If you watch a single football game, selected at random, then you can basically show almost everything that is said about statements in the room and provide the evidence for it. If you take the entire weekend, which was also randomly selected, then you can almost guarantee that everything will be there. Above all, it is the case that a development in a certain direction is unmistakable and this is not changed, whereby the one who suffers is the viewer – and nobody notices anything.
Let’s take a few exemplary comments from a game from Austria, Admira Wacker Mödling – Austria Wien, on August 27th, 2017. Just a list of what you’re getting at, without any comment on the comments:
“too complicated”
“bad ending”
“too transparent”
“Tajouri could also lock up – he does that too.”
“takes too long”
“Admira lethargic in backward movement”
“I didn’t have the strength to finish with my left hand”
“Very passive, Admira”
“Holzhauser with a technical error”
“too harmless”
“Westermann, who lets himself be duped”
“… but how the Admira can then be countered again and again”
“Admira, who has lost a lot.”
“Too long delayed”.
These are excerpts only and are noted spontaneously as they occur. A claim about it might be: “The writer of this is malicious and willfully seeks out the unpleasant comments. That’s biased and unfair to the reporter.” Another claim might be, “Didn’t he say it? That’s not true at all!” Surely the person would be right if they watched the game themselves. Because he actually said: “Westermann let himself be duped” or “then the left hand was lacking” and not “then the left hand was lacking”. However, that would then fall under the heading of “quibble with words”.
The counter-argument that they are tendentiously picked out cannot, of course, be definitively refuted. But you could easily make sure if you should overcome yourself and actually let a game flow over 90 minutes “concentrated” on you. However, for those who don’t put themselves through this ordeal — for very understandable and understandable reasons — rest assured that the positive reviews will be in vain. Apart from the fact that a) assessments are generally not asked for at all and b) even if there were a balance between positive and negative comments, this would still be a highly unhealthy imbalance. That would affect both the quality of the commentary and that of the football game. If you broadcast the best there is in football and shell out unbelievable sums for it, then somewhere positive should outweigh it, right?
Now one could examine these statements – insofar as their authenticity is recognized – for all the relevant aspects. The self-selected criteria that have been declared relevant are under all circumstances complete and reliable. This is how they should be listed. The general aspects under which to consider each of the comments heard are:
- veracity
- entertainment value
- Perspective
- intentions
- Logic
- the story itself that the game tells and that the commentator makes of it.
- The tone of voice
The first two points can be seen as the overriding ones, whereby even the truth content might be neglected if the entertainment value was deliberately increased in this way. In other words: one could speak of a “fantastic reaction”, even if it were only average – although there is hardly an “objective” here. Nevertheless: artificial revaluation would by no means be out of place.
Nevertheless, take another example: “if the viewer felt well entertained” – this is what the program manager would have to advise his employee – “you can basically tell what you want”.
Veracity of “too complicated”: low. Players are constantly looking for ways to find or create space. The defense is usually in the majority and equipped with the higher rights, at the same time primarily aimed at “destroying” with athletes mostly selected according to physical criteria. So if there’s another pass or catch, attempted dribble, chipball over the block, or whatever else that would justify the “complicated” mindset, that’s too secondary to finding the clearance to finish . However, “complicated” would mean that the speaker already had the “right” solution ready, which the players are missing here.
A few more conclusions can be drawn at this point. One would be that there is a correct solution. Of course that is not the case. The other would be that this solution would actually lead to the goal. Again, this is anything but guaranteed, on the contrary. There would be one, sure, accepted, there would even be several options, shoot directly, forward immediately, go one-on-one, cross, finish yourself, half high, sharp, flat, placed, in the backcourt, rebuild, stay patient, hold the ball , wait for a follower, a feint, a change of sides. There are almost infinitely many – but there is also one thing: no time for it. The decisions have to be made in fractions of a second – in this respect they are mostly intuitive, even instinctive.
Veracity goes to zero. Entertainment value is obviously low. After all, who wants to see when everything is “too complicated”? Successful would be gratifying, entertaining with it. Complicated isn’t nice, it’s unpleasant, it’s no fun, there’s something missing, it’s inadequacies.
