Only briefly noted again the biggest annoyances from the weekend of August 4th. until 08/07/2017.
In the game Braunschweig – Heidenheim, Sunday 3:30 p.m., Heidenheim almost got a shot on goal several times after a lightning-fast combination over a large number of stations. But every time there is still a leg in between. The comment: “Sovereign is different.” Certainly related to the Braunschweig defensive?! One has to assume that he would prefer “sovereign defensive rows” throughout. Because the note alone suggests some sort of complaint, so off with it? “When will there finally be no more mistakes and no more goals. Then we can finally do something sensible with our time again”, or how else could one conclude what the goal is? The lightning-fast and beautiful combination is stomped into the ground anyway. There can be no question of that: was there anything good about it?
In the game Kaiserslautern – Darmstadt (1:1) the announcer never tired of pointing out that “this would be a weak game”.
Now one could first ask about the truth content, then about the intention behind it. Gladly, of course, also after the causes, why it so often happens that the assigned speaker conveys a high degree of dissatisfaction with the events?
Regarding the truth: a yardstick, an indicator, are usually the spectators who are live in the stadium. The mood there was consistently outstanding. To dismiss this (which he would have to do) with the fact that these fans are very frugal would be very questionable anyway. Because a) they already know how to vent their displeasure if they don’t like it and b) it was simply a game at this level of the second division, according to the rules of modern football, which is obviously generally accepted (the ideas for improvement in this regard elsewhere). Then one might simply ask about the criteria for a “weak game”? It’s guaranteed to be diffuse. Because: with every goal, chains of errors are revealed, which are not there at all, but if many goals are scored, one would have to assume many errors — as a speaker infected by this madness (as they all are). Since there were only two goals, this criterion would not have been met. If it was about “boredom” then he would have that feeling exclusively. The viewers liked it, that’s for sure. And the neutral spectator (the only one probably) also liked it so far: playing at second division level, and that level is very decent and respectable. What else could it have been? “Intense” is also not considered a disadvantage. There could be a lot of duels, but these were okay. Lots of fouls and stoppages? Neither is the case. The duels were conducted fairly as far as the rules were interpreted (at least not noticeably different than in other games). Lots of bad passes? This could be fulfilled. Whereby these are usually a result of closely spaced rows of cover — which in no way could be described as bad or even disadvantageous in terms of success — as well as mostly a high willingness to run, since it is a little more difficult to run without the ball than with it, consequently closing the holes further walking distances required. Was the case here.
The speaker would be left with nothing but plain bullying, without any basis whatsoever. Only: if it had actually been a weak game within the framework of previously defined criteria: what would be the point of imposing this on the viewer every three and a half minutes? “Please switch off. The game is weak!” For anyone who hasn’t heard it before or hasn’t walked away yet?
A regrettable phenomenon of this kind has taken hold. The reasons for this? One reason is that you can upgrade yourself if you manage to badmouth what you observe and comment on. “It’s much better, I’ve already seen it or I could.” A harsh critic simply MUST be recognized as a high-ranking expert?
But another underlying reason is this: “Here is football and it’s so big and everyone is watching anyway, so no problem if I criticize it. Actually it doesn’t matter what I say. The spectators are there anyway.” This, however, is the fatal part of the error.
When would you ever start surveys on the broadcaster side who tuned in? What is the percentage of subscribers to such a broadcast? Then, of course, the question would be even more, what would they like to see and hear? Whereby one of the fundamentally addressed and mentioned problems would apply here: only those who have a following for this or that team look.
Still in the same game: Lautern eventually made it 1-0 with a great long-range shot. Sure, it wasn’t exactly in the air and wasn’t deserved in that sense. Darmstadt until then with advantages. As a result, however, Darmstadt was suddenly really weak and was talked about more and more badly. Until it was 1-1 – after that both were weak again. Unbelievably flat, such game ratings, only read off the score.
