Esoterica
Well-Known Member
TV vs At the match I agree can offer different valid perspectives of a game but you can't analyse individual players based on radio commentary or people's comments on a match thread.
TV vs At the match I agree can offer different valid perspectives of a game but you can't analyse individual players based on radio commentary or people's comments on a match thread.I dunno, I’ve watched matches then watched them on TV and noticed things I didnt see live. Tends to be harder to be rational in the heat of the moment at a game, every touch was a foul, every goal offside.
Obviously we all want people to go to games for the cash and atmosphere, but I’m not sure it produces much better analysis.
Ponti clearly has a couple of outstanding attributes in his movement and finishing but also areas that can make you see why Robins said he needed more work - bit of an iffy first touch and didn't look very secure with his back to goal. A very exciting player to have belonging to us but still not one that would have significantly changed our season in my opinion. His discomfort back to goal and the lack of space for him to run into against the many deep lying defensive teams we've struggled against would only expose his weaknesses and limit his strengths. Robins has managed him excellently.He didn’t say tv? He said highlights, which everyone else will have after the game too tbf?
Although as a separate point, people will see what they want to see, eg. Everyone wants Ponti to be the next messiah so everything he does that is good is blown up, and everything that is bad is played down. And before Fatso moans, I’m glad ponti is doing well and long May it continue
It kind of does. The same as somebody who went to the Yeovil game over the weekend would have a better idea / judgement than I would.
Which lines did McNulty fluff? He finished the cut back from Biamou pretty well.
Ponti clearly has a couple of outstanding attributes in his movement and finishing but also areas that can make you see why Robins said he needed more work - bit of an iffy first touch and didn't look very secure with his back to goal. A very exciting player to have belonging to us but still not one that would have significantly changed our season in my opinion. His discomfort back to goal and the lack of space for him to run into against the many deep lying defensive teams we've struggled against would only expose his weaknesses and limit his strengths. Robins has managed him excellently.
I dunno, I’ve watched matches then watched them on TV and noticed things I didnt see live. Tends to be harder to be rational in the heat of the moment at a game, every touch was a foul, every goal offside.
Obviously we all want people to go to games for the cash and atmosphere, but I’m not sure it produces much better analysis.
If I ever have a car accident I'll tell you all about it over the phone and you can come and testify for me. I'm sure the judge will consider your opinion just as valid as the actual eyewitnesses.If you can’t go to the match and give your opinion based on listening to it.
Watching the extended highlights reading match reports. Then comparing that to the games you have personally watched.
Your opinion carries as much validity as anyone who went to the match.
It’s just an easy way to dismiss another persons point of view, if you don’t agree with their opinion you just suggest yours is right theirs is wrong because you went to the match.
They may have a better understanding of the game in general than you, they may not.
Who knows I wouldn’t jump so quickly to assume my opinion is right over theirs or has more credibility just to watching from the stands than listening abd watching afterwards on telly
His four current strengths are confidence, movement, sheer determination and accuracy.
He needs better hold up play without a doubt.
However at this stage maybe whilst he develops that he plays alongside someone who can provide it
If I ever have a car accident I'll tell you all about it over the phone and you can come and testify for me. I'm sure the judge will consider your opinion just as valid as the actual eyewitnesses.
And what if someone watched it who has never driven a car before in their lives. However they have seen plenty other people driving.
They give their opinion. They also have no had the chance to re watch the accident.
Then someone who wasn’t there, gives their opinion based on commentary they were provided on the accident, from a ex Police road collision investigator specialist who watched it and from reading the reports of several other pundits who watched the accident and reading the reports from numerous other people who were there. Plus watching footage of the accident with replays.
Plus they have seen both drivers in the accident driving before and they actually drive themselves.
Whose opinion is now more valid the person who witnessed it.
Or the person who based their opinion on footage, experts commentary and opinion and listening to others.
Just a thought. As I say personally I wouldn’t dismiss another’s opinion just because they were not there.
Apart from when you try to use people's comments from match threads that were themselves listening to the Radio?
Again, would you try and argue on a film's fan site (that you haven't seen) about things that have happened based on people's tweets and comments on an article against people who have watched it in the cinema and then again on DVD?
It's common sense that if you watch the whole 90 minutes, you will have a better idea than watching 1 - 2 minute highlights and reading live text.
