How do you watch a match?

Brussels Sprout

This may seem like a ridiculous question. After all, it really isn’t very complicated is it? I mean you just have to sit (or stand there) and take it all in. However, I think there’s a bit more too it then meets the eye. Take me for example. I miss almost all of the tactical nuances of the game. All I ever notice are the big moments, the goals, the near misses, the red cards, that kind of thing. I almost never notice how defensive players are playing unless they are involved in a pivotal moment good or bad. Ashley Cole is constantly referred to as one of the best wing backs in the game but whenever I watch a Chelsea game I barely notice him. Same goes for defensive midfielders like Scott Parker.
Whenever I watch a game on RTE I’m constantly impressed by John Giles’s dissection of certain passages of play, or general trends in a match. Like he’ll have several examples of a central defender being out of position for set pieces, or how a winger’s wider than normal position is forcing a defence to alter its basic shape. I never notice anything like this. Honestly, I’m not sure how I miss it all. I think I’m day dreaming half the time and only snap out of it when a goal is threatened or a big tackle goes in. Often I’ve watched a full match and when the man of the match is awarded I’ll think to myself “I didn’t even notice that guy was on the pitch”.
So how do you watch a match? Are you concentrating the entire time, taking it all in? Do you notice how high a defensive line is or whether defenders tend to hoof the ball or pass it on the ground. Do you notice players’ movements off the ball or the positioning of central defenders? Will you notice if a defender has played badly even though he hasn’t done any one obvious thing really badly and his team has kept a clean sheet? Could you watch a Seria A match and enjoy it for the top quality defending and tactical battle even though there wasn’t likely to be as many goals as a premier league match?

(On a side note which may or may not be related: I never notice the lyrics in songs, only the melody)

meriwether

Being an Arsenal fan, usually from behind the couch.

Case in point was 3-3 against Norwich last season, followed by the 3-2 final game to seal the top 3.

Not good for the health. Never was, unless it was 1-0 in the George Graham days.

Andy Linighan pops up to score from a corner in the 28 minute, then you settle in to gently watch the opposition team bang their heads of the brick wall of our back 4.

Seve OB

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

(On a side note which may or may not be related: I never notice the lyrics in songs, only the melody)

Apparantly sometimes the tv will distort the sound which comes from the crowd on purpose because the lyrics of the song chant etc might not be lets just say suitable to the television viewer!

GLaDOS

Usually from section F.

Nah I usually take everything in, look out for runs players are making, gaps in the play, who's giving orders etc. The off the ball stuff is as fascinating as what happens on it.

Liam O

whether I'm in a stadium or watching the tv I pay attention to what goes on off the ball a lot rather than the player who has it and instinctively break down tactics and what the problematic elements and successful elements of a team's play is.

Xavi6

Preferably at a stadium because I like to be able to watch the off the ball stuff (movement, man marking, positional sense, formation switches etc). One sideline camera following the ball doesn't allow that and replays only give a snap shot of what someone else thinks is important.

Drexel

meriwether wrote: »

Being an Arsenal fan, usually from behind the couch.

Case in point was 3-3 against Norwich last season, followed by the 3-2 final game to seal the top 3.

Not good for the health. Never was, unless it was 1-0 in the George Graham days.

Andy Linighan pops up to score from a corner in the 28 minute, then you settle in to gently watch the opposition team bang their heads of the brick wall of our back 4.

Ive turned off the last few minutes off an Arsenal match or left the room or something. Sometimes I just cant handle it. Some matches we can look like conceding every attack!!

As for the OP sometimes Il notice things like defenders are out of position but not all the time. If you watch players off the ball instead of who has the ball you will notice formations and stuff more. Mostly I just sit back and enjoy the match tho!!

Mars Bar

I can't watch much of the United matches with an analytical mind because I get too emotionally invested in them.

At live matches, I find it hard to see what's going on from a ground level tactics and shape wise (some manager I'd be!). I like seeing how tactics work and off the ball runs in live games but I must be at an elevated angle. I've recorded and edited games from elevated ground and it's so much easier to get your baring on the game. I'm reading books about match analysis and all of that craic so that's how I try and view games that don't involve Manchester United.

Eirebear

its almost impossible to get the overall picture of what's happening tactically, and off the ball, when watching on TV for obvious reasons - the camera follows the ball.

