This section provides a review of the match between Karlsruher SC and VfL Bochum in the early afternoon of 16 October 2010, a match on matchday 8 of the second Bundesliga 2010/2011 season.
The match will be looked at a little more closely in a number of ways. Ultimately, of course, the aim is to examine the quality of current reporting, gladly, if you think about it a little further, to expose its shortcomings.
This match was recorded in extracts. The live commentary on it is written down here for these stages. The selection of the game and the recorded phases of the game was made at random in order to ensure objectivity as much as possible. In this sense, there are a few other recordings of other matches or of a conference call, all of which are also randomly selected. The broadcast could be seen and heard on Sky Deutschland, which acquired the exclusive rights for it.
Now the following procedure is to be chosen: There is one’s own assessment, evaluation, description of the game. This is done relatively freely, i.e. it can contain anything that is considered relevant. The complete live commentary is then printed, interrupted at most by very brief comments that are necessary for concrete understanding. This should give the reader the chance to form his or her own opinion as to whether the commentary is considered entertaining, appropriate, exciting, true, oriented to the game, whether the descriptions are vivid to his or her sensibilities, in short, how it is perceived overall. One can compare it with one’s own previous assessment of the game.
Afterwards, the commentary is printed again, this time, however, with its own assessments and evaluations, so that almost every sentence is put to the test to see whether the commentator has succeeded in capturing the action well, in making it palatable to the viewer, in creating suspense, in how far he has judged the scenes correctly and in how far he has done justice to the performances shown and the protagonists on the pitch. It can also concern the tone of voice or the jargon in which he speaks.
His goal should and must be – this should logically be a station requirement – to offer a report that is as exciting as possible in order to ensure ratings, subscription sales, i.e. the best possible advertising for both the station and the current programme. Ultimately, of course, it is this requirement that the broadcaster would have to meet, and there is a great deal of doubt about its fulfilment.
At the same time, there would be a kind of “reporter’s duty”, which a) allows the person concerned to choose this profession and which b) lets a “you have to see this, here is THE story” ring through for his part with every report, even if it is not so dramatic for once. In that case, he must even have been trained to be able to create the tension himself. Yes, there is. In Utopia…
1) The game’s own description
A brief history of the game: VfL Bochum started the season as the number 2 promotion contender behind Hertha BSC. Up until this matchday, they could only inadequately live up to this claim. Their record consisted of three wins and four defeats. Of course, the slight false start can still be easily corrected, especially since such a phenomenon affects relegated teams quite often. You come from League 1, perhaps you still feel half like a first-division team and perhaps you don’t go into the games with the necessary concentration and appreciation, under the illusion that things would be easier here in the second division. Maybe it would, but only if you set your mind to it. The home defeat against Fürth after two wins in a row, after which they thought they were finally on the right track, was bitter.
Karlsruhe also had a less than satisfactory start to the season. With two wins, two draws and three defeats, they had 8 points from 7 games. Now, it is not easy to set goals for the season in the second division, because this league is quite balanced and with a few unfortunate defeats you can slip into the relegation places, but with a winning streak you can quickly be in front and dream of promotion. This is due both to the small differences in performance and, almost as a result of this, to the close standings. Nevertheless, everyone would like to have as carefree a season as possible and, from a secure midfield position, have as clear a view upwards as possible, leaving enough room for dreams. Especially since Karlsruhe, as a Bundesliga club of many years’ standing, will also have First Division football on the agenda again at some point. Of course, they are not necessarily thinking about that for this season (yet).
So there was a lot at stake for both teams, but that is true of every second division match, at least at this early stage of the season. When should there be time to take a breather?
About the game itself:
The game showed itself to be a true “top game” right from the start, even if only the eleventh in the table was playing against the twelfth in the table. In this sense, the performance on both sides was “top” in every respect. It was up and down from the start, at an enormous pace, even by second division standards. The match was fought with an open mind. Both sides were looking for the way forward. KSC had already shown huge potential in the game against Cottbus, that legendary 5:5, in which the media usually “complained” about the high number of goals conceded, instead of appreciating this unbelievably great offensive performance, through which a huge number of brilliant chances were created – and almost enough to win, because in the end they were disallowed the regular 6:5 for unknown reasons. In that game, too, the combination was lightning-fast, so that one had a good chance of becoming a KSC fan right away, or at least of looking forward to their next performances.
But VfL Bochum also indicated from the start that they wanted to back up their claims with commitment and the will to perform. In any case, there is plenty of class in the game, as evidenced by a name like Giovanni Federico, for example, but also by the red-hot attacking duo of Mahir Saglik and Chong Teese. The opening match against the Munich Lions showed just what kind of thrilling football the VfL is capable of, when they were defeated 3:2 in an inspiring game that really got every football fan – not only the designated VfL supporters in the stadium – carried away.
Here it was a duel of equals, in which one could nevertheless award the KSC minimal advantages, which may certainly be partly due to the spectator support in their own stadium. In any case, the frequency of exciting goal scenes and thrilling actions was extremely high. In one scene, for example, both teams managed a ball sequence through five (!) stations in direct play, which meets the highest standards. One might like to pay attention to that, but in top football three is almost the upper limit for direct play series. On Karlsruhe’s side, this resulted in a great chance, on Bochum’s side, the fifth, the last, pass didn’t find the desired target – an attempted steep pass to the top with actually good chances of success – but that hardly mattered. Football is simply fun to watch.
The fact that VfL then took a clear lead through a double strike in the 24th and 26th would have to be described as a lucky circumstance, but a goal was in the air all the time – on this or that side. Of course, the disappointment of the KSC was palpable afterwards, making it relatively difficult to put away such a setback. However, the effort to get back into the game was recognisable throughout, but in the end it remained with this result.
The recorded phases should also be relevant. The first phase, between the 1st and 20th minutes, was of the highest standard, which was also reflected in the stadium atmosphere: an exciting game with climax after climax on both sides.
2) The live commentary
The recording starts after 29 seconds:
Referee, to be on the safe side and for the sake of completeness, is Norbert Grudzinski from Hamburg assisted by Tim Sönder and René Rohde. Müller and Aduobe, you have to look closely, against Saglik and against Chong Teese, that will be the big duel. Some would say, finally, two teams playing against each other in a 4-4-2, which has become more modern with the 4-2-3-1 system in world football.
Schäfer. Fink passes to Krebs, and then Staffeldt, on the right is Matthias Zimmermann, Staffeldt, and that’s not exactly how Markus Schupp had imagined it, because they’re good in the middle, they’re compact, the Bochum team. They want to try it on the outside. Zimmermann is looking for Chrisantus.
Maric, counterattack, Federico is there, bad pass from Milos Maric.
The ball goes well for Karlsruhe via Iashvili, chance for Fink. But Andreas Luthe was careful and came out for safety’s sake. (The replay will be played) Good ball sequence in midfield for the Blues via Staffeldt, via Fink, via Iashvili and then he looks for Chrisantus and from Mavrej’s leg the ball finally comes to Fink. Clear opportunity for the man who has scored three goals so far this season.
No offside from Iashvili, Fink, fair tackle from Mavrej.
Maric, quickly executed, too fast for Norbert Grudzinski.
(Bochum coach Funkel fades in) He said it’s not a question of system, you can play it however you want, you can play it in a 4-1-3-2, you can play it in a 4-3-1-2. Chance for Bochum and a great chance for Chong Teese. The Karlsruher break up well, on the left side, a great cross to Saglik, who passes unselfishly, (now the replay of the scene is shown) Kopplin, from the run, Saglik passes for Chong Teese, a hundred percent, one would say, which the North Korean World Cup participant normally also does. 2, 3 metres in front of goal, can’t get the ball over the line. Bochum set the first exclamation mark in this duel. Especially with the two strikers Teese and Saglik.
High leg by Mahir Saglik.
Schäfer, lots of space for Chrisantus, Concha is there, slides out.
