The BBC lost it a while back. Pure tabloid TV, looking for one thing and one thing only: controversy. Fouls, penalty appeals, managerial responses, refereeing errors - it is all they care about, and if it barely exists, they create it. And all based around the 'hilarious' mismatched views of one of a revolving set of pundits, one of who used to be a defender (and just like a typical* defender always favours the defensive argument) and one pundit who used to be a striker (and who - even more hilariously - is like a typical* striker and always favours the attacking arguments). Together, it makes for absolutely dynamite points of non-formula discussion. Chuck in the fact that one poor downtrodden guy loves Newcastle, another loves Arsenal, another few are Liverpool nuts, and the presenter can switch between Leicester, Spurs, and Everton, and you have the recipe for a 90 minute programme which really would be vastly improved if they dropped the between-game punditry. Completely shown up by BT Sports' James Richardson-hosted CL programme imo. * contractually-obliged
Yes, I have noticed, for a long time now. Its painful. Thing is, I have concluded that we need to work out how to deal with that problem ourselves rather than bemoan the waste of time break. Really, its our problem, as some teams seem to manage it.
In many ways, that is a good description of what football is, with the manager deciding on the way he lays his pieces (players) out, and dictating how they move around the board (pitch), with them having some leeway to ad lib, before returning to the formation and style of play that he has decided will be played. It's like fluid chess. You start with a plan on how to win, then adapt it as your opponent defends and counters. Klopp moving Can into position, to protect the fullback, is an example of a manager moving his piece across the board, with good effect, to cut out a serious threat on goal. And it is most definitely, a game, that too many people take far too seriously, myself included, at times.
o I thought your point was that it WASN'T like a game of chess. Or even a soccer video game. There's too many individual variables. An example of the top of my head is Yoshida playing as a full back. His natural instinct will be to defend like a centre back and be drawn into those positions. He wont mearly act like a slow full back.
No my point was that it is a fluid game and the opponent is doing things all the time, not a game where one player/team has one move at a time.
I endorse these chess analogies. Cedric gives us a good opportunity for a H-file attack. Tadic should clearly be playing on the king side. Ok I'm done.
Chess is one of very few games where there are no random factors at all, no element of chance. As a metaphor for football, it's difficult to think of anything that could be more wide of the mark. p to K4