_blank_

Eirebear wrote: »

its almost impossible to get the overall picture of what's happening tactically, and off the ball, when watching on TV for obvious reasons - the camera follows the ball.

There are actually some fairly "well respected" posters on this forum who'll claim that watching football on Tv gives a similar or better picture of a match, than actually being at games.

Clowns, the lot of them.

meriwether

Des wrote: »

There are actually some fairly "well respected" posters on this forum who'll claim that watching football on Tv gives a similar or better picture of a match, than actually being at games.

Clowns, the lot of them.

Replays are the main advantage of TV over live.

Lawrence1895

meriwether wrote: »

Replays are the main advantage of TV over live.

They were showing replays on the scoreboards in Germany during half time and directly after the match. Don't know, if they still do it, but it was a handy feature.

nbar12

I'm probably more like you OP, only the big moments catch my eye. Then again I do notice great midfield performances that break up play - Sandro's performance for Spurs against AC Milan in the San Siro in the last 16 of the champo league - I'll never forget it! Watching Spurs is definitely more frustrating than Arsenal, we are prone to throwing away 3 goal leads :pac:

_blank_

meriwether wrote: »

Replays are the main advantage of TV over live.

Replays tell us nothing other than what the director wants to tell us.

Or the in-studio pundits.

Replays are used to create a narrative, to show one player/ref in a bad light, and show another favourably.

From how many angles did we see Suarez not shaking Evra's hand last season? Did we need to?

They are not an "advantage", they are a distraction. Instead of showing a disputed penalty incident from five angles, none of which the referee or linesman saw, in super slow motion, again, a facility the referee does not have, they could be showing live action, but they aren't.

They show these incidents to make us talk about them, to make us tune in to see the replays again and again on the "expert pundit" shows at 630 on a Sunday. Who cares. The ref made a decision, showing it a hundred times isn't going to change it.

At a game you can take in everything, you can look for runners, you can see the spaces opening up.

You can smell the grass.

Roger Sterling

Des wrote: »

There are actually some fairly "well respected" posters on this forum who'll claim that watching football on Tv gives a similar or better picture of a match, than actually being at games.

Clowns, the lot of them.

There are also some "well respected" posters who travel to games every weekend but appear to have been watching a different game to everyone else on the planet when they come home and give their take on what's happened, so its definitely no a guarantee of a better viewpoint on the game.

I go to games in a variety of sports and while thereare benefits to the live experience there are plenty drawbacks too.

Anyone that thinks they're better than someone for actually being at games generally turns out to be a complete d*ckhead in my experience and not worth discussing the game with in the first place!

The_Kew_Tour

At a game I find that you have far better idea of how things are going to pan out, then if I was watching it on TV.

Take Ireland v France in Paris few years ago. I remember thinking at half time that if Ireland scored another that was it no way would France score 2.

Had I been at home or in pub I would still be thinking we might get beat.

You see things much clearer at match itself.

Eirebear

Roger Sterling wrote: »

There are also some "well respected" posters who travel to games every weekend but appear to have been watching a different game to everyone else on the planet when they come home and give their take on what's happened, so its definitely no a guarantee of a better viewpoint on the game.

I go to games in a variety of sports and while thereare benefits to the live experience there are plenty drawbacks too.

Anyone that thinks they're better than someone for actually being at games generally turns out to be a complete d*ckhead in my experience and not worth discussing the game with in the first place!

Of course those guys who are at the game come back with a different view from those who watched it on TV - They were at the game.

I am not going to sit here and tell people that they are better or worse supporters because they watch it on TV, but the simple fact of the matter is this.
Football (Other sports can differ) on TV, is a second hand experience.

The commentry team, the director, the pundits - all of these shape your opinion of what's going on, often subconsciously - it's their job.
At the game, the only thing that can change your viewpoint of what's happening is your own bias. You are in full control of what you are watching, and can chose to watch any area of the pitch at any time.

meriwether

Des wrote: »

Replays tell us nothing other than what the director wants to tell us.

Or the in-studio pundits.

Replays are used to create a narrative, to show one player/ref in a bad light, and show another favourably.

From how many angles did we see Suarez not shaking Evra's hand last season? Did we need to?

They are not an "advantage", they are a distraction. Instead of showing a disputed penalty incident from five angles, none of which the referee or linesman saw, in super slow motion, again, a facility the referee does not have, they could be showing live action, but they aren't.