So the comment would have failed in the two decisive criteria. Neither true nor entertaining. Then what is left? Linguistic logic is also violated. “Complicated” would be a deficiency. “Too complicated” is a helpless attempt to increase insufficiency. Because: as soon as something is “too complicated”, how would only “complicated” be in relation to it? Wouldn’t this be possible again? Complicated, but not too complicated. If it were true… and if it were true: who wants to hear that or be informed about it? You could leave it up to the viewer what he thinks of it?
Purely intuitively, one can imagine such a dialogue, here as a kind of further proof of the unsuccessful linguistic form of the increase in inadequacy: “Play the ball to me, but please play it softly. OK Good. Here you are.” “No, that was too lax. A bit doller please, but still lax.” In the example, “lax” might not be a recognized and generally positive criterion, but it was still the desired one. In this respect, “lasch” would have been ok. Only when it’s too lax is it no longer ok. Too complicated would therefore run counter to the trainer’s instructions if they were to read (and by no means a utopia, although he would put it differently): “In order to create freedom, you have to come up with something special. It can also be a complicated path at times.”
The intonation was not yet addressed or mentioned as a criterion with which one could get a lot out of it. There is no question, of course, that the tone of voice heard and used tends to be “snide” in this, but also in almost every other comment made by the reporter. One that includes an evaluation is distinguished by the fact that the voice falls backwards. At first you could hear some kind of tension because the attack is promising. Then comes the “too complicated” – and the voice drops audibly. Because it contains an assessment. You meet them when you are “sober”. tension out. It will not work like that. Because: “too complicated”.
Think of it like this: “Can that be a goal?” That would signal tension. You don’t know, you go along with it, as a speaker you try to convey this tension. It doesn’t even have to be worded that way. It’s all about the tone. Does something resonate that you and the speaker could be surprised by it? “Shoot, and…?” Voice rises. Conveys tension, which mainly relates to the unknown outcome of the action/an entire game. “The ball in the penalty area, good cross, who can get to it?” You don’t know, there’s a question mark for it, and a question mark raises your voice. For the viewer, it sounds like a suspense, an “exciting question” so to speak. What will happen? I don’t know, the viewer doesn’t know.
What the commentator makes generally usable is a purely intuitively recognized “law”. Whereby one could now move on to the intentions behind the statement “that is played too complicated”. Because a) it’s not true and b) it’s not suitable for arousing or maintaining the viewer’s interest. Because: it is hard to imagine that the moment the statement is made, you pick up the phone and call your neighbor to lure him to the channel: “Hey, come over quickly, football is on here!” “Why? “Well, they play so wonderfully complicated that a goal is never scored.” “Wow, why are you only telling me that now? I will soon be there!”
So what’s the point? The intention, which one has found out after some reflection and observation, which can only be behind it, is this: one would like to present oneself as well as possible as a speaker. Sure, everyone wants that somehow? Well, that may be, but there is one special aspect here that ultimately does not turn out to be advantageous for the man with the microphone. The commentator wants to look good – ok, like everyone else – especially by earning “expert points”. The smarter he is, the more points there are. Admiration for this may not flow back directly, but one can hardly say something against someone who always knows everything and foresees and recognizes? “It wasn’t exciting,” the spectator might say, “but I learned a lot about football.”
The trick has still not been mentioned, which the speaker is using here. It is namely the following: the knowledge is used that anyway not a single attack results in a goal. The very few exceptions are so insignificant and rare that it doesn’t spoil one’s courage. “Go ahead, talk it down, it won’t work, you can already tell.” “Yes, but what if it does result in a goal?” “Well, then I’ll think of something. Do not worry.”
For a better understanding, one could compare the comment with one at a handball game: would a speaker ever dare to predict failure in a running attack in such a derogatory way? “Played too complicated, he has to throw it himself!” And boom, the ball is in. Fell for! Nisx expert, little fool much sooner.
The failure of the attack in football is anticipated. You are reliably enough sure that there will not be a goal, from experience. This experience is an intuitive one. Just as the players stage the attack themselves, usually with intuition or even instinct, he uses them here. “Intuitively I know that it won’t be a goal. So I can pretty much say anything and claim what they did wrong. I’m safe.”
