What are the things you hate regarding fitba?

[Guest TheJTS98]

4 hours ago, thisal said:

Even if it was a foul I'd book him for deliberate handball. Also this there was contact he's entitled to go down thing. No you're not it's called simulation. Give the foul AND book the player for diving. I'd be a moaning asshole of  a ref people trying to con me all the time would make my head go.

Goes back to the old problem of how referees treat different reactions.

The Leeds player yesterday, for example. Pretty shite way for an adult to behave, he's embarrassed himself on tv in front of millions of people, but if he hadn't gone down, the referee wouldn't have sent his opponent off and he'd have been ripped to shreds for staying on his feet by his teammates.

It's the same with the issue of players grabbing the ball to pressure the ref into a foul, or going down when just clipped and don't have to. It comes down to referees applying the rules and giving things they should give to remove the need to act like a dick. Players all say their first responsibility is to their teammates, and if refs run games in a way that makes thing kind of thing necessary, then we'll keep seeing it.

[NotThePars]

How much fitba is locked behind some sort of paywall. I'm sure I read some article that actually attempted to work out the viewing figures and put a lot of EPL games in the UK at like 300,000 as tons of people just can't afford to watch. I can't which means my options are going to the pub (not possible rn and ripe for ruining my liver in the long term), finding a dodgy stream (which inevitably cuts out) or watching highlights hours after the event which just leaves me alienated from the sport.

I think a big part of why the Euros and World Cup is still such a big event (beyond the relative rarity of it and novelty) is that it's a doddle to tune in for.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

The Ballon D'Or, just nonsense

This or more specifically people taking things like that seriously and particularly people who get emotionally invested in whether Messi or Ronaldo is better

Part of the whole appeal of team sports is that it’s not about individual performances and the whole can be far greater or less than the sum of its parts.

For that reason Fantasy football can piss off as well

[Gus Setsniffer]

3 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

 

This or more specifically people taking things like that seriously and particularly people who get emotionally invested in whether Messi or Ronaldo is better

Part of the whole appeal of team sports is that it’s not about individual performances and the whole can be far greater or less than the sum of its parts.

For that reason Fantasy football can piss off as well

 

Fantasy Football is the petrol that made stats unfuckin bearable, 20 or 25 years ago, it was pretty interesting to read how Barcelona had 78% possession against a proper Ferguson Man United team, now we're in the realm of xG 

used to be that Kenny Dalglish would be two moves ahead in his mind, and lay on a ball for his strike partner to score, striker got bigged up, but everyone there watching saw who was the real genius, now that's called an assist, just like someone passing a ball 6 yards side ways for a team mate to score

ask yer da, but Michael Laudrup was a better player than Zidane.......but i've been told by a ballon d'or w**k stain, Zidane won it, Laudrup didnt that how you judge greatness

[Guest TheJTS98]

6 hours ago, NotThePars said:

How much fitba is locked behind some sort of paywall. I'm sure I read some article that actually attempted to work out the viewing figures and put a lot of EPL games in the UK at like 300,000 as tons of people just can't afford to watch. I can't which means my options are going to the pub (not possible rn and ripe for ruining my liver in the long term), finding a dodgy stream (which inevitably cuts out) or watching highlights hours after the event which just leaves me alienated from the sport.

I think a big part of why the Euros and World Cup is still such a big event (beyond the relative rarity of it and novelty) is that it's a doddle to tune in for.

John Nicholson wrote a book with a chunk about this. The viewing figures for paywall football in general are shite. Even big games like Man Utd v Liverpool draw in what are relatively small audiences considering the hype around them. People just don't pay for it.

UEFA got pretty arsey a few years back about BT Sport's tiny viewing figures for the Champions League. Sponsors not happy, obviously.

I always think it's funny how much podcast time and how many newspaper column inches are taken up in Champions League week analysing in great detail a competition that hardly anybody actually watches. The figures are in. It gets a huge amount of attention, but the vast majority of people don't watch it.

