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

Originally posted by uzless
Only one way to settle this.

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 ...[text shortened]... r idealy with some passes and/or a blown defensive play. Not just some skid on a break-away!

I like this idea.

Why not find some clips and post them, and then give time for all of us to make our observations and debate about it, and then you can offer your own take on it. You could pick plays that illustrate the kinds of nuances you've been talking about and see how much any of us picks up on them

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I like this idea.

Why not find some clips and post them, and then give time for all of us to make our observations and debate about it, and then you can offer your own take on it.

deal

Originally posted by uzless
Only one way to settle this.

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 ...[text shortened]... r idealy with some passes and/or a blown defensive play. Not just some skid on a break-away!

I said this before:
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.

What part of that sentence didn't you understand? I also gave several examples of great coaches who never played professionally, one was a shoe maker before being a coach.

Originally posted by Palynka
I also gave several examples of great coaches who never played professionally, one was a shoe maker before being a coach.

🙄

please explain how this has anything to do with the topic in hand?

it means nothing, some people are better at teaching than doing, do you think all great players could become great coaches? of course not, they're two completely different animals.

plus as stated earlier both played amateur football so it wasn't as if they suddenly decided to become a coach after having no experience whats so ever within the game.

Originally posted by trev33
🙄

please explain how this has anything to do with the topic in hand?

it means nothing, some people are better at teaching than doing, do you think all great players could become great coaches? of course not, they're two completely different animals.

plus as stated earlier both played amateur football so it wasn't as if they suddenly decided to become a coach after having no experience whats so ever within the game.

My God, your stupidity is legendary. Read the post I've quoted. Why didn't this little rant came up in response to uzless' idiotic duel challenge? That's right, because you're being a blind hypocrite here. I just said that if he wanted examples, I already gave some.

In fact, thank you for agreeing with me that playing and understanding the game are completely different animals.

Unless you want to argue that successful coaches don't understand the game. I wouldn't put it past you at this point, considering I evidently hurt your feelings.

😏

Originally posted by Palynka
My God, your stupidity is legendary. Read the post I've quoted. Why didn't this little rant came up in response to uzless' idiotic duel challenge? That's right, because you're being a blind hypocrite here. I just said that if he wanted examples, I already gave some.

In fact, thank you for agreeing with me that playing and understanding the game are comple ...[text shortened]... me. I wouldn't put it past you at this point, considering I evidently hurt your feelings.

😵

dude, answer the question.. what has the fact that a coach has never played his sport professionally have anything to do with armchair fans who have played a game having more understanding of the game than those who have never played?

that was your argument from the start before you sidestep the question with some bs response.

Originally posted by trev33
😵

dude, answer the question.. what has the fact that a coach has never played his sport professionally have anything to do with armchair fans who have played a game having more understanding of the game than those who have never played?

that was your argument from the start before you sidestep the question with some bs response.

Double post.

LOL! Keep backtracking, dude. Next up, I expect to see you backtrack up to the blind armchair fan who never played a game or kicked a ball in his life having lesser understanding of the game. 😵

I already gave the logical argument to darvlay. Was the word "intangible" too difficult?

BTW, a question is not an argument, let alone that one. So if you want to tell me what my argument was then at least try writing something intelligible.

I'll use rugby as an example, as it's probably one of the most difficult sports to understand if you never played.
There's a myriad of rules and referees then throw a spanner in the works by their interpretation of said rules.

In the 5+ years we've been together, I have been completely unable to get my wife to understand it. Woman, on average, struggle to understand it because they almost never play it.
Many guys who never really played it at a competitive level don't understand the nuances either, sure.
I think I understand and have insight into the game that many people don't have, because I did play a lot, but after I stopped playing I still watch as much as I can. This, I believe, is the key.
To really understand a sport and the way it evolves, you have to watch as much of it as you possibly can.


Many ex-players go on to become coaches or commentators.
Like Palynka pointed out, many successful coaches never played at a high level and ex-pros many times get shown up.

Take Rudolph Straeuli for example. He was a great player, but failed miserably as a coach. Why? Because he was a specialist loose forward with limited understanding of how all 15 players fit into 80 minutes of rugby.
I played more rugby than Jake White or Kitch Christie ever did, yet they both went on to become the Sprigboks' most successful coaches.

Ex-players as commentators are usually a bloody disaster too, even though networks will stick by them for their 'celebrity' status. Dan Retief has genius insights into rugby and never played.



At the end of the day it comes down to this: Generalizations are idiotic.
Some ex-players will understand a game fully, but the same can be said of an overweight guy who lives on chocolate bars and pretzels in his mom's basement, if he is bright enough and watches enough of a sport.

Originally posted by Crowley
Woman, on average, struggle to understand it because they almost never play it.

In my experience, women, on average, don't understand it because they couldn't care less :-).

Originally posted by mtthw
In my experience, women, on average, don't understand it because they couldn't care less :-).

LOL. Maybe.

I find that I can enjoy a sport once someone explains the rules etc. to me.
Women, in my experience, just get confused by all the rules, probably because they never played it. If you don't understand WHY Schalk Burger conceded yet another penalty you can't fully enjoy the game.

Interesting discussion.

The way I see it, if you haven't played a sport with some degree of seriousness, you will likely not understand that sport as much as if you had. However, to suggest that there's some glass ceiling of understanding than cannot be breached unless you are a player or ex-player is a bit of a stretch.

Good Coaches don't necessarily need to know the game. Coaching is more about motivating your players. You don't need to know the game to be a sucessful coach.

Just as good players don't always make good coaches because they don't know how to motivate or communicate. They just expect their players to play and understand the game like they did. (think Wayne Gretzky)

Besides, a successful coach is dependant on the type/quality of player he has. Any yahoo can be successful if he has great players. Putting a coach with bad players is much more representative than some coach that is on a perrenial powerhouse.(think yankees, Man U etc)

NOTE: I note that no one came up with a clip to get some real emperical data. That's what I thought. Either laziness rules the day, or no one is willing to put their money where their mouth is.

Originally posted by richjohnson
Interesting discussion.

The way I see it, if you haven't played a sport with some degree of seriousness, you will likely not understand that sport as much as if you had. However, to suggest that there's some glass ceiling of understanding than cannot be breached unless you are a player or ex-player is a bit of a stretch.

Based on what? You can't just make a statement like that and then walk away. It's meaningless palynka type territory you've wandered into there bubs.