Federico, the returnee here at Wildpark. Long, opening ball, inch-perfect, into the run of Mahir Saglik, who has to wait for his teammates to follow, Kopplin, tries with his weaker, right foot, Maric, and now Robbles is there. Foul play by Faton Toski on Louis Robbles. (Robbles the KSC goalkeeper)
(The replay of the scene:) Aduobe doesn’t look safe, then via a diversion, Maric, Toski, yes, you don’t necessarily have to whistle, goes out of his five-metre area, is treated there like any other player, is also on the ball, should have been allowed to run even further.
Fink. Good ball to Chrisantus, Chrisantus faster than Mavrej, still Chrisantus.
Foul on Timo Staffeldt by Faton Toski, free kick for KSC.
Iashvili, with the left, towards goal, weakly kicked, and then Concha clears.
Yes, there’s a Karlsruhe player down after the duel. While René Rohde has shown Mahir Saglik to be offside. A step, correctly seen. But Gaetan Krebs is on his feet again.
Krebs, Fink, good movement from Anton Fink, Iashvili, waits for Krebs, Concha in between, on it goes, Federico, Maric, maybe they should put the ball down again, Federico does that, and immediately looks for the through pass to Mahir Saglik, but the experienced Godfried Aduobe closes the door.
Krebs, Chrisantus, still KSC with Schäfer, and now they have lost the ball in the forward movement, now they are only four at the back and run the risk of a counterattack.
Aduobe. Sure. Zimmermann.
Dabrowski well with slipped out against Iashvili, but then Teese loses the ball too quickly. Aduobe has often been in the centre of attention so far after 9 minutes played.
The young Matthias Zimmermann. Toski. Well thought, badly played, Schäfer is there.
And now Chrisantus against the experienced Yahia. Foul play by Krebs on Concha, that will give the first yellow card in this game tenth minute to Gaetan Krebs, er for Gaetan Krebs.
Absolutely right seen by Norbert Grudzinski, no chance to get the ball, clear foul, clear yellow card.
Maric. Kopplin briefly lost his bearings, so a throw-in for KSC: Staffeldt and Iashvili. Zimmermann, ball to Fink, Fink offside, free kick for Bochum.
So it starts well, here in the opening phase, correctly seen by Tim Sönder, (to repeat the offside situation) Fink might not have got there either, because Mavrej was there. But the tempo was good in the first eleven and a half minutes. KSC has to make the play, wants to make the play, and will make it, and Bochum tries to close the spaces in the backward movement, and then to switch quickly from the secure defence, from the compact defence.
Markus Schupp also demanded that his team switch quickly before this game. He knows that he is facing an experienced team with many players who have already played a few Bundesliga games. A motivated Saglik, a motivated Federico, a well-mannered Teese. Yes, they run the ball well through Toski, through Saglik, through Federico, and then the ball is too long for Teese.
Schäfer. Ball too high for Matthias Zimmermann from Stefan Müller, who has signed a professional contract, still yesterday.
Krebs, he should have solved the problem better and simply gives away a throw-in in the danger zone.
Teese, he doesn’t take long, he doesn’t take long, he wants to aim at goal immediately, and then commits the foul afterwards. Final warning to the 26-year-old, foul play on Timo Staffeldt.
Zimmermann, a lot of space in front of him, Matthias Zimmermann, the 18-year-old, past Toski, now against Kopplin. Aduobe, Staffeldt, Krebs, tries it with his left, yes, why not, there will be a corner kick, last one a Bochum player on the ball. (The replay:) A short hook against Milos Maric, and then a left-footed shot, Mergim Mavrej was still on it. Anthar Yahia did it.
Yahia again, cancer again, against Maric, Aduobe.
Yes, now everything is closed, no throw-in opportunity, then Chrisantus found it after all, he was not allowed to go because he was offside.
Müller, foul. Yes, Fiedhelm Funkel is getting worked up over the outside microphones (you can hear Friedhelm Funkel saying “Eieieiei.”). Would have been a good counter-attacking situation for Bochum, of course, but also correctly seen by Norbert Grudzinski.
Staffeldt. Long ball. Too long for Mutzel.
Dabrowski tries to put things in order, from the middle, with a good overview, Christoph Dabrowski. Good effort again by Godfried Aduobe against Mahir Saglik. So the man who is new in the team of Karlsruhe is the most conspicuous in the first 17 minutes.
Schäfer has to stop, Mutzel, ah, bad ball from Michael Mutzel. Müller against Teese. Short applause from the stands on the opposite side for Stefan Müller for this action. But again and again mistakes in the build-up of the game by Karlsruhe, inaccurate passes.
Toski, well seen by Saglik, opened up for Kopplin, long ball, Saglik in the middle.
Cancer. Stefan Müller is down at the back for a moment, but he’s getting back up now. Zimmermann, with Iashvili in front, Iashvile, no foul says the assistant, right in front of Tim Sönder. And I think that was ok, body against body. Mavrej against Iashvili.
The last time these two teams faced each other, they were both still playing in the first Bundesliga. Season 2008/2009, Matchday 18, Bochum won 2:0, with goals from Klimowicz and Christian Fuchs, the first leg on the first was won 1:0 by KSC.
Now they meet on equal terms, after seven games, in the mid-table duel, eleventh against twelfth.
Schäfer, high miss rate with Andreas Schäfer, at left-back.
Markus Schupp, couldn’t win a game against Friedhelm Funkel as a coach, played against the VfL Bochum manager twice so far, with Wacker Burghausen, lost both games with 0:3 in each case, at that time Friedhelm Funkel was still on the Eintracht Frankfurt bench.
Now the Bochum team. Concha, good movement by Federico, Zimmermann has to clear. And it’s a good thing he did, because Saglik was there to dust it down.
Kopplin.
Good cross from Müller to Zimmermann. Well thought out, too sharply played by Matthias Zimmermann to Alexander Iashvili. The two who were also on international duty with KSC during the international break. Matthias Zimmermann played with the U19s, most recently against Switzerland in the European Championship qualifiers on Tuesday, Alexander Iashvili with Georgia against Latvia.
Iashvili, good movement, now he’s through in the middle, ball to Fink, yes, Anton Fink still gets it. Now it’s out of bounds.
End of the first recording at minute 21:20.
3) The live commentary with own comments
In the following, the complete live commentary is shown once again, but this time with your own comments, which do not specify what they are referring to. What is clear, however, is that it was a very good game, with goals on both sides, which would speak well for Toni Tomic. Nevertheless, let’s see how well he managed to convey the great atmosphere and how close his descriptions come to reality, recognising of course that some subjectivity is involved in such observations.
Referee, to be on the safe side and for the sake of completeness, is Norbert Grudzinski from Hamburg assisted by Tim Sönder and René Rohde.
Müller and Aduobe, we have to take a close look, against Saglik and against Chong Teese, that will be the big duel. Some would say that it’s finally time for two teams to play against each other in a 4-4-2, which has become more modern with the 4-2-3-1 system in world football.
Sure, it’s interesting. But the question is always the same: Does nothing happen on the pitch during all these declarations? The prediction that “it will be the big duel” is rather reminiscent of clairvoyance and is actually not desirable in this form. “We can be curious to see how the Karlsruhe centre-backs will cope with the strong Bochum attacking duo of Saglik and Teese” would do more justice to the matter. Of course, a “that could” rather than a “that will” would suffice. Somehow it is always a higher viewpoint that is taken. And if one pulls oneself out of the action and takes up this superior, sovereign position, it is less possible to convey tension. Especially since it is actually noticeable that the man at the microphone doesn’t want to feel it himself. How should he then be able to convey it?
Schäfer. Fink passes for Krebs, and then Staffeldt, on the right Matthias Zimmermann is there, Staffeldt, and that’s not exactly how Markus Schupp had imagined it, because in the middle they are good, they are compact, the Bochum team. They want to try it on the outside. Zimmermann is looking for Chrisantus.
Regrettably sober for a good scene. The depreciation is also in the middle of the move. “That’s exactly how I had…” he starts, sees that the (good) attack is intercepted, and he swings into a “Markus Schupp hadn’t imagined that”. If it had become dangerous, he would have simply left it at “…Markus Schupp had imagined it. With a fast passing game …etc.” Yet he pulls out of the action. Whether coach Schupp had imagined it this way or that is speculative and has nothing to do with what happened per se. The combination ran fluidly and quickly. It looked good and dangerous, sure, only in rudiments. Staffeldt was played on at the edge of the penalty area, but was intercepted there by an alert Bochum defender and separated from the ball. You don’t necessarily get through, you don’t always get through. You just try it, sometimes this way, sometimes that way. It was all well and good.
