| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. 19:09 - Sep 30 with 2215 views | numptydumpty |
i think Clive and others raised this from the Sheff Weds game.
i only saw this game on the feed and Madsen, Mbuenge and RND were the best performers that day from my viewing position but those at the ground were of a different viewpoint.
Have to say also, when i have said who has done well, when i been in attendance, armchair viewers seem to have experienced a whole different
ball game.
Not really sure why am posting this - so comments on my inane dullness are welcome !!!!
[Post edited 30 Sep 19:13]
|  |
| |  |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 19:31 - Sep 30 with 2082 views | stainrods_elbow |
One leading view that's been expressed here is that, if you typically watch on a stream for whatever reasons (multiple camera angles, replays etc. notwithstanding), you're not really watching the game and aren't qualified to comment. Go figure! [Post edited 30 Sep 19:49]
|  |
| |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 19:36 - Sep 30 with 2088 views | colinallcars |
On QPR+ the camera often focuses on the dugout or unless it's my imagine a comely wench in the crowd, so you miss bits.
Plus of course you don't see so much off-ball stuff. |  | | |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 20:46 - Sep 30 with 1949 views | CLAREMAN1995 |
This is something I have been thinking about for a while and its an interesting thread because obviously the people posting on here during the match all have the same thoughts most of the time.
We cannot see who is killing themselves off the ball or what is happening from the bench (coaching etc) until the changes are about to be made .
Thats why I enjoy reading the thread it goes through the full range of emotions from despair to joy and mostly back to despair again except the last 4 games.
Then in the evening we can enjoy the just back posters who have a totally different take most of the time .
We are see things in QPR blue and white though |  | | |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 20:52 - Sep 30 with 1937 views | Hunterhoop |
Obviously you have a much better vantage point at the game.
For a start you can literally see the whole pitch and what all 22 players are doing at any given point. So you can see who is working hard off the ball, tracking back, holding a good (or bad position) or making good runs, etc. TV does not capture that. It’s why, when Carragher or Neville or the chumps on MoTD do analysis they often pan out to the broadest camera view to show you the whole pitch to point out what you might have missed during the highlights from the normal TV camera position.
And this isn’t to mention that when you’re there you can hear things and sense the atmosphere better. Key acts are amplified if happening at important moments, and you can better judge whether something is important because you can see the whole pitch and what is unfolding better than watching on tv.
Yes, on TV you get replays, so you can “know” if something was a pen, offside, a red, etc. But in terms of assessing overall team and individual performance, it’s pretty irrelevant.
The opinion of those at the game is always more valid. Always. If we start thinking otherwise, the game has gone. |  | | |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 21:02 - Sep 30 with 1907 views | colinallcars |
It's not quite in the same argument but what do we feel about our viewing position at games ?
In my long, unillustrious Rs watching days I've always watched from the side - SA rd. apart from the stint at White City and even then it was from the side.
I've only watched a few games from behind the goal and couldn't enjoy it as much.
Horses for courses I suppose. | | | |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 21:52 - Sep 30 with 1789 views | stainrods_elbow |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 20:52 - Sep 30 by Hunterhoop |
Obviously you have a much better vantage point at the game.
For a start you can literally see the whole pitch and what all 22 players are doing at any given point. So you can see who is working hard off the ball, tracking back, holding a good (or bad position) or making good runs, etc. TV does not capture that. It’s why, when Carragher or Neville or the chumps on MoTD do analysis they often pan out to the broadest camera view to show you the whole pitch to point out what you might have missed during the highlights from the normal TV camera position.
And this isn’t to mention that when you’re there you can hear things and sense the atmosphere better. Key acts are amplified if happening at important moments, and you can better judge whether something is important because you can see the whole pitch and what is unfolding better than watching on tv.
Yes, on TV you get replays, so you can “know” if something was a pen, offside, a red, etc. But in terms of assessing overall team and individual performance, it’s pretty irrelevant.
The opinion of those at the game is always more valid. Always. If we start thinking otherwise, the game has gone. |
You're simply wrong, as well as ludicriously authoritarian! The fan at the game might be an idiot, for starters.
The moment we all start singing from a single songsheet like you advocate - that's when the game has gone, my friend! | |
| |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 21:58 - Sep 30 with 1791 views | baz_qpr |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 21:02 - Sep 30 by colinallcars |
It's not quite in the same argument but what do we feel about our viewing position at games ?
In my long, unillustrious Rs watching days I've always watched from the side - SA rd. apart from the stint at White City and even then it was from the side.
I've only watched a few games from behind the goal and couldn't enjoy it as much.
