Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 17:03:11 GMT
Society has changed, you seem to be blaming that on wealthy football clubs, when the reality is that the big clubs do more than their fair share to create the exact community spirit you are accusing them of destroying. So, let me get this straight, your mates who are City fans would rather have cheap tickets to a football match than have homeless shelters, help for people with addictions, well stocked libraries, free soccer schools, coaching courses, working with local youngsters who are at risk of falling into a 'gang culture' lifestyle etc etc. To be honest, City sound like the sort of club I would want in my community. Friday was a 'dick' but that's the sort of player you want to watch? Makes no sense, guess you love it when a defender runs his studs down the back of Arjen Roben's legs, but hey, whatever rocks your boat. I'll agree about Stoke though, Stoke = bad, any club who continue to employ an animal like 'he's not that type of lad' Shawcross deserve zero respect. It's not just the way that he could easilly have ruined Ramsey's entire career, the bloke has previous, if it wasn't Ramsey it would have been someone else, that has no place in football. You stand there clapping as players wrestle each other to the floor if you like, I'll stick with enjoying Messi, Ronaldo and Neymar along with memories of Henry, Revilinho and Pele if it's all the same. I'm not convinced Society has actually changed that much - I still think people value those connections and traditions a great deal. What I see mostly is sadness, dissapointment and apathy among my friends that they can't go to football on a Saturday afternoon anymore. I think that's all football is about when it comes to it - that's what makes it special; the emotional attachment is what seperates it from other forms of entertainment, organisations and even other sports. Without those emotional links you might as well cheer for the Lloyds bank's community department. To me it's incredibly sad that a lot of these bonds have been broken for people. The broader social good football clubs have or don't have is debatable (I would argue Man City have basically bought off the council asking awkward questions about their tax arrangements and planning issues and ends don't justify means fir me) but, no, that trade off (which I don't really recognise as valid) is not worth it because football club's great value was in the depth of the emotional connections it gave people with their community and the people around them not as sort of top down charitable trust; there is nothing special or unique about the latter they exist in many forms for better or worse- there is something very special in the former and it's been eroded for a huge number of people. It's not about good or bad; that's the point. I don't neccesarily want to watch Robin Friday or Vinnie Jones all the time but I don't want a game that is sanistised of them completely either on the false basis that there is something 'bad' about them that needs expunging so the game can be populated by identikit hyper-professionals striving for perfection. I'd rather a game containing players I can relate to and recognise and that to some degree reflects the society I live in for all its messy contradictions; that's something I can connect with and care about; it's what attracted me to football in the first place as a kid. I find it difficult to care about or relate to a game involving pampered over-hyped, over-protected superstars who live in a fantasy land. I can't relate to Pele, Messi, Revolinho, Henry, Gareth Bale, Wayne Rooney etc - I can admire them as genius's but it is at a distance. I can see Tony Adams as my mate's dad, I can see Ian Wright as like someone I grew up with who was fun to be around, I can see Ossie Ardilles as the likeable kid who is struggling to fit in, I can see Robin Friday as that nutter I was at school with who completely lost the plot and ended up in prison etc. However superficial I can care about that. Now people either admire players and clubs or they mock them; they don't relate or empathise. The emotion is replaced by a sense of desire (sometimes entitlement) and shedloads of tedious anger with very little in between; people react so OTT to relatively small setbacks or perceived slights on their club ('the media is anti-Arsenal/Liverpool/Man United etc...', 'x hasn't tried hard enough in the last few games', 'we haven't won anything for 2 minutes sack everybody' etc) like these guys. Arsenal are 6th in the league and in the last 16 of CL you'd think the club was going out business or in the relegation zone for crying outloud! Makes it hard work rather than fun and reflective glory is all that remains. The City and United fans I know seem to feel relief not joy when they win and get far more worked up when someone criticises their club than they seem to enjoy when things are going well. It seems such a negative experience. That's what I'm trying to get across - it's not a simple 'things are crap now and were great then' argument or vice versa. Clearly most people don't agree with me but I'm trying to explain why I find myself caring less and less, which I find upsetting because this is something that was very important to me and I find myself increasingly alienated from. To me this stuff really matters. I honestly think it's part of the reason darts has become so popular (it got bigger ratings at times than football last Christmas) - it's just blokes throwing nails at the wall really accurately; very skillful but limited. But they seem like relatable people and the fans all seem to be having fun and not spending all their time treating their guy like an infallible god and hating on any opponent (beyond panto style booing) or perceived flaw; that's all being a football fan seems to be right now. Tribalism with none of the positives. I guess whether society has changed depends on which periods you compare, I assumed the 