A rough, specially made tip here: Coach Schupp had imagined it this way after all and was happy with the action. Fast, determined direct play and players moving up. To score a goal, just like that, in the first attack is just a dream.
Maric, counter-attack runs, Federico is there, bad passing from Milos Maric.
It immediately starts with “bad passing”. Even if it were true, you wouldn’t want to hear it as a spectator if you were in an expectant mood. It is demotivating to hear “bad” all the time. It doesn’t sound right either, at best only to a very limited extent. So differentiation would be called for. After the Bochum team had won the ball, Maric crossed the halfway line on the right and saw Saglik running through to the top. He had a pretty good view of a passing route that, if successful, would promise an excellent goal situation, as I said, because the Karlsruhe team had moved up. But the pass was anticipated and intercepted.
Such passes are called “risk passes”. The risk is that the pass will not succeed, which both the players and the coach are prepared for. The coach really encourages the players who are capable of such “deadly passes” to try them. The better the passer and the better the attackers sent off, the more often such an action succeeds overall. A goal, possibly resulting in an impact, is and remains the exception. Nothing was wrong here and nothing was bad. He would try it again next time and if one out of five got through, the risk would have been worth it.
Because, as a guess, they wouldn’t get to the goal any better or not at all any other way.
And if he had played a simple cross or back pass, without any risk, the action would then (almost certainly) not have led to a goal, it would have been said: “Maric took the pace out, but he had space”, or “he didn’t see that Saglik was offering himself at the top, the passing path was free for a short moment.”
The ball goes well for Karlsruh via Iashvili, chance for Fink. But Andreas Luthe was very careful and came out for safety’s sake.
Well, this once again sober view on the part of the announcer certainly does not do justice to this situation. “The ball is going well” is positive, sure. But the speaker failed to recognise or conceal these details:
It was the aforementioned ball relay on Karlsruhe’s side: five stations in direct play, all played with the utmost concentration and precision – surely, otherwise they would be unsuitable for direct forwarding –, the final “deadly pass” that succeeded on this side was perfectly timed by Iashvili so that it could be picked up at about the edge of the penalty area by one of the two advancing attackers, neither of whom was offside and yet both of whom had a clear advantage over their opponents. The goalkeeper rushed to meet it, but realised that the striker in front of him would be on the ball and stopped the run while still inside his own penalty area. The fact that the running-back centre-back Mavrej still deflected the ball or even touched it hardly mattered for the scene, as he only minimally changed the direction of his run, but not the tempo. Fink or Chrisantus, it didn’t matter, Fink reached him, the goalkeeper was paused in the penalty area, a very good opportunity. One man alone in front of the goalkeeper!
Fink tried to get the ball past the goalkeeper at top speed by making a slight hook to the far right, crossing the edge of the penalty area, Fink also came to finish, but the alert keeper dove down to his right at that very moment and intercepted the ball, which was by now a little too close to the goalkeeper from the attacker’s point of view. A great scene, a great opportunity.
The verdict “Andreas Luthe paid good attention there” could be taken as praise, but it is only true for the successful blocking of the shot and the quick reaction to the finish. Before that, he rather misjudged, because you can see clearly that he rushes towards the ball, but stops in the penalty area, realising that he will not reach it. For the moment, this behaviour would rather have increased the danger of scoring. In the event that Fink had scored, the commentary would have been quite casually the other way round: “The goalkeeper hesitates when running out. Yes, either he stays behind or he has to get close. Clear goalkeeper error!”
He had “come out to be on the safe side” is now absolutely no longer true. On the one hand, this suggests that it would come to nothing either way, because “for safety’s sake” implies that it was only done for additional safety, but on the other hand, the content and tone of voice are simply tension-killing. “I’ll run out there just to be on the safe side. It’s going to get dangerous later and we really don’t want that.” Casual, boring.
(The replay is played) Good ball sequence in midfield for the Blues via Staffeldt, via Fink, via Iashvili and then he looks for Chrisantus and from Mavrej’s leg the ball finally comes to Fink. A clear opportunity for the man who has scored three goals so far this season.
Even if the judgement here is a little more precise and no longer totally wrong, it is bored, sober and casually told.
How about this:
“Great attack by Karlsruhe, fantastic direct play, over five stations, ball played into the top by Iashvili, slightly deflected by Mavrej, two men are through, Fink, the goalkeeper hesitates when running out, yes, Fink, Fink in front of him on the ball, Fink alone in front of goalkeeper Luthe, makes the hook, looks for the finish, oh, great reaction by the Bochum keeper, who prevents the goal at the right moment with a sideways diving jump. Great action, huge chance, almost 1:0. We also see him clenching his fists afterwards that he was able to thwart the chance. “
No offside from Iashvili, Fink, fair tackle from Mavrej. Another good attack.
But the expression “No offside …” would really only be due to one person. And that is rarely found here. Why not say “No offside indicated…”? Similarly with the “fair tackle”. “He doesn’t give a free kick” or “he lets the ball run on after the attack” would have an earthly character and would come across much more sympathetically. A “good tackle by…” was also possible. What if the spectator himself saw the scene as offside or recognised it as foul play afterwards? Why should we be permanently “lectured”? Who is talking about knowing all this?
Maric, quickly executed, too quickly for Norbert Grudzinski.
It’s galloping, you can feel it, although he doesn’t know how to convey it sufficiently (or, so the suspicion goes, doesn’t want to). Nevertheless, there is permanent game action here, which is reported, at least in this phase. Unfortunately, the referee does not play along in this scene. “Too fast for Norbert Grudzinski” is indeed correct, as the quickly taken free kick was objected to, but in his own opinion it happened wrongly, as the ball was lying when it was taken. And this would have been the only possibility to object on the part of the referee.
(Bochum’s coach Funkel is shown) He said it’s not a question of the system, you can play it however you want, you can play it in a 4-1-3-2, you can play it in a 4-3-1-2.
Unfortunately, again, there is no sense of when something exciting is happening on the pitch. It’s good to have the knowledge and it can be very interesting. Especially since coach Funkel is faded in. But as long as the ball is in play, especially in such a tangibly exciting phase of the game, you should urgently do without it. Every blah-blah around it costs viewers, because it always gives the impression that nothing great is happening down there. And he almost missed the Bochum attack in this scene. An “accusation” that has a very general character.
Chance now for the Bochum team and a great opportunity for Chong Teese. The Karlsruher break up well, cross to Saglik on the left side, who passes unselfishly.
Because that’s exactly the description he has to make following the goal chance, and thus simply too late. The “unselfish” is also laudatory, but at the same time judgmental. An immediate judgement, here in the form of an adjective, can only be made when one is not tense. Appropriate is a “he puts the ball down on…” Because one is tense, or, theoretically, was, since it is too late. The “disinterested” can, if you like, be included in the hindsight.
Here is an alternative commentary on the Bochum attack: “Free kick Bochum, hit far forward, but precise, right on the head of Teese, who wins the header duel against two men and, what’s more, extends the ball right into the path of the advancing offensive left-back Kopplin, dangerous cross from Kopplin, Saglik rises high for the header, gets to the ball, sees the better-positioned Teese, heads right into his path, a Karlsruhe player tries to interfere, the ball bounces, Teese, from three metres — ouh, over the empty goal. “
(now the replay of the scene is shown) Kopplin, from the run, Saglik passes for Chong Teese, a hundred percent, one would say, which the North Korean World Cup participant normally also makes. 2, 3 metres in front of goal, can’t get the ball over the line. Bochum set the first exclamation mark in this duel. Especially with the two strikers Teese and Saglik.
