-I think its a matter of amount of attention you give the coverage)a half decent commentator tells me that aswell.Thats what he is there for.Some of the things these people say may be of little relevance but what they say and how they illustrate the game is a factor in making the more complete picture.

RH, being at the game and watching on television is comparing apples with oranges. You get to see "what happened" (goals etc) from several angles and several times with TV coverage, but when you are there you can see everything that is going on off the ball and there is no way you can possibly compare watching on TV to being there from that perspective.

What's going on of the ball is decribed generally so that for me is not a convincer.It is also only a small part of the overall picture so is not IMO a major part of the things going on.Your right comparing being there and watching on TV do not equal each other at all.TV is much better.For me and what I want to see,TV ticks all the boxes.
If going to the match gives you a complete experience of the game then I am envious of you because whenever I go to a match it leaves me feeling I have missed quite a few things.I don't get the same feeling when I watch us on telly.

Sorry RH, thats completely untrue. The cameras follow the action and the commentators describe what the cameras are showing. You cannot possible know what is happening off the ball when your sat at home. If you think you get a satisfactory understanding, then you are missing out big time.

[Ted Hughes]

Commentators describe what THEY think you should know about & TV editors decide what action THEY think you should see.

I'll give you a prime example of this which happens in every single televised game, AND THIS DOES MY FUCKING HEAD IN: imagine someone attacks City's back 4 & shoots, Joe Hart saves, passes ball out to start a City attack....

Suddenly..A CLOSE UP OF JOE HART'S FUCKING FACE, THE BALL IS IN PLAY AND WE'RE LOOKING AT A CLOSE UP OF A BLOKE'S FUCKING FACE! WHY THE FUCK DO WE WANT TO SEE HIS FUCKING FACE WHEN THE GAME IS GOING ON? !! Then we get the full repaly, with slomo, of what we've just seen, WE CAN HEAR THE CROWD GETTING EXCITED IN THE BACKGROUND BUT WE'RE BEING FORCED TO WATCH SOMETHING WE'VE JUST FUCKING SEEN!! Then the live action returns & it's in the opponent's penalty area: WE'VE MISSED THE WHOLE FUCKING ATTACK!!

This happens all the time including: FABIO CAPELLO SAT WITH PETER FUCKING REID IN THE CROWD WHY!!?? WHY DO WE WANT TO SEE SOME CUNT SAT IN THE CROWD WHEN THE MATCH IS ON?? OH LOOK IT'S BOBBY FUCKING CHARLTON..THERE'S A GAME ON FOR FUCK'S SAKE!! CLOSE UP OF ARSENE WENGER.... I WANT TO WATCH THE FUCKING MATCH YOU WANKERS!

Sorry for the rant but I HATE THIS SHIT.

Richie Benaud & Jimmy Hill would have died of shame if the BBC missed any important action showing other shit, now all broadcasters do it all the time (Sky have even missed goals) It's dreadful amateurish coverage but they all do it & don't give a shit.

Does my fucking head in.

[The Man In Blue]

Brilliant rant Ted, fully agree.

[The Original Special One]

I think if one spends time looking what a player did in the 88 minutes that he doesn't have the ball it can be found out.If people look at heat maps distance run by a plyer etc...it is possible to find out what a player does during a match.
And also as you have told me that our David e.g makes runs that are not so visible on the tv(I disagree-I think its a matter of amount of attention you give the coverage)a half decent commentator tells me that aswell.Thats what he is there for.Some of the things these people say may be of little relevance but what they say and how they illustrate the game is a factor in making the more complete picture.

I'm not talking about City games because living abroad and currently, 'of limited funds', my viewing is restricted to tv and occasionally 'net viewing, but whenever I'm looking for a ticket for a field game, as, say, at our own Croke Park, I always look for a seat in the Upper Stand, perhaps a quarter of the length of the field out from the left-most goal area so that I can take in pretty much the whole of the pitch without having to turn my head; even though I mightn't see everything thats going on in the near corner quarter of the field to my left, I'd be alerted by movement there, out of the corner of my eye.
So, although I'd obviously be concentrating on the movement of the ball, and the players nearest it, I'd still be aware of the movements off the ball in almost the complete field of play.

English tv coverage generally shows about half of the pitch at any one time so you're generally aware of positioning and movement of all players in that section at any one time.
So to that extent I can make my judgments about Silva.

I almost never refer to stats, other than goals, of course.
Because, having studied stats, I can immediately pick holes in any stat somebody decides to throw at me.

[Bear60]

Commentators describe what THEY think you should know about & TV editors decide what action THEY think you should see.