Incidentally, this commenting and badmouthing in an ongoing campaign is a fairly new phenomenon. This was the indicated development in which it moves. The direction is this: worse and worse.
Just to get rid of this: with the “too complicated” you keep everything open in the case. So “play somehow different, just not like that”. Basically it’s a little bit cheaper.
You can also include this aspect: how does the coach see this attacking move? What did he think? You could even ask both coaches about it. Of course, to reduce the truth content a bit (what is below zero? Would it then be “a lie”?). Of course, the attacking party would wish that there was a good solution, that a conclusion could be reached somehow. Whether it will then be a goal is still in the stars. But when you finish, of course you want one from the best possible position, so not just “shoot somehow” but “shoot with a promise of success”. However, it would never occur to him that this was too complicated. He has the same knowledge as the speaker that it probably won’t be a goal one way or the other, like any other attack. Nevertheless, he needs to search for the possible solutions mentioned. So a “review” of this scene is also conceivable. It may even be that he sees a better solution here and there and pauses the VCR, rewinds it, forwards it again, and says something about it. “You see, here the player could have run over the opponent and then you could have put the ball through” – directed at the ball carrier – “.” Just an idea. It could also be a different situation and a different idea that you track down. But behind it would always be: “Perhaps we will increase the chance of scoring a hit.” Intuitively, one could even add to this part of the sentence: “… from 0.8% to 1.3%.” there. But the chance might be a little bigger.
The opposing coach might also comment on the same situation in the debrief, by coincidence or because it was a somehow special scene. In the event that everything went smoothly, he would probably not do it, but he could also praise: “Here you compacted well, there was no getting through.” But if he noticed something that, for example, actually a opposing player was free for a moment, but the ball did not come – this could happen in exceptional cases that the speaker was right, so to speak, without having made a specific suggestion where to put the ball, but there was a chance to even recognize this — , then he might say: “You have to stand closer together, always keep your attention high, stay with your men.”
This leads to a (penultimate) last aspect: the sayings that are recorded here, that is, the comments that have been captured almost randomly in any game, are used just as randomly by the speakers. One could easily confirm this by watching, for example, two games live in a row – albeit with increased torture. “Thanks” Sky no problem. It is almost guaranteed that the range of spells will also be played out in one form or another.
So the aspect would be: credibility. He would like to collect expert points and is sure that he has found a good way. “If nothing can happen, it won’t be a goal.” So out with the criticism. Not like that, it won’t work like that and it doesn’t work like that at all. Right. Because: the attack will not be a goal. Patting on the shoulder, to himself. “It can’t have been bad, the comment. I say: it doesn’t work that way and it won’t be a goal. Bravo!” However, by uncovering these identical mistakes over and over again, i.e. letting out the same sayings, the credibility decreases considerably. After all, everyone can sense that he just poked into the little book with the sayings of the standard errors, like in the pricking of the Bible, and read the saying out loud?
So there is no differentiation. This reveals the deficiencies in competence. Exactly the ones he wants to permanently whitewash with apparent expertise. You should call it an “own goal”. However, the prerequisite would be: one feels it on the tooth — as is happening here in the text. Nothing left that makes sense, it’s just bullshit with the cheap intention of being an expert.
Finally, one may extrapolate the scene. So suppose the attack would have been played “too complicated” as he correctly recognized – by bible joust — but it would still result in a goal. Now he would by no means retreat an inch from the assertion. This would simply fall by the wayside and if there was a reference, then that one: “He had actually already missed the chance, but then again…” whatever. But he would prefer to let this fall completely under the table, since he would now have found a new victim that is very easy to pluck: namely the defensive lines. In no time they would have the buck, because of “no assignment”, “too passive”, “left too much room”, “criminal free”, “friendly escort”, “that’s much too easy” and what else everything swelled towards him when I stabbed in the Bible.