[Jambomo]

On 27/11/2020 at 01:07, TheJTS98 said:

John Nicholson wrote a book with a chunk about this. The viewing figures for paywall football in general are shite. Even big games like Man Utd v Liverpool draw in what are relatively small audiences considering the hype around them. People just don't pay for it.

UEFA got pretty arsey a few years back about BT Sport's tiny viewing figures for the Champions League. Sponsors not happy, obviously.

I always think it's funny how much podcast time and how many newspaper column inches are taken up in Champions League week analysing in great detail a competition that hardly anybody actually watches. The figures are in. It gets a huge amount of attention, but the vast majority of people don't watch it.

I think as well as the paywall aspect, in most leagues now and including Europe - there is almost no variety and the rarity factor that made things like European football exciting, has pretty much gone. 
 

International football has not quite lost that rarity and it would still be exciting to see Scotland play France, Italy, Argentina etc   Because it’s been a long time since it last happened. 

 

[Mark Connolly]

On 16/11/2020 at 20:19, Albertlegend said:

Yeah add me to the list of people this annoys. My bug bear was always Troy Deeney, for years I thought Watford had some italian guy Troidini up front assumed a first name like Gianluca etc

Imagine my disappointment when I seen him! 

Due to only ever hearing his name said by wallopers like Billy Dodds and Allan Preston, for quite a while I thought Gael Bigiramana was a guy called Ramana who was large.

[The Golden God]

Every single thing that happens on a pitch has to be somebody else's fault. Analysts and idiots on twitter will always make out it's a defenders fault for every single goal. A recent one that annoyed me was Christie's goal in the cup semi a few weeks ago, it was just a great strike, nothing you could do about it but Sportscene were slagging Considine (I think) for giving Christie too much space and saying he should have went out to him. If he goes out to him then Chrsitie has an easy pass into the box to the winger who would get at least a shot on target or can play the ball across the goal, if this happens then Considine would have been slated for going out to close down Christie. Football these days just seems to be over analysed, there's stats for every single thing a player does on a pitch, it's not a particularly complicated sport, your average fan can see what's happened, who is at fault, who done well etc. Won't be long till we're watching highlights of a match that last longer than the match itself.

[TheScarf]

6 hours ago, The Golden God said:

Every single thing that happens on a pitch has to be somebody else's fault. Analysts and idiots on twitter will always make out it's a defenders fault for every single goal. A recent one that annoyed me was Christie's goal in the cup semi a few weeks ago, it was just a great strike, nothing you could do about it but Sportscene were slagging Considine (I think) for giving Christie too much space and saying he should have went out to him. If he goes out to him then Chrsitie has an easy pass into the box to the winger who would get at least a shot on target or can play the ball across the goal, if this happens then Considine would have been slated for going out to close down Christie. Football these days just seems to be over analysed, there's stats for every single thing a player does on a pitch, it's not a particularly complicated sport, your average fan can see what's happened, who is at fault, who done well etc. Won't be long till we're watching highlights of a match that last longer than the match itself.

They've even begun talking about xG.  Who gives a fuck about 'expected goals' in each game?  Just watch the fucking game and stop thinking about how many goals you expect there to be in it.

[Jambomo]

4 hours ago, TheScarf said:

They've even begun talking about xG.  Who gives a f**k about 'expected goals' in each game?  Just watch the fucking game and stop thinking about how many goals you expect there to be in it.

I was feeling old because they mentioned it last night and I no idea what XG means. What is the point of it? Especially at the end of the game, when you know the exact amount of goals in the game. 

[accies1874]

I was feeling old because they mentioned it last night and I no idea what XG means. What is the point of it? Especially at the end of the game, when you know the exact amount of goals in the game. 

It's supposed to give a truer reflection of performance than goals/shots/shots on target etc. This can be used for fans or analysts to see how they 'really' did or as a predictive tool. I read that there was a pretty high up club that didn't sack their manager because their xG was higher than results suggested.

You can also use it to see if a goalscorer is likely to maintain their output.

It's obviously really boring and takes the emotion away from football, but it's definitely an important tool for those who want it.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

Know what I hate, fucking football 'journalists'.  This is a new thing, there used to just be reporters mostly.  

