I can see why Fingi got annoyed as he thought I was quoting what he said. For that, I apologise to him for the confusion. On reflection, I should have used Italics instead of inverted commas. That was my mistake and I hope he accepts my apology. Nevertheless, I'm still of the opinion that himself and Wats were suggesting that because I don't attend many games that my opinion that COLIN shouldn't have been sacked is somehow irrelevant. In fact, its not the first time that accusation has been levelled. Do you remember, Queens, the same thing being said to us about Taarabt? It went along the lines of those who aren't at the games can't appreciate his genius therefore their criticism of him is nugatory. (Italics used). It was Finglas and COL who were arguing that point. To be fair to them, there is some merit in what they say as the excitement of a creative player getting on the ball would generate an atmosphere in the ground with everyone getting on their feet and what not and its something that might be lost on TV viewers. But I agree with everything you say there Queens, you make some fantastic points.
I think that attendees get the broader picture - players' work rates, runs and probably a better (albeit partisan) "feel" for a game. Watching on TV definitely gives the edge on critical moments with the hindsight of close ups and replays. Plus also an optimal viewing angle (restricted only by stand heights). I do think paying fans have a bit more right to be critical but I reckon that's possibly opening a contentious can of worms.
Matt, as much as i love your posts..i totally disagree with this one I've been at many gamesand abused refs /players for decisions only to find out later on MOTD that i was wrong. I'd go so far as to argue that fans at the game have a kless biased and more clouded opinion than those who dont attend,,? Discuss at your will but i just saw chelseas goal 4 tims..if we scor at home..how often do we see it. The most deining question is... If those attending a home match see much more than us abroad..why do you need a big screen?...let me know asap!!
I actually agree wholeheartedly. I've always maintained that there's no comparison with actually being at the game. But I also think that with the quality of TV coverage and technological advancements, one can read a game from the TV very well too. When I watch John Giles dissecting a game from the studio, I don't think his analysis is restricted in any real way because he's not sat in the Stadium. I've probably contradicted myself a bit there but hey, it wouldn't be the first time!
I didn't think my post was that far off your sentiments and agree with pretty much everything you said. There are benefits on both sides but I reckon your view of the game is much better than anyone's today because it's arctic here (and I'm indoors)!!!
I would always prefer to be at the game for the atmosphere more than anything else. You get a better overall view at a game and pick up off ball runs and moves that even the biggest screen doesn't pick up, but you get a much better close up view on the TV especially at the other end of the pitch, and then there are all the close ups, replays etc.
Swords, I will gracefully accept your apology even though it should have been offered about 20 hours ago. Better late than never. Unfortunately, I am too tired to discuss the rest of your post . Another day.
I struggle to see what you're attempting to achieve with this. If you love Warnock so much then write a letter to Abramovich recommending him. Frankly couldn't do any worse
Obviously not but he'd have taken us down last season and would not have had the opportunity to do as spectacularly poorly as Hughes.
Na, he would have kept you up. If Hughes could keep you up then warnock could as warnock is the better manager.
Some of you think I'm wumming here but I'm not. QPR made a mistake sacking him and this is coming from a neutral looking at your club. He would have kept you up and he would have performed better this season. This mistake has cost QPR a place in the Prem imo.
Fair enough sean. I was one of those who felt that it was right to keep Warnock. If he had to go, then fair enough. But not to be replaced by Hughes. I don't say that in hindsight however that may be so as difficult to disprove. Pretty much the same as the Chelsea situation. Any football fan would understand that if you had to replace Di Matteo????? you wouldn't bring in Benitez, even with the luxury of hindsight. I think you would of been happier if Redknapp had been appointed rather than Benitez. All things considered, it's all quite bizarre really.
Mate, i agree with you and was just stirring a bit TBH but, following opn from the point i was making, It would be really intresting if Sky could put a digital camera in a vacant ST holder seat for a game and show what a supporter really does see. 1 X optical zoom and fish eye lens type thing. i guess you guys could prob do something similar with your mobiles...? Would then be able to catagorically say who has the better view. i know when i was an ST holder that a lot of times i had to look at others reactions and guess decisions just because I could not clearly see and for ref: Im not that old and HAD very good eyesight. Someone call sky please !
Benitez is supposed to be a short term solution though (like all our managers ) but I would not have preferred Redknapp myself as benitez is more proven towards the top end of leagues than Redknapp. Di Matteo was always going to get the sack as soon as Chelsea hit a bump in the road as he was never supposed to be a long term manager. When he won the Champions League he had to get the job longer term (supposedly) but Abramovich wants Guadiola. Whether that is realistic or a good thing I'm not sure. But back to the point when Warnock got sacked I though it was harsh but maybe your backroom guys seen a guy with Hughes reputation become available and thought the grass would be greener.