They show these incidents to make us talk about them, to make us tune in to see the replays again and again on the "expert pundit" shows at 630 on a Sunday. Who cares. The ref made a decision, showing it a hundred times isn't going to change it.

At a game you can take in everything, you can look for runners, you can see the spaces opening up.

You can smell the grass.

That post makes no sense. It appears to be a diatribe against TV directors and their editing function.

Which is fine, because thats cool with me.

carlop

I think it depends a lot on how I feel or the situation. For example if I come home from a long day's work and there's a match on, I'll watch it to unwind in much the same way I'd watch Modern Family or Entourage - I'm not going to give it complete attention and the more nuanced, tactical stuff is going to go over my head.

The same would apply for a game in a crowded pub, or if I'm particularly hungover (Atletico Madrid's midday kick-offs last season were very unfair).

However, if I'm feeling fine and it's a match I'm interested in, I'll try to pick up on more and give it my complete attention, rather like watching The Wire or Breaking Bad.

This would apply for TV or in the stadium, but is obviously easier to do in the stadium as you can choose what you see.

The only issue with being at a match in the stadium is that you can miss certain things as you get distracted by off-field things like chants/banners/hot women sitting nearby.

Eirebear

meriwether wrote: »

That post makes no sense. It appears to be a diatribe against TV directors and their editing function.

Which is fine, because thats cool with me.

It does make sense though.

When we watch a game on TV, we are getting the game from someone elses viewpoint - with all their bias and opinion.
Televised football is no different from any other arm of the media - for some reason though, people don't seem to understand that.

Lawrence1895

Eirebear wrote: »

It does make sense though.

When we watch a game on TV, we are getting the game from someone elses viewpoint - with all their bias and opinion.
Televised football is no different from any other arm of the media - for some reason though, people don't seem to understand that.

Televised football is the reason, that supporters are facing idiotic kick off times, such as Monday evening :mad:

meriwether

Eirebear wrote: »

It does make sense though.

When we watch a game on TV, we are getting the game from someone elses viewpoint - with all their bias and opinion.
Televised football is no different from any other arm of the media - for some reason though, people don't seem to understand that.

`

If your telling me that pundits are offering opinions of the game - thats hardly news. One is welcome to ignore, or disagree with, their opinions.

I'm a bit bewildered by the conspiratorial TV directors though, who are shaping our opinions of the game with mis-direction and mis-editing.

Sanity_Saviour

Des wrote: »

Replays tell us nothing other than what the director wants to tell us.

Or the in-studio pundits.

Replays are used to create a narrative, to show one player/ref in a bad light, and show another favourably.

From how many angles did we see Suarez not shaking Evra's hand last season? Did we need to?

They are not an "advantage", they are a distraction. Instead of showing a disputed penalty incident from five angles, none of which the referee or linesman saw, in super slow motion, again, a facility the referee does not have, they could be showing live action, but they aren't.

They show these incidents to make us talk about them, to make us tune in to see the replays again and again on the "expert pundit" shows at 630 on a Sunday. Who cares. The ref made a decision, showing it a hundred times isn't going to change it.

At a game you can take in everything, you can look for runners, you can see the spaces opening up.

You can smell the grass.

What are you on about?

_blank_

meriwether wrote: »

`

If your telling me that pundits are offering opinions of the game - thats hardly news. One is welcome to ignore, or disagree with, their opinions..

Thing is though, the majority of people don't ignore them, they peddle the same shíte they hear Dunphy saying on a Wednesday evening Champions League program, as if it's fact. Little realising that Dunphy is paid to use hyperbole, paid to make outlandish claims, paid to basically troll the shíte out of everyone watching. It keeps the viewers coming back for more.

It doesn't matter that John Giles doesn't research the Swiss champions, what matters is that he slags Ronaldo for a lack of guile.

meriwether wrote: »

`
I'm a bit bewildered by the conspiratorial TV directors though, who are shaping our opinions of the game with mis-direction and mis-editing.

Are you saying you are bewildered by someone claiming it happens, or you are bewildered that it is happening?

Eirebear

meriwether wrote: »

`

If your telling me that pundits are offering opinions of the game - thats hardly news. One is welcome to ignore, or disagree with, their opinions.

