1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaSurely Mourinho has played the sport before though, just not at a professional level.
José Mourinho knows more about football than any of you and more than at least 99% of football managers. He never played.
Carlos Alberto Parreira: World Cup champion. Brazil hadn't won one since Pele before him. Never played.
Arrigo Sachi: Never played. Quote: "I never realised that in order to become a jockey you have to have been a horse first..."
[/thread]
Does "Never played" = "Never played professionally" or "Never played at all" ?
I still contend that this is bull.
Anyone can attain the same level of 'understanding' of any game over time.
Sure, athletes who were there can (they don't always DO, as some just reaffirm the idiot jock stereotype) attain this level quicker, but a couch potato who watches the game constantly can get there too.
Originally posted by darvlayEverybody has kicked a ball in his life. If you restrict yourself to people who never played at all, then what percentage of fans are we talking about here? 0.001%?
Surely Mourinho has played the sport before though, just not at a professional level.
Does "Never played" = "Never played professionally" or "Never played at all" ?
Originally posted by CrowleyPerhaps in some sports, like curling.
I still contend that this is bull.
Anyone can attain the same level of 'understanding' of any game over time.
Sure, athletes who were there can (they don't always DO, as some just reaffirm the idiot jock stereotype) attain this level quicker, but a couch potato who watches the game constantly can get there too.
This is definitely not the case in American Football, that's for sure.
Originally posted by darvlayNext time you watch a game, don't watch the player with the puck....just watch the guys without the puck. It'll look like a completely different game, confusing at first, but you'll never look at a game the same if you can figure out what the guys without the puck are doing.
I feel like I know Hockey well enough after watching it for decades but I certainly don't kid myself into thinking I know the game completely or at a level with someone who plays the game regularly.
Any nimrod can play with the puck. It's what the players without the puck are doing that dictates what happens in a game.
Playing without the puck is what separates NHL players from everyone else.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaWhat did you mean when you said he has "never played"?
Everybody has kicked a ball in his life. If you restrict yourself to people who never played at all, then what percentage of fans are we talking about here? 0.001%?
Let's be clear, I'm not talking about some joe who's kicked a ball in the park before as someone who's played the game. Surely Mourinho has played in an organized league of some sort with full rosters and coaches and such before he started managing, right?
Originally posted by darvlayI meant professionally. Yes, he played a bit when he was young and quit when he got to senior level. Arrigo Sacchi was a shoe salesman. Does he count too?
What did you mean when you said he has "never played"?
Let's be clear, I'm not talking about some joe who's kicked a ball in the park before as someone who's played the game. Surely Mourinho has played in an organized league with full rosters and coaches and such before he started managing, right?
Anyway, I think the main premise is complete bull and I agree with Crowley. If you bother to examine the game properly, you'll understand it. If you look at it superficially, you won't. The so-called superiority of ex-players is merely the correlation between an average group with more exposure to the game than the other one.
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessI've always felt it would be better for TV to show the plays from directly overhead (perhaps the viewer could be given the choice of watching the regular camera or an overhead camera?) -- allowing you to see where ALL the players are at ALL times, and allowing you to see how the plays actually develop, what holes open up, how everyone reacts, etc.
hey so did I but I wouldn't say that I completely understand what happens on each play.
It doesn't help that tv only shows us the o-line and the D-line and quaterback running back. the receivers and secondary are off-screen so it's very hard to really know why something happened if you can't see the whole field.
Anyone can learn the "system" that a sions made by the players acting WITHIN that system that determine outcomes of the games.
This gives me an idea. What if you gave the viewer the option to choose which of the various cameras he wanted to watch from? Your remote would have, say 10 or 20 buttons, each corresponding to a given camera. You could then press buttons to get the feed from a different camera. You could also get regular or slow-mo replay from any camera at any time for any previous play. Maybe ALL of this info could be recorded on the DVD Player you use to record TV shows. You could then go back and watch the game from each of the camera angles, and do an extensive analysis on every play. I wonder if this is something we could be seeing in the future?
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't disagree with any of this but surely some sports are more complex and nuanced than others, no?