Horses for courses I suppose. |
Similar for me row Z in Ellerslie, you see a very different game than even being close at the sides and certainly behind the goal |  | | |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 22:30 - Sep 30 with 1702 views | GloryHunter |
When I was a lad (insert violin music here) I used to stand on the concrete terrace on SARd, roughly in line with the school-end 18-yard line. I used to watch Mark Lazarus haring down the wing within touching distance, and Rodney Marsh knocking in the goals. I recently sat in the back row of the west paddock and realised that I must have been sitting in almost exactly the same place. It's a great close-up view of one quarter of the pitch - but you can't really see much of what goes on in the Loft end penalty area. But that's how I grew up watching Rangers,
In between I had many years of sitting high up behind the goal in the upper loft. That gives you a totally different perspective on the shape of play. But I gave it up when they introduced those bright LED advertising hoardings, because I couldn't see what was happening in the school-end penalty area during evening games or in the second half of afternoon winter games. So now I usually pay for the TV stream. I miss the crowd involvement, but at least I can see what's going on. But I wouldn't seek to judge a player's performance from whatever viewpoint I had. Having played football myself, I know just how hard it can be, and I wonder if some of the fierce critics I hear at matches have ever actually played themselves. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 23:16 - Sep 30 with 1631 views | numptydumpty |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 22:30 - Sep 30 by GloryHunter |
When I was a lad (insert violin music here) I used to stand on the concrete terrace on SARd, roughly in line with the school-end 18-yard line. I used to watch Mark Lazarus haring down the wing within touching distance, and Rodney Marsh knocking in the goals. I recently sat in the back row of the west paddock and realised that I must have been sitting in almost exactly the same place. It's a great close-up view of one quarter of the pitch - but you can't really see much of what goes on in the Loft end penalty area. But that's how I grew up watching Rangers,
In between I had many years of sitting high up behind the goal in the upper loft. That gives you a totally different perspective on the shape of play. But I gave it up when they introduced those bright LED advertising hoardings, because I couldn't see what was happening in the school-end penalty area during evening games or in the second half of afternoon winter games. So now I usually pay for the TV stream. I miss the crowd involvement, but at least I can see what's going on. But I wouldn't seek to judge a player's performance from whatever viewpoint I had. Having played football myself, I know just how hard it can be, and I wonder if some of the fierce critics I hear at matches have ever actually played themselves. |
With regards your last question - fiercest critics, i very much doubt they are aware of how brutal a game it can be.
Done some over 50s games recently and the impact on the knees, especially with more ballast due to senior years, its the changes of direction that can be the killers.
As a fit twenty and thirty something, the one quality i had was stamina. But its the first thing that goes with age.
Footballs fiercist critics on a fans forum such as this, its akin to going for a general medical check up and told you need to lose some excess weight and eat more greens and more fruit by the twenty two stone nurse. [Post edited 30 Sep 23:18]
| |
| |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 23:50 - Sep 30 with 1549 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 20:52 - Sep 30 by Hunterhoop |
Obviously you have a much better vantage point at the game.
For a start you can literally see the whole pitch and what all 22 players are doing at any given point. So you can see who is working hard off the ball, tracking back, holding a good (or bad position) or making good runs, etc. TV does not capture that. It’s why, when Carragher or Neville or the chumps on MoTD do analysis they often pan out to the broadest camera view to show you the whole pitch to point out what you might have missed during the highlights from the normal TV camera position.
And this isn’t to mention that when you’re there you can hear things and sense the atmosphere better. Key acts are amplified if happening at important moments, and you can better judge whether something is important because you can see the whole pitch and what is unfolding better than watching on tv.
Yes, on TV you get replays, so you can “know” if something was a pen, offside, a red, etc. But in terms of assessing overall team and individual performance, it’s pretty irrelevant.
The opinion of those at the game is always more valid. Always. If we start thinking otherwise, the game has gone. |
I can't argue with that. It's very balanced.
There is some stuff you miss when you're at the game that only video will pick up, close-contact stuff as you say.
It's why our friends at the match text us to ask us if it's a peno or not.
But we miss so much more when watching video only, so much more - what's off the screen, who's working hard off the screen, who's not, who's moving, who's talking, who's aware, who's in charge at the back - goalie or not, how is the bench acting...
It's why we ring our friends who were at the match to tell us about the entire game. It's why they have more info than us.