1970s and today as you reference Friday and Man City, well, you are probably the only person in the country who thinks that society is just as it was back then. I'll give your friends a wide berth if paying less than £28 to watch top flight football is more important to them than knowing that (by whatever channel the FC find most expedient) homeless shelters, schemes for the unemployed, social infrastructure etc is being improved. You can't have it both ways, the only way limited players of the type you seem to like can compete with the speed and movement of today's top athletes is to break the rules of the game. Just look at the number of fouls committed against Chelsea and Arsenal players on the edge of their own penalty area to prevent them counter attacking, to me, Cheating is cheating. Maybe you should petition Sepp Blatter to change the rules so that it's OK to kick Hazard, Aguero and Walcott as hard and as often as you like untill they can only run as fast as Jamie Carragher? Darts, you are joking, aren't you? You do know how Phil Taylor and Adrian Lewis divide opinion amongst darts supporters and the England Scotland rivalry that exists? Panto booing, ummm... Google what happened to Phil Taylor in Scotland last year. |
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372 
|
Post by irishrover on Dec 20, 2014 22:12:40 GMT
I'm not convinced Society has actually changed that much - I still think people value those connections and traditions a great deal. What I see mostly is sadness, dissapointment and apathy among my friends that they can't go to football on a Saturday afternoon anymore. I think that's all football is about when it comes to it - that's what makes it special; the emotional attachment is what seperates it from other forms of entertainment, organisations and even other sports. Without those emotional links you might as well cheer for the Lloyds bank's community department. To me it's incredibly sad that a lot of these bonds have been broken for people. The broader social good football clubs have or don't have is debatable (I would argue Man City have basically bought off the council asking awkward questions about their tax arrangements and planning issues and ends don't justify means fir me) but, no, that trade off (which I don't really recognise as valid) is not worth it because football club's great value was in the depth of the emotional connections it gave people with their community and the people around them not as sort of top down charitable trust; there is nothing special or unique about the latter they exist in many forms for better or worse- there is something very special in the former and it's been eroded for a huge number of people. It's not about good or bad; that's the point. I don't neccesarily want to watch Robin Friday or Vinnie Jones all the time but I don't want a game that is sanistised of them completely either on the false basis that there is something 'bad' about them that needs expunging so the game can be populated by identikit hyper-professionals striving for perfection. I'd rather a game containing players I can relate to and recognise and that to some degree reflects the society I live in for all its messy contradictions; that's something I can connect with and care about; it's what attracted me to football in the first place as a kid. I find it difficult to care about or relate to a game involving pampered over-hyped, over-protected superstars who live in a fantasy land. I can't relate to Pele, Messi, Revolinho, Henry, Gareth Bale, Wayne Rooney etc - I can admire them as genius's but it is at a distance. I can see Tony Adams as my mate's dad, I can see Ian Wright as like someone I grew up with who was fun to be around, I can see Ossie Ardilles as the likeable kid who is struggling to fit in, I can see Robin Friday as that nutter I was at school with who completely lost the plot and ended up in prison etc. However superficial I can care about that. Now people either admire players and clubs or they mock them; they don't relate or empathise. The emotion is replaced by a sense of desire (sometimes entitlement) and shedloads of tedious anger with very little in between; people react so OTT to relatively small setbacks or perceived slights on their club ('the media is anti-Arsenal/Liverpool/Man United etc...', 'x hasn't tried hard enough in the last few games', 'we haven't won anything for 2 minutes sack everybody' etc) like these guys. Arsenal are 6th in the league and in the last 16 of CL you'd think the club was going out business or in the relegation zone for crying outloud! Makes it hard work rather than fun and reflective glory is all that remains. The City and United fans I know seem to feel relief not joy when they win and get far more worked up when someone criticises their club than they seem to enjoy when things are going well. It seems such a negative experience. That's what I'm trying to get across - it's not a simple 'things are crap now and were great then' argument or vice versa. Clearly most people don't agree with me but I'm trying to explain why I find myself caring less and less, which I find upsetting because this is something that was very important to me and I find myself increasingly alienated from. To me this stuff really matters. I honestly think it's part of the reason darts has become so popular (it got bigger ratings at times than football last Christmas) - it's just blokes throwing nails at the wall really accurately; very skillful but limited. But they seem like relatable people and the fans all seem to be having fun and not spending all their time treating their guy like an infallible god and hating on any opponent (beyond panto style booing) or perceived flaw; that's all being a football fan seems to be right now. Tribalism with none of the positives. I guess whether society has changed depends on which periods you compare, I assumed the 1970s and today as you reference Friday and Man City, well, you are probably the only person