why even watch the sport that you can't even play?

Originally posted by uzless
none of your "comparisons" are actually comparable. Being a player and being a coach are two completely different animals. Being a player and being a GM need to completely different skill sets.

Your examples don't work at all.

But, you obviously won't change your mind but try this next time you are watching a game that you never played. After a goal ...[text shortened]... understand or have tried to explain it to you in the past but you just didn't get it...)

Just because you are convinced that athletes are the only ones who understand what they do (as if it is rocket science) does not mean there is an ounce of truth to what you say. I am certain that I have the mental capacity to understand many things that I have not done especially if I have the benefit of someone doing some explaining. I think athletes explanations of the game (post game interviews, weekly talk shows etc) rarely add anything. As their expertiese is in performing not teaching/ explaining. I much rather read an analyst many of whom never performed as well but the ability to gather, analyze and convey information.

Originally posted by quackquack
Just because you are convinced that athletes are the only ones who understand what they do (as if it is rocket science) does not mean there is an ounce of truth to what you say. I am certain that I have the mental capacity to understand many things that I have not done especially if I have the benefit of someone doing some explaining. I think athletes ...[text shortened]... many of whom never performed as well but the ability to gather, analyze and convey information.

OK, first of all, pro athletes are actually trained by the team on how to answer questions without divulging information they should not convey. They call it "coachspeak" and if you listen to 1,000 you can hear the pat answers woven through the discussion. The movie Bull Durham actually alludes to this and does a pretty good job of showing it. Once the players have several interviews/seasons under their belt, it becomes quasi-automatic. Now, occaqsionally you will see them speaking when they are highly emotional and they will blurt something they shouldn't say or expression an opinion they might regret later. Those are the tidbits that the rabid dogs (media) and trying to get them to say so they can have their story.

The color analyst in the announcers booth is usually a former player or coach who lends some insight into the game. They talk about facets that the non-players never considered. There are so many levels to the game however, it is impossible to convey every nuance of the game during the confines of a telecast or several telecasts. Things like how to set up a hitter, pitching sequences, signal changes, and how games are called. Most non-players believe that the catcher calls the game. They believe that the pitcher shakes off the signal and the catcher calls a different sign. However, that is not the case a portion of the time. There are decoys that are flashed. Occasionally a veteran pitcher will actually call the game from the mound. There are several ways to do it, and I would challenge anyone who has never played the game to explain how it is done, or to even be aware that it is going on.

There are many levels that any event can be viewed from, just as there are multiple interpretations of what an author is trying to say in their book, or what the artist was trying to convey in their painting. It doesn't mean that any of them are wrong, it means that some are viewing at a deeper level. Either way, it is possible to obtain enjoyment as a spectator as well as from a former player's view. I guarantee that only a few of you will watch a baseball game the same way I do. Most of you are not experienced enough to to be able to figure out some of the things I would. However, if I were to watch a hockey game, which I have never played and only seen a game played a handful of times, I have no idea about what the hell is going on; no concept of the startegy or the penaties....but I know when the light goes on behind the net, someone scored. I can count goals. I also don't care much for hockey, probably because I never played it and don't understand it. That doesn't mean it isn't a great sport, it just isn't a great sport to me.

Originally posted by shortcircuit

The color analyst in the announcers booth is usually a former player or coach who lends some insight into the game. They talk about facets that the non-players never considered. There are so many levels to the game however, it is impossible to convey every nuance of the game during the confines of a telecast or several telecasts.

Unfortunately, however, they can tend to speak some utter rubbish from time to time - and show a lack of understanding of the laws of the game.

The announcers/commentators/summerisers/analysts who help to provide the coverage on TV is one of the things which makes me uninterested in watching it. I don't miss them when I watch the match live. However, I do appreciate a two way conversation from time to time with a manger/coach/journalist/linesman actually at the same game.

As for why to watch rather then playing - less commitment for one, but I enjoy the travelling and meeting different groups of people.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
OK, first of all, pro athletes are actually trained by the team on how to answer questions without divulging information they should not convey. They call it "coachspeak" and if you listen to 1,000 you can hear the pat answers woven through the discussion. The movie Bull Durham actually alludes to this and does a pretty good job of showing it. Once the ...[text shortened]... stand it. That doesn't mean it isn't a great sport, it just isn't a great sport to me.

Athletes continually argue that they are the only ones who really know the sport. You just don't hear that argument in other walks of life. For exanple, no one said in 1969 that the American public wasn't an astronaut so they shouldn't even bother watching people walk on the moon because they won't understand it. People watch cops and robbers shows all the top even though most people don't have law enforcement training. In fact most things people watch are outside their field of expertiese. There is no reason to think sports is any more complicatedb or nuanced than other walks of life and the fact that people watch them on a regular basis without feeling inadequate is further evidence that they have sufficent knowledge to watch.

i'm with uzless and sc here. not that you cann't appreciate watching a game that you've never played, you can but you'll never understand what's going on for sure 100% of the time. something you get closer to if you've played the game regularly. i like watching baseball but i don't understand what rolls the coaches have during the game with regards to calls and how much is left solely to the players. rugby is another one, never really played it but like watching it.. know most of the rules but when you talk with people who used to play the game it's clear that by playing it they know so much more about what's going on than i do from just watching. same goes for the sports i've played, trying to explain what's going on during (and before) a penalty corner in field hockey is a nightmare when the other person has never played the sport.

