Has anyone been following the Secret Footballer column in the Gruaniad?
I found it fascinating hearing what footballers really think. Or indeed that they think at all.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jan/29/racism-marriage-bnp-family-divide
*Pundits like Andy Gray? Why the players couldn't care less*
What if Sky Sports offered me Andy Gray's job? Not a chance. Let me tell you something, football pundits are universally despised by players and not just because at some point in the past they would have been on the receiving end of criticism themselves.
It doesn't matter what you've done in the game, where you've played, what you might have won or how much money you earned – pundits are held in the same regard by players as female assistant referees once were at Sky.
And while on that subject, prepare to be disappointed. While I found the whole episode with Gray and Richard Keys at Molineux cringeworthy, inside the world of football nobody is particularly bothered. Don't interpret that as evidence that players are condoning Gray and Keys for their behaviour. It's more a case that most of my team-mates would have no interest in listening to anything pundits say in the first place.
There's no obvious reason why those sat on the sofa are thought of in such low terms, but it may have something to do with a sense that they are going against the inner sanctum that we pretend we are a part of. Perhaps, subconsciously, it tugs at those still playing, who realise the ex-players know things about them that they probably wish they didn't.
Their new position of influence over millions of people is a little uncomfortable for some, I'm sure, and their failure to go the extra mile when analysing matches can also grate.
Switch to our world and the level of detail that goes into games still, to this day, amazes me. Every player has his own script, what to do, when to do it, information on the player he's up against, including weight, height, age, strengths, weaknesses, even what that opponent is likely to do when the ball comes to him in certain situations. We memorise every single set piece, where we have to stand, run and end up. We even memorise this for the other players so we know where everyone else will be at any given time.
You know that pass when you say to yourself: "How did he spot that?" Often he didn't need to; he knew the player would be there because, the night before in the hotel, he read about the runs he would be making.
It's exactly the same pass after which sometimes you might find yourself saying: "Who was that to?" The receiving player either forgot to be there or was taken out of the game by a tactical manoeuvre by his opposite number.
Football at this level is very chess-like, maybe not to those outside of football but certainly to those inside. I sometimes wonder whether it's more enjoyable playing lower down the leagues. After all, who wants to play chess?
With top-level football being so complex, it is very difficult to deconstruct a live game within a couple of minutes of it being over, and because of this the "analysis" is usually reduced to goals and individual performance. But the fact that many pundits don't even try to scratch beneath the surface, despite knowing what it takes to win a match at this level, annoys me. It's the trivialisation of what we do by people that we used to call our own and, more importantly, deprives the viewer of some very interesting tit-bits that would, I feel, add to the entertainment.
Anyone can navigate a giant iPad, sliding faces of famous players around with their pinkie while throwing out phrases like "Third man run" and other such rubbish. What particularly riles me is when you hear a pundit or co-commentator say something like, "I can't understand, Martin, why Drogba is not on the post here. That header would have fallen to him and if I'm Petr Cech I'm saying: 'Go on son, clear that off the line for me!'"
The fact is corners are routinely cleared by a man stationed on the six-yard line, exactly where Chelsea position Didier Drogba. If somebody scores inside that post it is for no other reason than a player having lost his man. That is the mistake. If there is a player on the post he will clear one, possibly two shots off the line a season. If that same player stands on the six-yard line he will probably clear 100 corners away over the course of the season.
The worst thing, though, is when this dross gets into popular culture and my friends start saying stupid things to me like, "We should have a man on the post, our manager doesn't know what he's doing", just because it sounds like the right thing to say. It's such an easy way of analysing that it infuriates me. It's lazy and it takes you, the viewer, for a fool. But, then again, Sky is an expert in creating a villain.
0
Comments
No ta, gives me a headache. I'll have a Hieniken.
Too many long words.
Secret Footballer
he's saying that what pundits come up with is an absolute load of dross, and yes, most fans don't really know what they're talking about. Although you do understand what you're seeing, whether it's good or bad, you don't really know why. You can make up reasons, as the "secret footballer" says, such as "put a man on the post etc" but really it's a load of uneducated dross. I've been watching football for years, yet i still know my knowledge of the game is nothing compared to my father who's taken a bunch of coaching courses and got his badges. I hear they teach you to see all the little things that the casual observer misses.
No, can't agree ..... he must be completely wrong.
Surely everybody in the crowd at The Valley, and on CL .......knows more about the game than that player.
;o)
From what I’ve read I would imagine he’s English and pretty intelligent for a footballer (although that’s based on the way the article’s written and that could have been amended by an editor). I would imagine he’s quite senior and established a) because he’s got the nerve to do this at all, he must be quite secure at his club and in his profession, and b) he talks about football as though he’s been a pro for a while, a few years I’d imagine.
Any other clues as to his identity ?
On Football Rumours that he's coming on loan here for the rest of the season.
;o)
Hmm, an English footballer who is also intelligent....No, I'm struggling.
Good call...!
Persoanally I don't blame the explayers. El Tel used to give real insight but then cut out all the techincal analysis for simplistic cliches. Told to stop trying to raise viewers understanding but instead give them soundbites and jokes.
Anyway, this bit:
"With top-level football being so complex, it is very difficult to deconstruct a live game within a couple of minutes of it being over, and because of this the "analysis" is usually reduced to goals and individual performance. But the fact that many pundits don't even try to scratch beneath the surface, despite knowing what it takes to win a match at this level, annoys me. It's the trivialisation of what we do by people that we used to call our own and, more importantly, deprives the viewer of some very interesting tit-bits that would, I feel, add to the entertainment."
Spot on. Fed up with the complete lack of proper tactical analysis in the UK media. Keys deliberately asks childish questions on behalf of us, Gray then laughs, thinking how can we be so silly, then set's about explaining simple things.
Reports in newspapers are generally made up of quotes or useless bits of information. They get names wrong and don't know the backgrounds on players. It glosses over important issues.
The media take us all for mugs, think we are all too simple to understand the more tactical aspects of the game. We will be naive to some things, but I'd rather read about it & learn than just read pointless drivel or listen to Redknapp talk crap.
If you've ever read The Italian Job they raise the same point. Italians newspapers dissect the managers tactics, choices etc, UK papers don't. No surprise that tactically English players always seem more restricted than our counterparts.
There are some decent journalists out there who are able to dissect a game unlike at the tabloids where you have to read through a player's life story or recent exploits before you even get a mention of the game.
There is one bloody obvious thing that could be done about agents. You give them a licence to operate on behalf of players or on behalf of clubs. But never, ever both, and huge penalties for infringement. But "Jack" will never do it, because the biggest stench of improper business practice stems from their offices.
Unlikely, he talks in his latest column about being transferred and the negotiations involved, as GN was a one club man that discludes him.
There is one bloody obvious thing that could be done about agents. You give them a licence to operate on behalf of players or on behalf of clubs. But never, ever both, and huge penalties for infringement. But "Jack" will never do it, because the biggest stench of improper business practice stems from their offices.[/quote]
An interesting column - the problem seems to be not the agents, but the game they move in and have to play. As the mystery footballer alludes there are plenty of clubs out there quite willing to shaft players with transfers, so perhaps it's no wonder that the agents have the same reputation, that's the way the game is played.
Lee Hughes, Rooney, Barton, Bowyer, Marlon King, Carlton Cole, Ashley Cole, Anton Ferdinand, John Terry, Diouf.....
Shame on us for not giving "nuff respeck" to the average modern footballer.
Me too.