in the country who thinks that society is just as it was back then. I'll give your friends a wide berth if paying less than £28 to watch top flight football is more important to them than knowing that (by whatever channel the FC find most expedient) homeless shelters, schemes for the unemployed, social infrastructure etc is being improved. You can't have it both ways, the only way limited players of the type you seem to like can compete with the speed and movement of today's top athletes is to break the rules of the game. Just look at the number of fouls committed against Chelsea and Arsenal players on the edge of their own penalty area to prevent them counter attacking, to me, Cheating is cheating. Maybe you should petition Sepp Blatter to change the rules so that it's OK to kick Hazard, Aguero and Walcott as hard and as often as you like untill they can only run as fast as Jamie Carragher? Darts, you are joking, aren't you? You do know how Phil Taylor and Adrian Lewis divide opinion amongst darts supporters and the England Scotland rivalry that exists? Panto booing, ummm... Google what happened to Phil Taylor in Scotland last year. £28 on a one off basis fine - £28 quid every week that's another matter and it's about the culture of going every week with family and friends etc. But I reject the idea that football clubs as charitable trusts - that's not what they're for and I don't think it's one thing or the other; that's not the way it works it's far more complex than that as are the motivations of the clubs which is definitely not 100% altruistic. So I reject that trade off as being valid. It's also not about any particular era - that's not what I mean. It's just about acknowledging a downside to modern football which is rarely talked about; it hasn't been great for everyone not all progress is good. For example, I can't see it as a good thing that Arsenal are owned by a Billionaire American and a Russian who don't even like each other; and at least in the case of the American doesn't seem to care about the club at all; and all big clubs seem to be like this now. It just fundamentally changes what those clubs actually are/were - not blaming them necessarily but I'm damned if I'm going to say I think that's a positive thing. I don't want it both ways - I'm quite clear that in general I don't think that modern football coaching and hyper-fit professionals has produced a better game to watch; I don't think its a good thing that other types of players have been replaced. I see a bunch of identikit footballers on the whole who are fit and skillful but don't stand out or excite. I don't think football based around on holding possesion and counter attacking is better to watch than a more direct game. I want to see as much of the game played in the wide areas and around the box with teams committing men forward into space on a stretched pitch. I don't want to watch a game of cat and mouse that mainly takes place in an over-congested middle 3rd of the pitch which is what most games consist of. Players are so fit there's just not enough space on a football field anymore. I can admire the ability to put together a run of passes together - but it's quite predictable and it doesn't stir the soul like a wide man being sprung from deep or a broken up a game where the midfield has dissapeared and everyone's just running into the space. For me the ultimate exciting player was Gazza; skilled with a crazily competitive edge and a very direct approach; not how do we keep possesion here? but how do I/we score from here wherever I am? So much of modern football is just playing the averages and waiting; I will say this though I thought 2010 World Cup was the worst football I have ever seen in my life because everyone played that way and seemed to try and win 1-0 (Rafael Benitez, Jose Mourinho - their teams are so tedious to watch they never commit unless the odds are completely in their favour; successful yes, terrible to watch though) but this one was a lot better and more varied so maybe there's some hope. Sure, I'm not holding up darts as some golden example; I remember watching that game with Phil Taylor in Scotland and it was not pretty but I don't think that's typical of darts and its actually fairly new so maybe a sign of something else coming. I think more typical is what's going on at the moment - big crowds and good ratings for a week before Christmas to watch 1st round World Championship action. I don't think those people know or care who is playing when they buy their tickets; the vast majority are going to have a good time. That's what is missing from a lot of modern football - fun! It has just been removed and pushed to the fringes as an irrelevance - replaced by slightly forced hyperbolic anger; that's what I think these guys above are an example of and I don't really want any part of that kind of football culture. I want to be a fan who relates to the players and the club not a customer who feels let down by the product; that happens in other aspects of life the relationship to football should be different and more mutual. |
|
kwoodgas
Joined: September 2014
Posts: 675
|
Post by kwoodgas on Dec 20, 2014 22:45:14 GMT
I love how so much detailed debate has gone by without anyone congratulating OOOOIrish on finally getting some gash!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2014 2:01:36 GMT