Originally posted by trev33
i'm with uzless and sc here. not that you cann't appreciate watching a game that you've never played, you can but you'll never understand what's going on for sure 100% of the time. something you get closer to if you've played the game regularly. i like watching baseball but i don't understand what rolls the coaches have during the game with regards to calls a ...[text shortened]... rner in field hockey is a nightmare when the other person has never played the sport.

super-post- this is what Uzless's point was, most of u misses the point altogather

I am not suggesting that players don't have knowledge but the idea that the only way to gain knowledge is by doing something is just not true. Only a fool would think a doctor can't give treatment unless they had that disease. Simply, first hand participation is not the only way to gain knwledge. Their are columnists, authors, managers who have knowledge of a sport that did not play.

Originally posted by quackquack
I am not suggesting that players don't have knowledge but the idea that the only way to gain knowledge is by doing something is just not true. Only a fool would think a doctor can't give treatment unless they had that disease. Simply, first hand participation is not the only way to gain knwledge. Their are columnists, authors, managers who have knowledge of a sport that did not play.

With you all the way. The only angle the former player has over the fan is appreciaion of the subtleties and intricacies of the game. I camped out with my then cubscout pack in a local college stadium after watching the colege tem perfrom. We were given a bunch of footballs to play with. Although I played briefly in high school never really got into the nuts and bolts of X's and O's. At this event we first played a little flag football and then we kicked field goals. Came out of that with a whole new respect for the field goal kicker. I have a pretty strong leg from soccer yet the longest field goal I could kick was 25 yards. No rush, no blockers. No timing between snapper, holder and kicker at issue since we only kicked from tees. Cannot imagine doing it under greater pressure than a bunch of cub scouts cheering me on! That said, I know many people who never played who truly understand football and other spectator sports. PLaying it may give you an angle, yet not an isnurmountable one.

Wow. This thread has some serious BS smeared all over it.
Someone who has watched, commented and studied a sport for decades can never understand the game as well as a half-wit jock who made it to to the professional level, even if only for one game?

FAIL.

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]

Originally posted by Palynka
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]

Good one! Many, many sports experts never played the game and some who played it at the highest level made horrible commentators. ONe of the best local sportswriters was made to cooment about sports because that was the only job opening at his paper and they liked how he wrote.

Originally posted by Palynka
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]

WRONG. mourinho's dad played for portugal so he was obviously brought up in a football atmosphere plus he did start off as a player, he just sucked at it. no one in this thread has said that you have to play a sport professionally to understand it, just by playing in the park as a child you get more of an understanding than your avarge armchair only watcher.

coaching is a different animal all together and i'm sure if i look into parreira and sacchi that they also played at an amateur level, if even only as kids messing about growing up. it all counts in growing your football knowledge.

Originally posted by trev33
just by playing in the park as a child you get more of an understanding than your avarge armchair only watcher

Still not convincing. I played tennis in the park as a child. And (while I'm hardly an expert), that's contributed almost nothing to my understanding of the game at elite level.

Take one person, let them play football as a child, but never see the professional game. Take a second, never let them play, but give them years of watching the game on television and listening to expert commentators (if you can find any).

Now put them both in front of a professional match. Not easy to prove without doing the experiment, obviously, but I would contend that the second person would have a far better understanding of what was going on. By a massive margin - it wouldn't be remotely close.


I'd agree that playing the game adds to your understanding. But it's just one factor.

Originally posted by Crowley
Wow. This thread has some serious BS smeared all over it.
Someone who has watched, commented and studied a sport for decades can never understand the game as well as a half-wit jock who made it to to the professional level, even if only for one game?

FAIL.

You are such a dim witted jerk to broadly categorize jocks as half-wits, and then to assume that someone who has never understood the "inner game" because they haven't played could even come close to the true experiences of being there and playing the game, is absurd. But, coming from you Chowder, I am not surprised at all that you would regurgitate such tripe. Any time you would care to match wits with a "half-wit jock" as you call us, I am more than willing to match up with your mental acumen (or lack thereof).

Originally posted by mtthw
Still not convincing. I played tennis in the park as a child. And (while I'm hardly an expert), that's contributed almost nothing to my understanding of the game at elite level.

Take one person, let them play football as a child, but never see the professional game. Take a second, never let them play, but give them years of watching the game on televisio ...[text shortened]...


I'd agree that playing the game adds to your understanding. But it's just one factor.

you're not getting it at all. the original point we're talking about is that people who have played the game have a better understanding of it than others who never have, while both watch the game.

but i would say in that experiment that you would get one guy who is talking about things he was told to say by the tv people and another who has played the game regularly is aware of the little things that go on during the game and talks from the heart. remember we're not just talking about football here it's all sports.

let two people watch a baseball game with no commentary, one who has grown up playing little league ball and another who has only ever watched it on tv and get them to discuss what's happening during the game. the guy who has played little league ball will know the little signs that go on during the game and the little fielding changes that are made, the guy who has never played will know nothing of that and imo will lose any argument over a play.