As seemingly pretty as this scene is described. He explains that it is only called “one hundred percent”, which implies that he knows how nonsensical this formulation is, since 100% is exactly when the ball is in and the referee blows the whistle, but immediately afterwards he says that he normally makes them too, which then again shows the opposite, i.e. the lack of understanding. Besides, it’s so merciless. “Normally” he does that one. Also, the crowning touch somehow, he pretends with it that he’s already seen about 100 goals from Teese – he’s only been in Germany since the start of the season, so that would be rather unlikely – and can judge that he “normally” does one of those.
An independent judgement: the chance would be about the same for almost any player who would have been so brilliantly played free there. No special striker qualities are needed here, just presence (this is certainly in contrast to other situations where either coolness or shooting precision might be required, to name just two qualities that might distinguish a good striker). The chance may even be in the order of 80%, but certainly not much more, rather less. The ball is placed in the run and perfectly so, but as it comes from the head it bounces logically in front of him and in addition there is the opponent pressing him, who after all contributes so much to the miss that he gets to the body and thus at least, as the Englishman would put it, “to put him off”, puts him a little off balance, of course absolutely not illegal in this situation, there is no question of that here. The goal is quite wide open, because the goalkeeper had oriented himself towards Saglik, but is already rushing back to the danger zone, in addition, the finishing position is not quite central in front of the box but slightly offset to the half-left, which at least additionally shortens the angle a little. Any such assessment of “normally he does it” or “100% chance”, let alone the so often heard “he has to do it”, is out of place and does not do justice to the situation, especially when you see the slightly desperate face of the attacker as the scene continues. These are the emotions that should be captured. You could pity him or be excited about the great action, point out the tragedy or the little bit of luck or bad luck that takes its toll at all points. Anything else is annoying and tension robbing, merciless, emotionless, and does not do justice to such a rousing game of football.
Another, but almost more important point: does he think it doesn’t matter what he’s babbling about and that people should have forgotten that just before he spoke of a “clear possibility” for Karlsruhe – and thus remained soberly understated, but at least he said it – and now speaks of the “first exclamation mark”? Well, who is stupid here and who is to be sold for it? Amnesia is a very sad disease. But one doesn’t have to become a sports reporter when struck by it, does one? Who put him in that position? “Highlight on highlight” is what he should be saying much more. Instead of a “first exclamation mark”, which goes in the direction of “nothing much happens here”.
High leg from Mahir Saglik.
Another such postulate. Surely the ref has given the foul, maybe objected to the high leg. However, immediately afterwards Saglik suggests that the opponent may have had his head too low? In any case, the scene is “debatable”. The fact that the decision, as is so often the case, goes against the attacker is not to be made an issue here, but it would be a typical scene to prove it. His verdict : superfluous, unsympathetic, omniscient.
Schäfer, plenty of space for Chrisantus, Concha is there, slips out.
Another quickly presented attack by the Karlsruher. The “plenty of room” is always a fantasy that practically never exists. If anything, for the moment, he would have cleverly given himself a little space. In this scene it is a mistake. Because the space might be there, but only if the opposite player, defender Concha wasn’t there, who simply gets to the ball in front of him. So it does suggest a little bit of a miscue again. “He has plenty of space” is exclaimed. “Why doesn’t he use it” is suggested as a thought. But he didn’t.
Federico, the returnee here at the Wildpark. Long, opening ball, inch-perfect, into the run of Mahir Saglik, who has to wait for his teammates to follow, Kopplin, tries with his weaker, right foot, Maric, and now Robbles is there. Foul play by Faton Toski on Louis Robbles. (
Robbles the KSC goalkeeper)
Certainly not easy to stay “on ball level” in this very fast game, where attack runs on attack. Beforehand, he kept quiet about the good cross from Karlsruhe after their throw-in on the right, which was headed out. And there is actually no time to draw attention to the fact that Federico is the “returnee”. It’s an attempt to put in knowledge that is not linked to the game. So to speak, the “to be saved for boring” parts, so that one also has something to say there.
The pass is perfect, over 40, 45 metres. The “he has to wait” is true, but already sounds negative. One goal is achieved: you are in possession of the ball in the opponent’s half. Even near the penalty area. Logically, after such a long pass, it takes a moment for the team-mates to get in front. One could interpret it – with a bad will – as meaning that he thinks the Bochum team is “moving up too slowly” because they are forcing him to wait.
It is all right what they are doing. Saglik claims the ball on the left outside position, the teammates move up in heaps, 5, 6 of them, Kopplin is selected as a play-on station, he takes the ball inside, on his weaker right foot (as one likes to believe him, but which is not directly game action and again: time is short; knowledge MUST be applied?), however, he also brings the ball with this towards the goal from 30 metres. However, as several other attackers have long been in the penalty area, one does not necessarily have to interpret the shot as one intended for the goal. The ball comes into the penalty area, sharp and flat. In fact, the ball is blocked by a defender’s leg, but it bounces to Maric, who has also arrived in front in the meantime, and he brings it straight back into the penalty area. Of course there is confusion here and there, because everything happens so quickly that it doesn’t look like a “planned” action, but this can hardly be to the detriment of the attackers. Because you almost always don’t score a goal anyway, it could turn out differently by chance.
So the ball bounces back and forth, into the penalty area, out again, in again, out again and in again high. Goalkeeper Robbles comes far out of his box and boxes the last ball out of the danger zone about 13 metres from the goal, jumping over friend and foe.
However, it is absurd that he is awarded a free kick for this rather reckless, but also energetic intervention. This action should not even be whistled for in the five-metre area, as the Bochum attacker is simply standing there. He even saves himself the movement towards the ball, for which he would have the right at this point anyway (but actually even the same in the five-meter), here acknowledging that he can do nothing against the raw and concentrated power of the goalkeeper, except maybe get a black eye. So the fact that he turns away can never, ever – and certainly not outside the five-person box — be considered an “offence”. Apart from the fact that the goalkeeper, since he falls, naturally falls with over at least two of his own defenders. All this is discussed in detail in another section (a chapter on “Goalkeeper Protection”), but here is exactly the prime example.
(The repetition of the scene:) Aduobe doesn’t look safe, then via detours, Maric, Toski, yes, you don’t necessarily have to whistle, goes out of his five-metre area, is treated there like any other player, is also on the ball, should have been allowed to run even further.
Most of that was well recognised. Only the formulation “is treated there like…” is wrong in the sense that it doesn’t happen. He would have to be treated like that, but de facto he continues to enjoy special rights, whose occurrence should really be shifted in the sense of an investigation of the causes. It was never, ever a foul. But he admits that. The “doesn’t look safe” is nevertheless the negative part of the scene. Bochum were up front, with many players, and simply played the ball forward quickly and hard. If you want to confuse a defence, that’s how you do it. The fact that you can lose the overview in the process – i.e. that it doesn’t look planned – is accepted in the sense that, in the worst case, you don’t score a goal, which is the same as the normal case. Goals are quite rare.
The exaggerated goalkeeper protection prevented worse things from happening here for Karlsruhe.
Fink. Good ball to Chrisantus, Chrisantus faster than Mavrej, still Chrisantus.
And then what? Nothing more? Scene completed? Maybe the conceived idea behind it: “No, this time I won’t say what he did wrong. Me and ungracious, my ass.”
The interplay was brilliant again, and that is no exaggeration. Lightning-fast combination from Karlsruhe. Chrisantus let Aduobe’s precise pass from his own half slip through his own legs with an elegant feint on Fink, who was standing behind him, i.e. in the direction of Bochum’s goal. Fink took a few steps towards the centre, found the perfect moment and the space for an accurate pass to Chrisantus, who was now coming from the outside and was without an opponent there for the moment. Chrisantus uses basic speed and technical perfection as well as the space created by this crossing of the strikers and moves into the penalty area. Now an opponent is there, blocks the way towards the goal, but Chrisantus steps on the ball and, just past the right corner of the goal area, is free for a moment. The planned sharp pass into the middle is intercepted by the attentive Bochum defenders.
Simply a great scene. Only millimetres were missing to bring this action to a crowning conclusion. For example, at the point when Chrisantus penetrates from the corner of the penalty area and could have hit the ball a little more centrally when presenting himself, whereby he could have shaken off the defender. So he is pushed a little too far out for a direct shot on goal. Nevertheless, it was a great job — stepping on the ball — afterwards. The fact that he doesn’t find a taker in the middle is no coincidence, because the opponent has something against it and the player potential to do it successfully. It was ablaze. Hot, great scene, just foiled. “Chrisantus” – and there they left him.
