Since it's all speculation and silliness in the silly season thread (and why not), I wanted to post a question that has troubled me for years on these forums and see if I can get a response that satisfies my doubts.
In assessing a player's ability, potential or MOTM performance, I often see posters use the phrase "I was at the match, I saw him live" as a sort of trump card, a way of validating their assessment of the player. People generally accept on here, it seems, that attending a match is the best way to judge the performance of players on the pitch. I couldn't disagree more and I wonder why no one ever challenges this statement (aside from seeming envious that someone else was at the match), because to me, it is actually an IMPOSSIBILITY that being at the match gives you a superior insight into a players performance than watching it on television.
The only exception I can think of is the ability to see the entire pitch at once, which is beneficial for watching off the ball movement and movement into space, but even here, you lose the ability to focus as clearly on the shape of play and the build-up as you do on television simply because of the angle of the camera, which is perfectly positioned. And be honest, can you really judge a run and movement of a play that is headed away from you toward the opposite end? Unless you're sitting on the center line, the angle of stadium viewing is a problem. Add to that the distraction of banners waving, the guy next to you screaming and having a laugh, etc etc, it just doesn't seem possible that one would have a better view of the match and performances, which is why managers et al use cameras high above the ground to judge performances and why television cameras are positioned where they are; To best see the game, the run of play, the offside calls, and assess performances.
I think going to a match is an absolutely superior emotional experience because, like any collective experience, you have the passion and emotion of supporting the club with tens of thousands of others; That is special and irreplaceable. But for understanding the shape of play and judging the positioning and work rate of a player, the TV camera seems superior.
Looking for reasonable statements otherwise...
In assessing a player's ability, potential or MOTM performance, I often see posters use the phrase "I was at the match, I saw him live" as a sort of trump card, a way of validating their assessment of the player. People generally accept on here, it seems, that attending a match is the best way to judge the performance of players on the pitch. I couldn't disagree more and I wonder why no one ever challenges this statement (aside from seeming envious that someone else was at the match), because to me, it is actually an IMPOSSIBILITY that being at the match gives you a superior insight into a players performance than watching it on television.
The only exception I can think of is the ability to see the entire pitch at once, which is beneficial for watching off the ball movement and movement into space, but even here, you lose the ability to focus as clearly on the shape of play and the build-up as you do on television simply because of the angle of the camera, which is perfectly positioned. And be honest, can you really judge a run and movement of a play that is headed away from you toward the opposite end? Unless you're sitting on the center line, the angle of stadium viewing is a problem. Add to that the distraction of banners waving, the guy next to you screaming and having a laugh, etc etc, it just doesn't seem possible that one would have a better view of the match and performances, which is why managers et al use cameras high above the ground to judge performances and why television cameras are positioned where they are; To best see the game, the run of play, the offside calls, and assess performances.
I think going to a match is an absolutely superior emotional experience because, like any collective experience, you have the passion and emotion of supporting the club with tens of thousands of others; That is special and irreplaceable. But for understanding the shape of play and judging the positioning and work rate of a player, the TV camera seems superior.
Looking for reasonable statements otherwise...
Comment