Match Day Thread Watford v Southampton Sat 4/3/17 3.00 PM

Yep, appreciate that one.

 

Dear oh dear, MOTD. Yes, you recognise that Nathan Redmond is starting to realise his potential, but how many times are you going to trot out the comment how great Southampton do after having all our best players sold off [they shake their heads bewildered], season after season.

Remarkable really, isn't it Gary. But let's move on to the next game before we say something original.

 

'Claude Puel shows no passion'

please log in to view this image

 

Puel's post-match interview with BBC's Steve Wilson: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39169501

Steve: [On Gabbiadini] Even you must have been surprised when he scored 6 goals in 4 games already
Claude: [smiles and points] 7
Steve: It's really 7, yeah I know...

Well done Claude. Don't let them forget. They'll easily do it.

 

As Fluff might have said, "not 'alf.!"

 

Surely this is typical of MOTD's level of "analysis". I can't say I've ever seen a pundit say something about tactics, strategy or an individual player where I've thought "hmmm.. hadn't noticed that." They are like those poor sods who work in call centres and have a prepared script.

Things to say about Southampton. 1. He's a good player and so will be leaving. 2. How remarkable that this little club keeps turning up.

Things not to say. 1. This team is going to be great next year, because their best players will stay. 2. The money in the game is distorting it in favour of the favoured few.

 

Just watched Swansea game on MOTD and Danny Murphy's analysis of Tom Carroll and his "excellent" crossing. He then showed four crosses, two of which I would have described as excellent and two as poor

They do make me wonder.

 

I do think Reed would work much better alongside someone else - not sure he was cut out as the lone dm he's been played as this season.

 

Danny Murphy is a pillock. Awful pundit.

 

Interesting. A mate of mine in Chester taught Danny, and still occasionally sees him. Reckons he's a bright guy with strong opinions on the game. Maybe makes my "script" point.

 

It is quite clear from reading these threads that we all have strong views on the games we play and the TV pundits and nothing new to that so I don't take the least bit of notice of them. It is like the match reports in the paper I read ours and no one else's because they don't interest me.

 

I've stopped even reading ours. Too often "match reports" are rambling accounts of something of complete irrelevance. I do wonder whether there are special skills for "sports journalists". What always worries me is that if someone can't report on something as simple as a sporting event without making glaring errors of omission, how accurate are they in describing major world events?

 

please log in to view this image

 

Excuses, excuses...............

 

Just realised that I will have to do next match thread....can't promise you 7 goals, but Gabby will score.

 

I agree, although "we" the public are partly to blame or the media are for having sucked us in for so long. What do I mean? Every article these days seems to need an angle or some
sensationalism in it to draw the reader. There is so much available to us now that just writing the facts in a report doesn't seem enough. That's very sad.

 

I don't find it either sad or new that writers need a hook for an article. It has always been so...you have to attract the readers attention. It would be nice if we had a new persona beyond the 'fire sale' idea, but it will be a long time before we shift that. At least the readers are being invited to admire us for having a plan that always works....until it doesn't and we are beaten over the head with it. I can just imagine ten years down the line (after a bad season) being told it was bound to happen....even if we'd won several cups in the interim. Can't see anyone choosing to read a list of facts (without bias)....that would be like reading a cricket score book (I used to keep score for a cricket team and that little book with every ball marked in wasn't a scintillating read, unless you were a complete anorak).

 

Just caught up on this thread

Why is trivia called trivia?

 

The trivia (singular trivium) are three lower Artes Liberales, i.e. grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Refers to basic education.

 

Before the match, it was pointed out that this ref is lucky for us. His record carries on.