That sounds like your not a football fan at all then dutch. More a game is just the excuse to get out of the house and let ya hair down. Apologies if this isnt what you meant
Because winning isn't what kept me going all these years. Meeting mates was a much bigger factor, but it wouldn't alter me if we were in the Conference. I'm not convinced that the Prem's a better level, especially not if competition's really your thing, AND, like many Stoke fans, I wouldn't want to watch Pulis, or the likes of Palace week in week out simply scared of losing. It's dull. If all that matters is the result, they could save a fortune and toss a coin.
We can all masquerade as football fans, but in reality we all know the only reason we go to football is to shout abuse at the opposition fans, watch fireworks and get into skirmishes with the police.
No, you're about spot on to be fair. I don't really class myself as a fan of football, I'm fan of Hull City AFC, but that does over simplify it. For me, football is far more than just two dozen blokes hoofing a bag of wind for an hour and a half.
I'm a fan of both. I agree about more than, its going with your old man or your mates or now with my lad. Thats why i cant get arsed about the name change, its meaningless and unfortunately all part of the circus of the premier league. I may sound like mussy but i hate the fixtures been moved, squad numbers, 7 subs why do you need 7 subs. Loads of little things. But then how many times have we seen it on here oh the games moved to a Friday night oh ok that'll be a few hundred grand for the club!! We should have opposed everytihng the premier league have done from the outset, its too late now. It should have been all games on a Saturday at 3pm except one on a Sunday. Cats out of the bag now though.
I wouldn't disagree with any of that. I did say I oversimplified it a bit, I guess the bigger question it begs is what each of us see as football. I work with some football fans, they play every week and watch loads on TV and can talk me to bits about certain players and positions and all that mallarky, and to be honest it sends me to sleep, but I meet people from all over the Country that follow their Club, and we can talk for hours about the experience and happenings at our clubs. Which of the two groups above are football fans, and I guess in the current era, which are more use to football?
i watch every single match that's on TV if i can, i just love watching it, i don't care the outcomes of any of the games though apart from our dear club
Maybe a generational thing too, we get it on here a bit we should sign so and so Ive checked his stats etc. The ones who spend the most money is what all owners want nowadays. A load of local scousers in their 30's or 40's supporting Liverpool probably spend **** all apart from a season ticket, but a load of Thai or Chinese fans spend a bloody fortune in the club shop or online. I think we are at a tipping point as its the local fans that give the game its popularity and atmosphere, hence free travel to games. Maybe in another year or two ticket prices will have to come down but will it be too late
Of course I want them to be successful, I just want them to be successful playing decent football, I'd hate to have to watch hoofball every game.
But what if playing "pretty" football limits their success. Obviously we disagree on this. I'm not suggesting I'd rather watch **** football, but if it gave us success, I wouldn't complain.
Put it this way, I do almost every game home and away, but if the football was dire, I'd probably not bother with aways, I'd just watch the results come in on Sky. I'm not driving hundreds of miles every other week to watch **** football, I used to, but I can't be arsed to do it now.
Didn't the master of Huthball state that it was what the fans of Stoke wanted (reading their message board while he was there - about half didn't want his "style" of football), I would hope if Bruce left we would have better candidates applying for the job. Considering that our chairman appointed Barmby, Pearson and Bruce, (the first 2 of them have got some detractors, but they weren't disasters, Bruce is looking as if he could be our most successful manager) I can't see him going for a manager who would completely change our style of play and would want a fixed amount in each transfer window for not that much success
I think compare the debate between playing good football and wining games to a supply and demand curve, the equilibrium point is the perfect situation where you get the right balance between both, however teams such as Stoke go to far one way and teams like Brighton go to far the other, creating a shortage in one way or another. Basically i would prefer to see us play some good stuff but if that means we lose every week, well that's awful, there is a point, that i think we are at at the moment, between playing winning football and good football, and that is the football the best teams play, i.e Bayern Munich, they are not to heavily reliant on either method, they do whatever suits the games situation. I haven't explained it very well, just google images one and you will get what i mean.
it's the Yerkes-Dodson law - the bell curve, as you say at the top of this particular bell curve (with 'winning' on the vertical & hoofball to tikka takka on the horizontal) would be Bayern, Barca etc England, Brighton, West Ham of the 70's too far over the curve & Stoke, Palace, Wimbledon of old etc on various points before the top of the curve...
