“Lewandowski can continue practicing free-kicks.” From this the 1-0 for Bayern. Good shot, ball deflected slightly in the wall, goalkeeper might still have a turn, but just in front of him another defender deliberately comes with his arm on the ball. That means a goal?! Nevertheless: intentional handball in the penalty area. What shoud that?
Emergency brake at Erntdebrück – Frankfurt. Ugly. Abraham loses the ball, striker is gone, he just rips it to the ground. Then even protests from Frankfurt! Far away from the gate, therefore no red?
“Bayern want to score an early goal.”
“Dortmund don’t overdo it with the pace.” (Rielasingen – Dortmund, early in the game, several corners).
Shortly thereafter, the lead: “There’s not much right in defense and Bartra has little trouble…” Such nonsense. Bartra great and does he expect a defense at Bundesliga level? Why criticism here?
“Everything according to plan for Dortmund, who don’t bend over backwards.” Criticism so and so around. What shoud that? Slow pace, don’t bend over backwards, poor defense at Rielasingen, blablabla.
For Friday night games:
“Far too little from Braunschweig.” 1:2 lost in Kiel. Second division duel, away, 1:2. Then “far too little”?
Interview with Heiko Herrlich after Leverkusen made it 3-0 after extra time in Karlsruhe. Endless chances, but no goal. “Running gag” asked the reporter, “that Leverkusen keep missing the chances?”
At RWE against Gladbach (1: 2 at the end), at 1: 0 for Essen. “Gladbach allowed food.” Never anything good about a goal? “Knots in the legs” after Gladbach finally made it 1-1 after a long, 79th minute, brilliant preliminary work by Traoré, the dribbling was irresistible, but after all there are three classes in between?! “Knots in the legs” of the opponent. No, unbelievable.
“In Freiburg, Dortmund is playing…” This is how the conference continues. “Well, Dortmund is playing, so Dortmund has the ball, otherwise it’s a bit like in the office. Work to rule.” The attack turned into a goal to make it 2-0. “Once Rielasingen was ahead. Apart from that, Bürki didn’t know why he’d even been there at all.” Wonderful, really. “Let’s see if Dortmund still have fun scoring a third here.”
Typical action at Altach – RB Salzburg, 31, ”. Minute, 0:0, defender and attacker go after a long ball. Both can approach, both approach, the attacker with the long leg pulls the ball back, the defender touches the ball and his foot goes wide. Only: he immediately raises his arm and lets the ball go wide. He probably wouldn’t have been able to prevent the corner, but if he had tried, the assistant would of course have decided on a corner. Because if he tries, it must have been his turn last. So he is “smart enough” (or just unsportsmanlike enough, which doesn’t count since it’s all about winning and means doesn’t matter) to indicate immediately after his own touch that it was the opponent. The decision is clear: kick off. The narrator also sees that the defender was last, but says it would have been difficult to see. But the problem has nothing to do with that. It was unsportsmanlike and the fact once again perfectly exploited that everything is decided for the defense. Because: a complaining attacker is more likely to be warned than to be given the right. By the way, the attacker was also quite upset, which had no effect (so: he was lucky not to get a yellow card). The speaker at least: “You can understand that he’s angry.” But what use is that to him? It always goes that way.
“Lewandowski can continue practicing free-kicks.” From this the 1-0 for Bayern. Good shot, ball deflected slightly in the wall, goalkeeper might still have a turn, but just in front of him another defender deliberately comes with his arm on the ball. That means a goal?! Nevertheless: intentional handball in the penalty area. What shoud that?
Emergency brake at Erntdebrück – Frankfurt. Ugly. Abraham loses the ball, striker is gone, he just rips it to the ground. Then even protests from Frankfurt! Far away from the gate, therefore no red?
“Bayern want to score an early goal.”
“Dortmund don’t overdo it with the pace.” (Rielasingen – Dortmund, early in the game, several corners).
Shortly thereafter, the lead: “There’s not much right in defense and Bartra has little trouble…” Such nonsense. Bartra great and does he expect a defense at Bundesliga level? Why criticism here?
“Everything according to plan for Dortmund, who don’t bend over backwards.” Criticism so and so around. What shoud that? Slow pace, don’t bend over backwards, poor defense at Rielasingen, blablabla.
For Friday night games:
“Far too little from Braunschweig.” 1:2 lost in Kiel. Second division duel, away, 1:2. Then “far too little”?
Interview with Heiko Herrlich after Leverkusen made it 3-0 after extra time in Karlsruhe. Endless chances, but no goal. “Running gag” asked the reporter, “that Leverkusen keep missing the chances?”
At RWE against Gladbach (1: 2 at the end), at 1: 0 for Essen. “Gladbach allowed food.” Never anything good about a goal? “Knots in the legs” after Gladbach finally made it 1-1 after a long, 79th minute, brilliant preliminary work by Traoré, the dribbling was irresistible, but after all there are three classes in between?! “Knots in the legs” of the opponent. No, unbelievable.
