• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The Match of the Day Thread

I just love listening to the same dross being regurgitated in my local by the armchair experts. Most people just don't realise the pace the game is played at and how little time players have to react to situations but you would expect ex-players to show a bit more insight.
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
I just love listening to the same dross being regurgitated in my local by the armchair experts. Most people just don't realise the pace the game is played at and how little time players have to react to situations but you would expect ex-players to show a bit more insight.
Click to expand...
Actually I don't.

It's hardly controversial to describe the majority of footballers as lacking in intelligence. The question then is why do people turn to (ex)footballers for intelligent output?
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
I just love listening to the same dross being regurgitated in my local by the armchair experts. Most people just don't realise the pace the game is played at and how little time players have to react to situations but you would expect ex-players to show a bit more insight.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure they are there for that. Insight that is. There are plenty of ex players and coaches that could pick though the bones of any incident analytically but it never happens. I firmly believe they are employed to dumb it down.
 
Rorschach said:
I'm not sure they are there for that. Insight that is. There are plenty of ex players and coaches that could pick though the bones of any incident analytically but it never happens. I firmly believe they are employed to dumb it down.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's the case.

I think that too many people still buy into the myth that only a footballer who has played at the highest level can offer valid insight into the game. Over time it's becoming very clear that (as with every other walk of life) intelligent people are the ones to go to if you want accurate and concise information. Let them cherry pick from the mountains of garbage spewed by those who have experienced it.

I wouldn't employ my dishwasher repairman as my cleaner, nor my mechanic as a chauffeur. I don't have shop floor labourers present margin reports to me and I don't ask each salesman for a forecast - that information all goes through someone who can apply extra intelligence and make the information fit for consumption. So why employ a footballer as a pundit?
 
scaramanga said:
I don't think that's the case.

I think that too many people still buy into the myth that only a footballer who has played at the highest level can offer valid insight into the game. Over time it's becoming very clear that (as with every other walk of life) intelligent people are the ones to go to if you want accurate and concise information. Let them cherry pick from the mountains of garbage spewed by those who have experienced it.

I wouldn't employ my dishwasher repairman as my cleaner, nor my mechanic as a chauffeur. I don't have shop floor labourers present margin reports to me and I don't ask each salesman for a forecast - that information all goes through someone who can apply extra intelligence and make the information fit for consumption. So why employ a footballer as a pundit?
Click to expand...
That is sort of my point. They could make it more high brow if they truly wanted but they choose not to. You can debate whether the people they employ for their analysis/punditry are capable of more but I would think on the law of averages that at least some of them should be, or they could find some. Gary Neville comes along and everyone is tossing themselves over his analysis (and I don't think it's all that). The expertise is there, even in the primordial pool of ex pros and coaches. They could if they wanted to is my point.
 
Rorschach said:
That is sort of my point. They could make it more high brow if they truly wanted but they choose not to. You can debate whether the people they employ for their analysis/punditry are capable of more but I would think on the law of averages that at least some of them should be, or they could find some. Gary Neville comes along and everyone is tossing themselves over his analysis (and I don't think it's all that). The expertise is there, even in the primordial pool of ex pros and coaches. They could if they wanted to is my point.
Click to expand...
Have a look at the end of the article I posted. I think the author makes a good argument for the numbers that would be interested.

I do agree though that those who choose the pundits probably are under the impression that the public wants dumb.
 
scaramanga said:
Have a look at the end of the article I posted. I think the author makes a good argument for the numbers that would be interested.

I do agree though that those who choose the pundits probably are under the impression that the public wants dumb.
Click to expand...
Yep that article is bang on. With the technology we have at hand they should be doing much better. When scheduled TV finally dies we'll probably get it .
 
Rorschach said:
That is sort of my point. They could make it more high brow if they truly wanted but they choose not to. You can debate whether the people they employ for their analysis/punditry are capable of more but I would think on the law of averages that at least some of them should be, or they could find some. Gary Neville comes along and everyone is tossing themselves over his analysis (and I don't think it's all that). The expertise is there, even in the primordial pool of ex pros and coaches. They could if they wanted to is my point.
Click to expand...


He is like most ex top players, they could/can talk a good game, they could play a good game but very rarely can they actually do a good job as a manager.

The reality of the situation is that most players who go to the top are not really that intelligent, they are feted at school because they are good at sport and because of that they do not really have to take part in the lessons. Having worked with kids for many years i can say that they generally come into the academys without much ( if any) real academic knowledge. It is changing to a degree as some academys do make the kids take lessons but they have a lot of catching up to do.
 
scaramanga said:
Have a look at the end of the article I posted. I think the author makes a good argument for the numbers that would be interested.

I do agree though that those who choose the pundits probably are under the impression that the public wants dumb.
Click to expand...
Not sure scaramanga that the amount of followers a site has is a good argument. Loads of people follow sites just because they think they should.
 
glasgowspur said:
Not sure scaramanga that the amount of followers a site has is a good argument. Loads of people follow sites just because they think they should.
Click to expand...
Maybe, I think there's some value in a broadcaster finding out though. Could be a big market stealer if they succeed.
 
scaramanga said:
Thought this was the best place for this:
http://statsbomb.com/2016/10/xcommentary/

We all know how dumb commentators are, yet you don't have to scan through many threads to see the same stuff being repeated by people on this forum too.

What's really scary is that the same pool is being dredged for managers too.
Click to expand...

Very interesting, thanks.

Almost every game we still hear things like "it hit his arm" or "there was contact", both of which, alone, are utterly meaningless in terms of understanding if a foul has been committed yet are trotted out as definitives. Surely the first step to improved analysis must be correct understanding and interpretation of the laws.

I don't hold much hope of that improvement when the other aspect of coverage - the visual - is still beset by self-serving narrative direction. That is to say cutting to close ups, superfluous fourth and fifth replays and lingering shots of the crowd, the manager, bench or chairman, or even damn corner flags whilst the match is going on, in the name of trying to tell the story of the game.

If the broadcasters can't understand that we just want to see the action - surely the most fundamental aspect of coverage - then I can't see the way for much progress in the more complex arena of improving punditry and analysis.
 
just look at the criticism Neville got over his comments on (one of) liverpools brick keeper, in football experience and success in a related field is vaunted above studied analysis of a specific one

I agree with @scaramanga, a good footballer does not necessarily a good pundit (or imo, manager) make
 
parklane1 said:
He is like most ex top players, they could/can talk a good game, they could play a good game but very rarely can they actually do a good job as a manager.

The reality of the situation is that most players who go to the top are not really that intelligent, they are feted at school because they are good at sport and because of that they do not really have to take part in the lessons. Having worked with kids for many years i can say that they generally come into the academys without much ( if any) real academic knowledge. It is changing to a degree as some academys do make the kids take lessons but they have a lot of catching up to do.
Click to expand...

I knew a future England international who had gone to Grammar school before turning pro and he said most of the kids at his club were thick and took the tinkle out of him, which was a complete waste of time as he never lacked confidence.
 
You can only laugh and smile.

Explain to me again, how Arsenals 2-0 win (yes 2 goals) is on before Tottenham's 4-1 win????
 
paxtonwolf said:
You can only laugh and smile.

Explain to me again, how Arsenals 2-0 win (yes 2 goals) is on before Tottenham's 4-1 win????
Click to expand...

undercard before the main event

what i'm waiting for is the explanation of how Zlatans disallowed goal yesterday (studs down) was a more dangerous high foot than Giroud's (studs up) today
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back