Oh Maureen, you are awful.
- Thread starter the count
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
I said it around the time of the World Cup, but the football dialogue in England is one of the reasons we're so shit as a nation when it comes to International Football. BT Sport had a genuine opportunity to bring in intelligent, insightful discussion as part of their coverage, but look at the differing approaches they take to English and European Football. Premier League, and Champions League games with English teams - it's Jake Humphrey/Linekar and a host of recently retired footballers; they give Robbie Savage, King Mong, a centrepiece show.
European Football, it's James Richardson accompanied by the sort of people who join him on the Football Weekly podcast, journalists who for the most part are charged with coming up with engaging, intelligent discourse; people who write for the Blizzard et al.
The thinking is that for European Football, more intelligent conversation is needed, whereas for English football it's all about former professionals giving their rote, by-numbers 'analysis', prompted by someone who either reserves all his opinions for twitter (Lineker) or whose BT mission statement revolved around getting in younger pundits (Humphrey). It means the mainstream message they are selling - like Sky do, and like Match of the Day increasingly does - is that football is this dumbed down, good vs evil, jumpers for goalposts, game of two halves bollocks that revolves round who should be the England Captain and what David Beckham is up to next.
European Football, it's James Richardson accompanied by the sort of people who join him on the Football Weekly podcast, journalists who for the most part are charged with coming up with engaging, intelligent discourse; people who write for the Blizzard et al.
The thinking is that for European Football, more intelligent conversation is needed, whereas for English football it's all about former professionals giving their rote, by-numbers 'analysis', prompted by someone who either reserves all his opinions for twitter (Lineker) or whose BT mission statement revolved around getting in younger pundits (Humphrey). It means the mainstream message they are selling - like Sky do, and like Match of the Day increasingly does - is that football is this dumbed down, good vs evil, jumpers for goalposts, game of two halves bollocks that revolves round who should be the England Captain and what David Beckham is up to next.
Yeah, you get far more intelligent debate on say, Italian TV, where the hosts are selected entirely around their in-depth football knowledge, and this is why Italy are more successful in tournaments.
Arf.
Funnily enough though, as far as I can tell with my limited Italian she actually does talk quite fluently and intelligently about the game.
Funnily enough though, as far as I can tell with my limited Italian she actually does talk quite fluently and intelligently about the game.
Either way, the original point is entirely bollocks.
Really? Did I say there is a direct correlation between a country's success in international football and their football coverage, or did I make a specific point about english football that you haven't actually addressed apart from posting pictures of italian women?
She's Argentinian and hosts the Italian equivalent of Match Of The Day.
Now, you're the one who floated this inane hypothesis, and provided zero evidence to back it up, so, it's your responsibility to factor in the above host of Italian football with your opening assertion that "the football dialogue in England is one of the reasons we're so shit as a nation when it comes to International Football"
The point is further muddied by how you seem to think that BT have employed a super-sophisticated, esoteric broadcast team for European football, vs the more mainstream and low-brow regulars used for Premiership and Champion's League games.
I'll give you a clue: one of them is MILES cheaper to hire and caters for a much smaller niche audience.
Most football fans tuning in to watch United vs City don't want some nobody quacking on about "double pivots" and eulogising about some half-forgotten Sunderland wing-half who played like Maldini. They want to laugh at Robbie Savage, or be reassured by Lineker's smooth and largely inoffensive broadcasting style.
And none of that, NONE of it, has any influence or effect on our nation's football teams.
As we return to the young lady above.
Sure.
The hypothesis is largely based on the conversations centring around the England team at the time of the world cup and just afterwards. The conversation - played out on TV and in the leading articles in most newspapers - was basically around where Wayne Rooney should play and who should be the captain. Immediately afterwards, the majority of the stories were about who should be the next captain. Essentially the main decision Roy Hodgson had to make - before he'd even picked a squad, before he'd decided what system he wanted to play and who would best fit that system, was to make a totemic, ultimately irrelevant decision because that's what he was being asked to do by the media.
He didn't turn around and say you've got this arse about tit, he just went along with it, as he always does, as managers did before him, with their instance on referring to players by their nicknames. We've built up a senseless, self-defeating culture of celebrity around footballers in this country - largely started by Sky Sports - that has meant the media and the viewers pandering to them. Witness the whole debate about where Gerrard should play back when Benitez played him off the right.
The conversation that plays out on TV is very little about football and mostly about celebrity, because like most other 'cultural' aspects of society, it's governed by fear. Fear that people who watch are stupid and, as you posit, just want to laugh at Robbie Savage.