“In Freiburg, Dortmund is playing…” This is how the conference continues. “Well, Dortmund is playing, so Dortmund has the ball, otherwise it’s a bit like in the office. Work to rule.” The attack turned into a goal to make it 2-0. “Once Rielasingen was ahead. Apart from that, Bürki didn’t know why he’d even been there at all.” Wonderful, really. “Let’s see if Dortmund still have fun scoring a third here.”
Typical action at Altach – RB Salzburg, 31, ”. Minute, 0:0, defender and attacker go after a long ball. Both can approach, both approach, the attacker with the long leg pulls the ball back, the defender touches the ball and his foot goes wide. Only: he immediately raises his arm and lets the ball go wide. He probably wouldn’t have been able to prevent the corner, but if he had tried, the assistant would of course have decided on a corner. Because if he tries, it must have been his turn last. So he is “smart enough” (or just unsportsmanlike enough, which doesn’t count since it’s all about winning and means doesn’t matter) to indicate immediately after his own touch that it was the opponent. The decision is clear: kick off. The narrator also sees that the defender was last, but says it would have been difficult to see. But the problem has nothing to do with that. It was unsportsmanlike and the fact once again perfectly exploited that everything is decided for the defense. Because: a complaining attacker is more likely to be warned than to be given the right. By the way, the attacker was also quite upset, which had no effect (so: he was lucky not to get a yellow card). The speaker at least: “You can understand that he’s angry.” But what use is that to him? It always goes that way.
What does the viewer think of all this nonsense? If anyone were to listen, the only conclusion they could draw was this: once and never again. entertainment value? Almost zero anyway or, one would have to put it like this: “underground”. Correctness of the analysis? Not a bit higher to settle. It’s next to nothing, and that would be hugely flattering.
Immediately afterwards, however, he comes to this realization: “The game needs more scenes like this.” So somehow he liked it after all? Although actually everything was done wrong or there was much more to be made out of it – as has not been mentioned before that he logically also sent that afterwards?
When LASK actually had some good opportunities just before the break and it was 0-1 in the air, but the ball didn’t go in, he came up with this “analysis”: “LASK is very negligent in how it deals with the opportunities.” There it is again, that “negligent”. Anyone who misses a chane was negligent? When is this word used? What is “gross negligence”? It’s football at the highest level available. Nobody acts “negligently” here. They try everything to score a goal, they didn’t do anything wrong, some great defenses, some a little bit of luck, which is missing. Sympathy would only be asked from a neutral, expert reporter. The regret that the better team is not in the lead. She deserved it, but it didn’t work out. What else should it be? “Negligent” is so vile, so wrong as a concept, so inhuman in thought. And something about erroneous, stupid, wrong, wrong. The LASK WAS NOT NEGLECTIVE. LASK had some bad luck. But at the same time there were spectacular scenes that are absolutely worth seeing, which can also be strange missed goals or defensive actions.
Incidentally, in the early stages of the game, the words “too transparent” and “too imprecise” were used, the latter repeatedly. One asks oneself again: in relation to this, how would it be if it were “transparent” or “imprecise”? Is the intended increase in inadequacy recognizable, has it succeeded or failed? Does the intended increase in non-performance make sense, is it correct, is it appropriate? And even more the question: who do you want to lure out from behind the stove if you keep finding increased mistakes to comment on and consider them to be remarkable actions? All answers turn out to be detrimental to the separating one. No one wants to hear that and it’s not true, front to back.
In this game, too, you didn’t have to wait very long before you found out: “Not a good game here, too many mistakes.” Thanks for the info. But it didn’t bother me a bit at all. I didn’t even hear it, because I switched off a long time before…
For those who actually watched (no sound, of course…) it was simply a good, exciting game with chances for both sides. LASK was closer before the break, that’s for sure. intermediate result? 0:0 Just as one could wish for, right? The main thing is no goals. Strange. Despite the many mistakes? Who are known to be responsible for the many goals?
A typically stupid comment, by the way, again in the parallel broadcast of the DFB Cup, first round. Regensburg – Darmstadt, intermediate score 1:1, about 70 minutes. Regensburg gets a direct free kick, which is deflected, but only very slightly, it was well placed. The ball flies straight towards Dreiangel, but will not go in. However, the goalkeeper – wonderful to see in slow motion and actually just such a parade (which did not take place), flight insert, already sufficiently spectacular to make such a scene worth showing, with the help of the commentary – flies there and you might have a little more concern around his back so that it doesn’t hit the bar, but somehow they master these tricks, so the ball hits the post, just below the crossbar – so it’s at most out of the goalkeeper’s reach – and goes out from there. Corner kick, of course, as the ball deflected into the wall. The comment is as follows: “The goalkeeper would never have gotten there.”
If “logic” were a school subject and he had to hit the bank again: “Six, bet!” Or vice versa. So: he would not have approached, if what? In fact, he never got there. So it would have to be a different form of the shot. If he had shot differently, then something would have happened, I have no idea whether he would have gotten close, it’s questionable whether he would have gotten on goal at all? Well, let’s assume he had a little more sense and guess: he figured if he’d gotten that few inches to the left he would have passed. Possible, sure, even conceivable. Exactly here, however, the verdict is at least as questionable. Because, as mentioned, the goalkeeper does everything to “close the corner”. He does this with the highest art and perfection, worth seeing, great, outstanding, class, perfect, what other attributes are actually appropriate? In fact, he does it so well that at first you wouldn’t even know if the ball went wide from his fingertips or the post – although the slow motion answers that question quite clearly.