I guess whether society has changed depends on which periods you compare, I assumed the 1970s and today as you reference Friday and Man City, well, you are probably the only person in the country who thinks that society is just as it was back then. I'll give your friends a wide berth if paying less than £28 to watch top flight football is more important to them than knowing that (by whatever channel the FC find most expedient) homeless shelters, schemes for the unemployed, social infrastructure etc is being improved. You can't have it both ways, the only way limited players of the type you seem to like can compete with the speed and movement of today's top athletes is to break the rules of the game. Just look at the number of fouls committed against Chelsea and Arsenal players on the edge of their own penalty area to prevent them counter attacking, to me, Cheating is cheating. Maybe you should petition Sepp Blatter to change the rules so that it's OK to kick Hazard, Aguero and Walcott as hard and as often as you like untill they can only run as fast as Jamie Carragher? Darts, you are joking, aren't you? You do know how Phil Taylor and Adrian Lewis divide opinion amongst darts supporters and the England Scotland rivalry that exists? Panto booing, ummm... Google what happened to Phil Taylor in Scotland last year. £28 on a one off basis fine - £28 quid every week that's another matter and it's about the culture of going every week with family and friends etc. But I reject the idea that football clubs as charitable trusts - that's not what they're for and I don't think it's one thing or the other; that's not the way it works it's far more complex than that as are the motivations of the clubs which is definitely not 100% altruistic. So I reject that trade off as being valid. It's also not about any particular era - that's not what I mean. It's just about acknowledging a downside to modern football which is rarely talked about; it hasn't been great for everyone not all progress is good. For example, I can't see it as a good thing that Arsenal are owned by a Billionaire American and a Russian who don't even like each other; and at least in the case of the American doesn't seem to care about the club at all; and all big clubs seem to be like this now. It just fundamentally changes what those clubs actually are/were - not blaming them necessarily but I'm damned if I'm going to say I think that's a positive thing. I don't want it both ways - I'm quite clear that in general I don't think that modern football coaching and hyper-fit professionals has produced a better game to watch; I don't think its a good thing that other types of players have been replaced. I see a bunch of identikit footballers on the whole who are fit and skillful but don't stand out or excite. I don't think football based around on holding possesion and counter attacking is better to watch than a more direct game. I want to see as much of the game played in the wide areas and around the box with teams committing men forward into space on a stretched pitch. I don't want to watch a game of cat and mouse that mainly takes place in an over-congested middle 3rd of the pitch which is what most games consist of. Players are so fit there's just not enough space on a football field anymore. I can admire the ability to put together a run of passes together - but it's quite predictable and it doesn't stir the soul like a wide man being sprung from deep or a broken up a game where the midfield has dissapeared and everyone's just running into the space. For me the ultimate exciting player was Gazza; skilled with a crazily competitive edge and a very direct approach; not how do we keep possesion here? but how do I/we score from here wherever I am? So much of modern football is just playing the averages and waiting; I will say this though I thought 2010 World Cup was the worst football I have ever seen in my life because everyone played that way and seemed to try and win 1-0 (Rafael Benitez, Jose Mourinho - their teams are so tedious to watch they never commit unless the odds are completely in their favour; successful yes, terrible to watch though) but this one was a lot better and more varied so maybe there's some hope. Sure, I'm not holding up darts as some golden example; I remember watching that game with Phil Taylor in Scotland and it was not pretty but I don't think that's typical of darts and its actually fairly new so maybe a sign of something else coming. I think more typical is what's going on at the moment - big crowds and good ratings for a week before Christmas to watch 1st round World Championship action. I don't think those people know or care who is playing when they buy their tickets; the vast majority are going to have a good time. That's what is missing from a lot of modern football - fun! It has just been removed and pushed to the fringes as an irrelevance - replaced by slightly forced hyperbolic anger; that's what I think these guys above are an example of and I don't really want any part of that kind of football culture. I want to be a fan who relates to the players and the club not a customer who feels let down by the product; that happens in other aspects of life the relationship to football should be different and more mutual. Who claimed that football clubs need to be altruistic? They are businesses that provide a product, more people than ever want to view that product, the wealthiest clubs are investing some of the revenue locally, in the case of clubs like City and Arsenal they are investing far more than they are compelled to, and it's being done wisely as well, with properly defined long term objectives. You can't just reject statements of fact as not being valid because the conclusion doesn't suite your agenda. Well, actually you can, and you just did, but it doesn't progress or add any value to your argument. I think your crusade should rage against Sky, the other broadcasters and ultimately their subscribers. They are the companies responsible for changing the game in this country and for creating a global merchandising market. This is the source of the money that has brought some of the finest foreign players and managers and has changed the game so that average domestic players can no longer compete. But you may struggle here even, looking at your comments about darts and how people just turn up for a drink and a laugh with some mates, well, take a look in pubs and clubs up and down the country every Saturday, Sunday and most Mondays, you'll see plenty of people out for a drink with friends, enjoying themselves watching the footy. |
|
