Minority Report v Watford

I think you should re-read your post and mine.
Your 'sport is only entertainment , it doesn't matter'
Mine 'of course entertainment matters, as does sport'
Sorry I used too many words and confused you.

 

dont be condescending. In reply to the person who replied to me stating sport wasn’t entertainment. It clearly is as you agreed.

As you felt the need to jump in maybe it was you who were confused. Maybe you were comparing something whilst telling me you weren’t.

 

I didn't agree, and I quoted exactly what you said. My point was that you also wrote that entertainment doesn't matter, which I very much disagree with.

If all the stadiums in the world disappeared tomorrow - people would still compete in sport. They do it for the competition, not for the gawping masses. The crowds are a secondary concern, competition is a natural human desire.

Now for clarity - this bit is also pertinent to your post and is not related to sport.
As for entertainment - it absolutely does matter, one of the things that separates us from animals is our desire for storytelling and communicating through music and art, as can be witnessed by what we reach for in times of crisis.

 

Sorry to pick you up on this pompey but it just isn't purely entertainment though is it?

It's a business providing employment to some.
It's a place to meet family and friends either before, during or after games.
It's a community.

and much much more

 

You go to Oakwell to be entertained then. If sport didn't exist you'd find something else to be entertained by. There is obviously an employment aspect, there isn't many sports stars, artists, musicians etc who it for free but if you as a consumer dont consume for entertainment what else do you do it for?

 

But if we didn’t go to Oakwell, those kids would still be playing football.
Ergo, the football exists as a natural competition without fans.

unlike ‘entertainment’ football exists for the participants, way before people turn up to watch in large numbers. Remove the audience from entertainment and it ceases to exist.

 

if stadiums disappeared they'd do it for entertainment and enjoyment then. They wouldn't do it because they had to, they'd do it because they wanted to!

Of course entertainment matters. is it vital to keep us alive though? we'd be a lot lot poorer as a human race without it but, and its a big but that may take a little thinking about its not vital to life, my point about it not mattering was a reference to the famous quote of football not being life and death, its more important than that. it plainly isn't.

 

Of course it does they are entertaining themselves!!!!!

I think i best leave you to whatever point you think you are trying to make.

 

No! They’d do it to fulfil the natural desire to compete.

So we’ve changed your mind on that then

 

i dont think so, sport happens to entertain, entertainment is important but the outcome of the result or outcome isn't important and doesn't matter, i think you've chosen to deliberately miss that bit out in your examples or in my first reply to the OP. You can re word it as many times as you like its ok, i dont mind but you going around in circles trying to prove a point.

 

As I've previously tried to explain. I've just read all your other posts on the subject and it seems that you've tried and failed to convince several other people. You're entitled to your opinion, as I am mine, so we'll just agree to disagree and leave it there.

 

I think your comments about the central striker role are right, it’s something I’ve been saying since Brown was sold buy we are where we are & I think I read that’s only Schmidt’s 4th league start so whilst I doubt he’ll ever be able to hold a ball up well we’re stuck while January at least so we might as well get behind him.

What I take issue with is the line about how you don’t pay for a season ticket to watch us have 34% possession at home. That’s just nonsense. You’re not naive, you obviously know a bit about football. You must know the quality teams like Watford possess. Surely you can’t expect us to have as much possession in the championship as we do in league one? They had lads with England caps in their midfield.

If you go back over the last 15 years of us at this level? Have we ever regularly matched the opposition for possession? Maybe for 3 months under Hill when we had Butterfield & Drinkwater at a push.

Even the side under Heckingbottom that were close to the play offs played on the counter attack & made the most of set pieces.

We are underdogs at this level whether we like it or not & barring a couple of smaller teams we have inferior players to most of the teams in this division so unfortunately we have to find ways of working harder than them & tactically outsmarting them.

 

But we press for a number of reasons -

to stop the opposition working it out from the back and having to go long
to break up attacks (defending from the front)
to regain the ball in an attacking position

Just because we only score 1 goal from 1 press does not mean that it is not an attacking ploy.

We scored zero goals from other means, doesn't mean they are not attacks either.