If that's true, that people don't want the intelligent dialogue, then how come so many people listen to the 'niche' views of The Football Weekly podcast, or The Football Ramble? Explain away the success of those podcasts, staffed entirely by people with thoughtful discourse and lack of celebrity.
With have a large proportion of the media whose existence is reliant on football. That media then generate a huge amount of noise, and what the FA regard as public opinion. That noise then has a negative effect on the decisions the FA make and the decision the England manager makes. That's my assertion. I've no evidence for it, but I at least have an argument.
I dont think there is a cause and effect relationship between quality of football punditry and performance of the national team. However, I do think the quality of football punditry is symptomatic of the lack of vision and sophistication in the FA and other football agencies in Britain. Given that some of the pundits on TV have influence on the decision makers, it is really not that far of a stretch that "oooh, Scholesy does not know how to tackle", "But but if we try to stop Wazza behaving like a neanderthal, he will be half the player" type discussions are occuring within the corridors of tha FA.
Given how sophisticated England is in engineering,sciences, and other aspects of daily life ( atleast from afar compared to the rest of the world), it is staggering that they cannot put together a quality grassroots football program to improve the overall quality of football skills and coaching in the nation.
Given how sophisticated England is in engineering,sciences, and other aspects of daily life ( atleast from afar compared to the rest of the world), it is staggering that they cannot put together a quality grassroots football program to improve the overall quality of football skills and coaching in the nation.
I didn't mean to phrase it as if the pundits are to blame for England being shit, I was trying to highlight the sort of mainstream conversation going on being quite low brow and BT and Sky's coverage being part of that. I do think it has an effect because I think the way we talk about football permeates into the game itself, and what we value becomes sort of destructive. But anyway, I agree with Cloggypop that I've dragged the thread into the mire a tad.
It's a bit easy - and obviously tempting - to use the word "stupid" when explaining why Match Of The Day has Gary Lineker hosting, and BT use Rio Ferdinand, or whatever. But that's the reality of the mainstream ANYTHING; reassuring, familiar, not too scary, broad appeal, not too challenging intellectually...easy. It's why brands exist.
It's why Adele is considered amazingly edgy song-writing and is number one, and PJ Harvey isn't.
Why Tony Blair was elected PM, and Ed Milliand wasn't.
It's why Dan Brown sells millions of books and Denis Johnson doesn't.
Michael McIntyre can fill the O2 and Stewart Lee plays the Soho Theatre.
So it might be easy to look at the above examples, or the dumbed-down celebrity-centred football business, and say "stupid" but it's also true that if you televised "The Football Ramble" or whatever, and showed it in place of Match Of The Day, ratings would go down. Guaranteed.
Because sometimes you don't want a detailed chalkboard analysis on a Saturday night, you want cosy, familiar cheeky Gary and get on with the fucking highlights please, because I'm tired and half-cut.
I hope we win and I hope he stays. He's ruining them good and proper and they deserve some more of it for a while.
On a side note, my West Ham mate said they were actually playing well most of the game Saturday. They won't be a pushover. Let's face it, it's a good time to play either of us.
On a side note, my West Ham mate said they were actually playing well most of the game Saturday. They won't be a pushover. Let's face it, it's a good time to play either of us.
I reckon this was a good enough sign he'd gone a bit doolally:
who's that and why are half her baps out?
daughter
Good man Peekay
Sorry wrong thread
Harry Redknapp was on talksport earlier, usually he comes out with a load of nonsense but I thought he had a very good point for a change.
Harry was talking about the comparisons made between Wenger and the other managers in the league upon his arrival in England and how the press made a lot of how calm and studious Arsene was when every other manager was jumping around shouting. Yet when things took a turn Wenger ended up being just as mad as everyone else.
Redknapp just said it's easy to to be a manager when things are going well. It makes me think about Mourinho, has he ever been a manager when things aren't going well? He's a dick at the best of times, how's he going to act if he can't turn their fortunes around soon?
Harry was talking about the comparisons made between Wenger and the other managers in the league upon his arrival in England and how the press made a lot of how calm and studious Arsene was when every other manager was jumping around shouting. Yet when things took a turn Wenger ended up being just as mad as everyone else.
Redknapp just said it's easy to to be a manager when things are going well. It makes me think about Mourinho, has he ever been a manager when things aren't going well? He's a dick at the best of times, how's he going to act if he can't turn their fortunes around soon?
He'll act unemployed. It'll be really convincing.
Matt Retweeted
Paddy Power
@paddypower 8m8 minutes ago
STAT: This is Chelsea's worst start to a season in their ENTIRE thirteen year history.
Stolen for Twitter
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