Now we get some fat middle aged w**k who couldnae even get a game for his school team telling us what pass Kevin de Bruyne should have selected.  Tossers to a man with a couple of notable exceptions.

Some write good stuff about football, that's fine, but don't ever give your fucking opinion, or think your opinion is of any more worth than the guy that empties your bins.

For analysis I want someone that played for Real Madrid, not somebody that watched Real Madrid and wrote about it.  I like my experts to be experts, and you could never be an expert in something you have never done. Even some utter walloper like Clinton Morrison who can barely speak is preferable in actual football stuff that happens in a game. 

This has taken a step further in recent years, with journalists being the co-commentator to give 'expert' advice and it really boils my piss. 

[KingRocketman II]

2 hours ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

Know what I hate, fucking football 'journalists'.  This is a new thing, there used to just be reporters mostly.  

Now we get some fat middle aged w**k who couldnae even get a game for his school team telling us what pass Kevin de Bruyne should have selected.  Tossers to a man with a couple of notable exceptions.

Some write good stuff about football, that's fine, but don't ever give your fucking opinion, or think your opinion is of any more worth than the guy that empties your bins.

For analysis I want someone that played for Real Madrid, not somebody that watched Real Madrid and wrote about it.  I like my experts to be experts, and you could never be an expert in something you have never done. Even some utter walloper like Clinton Morrison who can barely speak is preferable in actual football stuff that happens in a game. 

This has taken a step further in recent years, with journalists being the co-commentator to give 'expert' advice and it really boils my piss. 

I prefer listening to a podcast with journalists than one with ex-footballers. For example Guardian football weekly as opposed to Sportsound - give me Raphael Honigstein over Bonner, "Doddsy" or "Biscuits" any day of the week. Generally speaking sports journalists are better analysts than footballers in this country - or at least the ex-pro's that are served up. However and by contrast if comparing Chic Young to say Kompany or Guillit, well its no contest.....

 

 

[G51]

I hate how difficult it is to rewatch old matches.

See if Rangers signed a player, and I wanted to watch some of his old matches to see what like a player he is? Extremely difficult to find.

Would be really good if the SPFL published old games on the website or something.

[The Golden God]

11 hours ago, accies1874 said:

It's supposed to give a truer reflection of performance than goals/shots/shots on target etc. This can be used for fans or analysts to see how they 'really' did or as a predictive tool. I read that there was a pretty high up club that didn't sack their manager because their xG was higher than results suggested.

You can also use it to see if a goalscorer is likely to maintain their output.

It's obviously really boring and takes the emotion away from football, but it's definitely an important tool for those who want it.

Those who want it being the key here, fine for the clubs and players, but if you're a fan and tune in to MOTD after a defeat just so you can see if you won on expected goals and use it as an excuse to your mates then you are for the watching. It would make me angrier after a loss if it turned out my team had a much better "xG"  than the opposition. If stats are that important then we might aswell not play the game. Not a dig at you just the people who obsess over it.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

16 hours ago, KingRocketman II said:

I prefer listening to a podcast with journalists than one with ex-footballers. For example Guardian football weekly as opposed to Sportsound - give me Raphael Honigstein over Bonner, "Doddsy" or "Biscuits" any day of the week. Generally speaking sports journalists are better analysts than footballers in this country - or at least the ex-pro's that are served up. However and by contrast if comparing Chic Young to say Kompany or Guillit, well its no contest.....

 

 

They can speak about the game all they want.  I like Honigstein and others, but never as analysts as they're not qualified to analyse a game.  You get whats his name that fat bellend whose nose is constantly up Messi's arse he does analysis and co-commentary now, never kicked a ball in his life.

What the f**k would a fat journalist know about top level football?  They can research events round it and write about it, but the game itself should be left to people who know what they're talking about and to do that you have to have played it.

I mean by all means as a journalist tell us who Barca are signing or what's going on round the club, but don't start giving us your opinion on whether they can play a back 3 or who they should have signed, cause you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and I don't want to hear a layman's opinion, if I did I can get that in the Spar.  I want to hear the opinion only of people who know what they're talking about cause they played for Liverpool or something.

