The difference of the fans not being there

[Sefton owl]

Having watched the 3 games so far, i have to say I’ve enjoyed it for the first time since before Christmas. Odubajo made a point that he feels pressure from the fans, but at this level there is no hiding place and any decent pro shouldn’t be overwhelmed by the pressure and expectation at the club. 
 

Its interesting that the feeling on here has been positive, in regards to what is happening on the pitch. Is it because we aren’t there at the ground and we have the luxury of watching the games as if we were all sat in the in the commentary area? Does it give fans a better perspective of things? It might be stating the obvious but had we all been there tonight, the post match feeling would be incredibly different. Vast majority on here would be immediately slating monk and the players. Obviously no fan wants to see their home team lose 3-0, but I genuinely think watching on tv gives fans a better perspective.

[Jennz]

While I would always prefer to be actually at the game I have found that watching games on TV/computer does give you a different perspective.

 

Since I'm in Australia now I have no opportunity to see us live, I've used Ifollow, streaming, live games on TV....anything that let's me watch but one time I was forced to watch with no sound, no commentary, no crowd noise & to my amazement I found I could 'see' the game better, so I started watching all the time with the sound down & believe me you see more & understand more what's going on.

 

Being at the game is brilliant, you get the atmosphere the feel & all that but I am convinced you don't see things clearly 100% of the time. An example...in the promotion season from the pub league we played United at home, after the game I was reading comments from Blades fans on the forums....one comment stood out to me where a guy wrote..."I lost count of the number of times Quinny was fouled as he crossed the half way line"....he went on & on about it making it a big thing....I thought to myself I don't recall that so the next day I watched the whole game again & kept an eye on Quinn the whole time I could...not once was he fouled as he crossed the half way line, in fact he was only fouled three times in the whole game, twice out on the wing & once on the edge of our box.

 

Not only was this guy saying it but others were backing him up.....since then I've seen many comments on here about our players performances & what they did or didn't do of which many were factually inaccurate. People see what they want to see, I've found that watching recorded games with no sound without the emotion & knowing the result you actually do see what actually happened. I know when I've been at a game then watched it again later it looks different.

 

For me football is about the emotions as much as anything, fantastic fans make a fantastic experience but I know that you can't trust yourself to be always factually correct in reporting back.

 

Anyway soz about being boring...as you were.

[Emerson Thome]

Though its amazing how iFollow seem to have 4-6 (not sure how many) cameras now, but still miss half the incidents. Didn't get a clear view of the Odubajo penalty incident, just as never really cleared up if the Forest goal was offside a couple of weeks back.

[Plonk]

No. It’s because results have been better.

[unkastav]

You dont get the ‘ive wasted my time, money, energy, petrol‘  etc etc to watch that shower etc etc feeling... so the frustration in defeat must be diluted somewhat. Its all part of the ‘matchday experience’ we love though.... cant wait to get back

[neo hippy]

There's no substitute for being at a game. 

 

Why would scouts or managers turn up at games to watch players or teams if the TV was better. You don't see even half the action on TV

[Owl999]

5 minutes ago, neo hippy said:

There's no substitute for being at a game. 

 

Why would scouts or managers turn up at games to watch players or teams if the TV was better. You don't see even half the action on TV

Because scouts and managers turn up to watch specific elements of the game, elements that wouldn’t be captured by television cameras 

[pazowl55]

9 minutes ago, neo hippy said:

There's no substitute for being at a game. 

 

Why would scouts or managers turn up at games to watch players or teams if the TV was better. You don't see even half the action on TV

That's an easy one. Because they are watching individual players. So on tv as soon as the ball moves up the pitch he is out of there view.

[neo hippy]

25 minutes ago, Owl999 said:

Because scouts and managers turn up to watch specific elements of the game, elements that wouldn’t be captured by television cameras 

 

20 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

That's an easy one. Because they are watching individual players. So on tv as soon as the ball moves up the pitch he is out of there view.

 

So yes, you see way less on TV then at a game 

[Lostowl]

So far I think there's two sides to it.

 

The players heads haven't dropped after going a goal down or making a mistake...there hasn't been that negativity from the stands. "Garbage Wednesday, come an sit up eer wi me" etc.

 

On the other hand I think the team have missed that feeling of the Kop 'sucking' the ball in. That roar that goes up when we put pressure on, win a corner etc.

[j17tjp]

10 minutes ago, neo hippy said:

 

 

So yes, you see way less on TV then at a game 

don’t come on here with your sensible answers... 

there’s just no need to facts or genuine observations pal. 

[Jennz]

16 hours ago, neo hippy said:

 

 

So yes, you see way less on TV then at a game 

 

I think you're missing the point & no you don't see way less.