More importantly, it's why clubs should send scouts to games. |  |
| |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 06:07 - Oct 1 with 1367 views | QPROslo |
There are clearly advantages and disadvantages to both being at the game and watching it on a screen. Advantages of being at the game are the atmosphere and the overview of the whole pitch, disadvantages are it is often hard to properly see what is happening at the other end of the pitch particularly when you stand behind one goal as I normally do. On a screen the advantage is you normally see everything going on and around the ball, disadvantage you miss much of the overview and I'd add the increase these days in hearing the commentator describing ongoing play while the screen is showing close ups of the Coach or someone in the crowd. |  | | |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 06:11 - Oct 1 with 1359 views | QPROslo |
But specific to the SW game Madsen, RND and M'Buenge were voted our best players and that seemed generally what was commented. Did people at the game disagree with that? | | | |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 06:24 - Oct 1 with 1333 views | FDC |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 20:52 - Sep 30 by Hunterhoop |
Obviously you have a much better vantage point at the game.
For a start you can literally see the whole pitch and what all 22 players are doing at any given point. So you can see who is working hard off the ball, tracking back, holding a good (or bad position) or making good runs, etc. TV does not capture that. It’s why, when Carragher or Neville or the chumps on MoTD do analysis they often pan out to the broadest camera view to show you the whole pitch to point out what you might have missed during the highlights from the normal TV camera position.
And this isn’t to mention that when you’re there you can hear things and sense the atmosphere better. Key acts are amplified if happening at important moments, and you can better judge whether something is important because you can see the whole pitch and what is unfolding better than watching on tv.
Yes, on TV you get replays, so you can “know” if something was a pen, offside, a red, etc. But in terms of assessing overall team and individual performance, it’s pretty irrelevant.
The opinion of those at the game is always more valid. Always. If we start thinking otherwise, the game has gone. |
By extension this is likely why what some players bring to the team is prone to being overlooked by supporters who most often watch online - I would guess Field falls into this category , and I'm sad that you didn't mention him 😉😄 |  | | |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 08:48 - Oct 1 with 1126 views | Hunterhoop |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 21:52 - Sep 30 by stainrods_elbow |
You're simply wrong, as well as ludicriously authoritarian! The fan at the game might be an idiot, for starters.
The moment we all start singing from a single songsheet like you advocate - that's when the game has gone, my friend! |
I’m not wrong. The whole discussion is predicated on it being the same “like for like” fan watching at the ground or on tv. Otherwise you’re bringing in another variable. Obviously, “an idiot” watching in any format is likely to misunderstand things. Feels like there is one doing that right now.
Is “one” better able to assess player performance at the game or watching on tv? It is obviously the former. You think you can assess performance better watching on tv than you could in the ground? Really?
Is your response perhaps driven by the fact you are not in the ground much, and simply think your opinion from watching TV is more valid that someone else’s, “an idiot” in your eyes, is who was at the game.
Superbly arrogant, that. But we expect nothing less.
Maybe Clive should just sit at home and write match reports off the stream. | | | |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 09:07 - Oct 1 with 1082 views | Hunterhoop |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 06:24 - Oct 1 by FDC |
By extension this is likely why what some players bring to the team is prone to being overlooked by supporters who most often watch online - I would guess Field falls into this category , and I'm sad that you didn't mention him 😉😄 |
Didn’t need to. You have. And those that know, know. | | | |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 09:24 - Oct 1 with 1006 views | SW_Ranger |
Two supporters side by side at a game will have different opinions; same on screen. It’s the joy and despair of football - we see different things and we have different views (you only have to read this forum to get that).
Pluses and minuses to both. I’d rather the atmosphere and camaraderie of the live game from any stand with a good view. Entertain me, win the game (mostly) and I’ll have plenty to talk about.
I just want to enjoy my team and my club. I’ll take what is available the week I’m able to. |  | | |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 09:33 - Oct 1 with 982 views | numptydumpty |
It's a balance on how to judge certain players. Some players run around a lot, put in 110% effort at all times, but sometimes achieve little impact at the business ends of the pitch. Some can see six passes ahead to create the killer pass. Some are just big time bullies on the pitch and can create havoc when they puff their chests out. Some do their particular job, but not much else. They follow the plan. Others seemingly are never at the races.
Think the ones that seem to put more effort in, get favourable ratings more if you are at a game as opposed to watching on a stream or TV. Sam Field - case in point here.
Hence why sometimes scouting from all over the world for players with a lot of footage online will never truly accurately replace scouts that watch the games week in, week out.
Data is massively relied on now, but does it highlight the extra factor some players seem to have.
I have come back from some games and been surprised at some players copping everything, whilst others, which I personally might have seen as ineffective, getting more slack from the armchair viewers.