What remains at the end apart from a good portion of nonsense that isn’t fun and doesn’t do justice to the class of the whole action at all? If only it were an exception… It’s a stacchato of ready-made nonsense. Why does it make you feel so alone? One explanation would be: nobody is listening.
Würzburg – Werder, DFB Pokal, evening game, 36 minutes, watched for the first time, the author: “Werder is the better team, no question, but…”. You know immediately how it is. 0:0 Sure, of course.
Attack Würzburg, no goal, but probably a foul play, not called. “It just doesn’t go fast enough for the Würzburg team to scare a Bundesliga club.”
Kicks in the penalty area, against a Würzburg player, the ball almost in the goal, leg at head height – nothing.
“Regardless of what would have happened if the ball had gone in when Würzburg scored from the aluminum goal, Werder made the difference in the two classes clear and put it on the scoreboard.” The score was 0:3 in the 82nd minute.
What logic! It was 0-0 for an endlessly long time and nobody knew or heard anything about the class difference. If the goal had been scored, a) what he must have wished for would have happened, namely that it would have been an exciting cup fight and perhaps a surprise would finally have been possible, which had not happened in all the other games of the day and this was the last hope. b) under no circumstances can it be independent of it. Not only that a conceivable 1-0 for Würzburg would have changed everything, the course of the game, the atmosphere in the stadium, the state of mind of the Werder team, who might have worried that they might get caught. c) it’s completely illogical what he’s saying anyway. It’s all wrong about it, just like the full coverage of the game before it. And: even if you were so clever and knew how it would end and that they are too strong for them anyway and there is no chance: why did you acquire rights? With conditions this clear, who would want to watch the game? “I’m hoping for a miracle but I know it’s not going to happen anyway. Maybe I’ll cunningly refrain from hoping and switching on?”
Also, please look back at the first overlay. After 36 minutes, the oracle was completely different, because no goal had been scored yet. “Werder are the better team, but…” Whatever happened next: it’s 0-0, that’s what you use as a guide, if they score a goal it was clear, if they score it’s explained just as logically. Killing tension is the main concern.
A very nice comment was captured in the DFB Cup in the afternoon. Bayern had to play in Chemnitz. What should you expect as a commentator? You should be happy that football is being played at all, you watch FC Bayern and if you have this chance, then every fan of the game should be heartbroken because they can see the ultimate here, the best there is , not only in this country but even worldwide, even if Bayern have not advanced to the Champions League final or perhaps have not quite reached the dimensions of Real Madrid, FC Barcelona or Manchester United, but none of the named would dare to call themselves favorites here but talk about duels on an equal footing.
One would not even have the absolute obligation to talk about tension here or to want to move an outsider success into the realm of possibility. You’re more likely to click your tongue and be grateful that you can be part of the game, even if it’s just as a commenting spectator.
After a few minutes and one of the first overlays still in the conference, you heard this crazy realization: “Bayern want to score an early goal.” You just have to get the impression that when you say such idiocies disguised as “wisdom” over and over again that not only the speakers themselves begin to believe in it, but that this spreads everywhere and gradually everyone is even recognized as an expert who can utter one of these pieces of wisdom. This is perhaps even less related to the statement made here, it is more of a general observation.
If you think this madness further, then the coach has promised the following motto: “We’d better score a goal right away. Do you understand?” Everyone nods. Go out, score a goal, sure, got it. Then the coach thinks further and comes up with, “Oh, you know what? That’s not even extremely smart. I did the math and changed the match plan: go out and score two early goals. Ok?” “Ok, Coach, we have it. Good idea.” The cheeky captain asks: “How about three goals? Let’s put it this way: up to the 30th minute.” The teammates think about it. “Not that stupid.” But one says: “Oh, why three? Nope, I won’t do it. I like two better.”
The Chemnitz coach has also come up with a plan and also that of Regensburg, that of Bielefeld, that of Darmstadt and that of… They say to their players: “Score an early goal and then if they stagger, score a second. Good plan, isn’t it?” However, he also noticed and got a hint from the guest cabin that the opponent was informed about the plans and even called out the plan himself, and exactly the same one at that. So in all cabins there is a readjustment: “Go out, early goal, ok?” “Ok.” “But: they have the same plan. So: don’t allow any at the back. Understood? Shoot one yourself, don’t allow anyone behind, that’s how it’s done.” Everyone understood. And now football is played exactly the way it is always played.
What further development did this plan bring? In principle, this madness goes much further. Because: the spokesman at the Bayern game says that, the one at Dortmund in Rielasingen maybe too, the others don’t dare, despite sometimes four classes difference. Because: those at Bayern and Dortmund assume that their type of oracle will work out well – and then they have collected a few “expert points” again, in their opinion. In fact, Dortmund and Bayern also scored, not too late. Great prophet man!