However, he made two unforgivable mishaps right in front of the two goals. Before the 1-0, you could hear this: “If the game were a car, it would be one with reverse gear jammed in.” But that’s exactly where this dream goal fell. Where to go now with this ultimate annihilation?
Before the 1: 1, the following nonsense reached your ear: “Some can’t, others don’t want to.” If only the phrase pig were ready or the 5 euros were deducted for every such nonsensical and also inaccurate comment that scares off the viewer from his account… What do you do when the equalizer falls in this very attack, which of course was more than deserved?
Incidentally, in every game that is 1-0, you hear that the team behind “doesn’t play forward fast enough” when they win the ball. “It’s all taking too long.” 5 euros, ok, but you’re right this statement? Who cares? The main thing is that the viewer learns that this isn’t good. Will be reflected in the subscription numbers.
Besides, shouldn’t one be ashamed of the outspoken nonsense? They can’t – but make it 1-0 at exactly that moment. You don’t notice anything there, Mr. commentator organizer, Mr. program director, Mr. who-ever-responsible? No, it’s not noticeable. For a simple reason: he doesn’t listen either. Because no one is listening. Because no one can stand it.
In the game Sandhausen – Ingolstadt (final score 1:0) Sandhausen received a corner (certainly, yes, several….). This sailed into the penalty area and while the ball was in the air, you could hear the following corner kick variant assessment (the main thing is that the word “weak” appears as often as possible in a game; small multiplication table of the high football reporter school): “Weak corner.”
Curiously, however, for anyone who has anything to do with football, is interested in it, enjoys it and has an eye for it – it is not in the requirement profile for commentators – a variant. Namely that the ball is deliberately hit so far and someone sneaks up on the far post unnoticed. This was the case here. The ball was put back with a header and created a goal threat, but no goal.
No sign of shame, no apology, no comment at all. It wasn’t a goal, let’s just go over it. Or, alternatively, but after too many examples of a comparable kind, the only logical verdict: the man really doesn’t notice anything.
A short time later, however, he had this phrase ready for anyone who accidentally strayed onto the channel: “We’re agonizing in there for the odds.” Very pretty, really. There are always new variations, as a pun, so to speak, that convey inadequacies and feelings. As soon as “torment” is mentioned, you have to reckon with increased viewer frequencies, because a few proven masochists weren’t there yet? Or like this: whoever strayed here catches on and immediately calls his wife and children, who had actually planned the afternoon differently: “Come here quickly, you have to see that. You struggle into it. This is a hit, not to be missed!”
One would only have to lock him up later and force him to listen to his own snarling for more than 90 minutes. Yes, of course: torture is forbidden in this country. Couldn’t you make an exception? The assumption is also obvious here: assuming sufficient stupidity, he would not notice anything here either, but would start a La-Ola with himself. Motto something like: “Hach, the lawn is nice and green!”
In the game SV Mattersburg – Sturm Graz in the early evening of August 6, 2017, a comment was once again captured in which you can basically uncover everything that goes wrong and how “degenerate” the level of commentary is. The fact that it has spread to Austria – where things were still quite good and civilized until a few years ago – is solely due to the fact that “the big neighbor who always wins all tournaments” sets the pace, sets the pace, sets the bar, breaks into the jargon one is forced to follow. “Maybe we’ll win something then? It’s been a while since ‘I’m going crazy’.
It’s not like you have to wait long for a nonsensical comment to be caught. In principle, you can take almost every single one. Nevertheless, certain selected ones are better suited to get to the heart of the problem.
First of all, the description of the scene, although it should be noted that you are almost never overwhelmed with scoring chances and exciting scenes in a game. The transmitting broadcaster – in this case Sky – would have to think about whether this available amount is sufficient to keep people permanently in front of the screen. However, if one finally does appear, then one would have the damned duty to at least get so much out of it that the (remaining) viewer is saved from dozing off and maybe looks up at this one moment again before he goes into Morpheus’ arms.