Never sign someone based on a youtube reel !!!!!! [Post edited 1 Oct 9:35]
| |
| |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 09:50 - Oct 1 with 948 views | francisbowles |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 09:33 - Oct 1 by numptydumpty |
It's a balance on how to judge certain players. Some players run around a lot, put in 110% effort at all times, but sometimes achieve little impact at the business ends of the pitch. Some can see six passes ahead to create the killer pass. Some are just big time bullies on the pitch and can create havoc when they puff their chests out. Some do their particular job, but not much else. They follow the plan. Others seemingly are never at the races.
Think the ones that seem to put more effort in, get favourable ratings more if you are at a game as opposed to watching on a stream or TV. Sam Field - case in point here.
Hence why sometimes scouting from all over the world for players with a lot of footage online will never truly accurately replace scouts that watch the games week in, week out.
Data is massively relied on now, but does it highlight the extra factor some players seem to have.
I have come back from some games and been surprised at some players copping everything, whilst others, which I personally might have seen as ineffective, getting more slack from the armchair viewers.
Never sign someone based on a youtube reel !!!!!! [Post edited 1 Oct 9:35]
|
Add to that numpty, when judging players there is an element of in built bias and maybe some going with or against those that shout loudest.
If people like a certain player they will highlight his positives. If they are not a fan of him, they are likely to stress the negatives. Hence the 'marmite' player. | | | |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 03:54 - Oct 2 with 528 views | stainrods_elbow |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 08:48 - Oct 1 by Hunterhoop |
I’m not wrong. The whole discussion is predicated on it being the same “like for like” fan watching at the ground or on tv. Otherwise you’re bringing in another variable. Obviously, “an idiot” watching in any format is likely to misunderstand things. Feels like there is one doing that right now.
Is “one” better able to assess player performance at the game or watching on tv? It is obviously the former. You think you can assess performance better watching on tv than you could in the ground? Really?
Is your response perhaps driven by the fact you are not in the ground much, and simply think your opinion from watching TV is more valid that someone else’s, “an idiot” in your eyes, is who was at the game.
Superbly arrogant, that. But we expect nothing less.
Maybe Clive should just sit at home and write match reports off the stream. |
If you want to grossly distort what I said by trying to make out I'm calling fans at games idiots, all you do is make yourself look ridiculous at my expense to prosecute an image of me (as 'arrogant' or whatever else) that you need to go on broadcasting for your own reasons. It's a sorry day when a messageboard gets turned, by some of its members, into a cult in its need for scapegoats.
For clarity, clearly, there are benefits with both live and streamed matchday experiences, as has been said elsewhere on this thread. But to suggest that someone watching on TV/a stream etc. can't comment intelligently on the game, as has also been asserted, is also ridiculous. Fans in the ground don't have a moral high ground here, even if they think they do. I sat in a so-called Gold seat in Ellerslie for the Charlton game, obstructed by the TV gantry, and quite a lot of the match, depending on where the ball was, was lost to me. [Post edited 2 Oct 3:59]
| |
| |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 07:31 - Oct 2 with 419 views | gazza1 |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 03:54 - Oct 2 by stainrods_elbow |
If you want to grossly distort what I said by trying to make out I'm calling fans at games idiots, all you do is make yourself look ridiculous at my expense to prosecute an image of me (as 'arrogant' or whatever else) that you need to go on broadcasting for your own reasons. It's a sorry day when a messageboard gets turned, by some of its members, into a cult in its need for scapegoats.
For clarity, clearly, there are benefits with both live and streamed matchday experiences, as has been said elsewhere on this thread. But to suggest that someone watching on TV/a stream etc. can't comment intelligently on the game, as has also been asserted, is also ridiculous. Fans in the ground don't have a moral high ground here, even if they think they do. I sat in a so-called Gold seat in Ellerslie for the Charlton game, obstructed by the TV gantry, and quite a lot of the match, depending on where the ball was, was lost to me. [Post edited 2 Oct 3:59]
|
For the educated football fan then it may, just may, be better to form an opinion of the players performance, of the team, of the game by being present, etc, but with all the camera's around the ground, replays, analysis, etc then watching it on TV may just make it pretty equal...... [Post edited 2 Oct 8:42]
| | | |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 09:10 - Oct 2 with 295 views | nix |
| Players Performance assessed by television viewers as against fans at the game. on 06:11 - Oct 1 by QPROslo |
But specific to the SW game Madsen, RND and M'Buenge were voted our best players and that seemed generally what was commented. Did people at the game disagree with that? |
No. Though I thought Cook was decent too. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