For the rest: this is how top football goes! That’s what the fans want to see! The fans of the game of football, anyway.
Foul play on Timo Staffeldt by Faton Toski, there is a free kick for KSC.
Iashvili, with the left, towards goal, weakly kicked, and then Concha clears first.
Now, how he gradually starts to use the words “weak” and “bad” more and more, demands some respect. You have to have attended the academy of bad-mouthing to be able to do that.
The free kick was not weak at all. In fact, it looked more like a rehearsed variation. Iashvili kicks the stationary ball into the penalty area from the half-right with his left foot past the wall, not too hard. The intention, one could interpret, was to surprise the defence, which had expected a longer ball to the far post. At the same time, a Karlsruhe attacker rushes to the exact position where the ball comes down. He even wants to take it directly, which underpins even more the impression of “rehearsed”. However, not surprisingly for this expert, a Bochum defender is attentive enough to stop the attempt. He gets to the ball just before the striker and clears. What was “weak” there? He did that exclusively.
Yes, there was a Karlsruhe player lying down after the duel. While René Rohde signalled offside for Mahir Saglik. A step, correctly seen. But Gaetan Krebs is up again.
Once again, it’s peripheral events. The game is in full swing. The previous Karlsruher action, which ended with another but headed out cross from the half-right, was again completely hushed up.
Offside indicated, Karlsruher down but everything is correct. The only thing that should give pause for thought is the confirmation of the offside decision.
In the replay you can see that it is exactly this borderline area in which one could very well and with a clear conscience speak of “the same height”. “N step” and “correctly seen” confirms without reservation, apart from the fact that it patronises the spectator unpleasantly.
The assistant is always fine. He is always protected and supported, even by commentators. The “wrong decision” is minimal. Both views can be held. Since the rules have included exactly this as a paragraph, that one should give the attacker the benefit of the doubt to encourage goal action in general, this would be the perfect opportunity right here. (This is all discussed in detail in the offside section).
Krebs, Fink, good movement from Anton Fink, Iashvili, waits for Krebs, Concha in between, on we go,
Actually, he can’t resist being carried along either. The “let’s go on” refers to an advantage situation indicated by the referee. But the action was once again excellently performed by KSC.
Federico, Maric, maybe you should put the ball back down,
This stupid advice is supposed to cause hilarity? It’s a back-and-forth, back-and-forth, back-and-forth, back-and-forth, back-and-forth, back-and-forth, back-and-forth, back-and-forth, back and forth. Everyone involved is happy to get the ball at all. The Bochum team heads it out, the Karlsruhe team heads it back in. What else could they do? At some point, gravity will bring about change. “Stupid” is the only appropriate word. Because it’s not funny.
that Federico does, and immediately looks for the drop pass to Mahir Saglik, but the experienced Godfried Aduobe closes the door.
You can feel that everything is happening at top speed. While he’s still giving his advice, Federico has really taken the ball down elegantly. He plays it straight to the top. A similar pass to Maric’s right at the start, intercepted in exactly the same way. The concentrated Aduobe anticipates and intercepts.
“Shut the door” is shirt-sleeved, and thus again somewhat from above. Wordplay? No, can’t feel that way.
Krebs, Chrisantus, still KSC with Schäfer, and now they’ve lost the ball in the forward movement, now they’re only four at the back and in danger of counterattacking.
Yes, that’s how it is. Except you could start by acknowledging (if you saw it at all) that this has been the case in every attack so far, that they are all moving up. It’s a very attacking team that desperately wants to get the advantage, to impose their own game on the opposition, to please the crowd. It’s been the same situation on a number of occasions, six men up front and the attack not finishing. Is the “lost in the forward movement” supposed to imply a mistake?
Here is a description of the scene in so eagerly desired, so rarely and long unheard, so much missed “commentator’s language”, which unfortunately only exists in translation like this in England …and maybe once in the sixties?
It might have sounded something like this:
“Aduobe, alert, intercepts the ball, plays out to Schäfer on the left. Schäfer goes forward, enters the opponent’s half, Krebs offers himself, Krebs gets it. Schäfer continues to run through, waits for the return play, drags a defender with him, Gaetan Krebs uses the space in front of him, moves with an energetic drive from the half-left position towards the corner of the penalty area. Comes within shooting distance. Four attackers run along, ball to Chrisantus in the attacking centre, he forwards with his heel, great play, ball blocked, out of the penalty area, just, Schäfer, gets the ball again, comes into the penalty area, tries to shoot, is blocked again. Great attack, but…
Now Bochum with a lot of space. Six Karlsruher still in front…”
And so on.
The admonishing words “run the risk of counterattacking” are more befitting a Karlsruhe supporter. Has he become or has he always been? As a Bochum supporter, one might be pleased or hope for something. Admonishing probably has more the sense of instructing? “Why are they so stupid as to lose the ball in the forward movement?” As a neutral commentator – and that’s what he should be — you would have only one task: to convey this racy game to the spectator.
Aduobe. Sure. Zimmermann.
We hear that the Bochum attack is also intercepted. How did it happen? Something like this:
“Four against four. Crossed the centre line. Out to the right. Cross from half field. Two against two in the centre. Aduobe header winner. He really clears everything at the moment.
Now Karlsruhe again. On the right. Zimmermann. Calmer build-up play now from Karlsruhe. From right to left, back into the centre, in their own half. Then played quickly forward again. To the centre circle. Passed on directly with the heel, then…”
Dabrowski slides out well against Iashvili, but then Teese loses the ball too quickly.
Well, nothing negative for a long time? Please, we can deliver. He loses it “too quickly”. So he should lose it a bit slower?
He didn’t lose it at all, that’s the (subjective) fact. Dabrowski actually stopped the quick Karlsruhe action by “moving out”. However, his intervening action was in no way intended as a pass to Teese. Nevertheless, the ball lands there, naturally bouncing and with some spin. Teese does not expect this ball, tries to process it immediately, also sees a teammate, tries the direct pass, even into the top, is disturbed, therefore the ball understandably does not arrive. There was a lack of time and space. Nevertheless, even a good attempt for these circumstances. There can never be any question of “ball loss”. But even if it were, is that what needs to be pointed out? One simply looks for mistakes. And if there are none, you find them anyway. Wake up, Mr. Programme Director!
Aduobe has often been the centre of attention after 9 minutes played so far.
You could say that. Only one thing is striking: “Weak” and “bad” and “mistake” is always not only recognised immediately. Praise? No, why that? “In the centre” is pretty neutral. “Conspicuous” would be better. “Class” as praise is appropriate. Only perhaps a little too early? “In the spotlight” leaves everything open. Good or bad? He won’t know until the final result is known….
Young Matthias Zimmermann. Toski. Well thought, badly played,
There you go. At last, a misplaced pass, so you can get a bit of your contempt for the sport and the performances on show. “Well thought” was still appreciative to that extent. But the “badly played” was already the arrow in the quiver sharpened at the time of the debate. Fortunately, he spared himself the so insipid joke of “well thought is badly done”.
Schäfer is there.
And now Chrisantus against the experienced Yahia.
Foul play by Krebs on Concha, that will give the first yellow card in this game, tenth minute to Gaetan Krebs, er for Gaetan Krebs.
Well, the “prophet” gets it right in that there is indeed a yellow. However, the energetic whistle and the referee’s rushing over were used as a “divining rod”. So all that remains is to pat oneself on the back for the successful foresight.
Norbert Grudzinski was absolutely right, no chance to get the ball, clear foul, clear yellow card.
The replay reveals the equally perceived correctness of the yellow card, but with faulty causation. Gaetan Krebs very well had the chance to get to the ball, but simply missed it. The pronounced sentence seems to have been read off. And there is no need for the spectator to contradict him anyway. How about two reporters behind the microphone? A matter of course in many other countries. In Germany? I guess they follow the “I don’t tolerate any gods next to me” approach?
Maric. Kopplin briefly lost his bearings, so a throw-in for KSC.