I meant professionally. Yes, he played a bit when he was young and quit when he got to senior level. Arrigo Sacchi was a shoe salesman. Does he count too?
Anyway, I think the main premise is complete bull and I agree with Crowley. If you bother to examine the game properly, you'll understand it. If you look at it superficially, you won't. The so-called su ...[text shortened]... ly the correlation between an average group with more exposure to the game than the other one.
Does your opinion hold for every sport?
Originally posted by uzlessGood point.
Next time you watch a game, don't watch the player with the puck....just watch the guys without the puck. It'll look like a completely different game, confusing at first, but you'll never look at a game the same if you can figure out what the guys without the puck are doing.
Any nimrod can play with the puck. It's what the players without the puck are do ...[text shortened]... ns in a game.
Playing without the puck is what separates NHL players from everyone else.
In sports like hockey or basketball, it's often very interesting to pick one player and focus on what that specific player is doing at all times - always considering the question of why the player decided to do what he's doing, and what his other options were -- or you can focus on a particular location on the ice or the court. (Doesn't work as well in football because the players, except maybe the QB, are out of camera range for much of the action)
The problem I have is it's hard to focus on more than one player or one location at any given time, so there's always going to be a lot of stuff that I miss. But focusing on something besides the puck or the ball definitely makes you aware of stuff you otherwise don't see.
Originally posted by darvlayYes. I don't think there's anything truly intangible in the whole thing. Some sports may be harder to understand than others, but that's really it. Also, the player may focus on some technical points and disregard the tactical ones while maybe the reverse happens more frequently to the couch potato. Is one superior to the other? Meh.
I don't disagree with any of this but surely some sports are more complex and nuanced than others, no?
Does your opinion hold for every sport?
Anyway, all I'm saying is that the pretense superiority of opinion is probably used only by players trying to get a stamp of authority on their views. BS, if you ask me.
2 edits
Originally posted by darvlayYou sure you can explain to me why the secondary consistently have "defensive coverage breakdowns" if the system is designed to not breakdown? Breakdowns happen because the players are interpreting something incorrectly.
Perhaps in some sports, like curling.
This is definitely not the case in American Football, that's for sure.
So my question is can you realiably and consistently explain what the secondary players are thinking on every play? Why they left the man wide open? Why they didn't come up on the run play to make the tackle? Why they left the TE open down the middle in order to double up on wideout?
It's not just a case of what the commentators tell us that the quaterback looked him off, or that the system was supposed to have a guy covering down the middle. Can you reliably tell the difference between a blown man-man coverage with safety support versus a general zone coverage scheme?
You might get an explanation once every 10 receptions but it's rare that you get a commentator go into the mindset of the players. The NFL broadcasts though are decent in that they have ex-players in the booth. I just wish they'd go more in depth in their analysis so I could learn the nuances.
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaOnly one way to settle this.
Anyway, all I'm saying is that the pretense superiority of opinion is probably used only by players trying to get a stamp of authority on their views. BS, if you ask me.
Pick a play and have an ex-player give an explanation.
Then pick a non-player and have that person give an explanation that has watched the game on tv for say 5-10 years.
Compare.
I say the ex-player gives you way more detail and insight.
EDIT: We could do this if someone picks a youtube clip. If it's hockey, i'll give the ex-player viewpoint and palynka or darv or someone else can give the non-player view point.
Pick a play that is at least 15-20 seconds long and you can see more than just the puck-carrier idealy with some passes and/or a blown defensive play. Not just some skid on a break-away!
Originally posted by uzlessOne problem is that there's only so much time between plays. You could probably have a 15 minute analysis for each play and still not cover a lot of what happened.
You sure you can explain to me why the secondary consistently have "defensive coverage breakdowns" if the system is designed to not breakdown? Breakdowns happen because the players are interpreting something incorrectly.
So my question is can you realiably and consistently explain what the secondary players are thinking on every play? Why they left the m ...[text shortened]... ooth. I just wish they'd go more in depth in their analysis so I could learn the nuances.
Maybe they could have a website where someone (or a panel) could take a given game and make an extensive analysis of each play - and you could click on the play you're interested in and get the full story. (Or if you have a whole day, you could go through the entire game.)