Oh really?
And if you don't chose to listen to their opinion - where are you going to get the information to base your own opinion on from? You're not at the game, so can't get the facts that way and anything else is second hand - which just like pundits and commentators, is taking in someone elses bias and opinion.

The questions raised in the OP are simple - do you see the tactical nuances, or the performance of certain players while watching?
It is my opinion, that when watching on TV you cannot create a fully formed opinion of your own that is untouched by what you've heard pundits and commentators say.

There'd be no need for scouts in the game, if you could get a good, accurate view of a player from videos.

meriwether wrote: »

`
I'm a bit bewildered by the conspiratorial TV directors though, who are shaping our opinions of the game with mis-direction and mis-editing.

No one has accused anyone of "Conspiracy" - however can you honestly say that they don't affect how people see the game?

meriwether

Eirebear wrote: »

Oh really?
And if you don't chose to listen to their opinion - where are you going to get the information to base your own opinion on from? You're not at the game, so can't get the facts that way and anything else is second hand - which just like pundits and commentators, is taking in someone elses bias and opinion.

The questions raised in the OP are simple - do you see the tactical nuances, or the performance of certain players while watching?
It is my opinion, that when watching on TV you cannot create a fully formed opinion of your own that is untouched by what you've heard pundits and commentators say.

There'd be no need for scouts in the game, if you could get a good, accurate view of a player from videos.






No one has accused anyone of "Conspiracy" - however can you honestly say that they don't affect how people see the game?

I never said that attendance at a game was inferior - I said that an advantage of TV versus attendance is that you can get replays of incidents immediately, which you can't at the game.

It now appears that I have opened some hithero unknown vortex of replay and editing conspiracies, which I was unaware if up to that point.

carlop

meriwether wrote: »

`

If your telling me that pundits are offering opinions of the game - thats hardly news. One is welcome to ignore, or disagree with, their opinions.

I'm a bit bewildered by the conspiratorial TV directors though, who are shaping our opinions of the game with mis-direction and mis-editing.

Just last Sunday the director failed to show us a clear replay of Soldado's disallowed goal against Real Madrid, despite the fact that the incident was in the middle of the pitch, and there must have been dozens of cameras at the game.

meriwether

Des wrote: »

Thing is though, the majority of people don't ignore them, they peddle the same shíte they hear Dunphy saying on a Wednesday evening Champions League program, as if it's fact. Little realising that Dunphy is paid to use hyperbole, paid to make outlandish claims, paid to basically troll the shíte out of everyone watching. It keeps the viewers coming back for more.

It doesn't matter that John Giles doesn't research the Swiss champions, what matters is that he slags Ronaldo for a lack of guile.

You can ignore them though. No, really, you can. Or disagree with them. Its very easy.
I also find it hard to believe that ****e is peddled because Jamie Redknapp and Eamon Dunphy force-feed us this ****e, which we then mindlessly regurgitate, increasing the quantum of ****e ever exponentially.
Do you think that some people who attend games don't occasionally indulge in antics that identify them as being utter brainless morons?
Chants about Munich/Hillsborough/Racist chants/booing your own team?

I wouldn't pay a lot of heed to what these sort of people have to say on any matter, would you?
Even though they attend games?

Des wrote: »

Are you saying you are bewildered by someone claiming it happens, or you are bewildered that it is happening?

Both. Up to this point, I had faith in TV replays.

can you give me an example of some bogey replays that you are talking about?

meriwether

carlop wrote: »

Just last Sunday the director failed to show us a clear replay of Soldado's disallowed goal against Real Madrid, despite the fact that the incident was in the middle of the pitch, and there must have been dozens of cameras at the game.

OK.

Who did that? And why, do you think?

_blank_

meriwether wrote: »

It now appears that I have opened some hithero unknown vortex of replay and editing conspiracies, which I was unaware if up to that point.

You are not aware that johnny foreginer diving to win a penalty is more castigated on Sky than an English player "I've seen them given" or dismissed out of hand and not shown again?

You are not aware that that happens?

Sanity_Saviour

Des wrote: »

You are not aware that johnny foreginer diving to win a penalty is more castigated on Sky than an English player "I've seen them given" or dismissed out of hand and not shown again?

You are not aware that that happens?

Ashley Young and Bale are constantly lambasted for their diving?? This odd vendetta against English football is getting tiresome.

carlop

meriwether wrote: »

OK.

Who did that? And why, do you think?