As soon as you have the chance to use your club, you have to use it. And always go for it. But Kopplin absolutely did not lose his bearings. The scene was that a ball knocked out of Karlsruhe’s defence flies high through the air. Kopplin sees it coming, could also reach it, but decides not to head it senselessly forward, but wants to let it streak over the top of his head to the back, aimed at a teammate. You can see that this doesn’t work. That it should have something to do with a loss of orientation is nasty, stupid – and wrong.
Staffeldt and Iashvili.
Zimmermann, ball to Fink, Fink offside, free kick for the Bochum team.
Another one of those quick combinations by Karlsruhe that could confuse any defence. The ball to Fink is actually perfectly timed. You can’t see that Fink was offside, at most you can fear or suspect it. You can hear that the whistle sounds. How does that make it “Fink offside”? Well, see above. Being clever is everything. “The assistant raises the flag” sounds much less narrow-minded than the immediate judgement. Whether it was really him, you can possibly see more or less clearly in the replay.
So it’s going well, here in the opening phase, correctly seen by Tim Sönder, (for the replay of the offside situation).
First a judgement regarding the quality of play, and indeed : a positive one. However, such a comment is only appropriate when nothing is happening on the pitch, which was very rarely the case in this match. Then the confirmation of the offside decision just like that, in a side sentence. However, the same applies here as on the other side in the situation mentioned. It is exactly the same height, if you like. It is exactly, the scene for which the assistants were given the leeway to interpret it in favour of the attackers. It’s actually almost always very close. And just as often the flag is raised, despite rule paragraphs to the contrary. Why this is so is discussed in great detail in the chapter “Offside”.
But that it must be anything but coincidence can be seen in this game precisely in these two critical decisions, each of which was decided against the attackers. For there were no other scenes far and wide to correct this impression (a let-off scene that could be proven as “offside” in retrospect or would still be considered “extremely close”).
Fink might not have been able to reach the ball, because Mavrej was there.
Well, one would probably like to calm one’s own conscience, since the decision might have given rise to doubts, as the replay revealed. At the same time, they want to appease the “boiling soul of the people”, so to speak, who would also have noticed. “Well, nothing would have happened anyway. So it didn’t matter whether it was true or not.” Here’s an energetic contradiction: that’s exactly what makes the difference. Offside is always indicated when it is close. Afterwards, you can check whether it was “accidentally” correct this time. If there is any doubt, the decision is confirmed; if there is even more doubt, it’s “nothing would have happened”.
By the way, here is a short comment on this scene and the decision: If you look closely, you can see that assistant Tim Sönder is looking exclusively at the passer, and thus at the ball. The ball is played, the view moves forward, the attacker is logically a few metres offside when the ball arrives. Then the flag is raised. That is a standard. That’s how it’s always done. The decision against the attacker is carried by all sides. So what reason would the good man have to deviate from this behaviour? Apart from that, you can see from this that it is actually impossible to get these decisions right. On the sidelines, you have to make an assessment. And on the will to do what one would like. If you want “no trouble”, given the current overall situation, you raise the flag. Let people discuss. “This time it shouldn’t have been, but it was also hard to see.” That’s when you say: so what? Because nothing happens.
But woe betide you if you let a goal go unjustly and cause an irregular goal!
But the tempo was good in the first eleven and a half minutes.
Yes, the “tempo is good”. The exuberance knows no bounds. It is exhilarating, intoxicating.
KSC has to make the play, wants to make the play, and will make it, and Bochum tries to close the spaces in the backward movement, and then to switch quickly from the secured defence, from the compact defence.
Well, what a prediction! The KSC will make the game. How do you come up with something like that? There’s no need to step out of the game and make generalisations. And what’s more, with such a flat prediction, which, like a horoscope, can later be tailored to the game. The defence is always “compact” until the opponent allows goals. But in that case, they would have “made gross individual mistakes” or would have fallen into a “collective deep sleep”. KSC is trying to dominate at the moment. Whether they succeed is a completely open question. Apart from that: they are simply playing great football. Whoever has the ball is trying to get forward and somehow score a goal. You can see that. And nothing more. But what’s the point? This is just fun.
The other view? The main thing is to have said something that sounds professional?
Markus Schupp also demanded that his team switch quickly before the game. He knows that he is facing an experienced team with many players who have already played a few Bundesliga games. A motivated Saglik, a motivated Federico, a good-tempered Teese.
It’s going to continue in a moment. Apparently the tone is changing now, one of “I know such games” and “I’ve seen it all before”. Schupp must have said something along these lines at one point. However, all coaches today would emphasise this again and again. And they would even differentiate between the offensive and the defensive and the other way round. Both play an increasingly important role nowadays. Both are part of everyday training and coaching.
Yes, we let the ball run well through Toski, through Saglik, through Federico, and then the ball is too long for Teese.
This is the Bochum scene in which the ball runs through five stations in direct play. That is recognised. But at the end it is emphasised that the ball is too long for Teese.
Schäfer. Ball too high for Matthias Zimmermann from Stefan Müller, who has signed a professional contract, still yesterday.
Gradually, serious hacking can be done on the actions. Already two minutes without a goal-scoring chance? “Too high”. The only thing worth mentioning from the game at the moment, it seems? In addition, knowledge is once again brought to the man. Although not uninteresting and taking advantage of the current somewhat calmer situation. But why first note the “too high”? Is there a possible connection between “has a professional contract” and “does not perform anymore”?
Krebs, he should have solved better and simply gives away a throw-in in the danger zone.
This is really starting to be malicious. Gaetan Krebs had helped out deep in his own half and cleared a situation, running down an actually not bad pass to the right attacking side of Bochum. However, he is harassed when he wins the ball. He runs towards the left touchline deep in his own half. The opponent blocks his way forward. Not being a skilled defender – but even for one it would be extremely difficult – it is not his usual position, so he decides not to risk any hair-raising or dangerous dribbles or passes and plays the ball out of bounds. If anything is worth mentioning about this, it is that he went into this substitute position and even successfully cleared. Such an action could not even be “chalked off” to a Barcelona player.
It is picked on mercilessly. Whether it is true or not. And just think: even if it were true that it was indeed a mistake, a carelessness, a negligence, could one not simply overlook it in view of the so many great actions? Also and especially in the sense of the spectator, who would have no interest at all in the permanent exposure of the mistakes, even if it were “justified” here or there?
There are completely false claims being made here, and they are always being sought from the negative side. The “he must do better” has the effect of “aggravating punishment”, so to speak. Unfortunately, it only increases the nonsense from the reporter’s point of view.
Moreover, a throw-in as a “standard situation” is practically nowhere considered a special “dangerous situation”. There are the few long throw-in specialists, but even then it is not the most feared situation. “In the danger zone” is thus deliberately, but erroneously, used to play up the failure.
If you were to assess the situation very seriously, or ask coaches or teammates about what they thought of the teammate’s effort, they would all express their respect and thanks. “Well done by him.” And that’s a very serious suggestion to really get to the heart of this spouted nonsense. He recognises a failure. And he has this view absolutely exclusively. Who is right now?
Teese, he doesn’t take long, he doesn’t flinch, he wants to aim at goal immediately, and then commits the foul afterwards. Final warning to the 26-year-old, foul play on Timo Staffeldt.
At least he praises the determination of Teese, who creates just a little bit of space for himself and looks for a direct shot from far outside the penalty area (about 25 metres). The shot is blocked, however, so that the shooter – a frequently observed “overzealousness” after losing the ball – commits a foul for the purpose of “saving” his own action.
However, the “he doesn’t flare for long” suggests more of a generality, something like “I know that player, he always does it that way.” Any generalisation removes part of the tension from the situations, the essential part, if not all of it. The “the” is disrespectful and condescending. Add to that another bit of silliness: “Last admonition.” Utter nonsense, since he hasn’t even been noticed yet. This would be said if it was the second or third action. The permanent generalisation, also in the form of “slogans” or “throwing off phrases”, lacks differentiation. In the process, mistakes are made on the reporter’s side, which one is simply supposed to “swallow”.