[26/8/17, 09:19:48] Dirk Paulsen: I also find it interesting here: who lost everything? Oh, Bavaria went under, Lok Leipzig lost. Viktoria Cologne also lost? Wuppertal class. Is there anything positive to report? a 0-0 draw against Rhynern! Look how strong, undefeated!
[26/8/17, 09:20:55] Dirk Paulsen: There are no winners. Although it’s funny that everyone who lost must have lost against an opponent? And that would be the winner. Why do you mention the losers? Because we are all moved by the fate of Viktoria Köln and Lok Leipzig, right?
[26/8/17, 09:21:24] Dirk Paulsen: You can uncover the nonsense everywhere.
[26/8/17, 09:24:06] Dirk Paulsen: Yesterday in Fürth against Ingolstadt they sometimes complained about penalties. No question: there is holding, tugging, pulling. The speaker always agrees, namely the referee: that was nobody, that was nobody, that was nobody either. Then he sees a scene for the FIRST TIME (i.e. live) and immediately says: “No penalty. He claims to have been pulled.” Then comes the slow motion. The opponent pulls with both arms outstretched. So it doesn’t get any clearer than that. The spokesman “commercially available.” a) he has to confirm himself, no matter how wrong it is and b) it is “commercially available”, that’s right, all defenders foul like crazy – and there’s never a penalty.
[26/8/17, 09:26:39] Dirk Paulsen: The kick in the face in Fürth (did you see/read?) was really great again. The spokesman also very outraged: “Now the referee has to react.” And right: he gives yellow! The speaker also recognizes in the replay — like everyone else — that they see him coming and STILL kick his face. Yellow. Is everything correct? You could try chopping off the head, right? Sure, yellow, yes, you have to accept it. The “role models” do it really well. And the speakers do it. But they get excited when there are Bengalis.
[26/8/17, 09:26:46] Dirk Paulsen: Bengalos.
[26/8/17, 09:27:59] Dirk Paulsen: Or fan riots of a different kind. “No, you have to stop that.” Maybe start at the point that kicks in the face used to not only mean sending off and outrage would have given, but also would have resulted in a long, long sentence?
[26/8/17, 09:30:34] Dirk Paulsen: Well, the defenders are allowed to do everything. that’s how it starts. If you see those two-armed tugs and hear “commercially available,” then it wouldn’t be surprising if it spreads to all other games. Youth, amateurs, everywhere. This is customary, there is nothing for that.
[26/8/17, 09:31:19] Dirk Paulsen: Then kick in the face: you can do it, no big problem. Yellow? Yes, a bit harsh, but ok. The opponent, the spokesman says (Max Christiansen) now has a headache.
[26/8/17, 09:32:20] Dirk Paulsen: At first you think: it has to come off, has to bleed or something. But then he really gets up again after a while and carries on. lucky. But the “he’s got a headache now.” almost sounds like he’s simulating that something hurts him, doesn’t it?
[26/8/17, 09:32:46] Dirk Paulsen: “Oh yes, poor thing, do you have a headache?”
[26/8/17, 09:32:54] Dirk Paulsen: Disrespectful.
[26/8/17, 09:33:25] Dirk Paulsen: “Headache just because someone kicked you in the face? Then maybe you should switch to blowing cotton instead?”
[26/8/17, 09:36:31] Dirk Paulsen: Exactly. But what they don’t notice is that nobody really wants to see it anymore. I’m now so often back to the subject of football, in chess. They all just wave. Some kind of rudimentary interest is still there somewhere. But watch? And be pleased in any way? That’s long gone.
[26/8/17, 09:37:11] Dirk Paulsen: “I’ll see if Bayern will be broadcast,” one said to me, but he was also dismissive. “Actually, it’s no longer fun and a waste of time. But I’m still doing it.”
[26/8/17, 09:37:25] Dirk Paulsen: If only they knew how broken football really is.
[26/8/17, 09:37:37] Dirk Paulsen: “Die”, so all these stupid talkers.
[27/8/17, 13:50:15] Dirk Paulsen: The video proof is great, did you join?
[27/8/17, 13:50:47] : nope don’t look, only ticker
[27/8/17, 13:50:49] Dirk Paulsen: And Dr. Note this in the Sky Studio.