The director, and as for why I don't know. Maybe no angle actually captured it, maybe there are other more nefarious reasons for it.

If I put on my tin-foil hat for a second I would say perhaps the federation are eager to avoid a repeat of the conspiracy theories and complaints about decisions that clouded the league last season.

Nothing beats than being at the game, nothing.

_blank_

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

This odd vendetta against English football is getting tiresome.

Vendetta against English football?

Me?

I was sitting in a pub from 230 on Saturday, laughing at two Liverpool supporting mates, would have watched both Sunday games but was away for a funeral, and was out watching last night's game too.

I don't have any vendetta against English football, and if you actually read my posts you'd know that, instead of making up hysterical bullcrap about me.

Cienciano

Watching a game doesn't come close to being there imho. Although I do know some people that would rather watch it on tv because being there gets in the way of going to the pub. They'll never admit that though.

Have to admit though, Ireland international games under trap are an exception. It's like some weird sadists punishment going to them. And the worst thing is, when you're handing your money over for the ticket you already know it's going to be shite. I can't handle that any more, so I don't go.

Eirebear

Cienciano wrote: »

Have to admit though, Ireland international games under trap are an exception. It's like some weird sadists punishment going to them. And the worst thing is, when you're handing your money over for the ticket you already know it's going to be shite. I can't handle that any more, so I don't go.

Pfft! You've obviously never had the "pleasure" of Rangers in Europe!

G.K.

Lars1916 wrote: »

Televised football is the reason, that supporters are facing idiotic kick off times, such as Monday evening :mad:

That's not the only reason tbf. Well, not in Portugal anyway.

Chancer3001

I always always watch the off the ball movement of the strikers.

I played up front for years and the movement was by far the hardest part

Differenec bewteen an ok striker and a class one imo.

So I always watch what they do.

Im a centre mid now

Lawrence1895

G.K. wrote: »

That's not the only reason tbf. Well, not in Portugal anyway.

So how far would fans have to travel to an away match in Portugal?

They have a match of the 2nd Bundesliga on every Monday evening in Germany, sometimes fans have to travel up to 8 hours, because the match is at the opposite side of the country

Eirebear

G.K. wrote: »

That's not the only reason tbf. Well, not in Portugal anyway.

i don't have you're superior knowledge of portugese scheduling reasons, but it's by far and away the biggest reason for match times being moved all over europe.

It also has a knock on effect, see Ireland's friday night games for example.

Lawrence1895

Eirebear wrote: »

i don't have you're superior knowledge of portugese scheduling reasons, but it's by far and away the biggest reason for match times being moved all over europe.

It also has a knock on effect, see Ireland's friday night games for example.

Which are not shown on RTE or TV3, but on Sky. So you have to pay either way to enjoy your national team playing

Eirebear

Lars1916 wrote: »

Which are not shown on RTE or TV3, but on Sky. So you have to pay either way to enjoy your national team playing

I actually meant the LOI club's games - fixtures on a Friday night in an obvious attempt to attract some of the "Barstoolers" (Not my term) out to the games.
Although you still have a point.

Brussels Sprout

I just found this site which does in-depth tactical analysis of recent matches whilst managing to keep the whole thing interesting. This is an excerpt from the piece on Everton-United from last night:

This was a perfect game for Moyes, for two reasons. First, United were fielding a supremely technical and quick front four, which played into the way Everton defend – deep, with two banks of four.

Second, Moyes is arguably the most reactive manager in the league (although Paul Lambert’s constant successful formation switches at Norwich probably make him a better candidate for his title), always changing his strategy to suit the demands of the particular opponent. As United had a clear weakness on the right side of their defence (Carrick can read the game well and distribute the ball well from the back, but he’s not very strong in the air, and Valencia still doesn’t appear completely comfortable at right-back) Moyes formatted his side accordingly.

While one could say it was the obvious strategy was to use Fellaini up against Carrick, Moyes deserves more credit than that, as another coach may have been more conservative when exploiting his weakness. They might have told Fellaini to play as a third central midfielder to help out against United’s three, and used Jelavic to the left of the pitch against Carrick. But instead, Fellaini played a dual role. When Everton were without the ball he chased back, but when they had possession he became a second centre-forward.

MisterAnarchy

Sky Interactive had a good option available for live EPL matches years ago using the multicamera angle.
You could view a match from behind a goal,you'd have a view of the whole pitch .
It was very interesting and about as good as you could get to actually being at the match.