It was an admonition, but definitely not “the last”. You can immediately see Teese raising his hand apologetically. The foul was also really very harmless, yet the ref probably says something to him like: “Sportsman, please be a bit more careful.”
Zimmermann, he has a lot of space in front of him, Matthias Zimmermann, the 18-year-old, past Toski, now against Kopplin.
This fantasy always of “a lot of space”. On the one hand, it sounds as if he was “given” it out of negligence on the part of his opponents, and on the other hand, it somehow implies the demand to make something of it now. “Acknowledged” is, of course, only if it becomes a goal – and then it’s the opponent’s fault again.
“Plenty of space” is not true anyway. Here it was a maximum of five metres. He is immediately pushed sideways by the first opponent, then the next one is in his way. In addition, the other players have not yet advanced, so that the “space” would have no special function on the outside position. In addition, he got it for himself and not as a gift. Afterwards, it does not seem worthwhile to go on about the action. As a reader, one simply has to think: apparently she wasn’t bad enough?
He is gradually pushed away towards the corner flag and loses the ball there to Kopplin. Was it only not mentioned further because he himself realised that it wasn’t “much space” at all?
Aduobe, Staffeldt, Krebs, try it with the left, yes, why not?
This “why not?” is as out of place as practically everything else. It is supposed to imply an appreciation of the scene. But it is the opposite. The “Why not?” already anticipates the hopelessness for success. “Of course it won’t work out, I can see that right away, but why not give it a try anyway?”
Gaetan Krebs had created the necessary space for himself to finish with a short hook. It was very cleverly done. The shot was actually deflected, which is definitely recognised as an element of danger creation and can be used. However, you can see that the Bochum man – correctly identified at the end, Yahia – nevertheless makes this movement “consciously”, even if it remains a reflex to the ball. So he gets the shock that the shot could be dangerous by deflecting it and still steers the ball, just as reflexively, so that it goes past. These are little things that will always escape certain oafs in this country, comparable to the tender touch of a woman.
There will be a corner kick, last a Bochum player on the ball. (The replay:) Short hook against Milos Maric, and then left-footed, Mergim Mavrej was still on it. Anthar Yahia did it.
Yahia again, cancer again, against Maric, Aduobe.
There is always the suggestion that he would have something to portray. Only it just doesn’t happen. The corner was dangerous, but Yahia is first to it, heads the ball out, to the edge of the penalty area, Karlsruher still on the ball there, many players in the penalty area, almost the finish, blocked, throw-in, powerful pressure from Kralsruhe.
Yes, now everything is closed, no throw-in,
How can you say such nonsense? He delays the throw-in briefly to wait for an even better chance. Constructing a “problem” out of a throw-in – that takes a lot of skill. Or should we rather call it stupidity?
Chrisantus found the ball, but he wasn’t allowed to go because he was offside.
Did he find someone after all? Amazing. Chrisantun had actually gone to the baseline, where he was not offside at the throw-in, bounces the ball back from there to the throw-in, who in turn plays it back towards Chrisantus. Chrisantus runs past the ball, knowing that he would have been offside. Only the negative is emphasised from the whole event. “All closed”, “no chance”, “wasn’t allowed to go”.
Müller, foul play. Yes, that’s where Fiedhelm Funkel gets upset over the outside microphones (you can hear Friedhelm Funkel saying “Eieieiei.”). Of course, it would have been a good counterattack situation for the Bochum team, but Norbert Grudzinski also saw it correctly.
This “foul situation”, like so many others, can be viewed in different ways. This time it may have been one, but again: he knows it, forces it on the spectator. What if one had seen it differently after all? Maybe there were two ways of looking at it after all?
Staffeldt. Long ball. Too long for Mutzel.
When something “misses”, it has to be mentioned. The ball was too long. But there would be enough other things to tell.
Dabrowski tries to put things in order,
Commonplace. Ridiculous. “Tries to sort out”. He plays a ball and something is supposed to be “analysed out”, generalised. Surely Dabrowski is a central player and a very experienced player and as such generally in a position to “order” the game. As a scene description it is nonsense.
From the centre, with a lot of overview, Christoph Dabrowski. Good effort again by Godfried Aduobe against Mahir Saglik. So the man who has just joined the Karlsruhe team was the most conspicuous in the first 17 minutes.
It should always be summarised, generalised. Should we look at the game with different eyes afterwards? Now I’m paying attention to Aduobe? Besides, it’s only 17 minutes. Maybe at half-time? Aduobe was good here, simple as that. Good attention, a well-timed, absolutely fair tackle in which he only hits the ball, although the opponent is brought down in the process. Tackles like that are fun. For example, an Englishman or another football expert. Well, he didn’t say anything bad. Only, apart from a generalisation, even if positive, one could quietly make a concrete praise. To make the beauty of the (fair) game of football recognisable even in defensive actions.
By the way, during the entire, rippling commentary on the pitch, a very good attack by Karlsruhe is running, which would have deserved much more attention.
Schäfer has to stop,
“Must abort” can get you all worked up again. Because it starts from some premise, a claim, that can’t be fulfilled anyway. Especially because the success of an action, i.e. a successful goal, if it ever came about, would be blamed on the defence anyway. Moreover, he has to stop means, “Well, this action won’t be successful either. Instead of running through and hammering the ball into the net, “he has to stop”.
The attack is still going on. There was nothing wrong with him at all. Karlsruhe had cleverly established themselves in the opponent’s half. Except, namely, that the ball must go forward in order to score a goal, and even more importantly, own players must go forward. There is no other way. And in this respect, “holding the ball”, even without achieving the much quoted and demanded “space gain” (which apparently only refers to the ball position, at least in the highly restricted reporter’s field of vision), is already a small success. At least it is what one has to do when there are no teammates around. Did it, was interpreted adversely, erroneously.
At the outside position, Chrisantus had claimed the ball, played it back to Schäfer, who had moved up in the meantime, and he played it across again, but in itself ideal, as there were now six Karlsruhe players in front of the ball, and a corresponding number of opponents behind them, seven in total. This is also called “pushing in at the back”, achieved by “clever playmaking”. Not for a German reporter. The “art” of a German reporter is to talk stupidly, but to do so quickly and firmly.
The next point to note: as soon as you say “he has to stop” (and the viewer hears it, but fortunately there are extremely few of them; the few who do tune in watch without sound) you are somehow obliged to hope for the failure of the attack (on the part of the speaker). “He has to abort” … further thought or speech “and so this possibility also fizzles out”. “That way it won’t work”, because if you “have to break off all the time and don’t get any further.”
Mutzel, ah, bad ball from Michael Mutzel.
This is indeed where the promising Karlsruhe attack ends. Mutzel, who would have plenty of play-off stations, coming from the left five metres above the penalty area corner, but decides on an immediate play into the top, which is really not good. However, you can immediately see him raise his hand apologetically. On the other hand, due to the skilful build-up of play and the opponent being pushed back, the “loss of the ball” only results in it being knocked away, so that Karlsruhe retain possession. It burned a little, which you don’t hear out.
Müller against Teese.
He lands far in front, where a Bochum player can still be found. The latter presses defender Müller, who very skilfully frees himself from his opponent.
Short applause for Stefan Müller for this action.
Yes, here again is an ideal example. He has missed the “skilful freeing”, the spectators have not. So only their “scene applause” is commented on, but not the skill of the action, because it has already been missed by him. The “short” is already mean again somehow. Short or long, it was scene applause. The fans liked it. He didn’t, just like everything else, as you will hear in a moment…
But again and again the Karlsruh team made mistakes in the build-up to the game, inaccurate passes.
Now you have to assume that he prefabricated the comments and reads them off, what else? Since I have always said “mistakes in the build-up to the game” at some point in all the previous games, do I have to put it in now? Or is it that a generalisation is made from every single scene? It’s unbelievable. Unbelievably wrong, stupid, off the mark, bad. The question one has to ask spontaneously is not whether a commentary could possibly be done better, but whether it would be conceivable to do it even worse?