 

If football is purely entertainment, why do fans follow ‘their’ team? Do you think Barnsley fans go to watch Leeds because their games are more entertaining? Regarding your mechanic analogy, I agree, nobody watches him but his objective is the same as a pro footballer, do his job well in order to keep his job so he can pay his mortgage. It just happens that football has the capacity to entertain. But that’s not the point of football.

 

I agree with your general point, which is about expectations. We should not expect to dominate possession when our players are generally learning their trade, rather than being established, but 34% is our lowest possession this season. Even at Reading, the club that currently tops the league, where we had only 9 men for part of the game, we managed 42%. My point was more that in my opinion, the system and the fact that we kept passing the ball long were major factors in the very low possession statistic. Can it be mere chance that our lowest possession statistic of the season is associated with a new coach and a change of tactics, or is it all down to Watford's undoubted player quality. I do not know for certain, but I will certainly be keeping my eye on it in future weeks.

 

I agree with all of your opening paragraph, but I interpret those things as mainly defensive. Generally speaking, when we do not have the ball, we are defending and when we do have the ball, we are attacking. I am not saying that we will not score the occasional goal through winning the ball back high. I am simply making the point that the tactic of trying to force an error by pressing the player with the ball is an attempt to regain possession, and since the opposition cannot score when they do not have the ball, I interpret that as being a defensive tactic. However, I feel that this discussion has become focused upon "attacking" and "defensive", when it should have been focused on "winning the ball back as quickly as possible". Sadly, all that effort is wasted if you simply give it back by kicking the ball long.

 

RR, I read your posts with intensity and it is clear that you strive to understand tactics and systems better.

However, I think you are getting hung up on only having 34% possession on Saturday. Briefly put, we had a game plan against Watford, stuck to it, and it worked (to the extent that we achieved a positive 1-0 result). It sometimes isn't how much time you have the ball, it's what you do with it that counts. A quick example - Liverpool had 66% possession in the 7-2 defeat at Aston Villa, one example just off the top of my head. Quickly checking Barnsley have generally shaded possession (roughly 53% possession average) in every game since lockdown at Oakwell - apart from the Blackburn game (40% possession) a game we won 2-0 and played for 20 minutes against 10 men. Again the best win (apart from the QPR game) came with only 40% possession.

 

As I pointed out last night, 48% of their possession came via their defenders in their own third. Even Ben Foster in goal had 6% of their possession, more than any of our players. It’s how they play, with a back five under Ivíc. It’s why their fans are unhappy. They create very little.

We had no interest in a battle for possession.

We had plenty of the ball in our opening four games and didn’t score in open play.

 

im all ears... explain what the point of football is then and why the outcome would matter? You, I and thousands of others go every week win lose or draw, which would lead me to suggest the result is not important all to being entertained, maybe the day out is the entertainement as you've already suggested? id love instead of people telling me it has a point to actually explain that point because no one has yet!

a mechanic does their job, your point backs up mine you are trying to argue against. nobody watches, its purely functional, they might enjoy it, they go home and tinker with a 1960's triumph stag and gain enjoyment, entertaining themselves and his fellow enthusiasts?

Many people go to different football matches and different clubs every weekend. Ground hoppers across the country do it for entertainment, to entertain themselves, they arent bothered about the outcome as it doesn't matter. you and I are conditioned to think Barnsley results actually matter because its what we are taught, outcome is everything. it clearly isn't, although some will think it is. not everything must have a result, look at the Americans they cant even handle draws!

but i guess it doesn't matter anyway however you spend your time i hope it being entertained!!

 

Fair enough. I accept your point and the same point made by YTBFC. Nevertheless, I would still rather see my team in possession than I would chasing around, trying to regain possession. That is particularly true when having expended all that energy chasing the ball around in order to regained possession, the team simply kick it straight back to the opposition because they have hit a long pass that no-one has any chance of retaining, and watch that pattern repeated for most of the 90 minutes. In my book, it matters not only that you win. It matters how you win. Now that may not be important to all, but it is important to me.

We are talking about a situation that may be just a one off. The team may play differently against less formidable opposition. The team may lose using the same method against less formidable opposition. Let us suspend this discussion for now, and let us reconvene when there is more evidence, that is, when we have played more games under VI.