[27/8/17, 13:51:37] Dirk Paulsen: Well, one scene was this: penalty for Frankfurt. The referee whistles immediately. Then he has to listen to what the video referee says. Was he allowed to give penalties? hmm
[27/8/17, 13:51:55] Dirk Paulsen: Then he indicates: “No penalty, video proof.”
[27/8/17, 13:52:18] Dirk Paulsen: Then comes the resolution: Boateng was allegedly offside before he was fouled.
[27/8/17, 13:53:49] Dirk Paulsen: Now the totally absurd thing about it: the line technique supposedly doesn’t work (I claim so, because they don’t know a solution for wrongly called offside, which of course is much more common).
[27/8/17, 13:54:16] Dirk Paulsen: So the offside could not be resolved at all? No line technology – we let it run.
[27/8/17, 13:54:54] Dirk Paulsen: So why then? Above all, it would be about “crystal-clear errors”. The offside is a joke, either way, the upper body leans forward, ok, maybe, but “crystal clear”? Never ever.
[27/8/17, 13:55:25] Dirk Paulsen: So the video referee exceeded his competence so that … there is no goal.
[27/8/17, 13:56:01] Dirk Paulsen: As always. Not at Hertha Stuttgart, not now, not given at Bayern, there are no penalties.
[27/8/17, 13:56:36] Dirk Paulsen: Even less with video evidence. As it turns out now. And Dr. Merk. “Let’s be thankful that we accidentally figured out that there was an offside.”
[27/8/17, 13:56:56] Dirk Paulsen: My interpretation: “Otherwise we would have had to come up with another reason so that there was no goal.”
[27/8/17, 13:59:46] Dirk Paulsen: 911 Bochum. At least three players in the penalty area again when he shoots. But goal counts. I don’t understand the rules either: nobody is supposed to be allowed in the penalty area, but everyone does. Can’t you do anything about it?
[27/8/17, 14:22:31] Dirk Paulsen: Just as clear a penalty for Düsseldorf. Of course not given. The scene: Free kick comes into the penalty area, with a lot of cut, a striker from Düsseldorf would come up with a diving header. The opponent holds him with both arms, only goes to the man, can never get to the ball. The striker really falls in the air. So he’s a hair’s breadth away from the ball. No whistle, of course. But in the replay, the speaker says, “The pulling wasn’t the cause of the fall. So not a 911 for me, but they couldn’t have complained either.”
[27/8/17, 14:23:19] Dirk Paulsen: Do they really believe what they’re talking about?
[27/8/17, 14:24:10] Dirk Paulsen: Of course it’s about everyone realizing that something is wrong. By commenting like that, you put your conscience at ease. “You can give, but you don’t have to.” For the refs it means: don’t whistle, then everything is fine.
[27/8/17, 14:24:40] Dirk Paulsen: By the way, Düsseldorf has no structure.
[27/8/17, 14:25:59] Dirk Paulsen: How about it? As soon as a team is behind, the swan song begins. That wasn’t the only thing. When Düsseldorf got a corner. “At least a corner kick.” It flies dangerously onto the near post, but is cleared. Then he says: “It’s almost desperation.” What’s that supposed to mean?
[27/8/17, 14:28:24] Dirk Paulsen: Well, the one problem is what you transfer to the referees. That was a 911, there are simply no excuses. If he doesn’t give, then of course you could keep asking. Why didn’t he, when everyone can see it? Of course, the people of Düsseldorf are also upset.
[27/8/17, 14:28:57] Dirk Paulsen: You can’t believe it, but he just talks about it. They’re all crazy, they’re all complaining or something. There are differences.
[27/8/17, 14:29:08] Dirk Paulsen: His verdict is like this: “No, it wasn’t anything.”
[27/8/17, 14:30:16] Dirk Paulsen: Although the people of Düsseldorf are protesting like that. You don’t need to ask me anyway, but you can see at a glance how the striker slows down in the air on his way to the ball. How else can that be done than by foul play, holding, clinching, pulling, tugging? That’s for sure — slow motion can only confirm, and does.
