A bit of a perennial question really - it as cropped up for years - and I guess as the match day experience is getting more and more expensive and more and as more fans start to move away from the Bolton area, game attendance gets less and less (just above 14,000 for the weekend match).
So many ex or occassional attendees catch the games these days on Bolton Nuts or the few televised matches we some times feature on.
The question is, can you really judge a match without actually being there?
Obviously any opinion is valid - it is only an opinion anyway - it isn't a statement of fact - and just because some people go to the match doesn't necessarily mean they actual 'see' what is in front of their eyes - then how 'valid' are peoples comments - whether they attended or not?
I've been to loads of games over the years but age and distance from 'home' games (and the probably lack of desire to put myself out like I used to do as a younger man) means that I am far more 'armchair' than an 'actual' fan these days.
My own view is that it takes TWO elementss to have a meaningful opinion - being at the match - and actually 'understanding' and having a feel for the game of football.
Of couse TV replays and expert analysis is not there for people at the match - so 1-0 for the armchair fans (not intended as a derogatory remark from me btw) - but on the other hand the attending fan is not limited and restricted to just what the camera sees on your screen - they see the bigger picture, the running off the ball, the depth of play, the feel for what is happening and why - so 1-1 as a final result maybe?
I love to read opinions of people who've been to a game BUT it is quite clear that a number of those opininated souls (and I'm not talking about posters on this site) spoute absolute bollocks - whilst at the same time believing what they are saying.
It's laughable how they tell us what managers are thinking and why players are failing.
It's blindingly clear to anyone who as played the game of football, even at the lowest of low levels, that these people simply have no clue what they are talking about.
Contrary there are some posters who clearly know their football and even without attending a game can be knowledgeable and insightful of the match from just the few clips of the game they may have seen elsewhere.
I guess I've reasoned my way into some sort of a stalemate but given a choice I would rather be at a match and make my own mind of how the game went - and failing that would rather have some who understands football (No I'm not Phil Gartside) and tell me their views - even if they only followed the game on Radio Nuts - than some 'knows everything' (who actually knows nothing) who went.
What do you think?
Author: Sluffy
So many ex or occassional attendees catch the games these days on Bolton Nuts or the few televised matches we some times feature on.
The question is, can you really judge a match without actually being there?
Obviously any opinion is valid - it is only an opinion anyway - it isn't a statement of fact - and just because some people go to the match doesn't necessarily mean they actual 'see' what is in front of their eyes - then how 'valid' are peoples comments - whether they attended or not?
I've been to loads of games over the years but age and distance from 'home' games (and the probably lack of desire to put myself out like I used to do as a younger man) means that I am far more 'armchair' than an 'actual' fan these days.
My own view is that it takes TWO elementss to have a meaningful opinion - being at the match - and actually 'understanding' and having a feel for the game of football.
Of couse TV replays and expert analysis is not there for people at the match - so 1-0 for the armchair fans (not intended as a derogatory remark from me btw) - but on the other hand the attending fan is not limited and restricted to just what the camera sees on your screen - they see the bigger picture, the running off the ball, the depth of play, the feel for what is happening and why - so 1-1 as a final result maybe?
I love to read opinions of people who've been to a game BUT it is quite clear that a number of those opininated souls (and I'm not talking about posters on this site) spoute absolute bollocks - whilst at the same time believing what they are saying.
It's laughable how they tell us what managers are thinking and why players are failing.
It's blindingly clear to anyone who as played the game of football, even at the lowest of low levels, that these people simply have no clue what they are talking about.
Contrary there are some posters who clearly know their football and even without attending a game can be knowledgeable and insightful of the match from just the few clips of the game they may have seen elsewhere.
I guess I've reasoned my way into some sort of a stalemate but given a choice I would rather be at a match and make my own mind of how the game went - and failing that would rather have some who understands football (No I'm not Phil Gartside) and tell me their views - even if they only followed the game on Radio Nuts - than some 'knows everything' (who actually knows nothing) who went.
What do you think?
Author: Sluffy
Why not join the discussion here
RSS Feed