I notice that Sky have been lowering the main camera at a few stadia in the UK over the last few years.
This seems to be to accomodate for 3D which requires a lower camera position but it gives an inferior view of the pitch for 2D.

Pro. F

Des wrote: »

There are actually some fairly "well respected" posters on this forum who'll claim that watching football on Tv gives a similar or better picture of a match, than actually being at games.

Clowns, the lot of them.

Are you referring to our little tiff about whether or not Evra is good going forward?

BOHtox

[joke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6WPSUlKb0

"I watch my favourite team every week on the tele, do you?"

"I go to the games and support them"

"oh"
[/joke]

gaelicred

As im in the states i dont have the pleasure of going to live games anymore.Even tho i am am a liverpoolf fan i watch with beer in hand not the same but its the best i have

Pro. F

In answer to the OP:

I generally try to concentrate as much as I can on what's going on. It depends on whether I am tired or distracted or not, but all being well I'll be concentrating on the action closely.

I usually pick an aspect to watch for a few minutes at a time. Like one team's defensive shape, or one player's positional discipline or how certain players are moving when in possession or whatever. I find there's always loads of things to look out for and it's always rewarding to pay attention, unless the match is exceptionally dire.

With regards to what type of view is best, imo all things considered, at the match with a good angle is best (and most fun), on TV would be second best and at the match if you are at a really bad angle (like low down behind the goals) is worst for getting a clear picture of what's going on overall.

Pro. F

Eirebear wrote: »

its almost impossible to get the overall picture of what's happening tactically, and off the ball, when watching on TV for obvious reasons - the camera follows the ball.

Eirebear wrote: »

Oh really?
And if you don't chose to listen to their opinion - where are you going to get the information to base your own opinion on from? You're not at the game, so can't get the facts that way and anything else is second hand - which just like pundits and commentators, is taking in someone elses bias and opinion.

The questions raised in the OP are simple - do you see the tactical nuances, or the performance of certain players while watching?
It is my opinion, that when watching on TV you cannot create a fully formed opinion of your own that is untouched by what you've heard pundits and commentators say.

Where are you going to get the information from on which to base your opinion when watching on TV? How about from the footage of the match? You are talking like it is the radio your are watching rather than the TV.

The field of view isn't as wide as it is when you're at the game so it can be harder to appreciate off the ball movement, but it's not nearly as bad as you are making out. You are still usually able to see the positioning of at least two lines of each team (ie defence, midfield, forward lines) at a time, the camera doesn't zoom in on the ball that closely. So you can see the defensive organisation of one team as you see the attacking movement of the other.

With regard to how opinions are formed, plenty of people come up with opinions about matches from having watched them on TV that the commentators haven't said a thing about. I've noticed flaws and strengths in the game of individuals and teams that I've watched on TV weeks or months before it has become obvious enough for the commentators and pundits to pick up on them. I'm sure I'm nothing special in that regard. Sometimes commentators or pundits will point something out that you haven't noticed, but more often they will just say things that you don't agree with or are obvious or not important (like endless pointless discussions of referring decisions).

And when somebody watches a game in the flesh, are you honestly tying to say that there isn't any influence from the people around them. Do you sit in an isolation booth when you go to games or something? If you have friends they will usually be expressing an opinion on what's happening and the wider crowd around you definitely will be expressing opinions.

larchielads

the only way someone can say that being at a match is better than watching it on tv or listening to the radio is the atmosphere.

we can all make our own minds up to what we see on tv than agreeing wit the commentators or pundits. most of us think that the pundits/commentators are ****e anyway so people cant say we are influenced if we think the pundits/commentators are ****e.

as for the tv director pickin and choosin what replays we see well lets be honest i think us tv viewers will be more informed about what happened then the person attending the match cos we see the incident many more times than they do and as i said earlier we dont have to agree wit the commentators view we can make our own bloody minds up.

and another thing if people that attend the games are lookin out for tactics and off the ball movement and all that other stuff ye prob end up missin half the action anyway.:pac:

PhlegmyMoses

I have a similar experience to the OP whenever I watch Rugby. I believe it is because I have never played the game, apart from a few games at school level, I only have a passing interest and I began to watch it a lot later than I did with soccer. As a result, the subtle nuances pass me by.