 

Most people I would say ball watch during a game, by that I mean they follow the action where the ball is, no one sees what's going on around the whole pitch at any given moment. There are many distractions being at a game & there's nothing wrong with that, all I'm saying is that being there does not automatically mean you are an authority on what actually happened.

 

Also, scouts/managers watching players they might be interested in do not watch a game like fans do, they watch a player, even when he's nowhere near the ball, they watch his positioning his communication skills & other things fans probably don't even care about.

 

Being at a game is preferable as a fan BUT, I know that watching via media does not exclude you from an informed opinion about the game.

 

 

[TheGaffer]

3 minutes ago, qantas said:

 

I think you're missing the point & no you don't see way less.

 

Most people I would say ball watch during a game, by that I mean they follow the action where the ball is, no one sees what's going on around the whole pitch at any given moment. There are many distractions being at a game & there's nothing wrong with that, all I'm saying is that being there does not automatically mean you are an authority on what actually happened.

 

Also, scouts/managers watching players they might be interested in do not watch a game like fans do, they watch a player, even when he's nowhere near the ball, they watch his positioning his communication skills & other things fans probably don't even care about.

 

Being at a game is preferable as a fan BUT, I know that watching via media does not exclude you from an informed opinion about the game.

 

 

Most people ball watch as opposed to the camera doing what exactly? 

[Jennz]

1 minute ago, TheGaffer said:

Most people ball watch as opposed to the camera doing what exactly? 

 

Exactly....meaning no, you don't see way less, for those that ball watch you see about the same, what makes you 'see' less at the game is the emotion & everything else that's going on around you.

 

Let me be clear, I'd rather be at the game & would never choose watching on TV over being there but if anyone thinks that means their opinion out weighs anyone else's, it doesn't.

[TheGaffer]

34 minutes ago, qantas said:

 

Exactly....meaning no, you don't see way less, for those that ball watch you see about the same, what makes you 'see' less at the game is the emotion & everything else that's going on around you.

 

Let me be clear, I'd rather be at the game & would never choose watching on TV over being there but if anyone thinks that means their opinion out weighs anyone else's, it doesn't.

You have confused me here completely but WAWAW.

 

I prefer being at the game and believe I see more of the game being there live.

 

For those that can't be there it's as good as it can be, a lot like now. What I would say, now is hopefully not the the normal as crowds do influence games. I've missed one game against Fulham at home for a very close friends wedding in over 20 years. .80 to 90 percent of those games, these have been sh*te. I wouldn't swap or trade that 10 to 20 percent for anything on this planet. 

 

Back to topic however, there is no experience that can be replicated by seeing through the lense of another. 

[Jennz]

7 minutes ago, TheGaffer said:

You have confused me here completely but WAWAW.

 

I prefer being at the game and believe I see more of the game being there live.

 

For those that can't be there it's as good as it can be, a lot like now. What I would say, now is hopefully not the the normal as crowds do influence games. I've missed one game against Fulham at home for a very close friends wedding in over 20 years. .80 to 90 percent of those games, these have been sh*te. I wouldn't swap or trade that 10 to 20 percent for anything on this planet. 

 

Back to topic however, there is no experience that can be replicated by seeing through the lense of another. 

 

Sorry don't mean to confuse.

 

I agree, the experience cannot be replicated, that's the reason I prefer to be there. The point I'm trying to make is that the experience aside, watching via media absolutely does not diminish being able to see what's happening & in the case of some fans, as I've tried to outline, it means you do 'see' more accurately.

[TheGaffer]

I think we agree in principle. (maybe principal?) 

 

Also in no way does being there weight your opinion more than those that aren't. What it does, is allow you to see what you chose to see which is why scouts etc visit. UTO

Edited July 3, 2020 by TheGaffer

[Rogers]

21 hours ago, neo hippy said:

There's no substitute for being at a game. 

 

Why would scouts or managers turn up at games to watch players or teams if the TV was better. You don't see even half the action on TV

 

Cos the scouts and managers like to get away from the missus and get some free hospitality

[handworth52]

On 02/07/2020 at 06:22, unkastav said:

You dont get the ‘ive wasted my time, money, energy, petrol‘  etc etc to watch that shower etc etc feeling... so the frustration in defeat must be diluted somewhat. Its all part of the ‘matchday experience’ we love though.... cant wait to get back

the football match to many like you say is part of the match day experience which i miss massively , i went to brentford and enjoyed the day ,got hammered 5-0 but kind of expected we would lose before i went so it didn`t effect the day too much and didn`t see too many of our supporters wanting to slit there throat after the game a few arguments during game all part of winning and losing ,when we get that back is anyones guess this year next year 2025? no idea. 

[mcowl]

For me it's confirmed that football is nothing without fans.