How does a successful action work?
This chapter is specifically aimed at the fact – which is already indicated elsewhere – that it is actually impossible to produce such an action.
The speakers constantly demand – virtually before, during or after every failed attack – how one should do what and what is wrong with the attack, and even more so what one should have done correctly. But as soon as these demands are met – of course only in the sense that an attack actually leads to a goal — the other side is declared responsible with the weakness of their actions.
Of course, this escapes the drooling Mister Omniscient. For he then realises that in that case “everything really does go far too easily”, which always happens when “everyone is just watching”, “giving friendly escort” or “committing catastrophic covering errors”. Above all: one argues against it. If you were to say, “Hey, that wasn’t a positional error, that was just great play,” then you’d probably get quite a thunderstorm from a true pundit. “Take a good look, you county class actor. They’re all wrong there, you can see that.” “No, they’re not.” “So, how did the action end?” Exactly, with a goal, so he’s right, here and always.
Again, would the action be judged the same if the outcome was unknown? That is the only support, that is his net and double bottom at the same time. Without it, he would fall where he belongs: head first, unsharp….
Skilful and sharply observed differentiations are basically also what could not only distinguish the true professional, but would also appeal to the viewer, apart from the fact that it would correspond to the truth, as opposed to what was actually said.
Nor is the point here merely to say that it was a great attack. Actual differentiations arise out of the situation. There are also so beautifully many individual differences in the players. To shed light on this would just spread joy, apart from the objectivity aspect. However, it seems here that one has to hide the truths behind the bare facts. “If it had been well played, it would have resulted in a goal” is the silly argumentation, which on the other hand also brings to light a “can’t have been well defended, then there wouldn’t have been a goal”. Apart from that, the commentary on the individual scene would still depend on the overall outcome of the game. So if you were to say that they played great in that scene, then the expert might nod, but couldn’t help but point out “that you can’t buy anything for it”, that “in the end there was a lack of effectiveness”, that it was a “bread-and-butter art” or “in the end it just wasn’t enough.”
It is hard to argue past the result in this country. No matter how much you take up the cudgels for one side, the naked end result would always be rubbed in your face.
A successful action? There is no such thing. The true expert knows that. Getting through is out of the question if you don’t do it all right. If you get through, only the defence can be blamed. There is nothing in between. Just a lot, a lot of yawning boredom, which mainly refers to the expert analyses strung together.