Furthermore, given that there were severe weather warnings, it could not even be guaranteed that the game would end regularly. Accordingly, it rained continuously and mostly heavily, including the gusts of wind (not only triggered by Sturm’s attack waves…), which the speaker once even prompted to note that a ball knocked off by the goalkeeper almost came back to him, indicating the intensity, which may have been only temporary; nevertheless, one calls such conditions “unfavorable” and would give the players a small exoneration argument per se and possibly not measure their actions with the usual strict standards?!
As for the scene itself: Sturm was attacking, a successful, fast-paced forward, everyone was on the move, a little space, a striker taking off, the ball was played into the penalty area at just the right moment, the ball and the lawn were wet with rain, but the striker still had it This half-meter lead in front of the panting defender, almost as he falls he gets a shot from an angle that is just not too acute. The ball goes just wide of the near post. Not even direct trouble from the player or anything. It could have worked, the chance to score was there, but by no means a gigantic high caliber.
You would now have every chance to describe this attack as good, successful, worth seeing and whatever. Sympathy for the player, maybe a little regret that things didn’t get even closer, a little recognition would do good too. It would be one of those scenes for which one unfortunately often has to wait far too long – and perhaps that’s why the number of viewers is low, but one could attract them with a larger number of such scenes, especially the “neutral” ones?
The comment was like this, and it can be guaranteed that the remaining viewer was NOT startled out of his state. “He MUST at least get him on goal.”
Nothing else. It is the German model. This ruthlessness in the judgment. It would actually speak for itself how big this nonsense is, especially in comparison with the description of the scene (although there is no “that’s how it really was” here, you have to be honest). Nevertheless, one can dissect the statement, break it down into all its individual parts, and apply the devastating judgment solely to the commentator. Simply like this: “If you want to keep the station alive and want to entertain the few viewers who are left at least with this game, so that they at least come back and don’t run away too, then he, the announcer, has to get more out of this scene than that one nonsensical, totally off the mark comment.”
Dissection was announced. Whenever you hear a comment, you can ask yourself these two questions. How high is the truth content? And how high is the entertainment value? One could both expand and specify them, but those would be the core questions. If the truth content is low – for example similar to the commentary when wrestling — but the entertainment value is high, either in the sense of “creating drama” or “successful wordplay” or “teaching out tension”, then one would possibly even go over the reduced one disregard truth content. “Look, there, two butterflies almost meet in flight, ooh, one of them turns away again.”
Back to the questions. A specification or expansion of question 1 would be, for example, to what extent the events are well captured and made vivid. To what extent is the commentary appropriate to the scene, to what extent is the core captured, described? This would already go into question 2 – the entertainment value – but even then it would go further: do you recognize a need to entertain the viewer or is it basically irrelevant? And then there’s this question: is the speaker’s main concern being to present himself well and not to deal with the audience’s concerns?
The rough direction in the complex of questions in part 1, the truth content, can gradually be approached as follows: the striker’s intention is by no means, to the speaker’s satisfaction, “at least to get the ball on the goal.” He would only have this one intention: the ball to get INSIDE the gate. Just missing the case might be a better option than placing it in the middle where it would be easily received. So the narrow miss of the goal was even factored in somewhere, since he aimed for the corner. At the same time, of course, one would have to take the external circumstances into account. Ball and turf wet, the striker just about gets close, he shoots as he falls, because everything happened pretty quickly.
Unfortunately, the verdict here on the speaker’s verdict is rightly a bit unpleasant for the point “content” with a straight 6. There wasn’t a grain of truth to it. He did not have the goal that the spokesman allegedly declared desirable. Now one could think about the ruthlessness associated with the word “must”. If you go about your work and are not able to fulfill a point that is in the requirement profile – i.e. you simply MUST be able to do it or do it – and prove not to be up to the task, then you should choose the type of death as quickly as possible and lend a hand before the lynch law inevitably strikes and robs you of this degree of freedom.