There hasn’t been a single mistake to watch so far. No. There were racy duels, great attacks, some shots on goal and other goal actions. There were lightning-fast combinations through the midfield, there were some very successful defensive actions, there were several crosses and a few corner kicks. There were two teams to watch, both looking for the way forward whenever the chance presented itself, and two teams highly focused and passionate, and there was also a failed tackle for which the yellow card was – justifiably – drawn, if you’re looking for something bad. But even after that there was the conciliatory shake-hand – also withheld by the commentator – so that at the same time one could speak of a fair game (up to this point).
Mistakes in the build-up to the game, and that again and again, no, there were definitely not, neither at Bochum, nor (and even less) at Karlsruhe.
At this moment at the latest, the question of who should be replaced and who is the worst of all the players is answered. The man is not on the pitch…
Toski, well seen by Saglik, opened up for Kopplin, long ball, Saglik in the middle.
“Only one of them breaks off. What happened? Sure, you can see the pictures. But still, it brings across tension if you feel it and want to convey it. The cross was good (his tone also swelled towards “slightly elevated”), four men go to the ball, two Bochum, two Karlsruhe, but the defensive side remains the winner. All in all, however, a successful action, another exciting scene, especially as it was again initiated with direct play. Both teams remain in the forward gear. Saglik in the middle. End.
Cancer. Stefan Müller is down at the back for a moment, but he’s getting back up now. Zimmermann, with Iashvili in front, Iashvili, no foul says the assistant, right in front of Tim Sönder.
The effort only goes to the body and is a bit too violent to justify letting it go. There should be a free kick after all.
And I think that was ok, body against body. Mavrej v Iashvili.
No match. Too bad. However, this topic is also thoroughly commented on in the chapter “Striker’s Foul”.
The last time these two teams faced each other, both were still playing in the first Bundesliga. Season 2008/2009, matchday 18, Bochum won 2:0, with goals from Klimowicz and Christian Fuchs, the first leg on the first was won 1:0 by KSC.
As he tells this, the game is on. Awkwardly, as always, but the learned expertise has to be “accommodated” at some point. Sensitivity for the moment when it could fit is not there.
In parallel, an even less contentious scene occurs over there when Chong Teese simply takes the ball, the defender goes down (Aduobe), and is actually ruled to have committed a “striker’s foul”. You can see from the attacker’s bewilderment that there was definitely not the slightest reason to rule against him here now. Even when he runs back, he still can’t believe it and keeps looking around to see if he is really meant.
In addition, in the same scene, you see Aduobe, who was tackling from behind, pointing to the ball immediately after the whistle. Of course, he wanted to imply that he had not fouled at all, because he logically assumed the whistle was against him. For an attentive observer, this is clear proof that it could not have been a foul play by Teese. Nevertheless, it supports the view of the referees’ different assessments of what strikers are allowed to do and what defenders are allowed to do (see the chapter on “Striker’s Foul”).
All this escapes the good man behind the microphone. A little emotion, including that of the players, should be captured in a good report.
Now they meet on equal terms, after seven games, in the middle of the table, eleventh against twelfth.
Blah, blah, blah.
Schäfer, high miss rate with Andreas Schäfer, at left-back.
… to hit a low shot directly after the side kick. If only it were true… Even if it were to remain a “low blow”.
Schäfer has absolutely no high miss rate. If anything, there were two, which would have to be differentiated into “risky” and “easy”. The last kick-off was a long ball over about thirty metres. Chrisantus, perhaps not quite perfectly played, is jumped over by the much taller centre-back standing behind him. But the ball is immediately recovered by the Karlsruhers, who are playing recognisable pressing, so that during the set piece the promising attack continues. One wonders what game he is actually talking about? What does the scene have to do with a missed pass by Schäfer? You just babble, miss the best, always make a mess of things, are bored and annoyed, at least disappointed by what you consider to be a subterranean performance and let the last desperate listener feel this clearly.
Markus Schupp, could not win a game against Friedhelm Funkel as coach,
Positive or negative? Marginal at any rate. The ball is rolling.
Markus Schupp has played against the VfL Bochum coach twice so far, with Wacker Burghausen, losing both games 0:3 in each case, at that time Friedhelm Funkel was still on the Eintracht Frankfurt bench.
All the time, a promising Bochum attack runs through many stations.
Now the Bochum team. Concha, good movement by Federico, Zimmermann has to clear. And it’s good that he did it, because Saglik was there to dust it down.
Ridiculous, wrong, undifferentiated, boring description. The attack on the right side is going well. With the “And now the Bochumers” he wakes up from the Laberagonie, The ball comes at that moment already in the middle. Three Bochum players in front. Played flat, the foremost one, 15 metres from goal, almost centrally. Federico cleverly takes the ball around the opponent, but comes quite close to the baseline, so that a goal is not very promising. But he pulls the ball back, where two Bochum players stand against two Karlsruhe players. That’s exactly how it’s done, maximum danger, the first Bochum player almost gets to it, but has already run past the ball, the one behind would be even more favourable if the defender hadn’t just got in the way.
The phrase “Zimmermann has to clear” sounds as if it doesn’t matter who clears the ball. Or also like this: “It was almost so dangerous that someone had to clear.” Of course, that does absolutely no justice to such a scene. That’s how you attack, that’s good, attractive, exciting football. Next time it will work, it should say. Chances on both sides. Hardly any time to take a breath.
At the last moment he still realises that the goal threat was much greater than he gave it in the first (decisive and, by his description, sobering) impression. “Good thing he did…” However, the sub-sentence “because Saglik was there to dust down” is not true in the sense in which one speaks of a “dust down”. That is brilliantly prepared, one has come very close to the goal, two attackers there, this one or that one can do it, to get the ideal chance. But it wouldn’t be a “tap-in”. It’s a stupid, wrong term for it, because simply “dusting off” sounds disdainful again. It would have prepared a “he has no more trouble, he only needs to put his foot in”. if he did get hold of it. And that doesn’t sound very nice either.
Here again is a little alternative description:
“Bochum play forward, come over the halfway line, four men go along, Maric has the ball, on the right Concha offers himself, who goes forward from the defence with a quick start, Concha demands the ball, Maric with a precise pass. Federico breaks away from his opponent, enters the penalty area, Concha sees him, plays, Federico cleverly takes the ball, passes Müller, could shoot, no, is pushed away, pulls the ball back, Teese is too quick, has the ball at his back, but behind him Saglik … but Zimmermann is able to clear at the last moment. Great move by VfL.”
Kopplin.
Good lateral pass from Müller to Zimmermann. Well thought out, played too sharply by Matthias Zimmermann to Alexander Iashvili.
That was even true in one respect. However, it looked good again overall. The change of sides was great, amazing in so far as the exact same ball before came minimally too high and he plays it again. This gives Zimmermann some space again, takes the ball around an opponent and sees Iashvili up top. Now there are two options for a face-off. Right into the foot or into the run. The one into the foot sometimes has to be played hard. The one into the run has to be well timed. In terms of direction, he plays into the run, in terms of strength, he plays into the foot. That’s why the ball whizzes past Iashvili.
The two who were also on international duty with KSC during the international break at all. Matthias Zimmermann with the U19s, who last played in the European Championship qualifiers against Switzerland on Tuesday, and Alexander Iashvili with Georgia against Latvia.
Honestly and objectively: He used the current break perfectly (this means, like an Englishman) for this interesting little side report. That’s how you bridge situations in which the game is going nowhere or the ball is not even in play. However: the first and only time…
Iaschvili, good movement, now he is through in the middle, ball to Fink, yes, Anton Fink still gets it. Now it’s out of bounds.
Concluding typical high-voltage mediation. “He’ll get it” and “now it’s out of bounds.” That was the first scene with “end” commentary, so to speak. Great!
That’s why the scene was great: Iashvili’s start, with the elegant ball transfer towards the opponent’s goal, but just inside VfL’s half. Then he uses the space and time to look up for a moment, Fink takes off, but the ball has to be played high, Fink is past the opponent, the ball comes as accurately as it can be played, Fink could take it with his head, chest or foot, decides to take it with his foot, but doesn’t get it down quite so perfectly, so that it rolls towards the touchline instead of towards the goal. However, he still has a head start on the opponent and reaches the ball before he does. Then he is harassed from two sides and really lets it slip out of bounds.
