Rafa Watch

[Shaggy]

http://www.sabotagetimes.com/footbal...rible-tombola/

Also found another link backing that up (150 games) but it was from the **** rag.

[Shaggy]

The fact Ferguson's level of rotation is not widely known, while every man and his dog knows Benitez once went 99 games without naming an unchanged team, says all we need to know about the difference in the way they are treated and reported on. It stinks really.

[Alex]

Mancini gets it, I turn off when people go on about him playing a different back line every time. The days of a First 11 have gone. It doesnt exist anymore. Its all about the player who fits the role.

[Pablo]

This type of thing just infuriates me so much that I try not to think about it. As you said it stinks. It's absolutely maddening!

Oh **** you've gone and gotten me angry again now!

[Shaggy]

See that thick cunt Wilkins last night? Made no attempt to disguise his contempt for Benitez. It was quite amazing. By comparison Redknapp, who clearly hates Rafa, was glowing about him

[Pablo]

I've lost it Shaggy, I've absolutely lost it!

[Neil Young]

The days of [INSERT OUTDATED 'ETERNAL TRUTH'] have gone.

Therein lies the cause of the problem. Most pundits base their observations on the past, the game they knew, the game they played. It saves them having to think, which in some cases is beyond them anyway (yes, I am thinking specifically of Paul Merson). And because most of them only ever played it, they don't even know how successful managers think or approach the game. So they know how a player might feel about something ("he'll be disappointed with that") and they know what a player would once have been told ("he should have gone far post so if the keeper pushed it out..."). And that's all that's asked of them.

It's like these tactical analyses - my guess is that they're based on the tactical analysis the coaching team presents to players. So it might seem like all the clips featuring in one of Alan Shearer's "video packages" of brilliant tactical insight are selected to make a specific point...because they are. But that's not analysis at all, it's illustration. The analysis is done by the coaches away from the players. And I think most players don't have the first idea how to do that rigorously, and it's not because they're thick (although some obviously are). It's because (almost) all their experience of coaching is to be on the receiving end and at their level, that's more about being programmed than it is about being educated. The trouble is, they don't realise it.

[Neil Young]

By the way, can I be the first to say that Gary Neville's analysis is starting to grate? What once seemed to be considered opinions are starting to sound like dull mantras, slavishly repeated out of habit, and I'm beginning to detect a lack of open-mindedness in his analysis.

Let the backlash commence.





Note: we need a mob smiley.

[Reece]

By the way, can I be the first to say that Gary Neville's analysis is starting to grate? What once seemed to be considered opinions are starting to sound like dull mantras, slavishly repeated out of habit, and I'm beginning to detect a lack of open-mindedness in his analysis.

Let the backlash commence.





Note: we need a mob smiley.

[Alex]

[Alex]

Therein lies the cause of the problem. Most pundits base their observations on the past, the game they knew, the game they played. It saves them having to think, which in some cases is beyond them anyway (yes, I am thinking specifically of Paul Merson). And because most of them only ever played it, they don't even know how successful managers think or approach the game. So they know how a player might feel about something ("he'll be disappointed with that") and they know what a player would once have been told ("he should have gone far post so if the keeper pushed it out..."). And that's all that's asked of them.

It's like these tactical analyses - my guess is that they're based on the tactical analysis the coaching team presents to players. So it might seem like all the clips featuring in one of Alan Shearer's "video packages" of brilliant tactical insight are selected to make a specific point...because they are. But that's not analysis at all, it's illustration. The analysis is done by the coaches away from the players. And I think most players don't have the first idea how to do that rigorously, and it's not because they're thick (although some obviously are). It's because (almost) all their experience of coaching is to be on the receiving end and at their level, that's more about being programmed than it is about being educated. The trouble is, they don't realise it.

I have a similar conversation with the guy I work with. He harks back to 'It never used to happen like that in my day' like it is a good thing. But he never seems to get that just because that's how it did happen, it doesnt make it right.

A lot of these old pros/pundits need to realise that.

Anyway, the standard of analysis on TV is pretty appalling. But it is lowest common denominator stuff. Id hazard a guess that most fans only care about why x player should have been on the far post and other such inconsequential things. That's about it.

[Neil Young]

Well yes. But we need one. It's the 21st century and it's about time this site was self-sufficient in smileys. I'm not going elsewhere for my smiley needs. It's this kind of lazy outsourcing by the site's smiley manufacturers that have turned our economy to dust. You never heard of our Victorian forebears being net importers of smileys.

It's emblematic of what's happened in the world - our get-up-and-go got up and went.

It's obvious that the only solution is to cut the number of smileys so that we have more smileys.

Smiley austerity

[Shaggy]

Therein lies the cause of the problem. Most pundits base their observations on the past, the game they knew, the game they played. It saves them having to think, which in some cases is beyond them anyway (yes, I am thinking specifically of Paul Merson). And because most of them only ever played it, they don't even know how successful managers think or approach the game. So they know how a player might feel about something ("he'll be disappointed with that") and they know what a player would once have been told ("he should have gone far post so if the keeper pushed it out..."). And that's all that's asked of them.

Did you see it last night? That was exactly it. A stream of "it's not as good as it was in our day" bull****. They ridiculed, even belittled Rafa's assertion that players cannot perform to their top level playing 3 games in 7 days. In interview Rafa said by the 3rd game in 7 days, they have the stats that show players run less, run slower and perform less well - hence rotation.

Wilkins, Souness and Redknapp - but Wilkins in particular - had a field day, belittling Benitez and the idea that players these days can't manage 3 games in 7. The response was, essentially, "well we could in our day, we could play every day if we needed to, so therefore it's total bollocks". They also lamented the lack of tackling, in that jokey, boys club style "oooh they're all such poofs these days" kinda way.

Every single point Rafa made in his interview - Hazard taking time to adapt to the PL, Oscar being tired, and many other points - Wilkins took the opposing view, giving every point short shrift with the utmost arrogance. Oscar came on and played well - Wilkins gleefully reminded us all how fresh, not tired, Oscar looked. I hate him.

[Neil Young]

No, I didn't see it. But I've "seen" it, we all have, a million times before.

Did anyone point out that maybe Oscar played well because he came on when the opposition were starting to tire? No, of course they f*cking didn't because they lack the ability and/or will to think critically about their own assumptions.

I don't watch football analysis any more. Except for Football First but that's not because of the analysis, I'm slightly ashamed to say.

[Shaggy]

Oooooh Sarah Jane-Mee