I can't remember his name the fat p***k with the annoying face, anyway last year before Liverpool Atleti he was saying in the studio, and actually cut off and arrogantly corrected a couple of ex players saying there's no way Atleti can win tonight its impossible cause they lack the intensity of old just now, its just not there. All smug and arrogant as if he is educating them.  Now if he'd actually played football, he would know the adrenaline of a big night like that will get them through, so the intensity will definitely be there for one game.  And it was, and Atleti won 1-0.

You also get Graham Hunter doing co-commentary now as the expert analyst.  This is a guy who has never played pub football.

[DiegoDiego]

For analysis I want someone that played for Real Madrid, not somebody that watched Real Madrid and wrote about it.  I like my experts to be experts, and you could never be an expert in something you have never done.

Sorry to hear that, I'll miss your input on the Tartan Army sub-forum. All the best for the festive season regardless.

[RandomGuy.]

22 hours ago, Jambomo said:

I was feeling old because they mentioned it last night and I no idea what XG means. What is the point of it? Especially at the end of the game, when you know the exact amount of goals in the game. 

You take a situation "strong foot shot, inside area, 1 defender between player and goal", go through every recorded time thats happened, and see how many times its scored.

A penalty is generally 0.76xG, because its scored 76% of the time. All changes as different people have different models.

Idea was you could spot trends of teams who aren't creating chances that are likely to be scored from (if you're never scoring, you can now pinpoint whether that's bad finishing or not creating chances, and suggest alternative methods), and Monchi at Sevilla confirmed he uses it to evaluate strikers over whether they're missing easy chances/above average finisher when doing an initial scouting report on them.

I think its just become too widespread now tbh, and lost its meaning. A striker misses a 0.5xG chance and everyone is screaming that's he's shite, despite the fact he was always likely to miss that chance during a season.

[Jambomo]

On 02/12/2020 at 14:03, accies1874 said:

It's supposed to give a truer reflection of performance than goals/shots/shots on target etc. This can be used for fans or analysts to see how they 'really' did or as a predictive tool. I read that there was a pretty high up club that didn't sack their manager because their xG was higher than results suggested.

You can also use it to see if a goalscorer is likely to maintain their output.

It's obviously really boring and takes the emotion away from football, but it's definitely an important tool for those who want it.

 

2 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

You take a situation "strong foot shot, inside area, 1 defender between player and goal", go through every recorded time thats happened, and see how many times its scored.

A penalty is generally 0.76xG, because its scored 76% of the time. All changes as different people have different models.

Idea was you could spot trends of teams who aren't creating chances that are likely to be scored from (if you're never scoring, you can now pinpoint whether that's bad finishing or not creating chances, and suggest alternative methods), and Monchi at Sevilla confirmed he uses it to evaluate strikers over whether they're missing easy chances/above average finisher when doing an initial scouting report on them.

I think its just become too widespread now tbh, and lost its meaning. A striker misses a 0.5xG chance and everyone is screaming that's he's shite, despite the fact he was always likely to miss that chance during a season.

I can see that it would be useful for people who do need to analyse games. Thanks for explaining it.

[highlandcowden]

On 27/11/2020 at 01:07, TheJTS98 said:

John Nicholson wrote a book with a chunk about this. The viewing figures for paywall football in general are shite. Even big games like Man Utd v Liverpool draw in what are relatively small audiences considering the hype around them. People just don't pay for it.

UEFA got pretty arsey a few years back about BT Sport's tiny viewing figures for the Champions League. Sponsors not happy, obviously.

I always think it's funny how much podcast time and how many newspaper column inches are taken up in Champions League week analysing in great detail a competition that hardly anybody actually watches. The figures are in. It gets a huge amount of attention, but the vast majority of people don't watch it.

its bizarre isn't it, I don't know anyone that gives the remotest fucks about the CL.back in the day when the highlights were on ITV id record them but now theres not even that and I cant say I feel as if im missing out on anything