I'll give you a prime example of this which happens in every single televised game, AND THIS DOES MY FUCKING HEAD IN: imagine someone attacks City's back 4 & shoots, Joe Hart saves, passes ball out to start a City attack....

Suddenly..A CLOSE UP OF JOE HART'S FUCKING FACE, THE BALL IS IN PLAY AND WE'RE LOOKING AT A CLOSE UP OF A BLOKE'S FUCKING FACE! WHY THE FUCK DO WE WANT TO SEE HIS FUCKING FACE WHEN THE GAME IS GOING ON? !! Then we get the full repaly, with slomo, of what we've just seen, WE CAN HEAR THE CROWD GETTING EXCITED IN THE BACKGROUND BUT WE'RE BEING FORCED TO WATCH SOMETHING WE'VE JUST FUCKING SEEN!! Then the live action returns & it's in the opponent's penalty area: WE'VE MISSED THE WHOLE FUCKING ATTACK!!

This happens all the time including: FABIO CAPELLO SAT WITH PETER FUCKING REID IN THE CROWD WHY!!?? WHY DO WE WANT TO SEE SOME CUNT SAT IN THE CROWD WHEN THE MATCH IS ON?? OH LOOK IT'S BOBBY FUCKING CHARLTON..THERE'S A GAME ON FOR FUCK'S SAKE!! CLOSE UP OF ARSENE WENGER.... I WANT TO WATCH THE FUCKING MATCH YOU WANKERS!

Sorry for the rant but I HATE THIS SHIT.

Richie Benaud & Jimmy Hill would have died of shame if the BBC missed any important action showing other shit, now all broadcasters do it all the time (Sky have even missed goals) It's dreadful amateurish coverage but they all do it & don't give a shit.

Does my fucking head in.

Loved the rant and all of it I totally agree with.

[Rag_hater]

Commentators describe what THEY think you should know about & TV editors decide what action THEY think you should see.

I'll give you a prime example of this which happens in every single televised game, AND THIS DOES MY FUCKING HEAD IN: imagine someone attacks City's back 4 & shoots, Joe Hart saves, passes ball out to start a City attack....

Suddenly..A CLOSE UP OF JOE HART'S FUCKING FACE, THE BALL IS IN PLAY AND WE'RE LOOKING AT A CLOSE UP OF A BLOKE'S FUCKING FACE! WHY THE FUCK DO WE WANT TO SEE HIS FUCKING FACE WHEN THE GAME IS GOING ON? !! Then we get the full repaly, with slomo, of what we've just seen, WE CAN HEAR THE CROWD GETTING EXCITED IN THE BACKGROUND BUT WE'RE BEING FORCED TO WATCH SOMETHING WE'VE JUST FUCKING SEEN!! Then the live action returns & it's in the opponent's penalty area: WE'VE MISSED THE WHOLE FUCKING ATTACK!!

This happens all the time including: FABIO CAPELLO SAT WITH PETER FUCKING REID IN THE CROWD WHY!!?? WHY DO WE WANT TO SEE SOME CUNT SAT IN THE CROWD WHEN THE MATCH IS ON?? OH LOOK IT'S BOBBY FUCKING CHARLTON..THERE'S A GAME ON FOR FUCK'S SAKE!! CLOSE UP OF ARSENE WENGER.... I WANT TO WATCH THE FUCKING MATCH YOU WANKERS!

Sorry for the rant but I HATE THIS SHIT.

Richie Benaud & Jimmy Hill would have died of shame if the BBC missed any important action showing other shit, now all broadcasters do it all the time (Sky have even missed goals) It's dreadful amateurish coverage but they all do it & don't give a shit.

Does my fucking head in.

Funny Rant.
Wow didn't realise it had got you so wound up.
For me though its the main way I watch us so I suppose I have got used to the silly things you point out.And for me its water of a ducks back so to say.
To me the faults you point out that the broadcasters are guilty of I think will happen even if for the 100 or so mins a match is played the camera's are constantly on the play.Things are always missed.John stated that he missed a bit of the play the other day when he went for a burger and a piss.Don't know if he was joking but it kind of helps the point I am trying to say that even something that can happen in the blink of an eye can be missed and I think that during the length of a game there is going to be some incident that is missed.
And Sky missing a goal.Its never happened in any game I've watched . I think the time it takes to get the ball out of the net and take it back to the center some orher camera that wasn't filming Joe would have caught it and they would show it.
Anyway its all about personell prefferances and I had a feeling mine would be different to the majority.
And maybe I'm wrong but I know what I like.

[carl_feedthegoat]

Brilliant rant Ted, fully agree.

Licker.