With a little less polemics: as a striker, for example, you should quickly transfer back the last three salaries and hang up your boots before there are even worse consequences: you are fired and you can’t find a new club anymore. Because it has been proven that he simply cannot do something that he has to do.
Here too there is a complete error. He supposedly has to do something he didn’t want to do. But you are welcome to spin the scene further in an alternative form and listen to the comment then heard – copied from other comparable situations here. The striker fulfills the requirement profile that is not at all set – he remembers the scene from last week, which was rated similarly – and instead shoots the ball in the middle of the goal, the goalkeeper picks up the ball easily.
It would be illusory to assume that he would now find mercy and find the now logically appropriate, but still totally out of place, words: “He did put the ball on target, after all.” Just as I foisted on him last week. “At least get on goal, no matter what your coach always tells you, orientate yourself to the power of the media…”.
No, he and the viewer would hear absolutely nothing of it. Instead, the comment would be: “Far too out of place.”
Well, even if it was just a thought-up comment: the sentence has already been heard. Here now, apart from the fact that the truth content would continue to tend towards “underground”, the logic would also be turned upside down and at the same time the German language would be badly violated.
Why this? First of all, because “unplaced” cannot be increased. Apart from the fact that a shot in the middle actually represents the highest level of precision. It would only bother him, the speaker, in principle that he would not have been placed less precisely, namely in the corner. Otherwise, how else would the previous comment “must target” be interpreted? Has he fulfilled here – to the speaker’s different dissatisfaction. So if he should make a judgment here, in the negative design, then it should actually mean “much too placed”, without the un-. Aimed at goal, as allegedly asked, hit goal in the middle – couldn’t it be better? Now was it “out of place”? How stupid…
Now the prefix “to” would come. As soon as one puts this prefix in front of it, one would then, in the madness of escalation in search of superlatives, which is all that the speakers have left from their visit to the reporter school, the superlatives of the negative type, however, the intention to increase the unsuccessful part of the action. This prefix is used all the time – and in very rare cases is logically justifiable at all, at least if you take the intention as a basis.
As soon as he says “too unplaced”, then an alternative case, but from a less bad perspective, could be commented like this: “The shot was unplaced:” One was unplaced, he didn’t arrive, the other was “closed” unplaced. Which would have, purely by feeling, the higher degree of misconduct? The verdict should be like this: the unplaced shot was further from the target than the “too” unplaced one. Because the “too” unplaced one was, logically speaking, a little closer? Was it just a little bit missing? It was missing that little bit that he would only have been unplaced. And so he was closer.
At the same time, by the way, also from a logical point of view, one would concede the case “unplaced” as okay, i.e. the speaker with the limited understanding of logic. Alternative example: “Too unfocused”. Then wouldn’t it be ok if you just didn’t concentrate?
It is an intentional increase in the mistakes, which is aimed at with the prefix “to” – only this goes in the pants. Linguistically wrong, logically wrong. Not according to the scene anyway, so truthfulness already assessed. Only he didn’t say that at the moment. He only requested that the striker please behave in such a way that the “much more misplaced” comment could be made next time.
If you now put a “much” in front of the “too”, then you intend to further increase the error, just to round it off at this point. This would not have worked either. Because a “much too…” would admit that if it were only “too…” then it would be okay again. If only he had just shot “too out of place”. Would just be ok. Now he has done it “much too…”. Logic.. well, what’s the use of logic?
Now we can at least briefly come to the spectrum of “entertainment value”. However, the spectrum is quite narrow. The entertainment value is zero. Although one could say that every listener who would actually hear something like this – and there are, I promise, not very many – should please have a punching bag ready. After all, you have to go somewhere with your aggression.
Amazing who gave him permission to speak? There is only this one explanation: whoever did it never listens to such a report himself. The fact that he is additionally paid for spouting nonsense to the power of three must be a mirage.