You may just have a crap understanding of the game.
If one person has watched a film and says it’s great.
Then another person listens to a couple of film critics providing a very detailed review of a film and they say it is rubbish.
They then watch extended highlights of the best bits of said film they themselves think it is rubbish.
They then go into a film forum and read other people’s comments about the film which also have the opinion it’s rubbish.
Me I am going with the bloke whose opinion is based on experts, reviews extended highlights and a multitude of opinions.
Ad oppose to just believing the bloke who’ve said it is great because he watched it himself.
Just been there isn’t a justification that your opinion is more valid than someone else’s sorry.
You may not be very knowledgable about Football
You may never have played the game.
You may have only been watching football for a few seasons.
You may get distracted by your daughter.
You will have your own prejudgements about certain players that influence how your perceive what happened in a certain sequence of play.
You may just have a crap understanding of the game.
BLOODY HELL, a positive word for ponticelli from SBG, are you going soft in your old age?He didn’t say tv? He said highlights, which everyone else will have after the game too tbf?
Although as a separate point, people will see what they want to see, eg. Everyone wants Ponti to be the next messiah so everything he does that is good is blown up, and everything that is bad is played down. And before Fatso moans, I’m glad ponti is doing well and long May it continue
BLOODY HELL, a positive word for ponticelli from SBG, are you going soft in your old age?
I don't think he's anything other than a promising young player who should of been given a run of games 6 weeks ago. If he had, we may of actually scored a few more goals and gathered a few more points. I happen to think Robbins was too reliant on Beavon, mcnulty, and Biamou, when it was blatantly bloody obvious to all that a change was required.Tbf you just think he’s god...I’m just realistic and have actually never said a bad word against him, just think he needs protecting and nurturing is all.
I am, he's watching somebody tweet about what they have heard on the radio about itNick & Dong sitting in a tree....K..I...S.........
You got his phone number, I would have kept that quietIf I ever have a car accident I'll tell you all about it over the phone and you can come and testify for me. I'm sure the judge will consider your opinion just as valid as the actual eyewitnesses.
SW88. You can't beat him seeing a shit that hits the post.Which experts reviews do you go by then of football matches?
It's already out there in the public domain - on the back of the cubicle 2 toilet doors in the Memorial Park.You got his phone number, I would have kept that quiet
If I ever have a car accident I'll tell you all about it over the phone and you can come and testify for me. I'm sure the judge will consider your opinion just as valid as the actual eyewitnesses.
Your honour, I would like to present to the jury, Exhibit A:Police investigators at RTA,s make decisions on whose fault/caused accidents on looking at "Skid marks"... "Damage on vehicles/crash barriers" etc.Were the police at the scene when this happened?
Tbf, Dons is a poor analogy, because the reality would be not a police specialist road traffic investigator provding comment but someone who has previous experience of being in a crash.Police investigators at RTA,s make decisions on whose fault/caused accidents on looking at "Skid marks"... "Damage on vehicles/crash barriers" etc.Were the police at the scene when this happened?
TV vs At the match I agree can offer different valid perspectives of a game but you can't analyse individual players based on radio commentary or people's comments on a match thread.
If you found them in a bin at Wembley I think I might know who they belong to...Your honour, I would like to present to the jury, Exhibit A:
At least on the radio you can sometimes work out who we are playing.Oh no, not the radio. You get nothing at all from that. And as forcomments on here, they’re usually directly opposed so worse than useless.
Tbf, Dons is a poor analogy, because the reality would be not a police specialist road traffic investigator provding comment but someone who has previous experience of being in a crash.
The co-commintators, journalist, etc see it live, a lot of play from significant distance and without the benefit of even a replay let alone the analytic tools like pro zone, etc and given an instant opinion.
The specialist road traffic accident investigator will painstakingly collect and analyse a range of data (skid marks, witness statements, weather conditions, inspecting damaged to vehicles, etc, etc) and spend considerable time analysing it, etc and forming a judgement on what has happened.
Isn't that what I just said?
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
I think you've got a problem!Your honour, I would like to present to the jury, Exhibit A:
Nah, they still fall into the category of 'fine for a week if you turn them inside out!'I think you've got a problem!
Nah, they still fall into the category of 'fine for a week if you turn them inside out!'
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?