A month to go - Dougie Freedman Review

Reebok Trotter wrote:PS. I know it's an old cliche but how different would it had turned out for Man United if their board had sacked Fergie at the end of his third season in charge?

RT Fergie had already got a proven winning track record both in domestic and european football thanks to his time at Aberdeen. I do take your point but he also had a massive club with a huge purse AND then once he'd had an FA Cup and UEFA Cup Winners Cup victory the "Class of '92" came in with what would become arguably the greatest midfield seen in British Football History plus of course the Neville Brothers, two International Quality Full Backs. That's NOT the case nor is it ever likely to be here.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:

Reebok Trotter wrote:PS. I know it's an old cliche but how different would it had turned out for Man United if their board had sacked Fergie at the end of his third season in charge?

RT Fergie had already got a proven winning track record both in domestic and european football thanks to his time at Aberdeen. I do take your point but he also had a massive club with a huge purse AND then once he'd had an FA Cup and UEFA Cup Winners Cup victory the "Class of '92" came in with what would become arguably the greatest midfield seen in British Football History plus of course the Neville Brothers, two International Quality Full Backs. That's NOT the case nor is it ever likely to be here.

That's true, but there are some similarities albeit on a different scale.
Ferguson spent his transfer money on nicking youngsters from other clubs (Becks from Spurs, Neville Bros Oldham, Giggs from City etc) because providing you've got an eye for young talent, it's a lot cheaper to get them young.
Dougie is treading a similar path. OK the kids he's brought in are not as young and he doesn't have an accomplished first team squad to hold the fort or the money to attract the best kids, but at least it's a shot at trading our way out of the financial mess we are in and at least he is on the right track with that so far. Don't think any of the kids are world class, but if two or more can reach first team standard it will have helped enormously.

Interesting that, on the whole, the people backing Dougie are the people who don't go to games.

As I've said a million times, easy to back a manager when you're not paying to watch the shite he puts out.

Natasha Whittam wrote:Interesting that, on the whole, the people backing Dougie are the people who don't go to games.

As I've said a million times, easy to back a manager when you're not paying to watch the shite he puts out.

Interesting that those who spent their time in the bar are allowed to have an opinion.

Watching the game on the internet is certainly more informative, especially as we have the benefit of replays and slo-mo - so obviously we're more informed.

Just because we got a better view for free is no reason to be bitter.

Would like to know what website you watch Wanderers games from WL as only one championship game per week is broadcast abroad and hence is viewable on the football streams. That game will be the featured game on FL show. It was us this week but first for a long while. Do tell where you watch them?

wanderlust wrote:
Interesting that those who spent their time in the bar are allowed to have an opinion.

Watching the game on the internet is certainly more informative, especially as we have the benefit of replays and slo-mo - so obviously we're more informed.

Just because we got a better view for free is no reason to be bitter.

Firstly, it was the bar at The Reebok so I was contributing to Darren Pratley's wages.

Secondly, you once again miss my point. You may be more well informed sitting at home - but you're not actually shelling out hard cash to watch a game. Surely you agree you're more likely to expect a certain level of entertainment if you've shelled out £30 than if you paid nowt to watch it on your laptop?

I noticed there were a lot of camera crews at the Reebok on Saturday, more so than normal, plus there are various streams to watch the match if you are in the know...cough..cough..

What difference does it make whether you watched the match at the ground or on TV? You still saw the same game with all the salient points!

Freeman is clueless. The board should be looking for a new manager now to take over next season. Always chopping and changing the team.

Reebok Trotter wrote:What difference does it make whether you watched the match at the ground or on TV? You still saw the same game with all the salient points!

Beg to differ there mate,watching live ie at the match you get a whole different perspective on what you are watching. It doesnt show on live streams etc etc Freedman up and down like a fiddlers elbow taking advice from every tom dick and harry on the bench,it doesnt show the indecision which is rife when we are trying to make a sub ( albeit after the opposition have made one ) or the length of time it takes to make said substitutions. It cant or didnt obviously show on saturday for example how utterly, completely shite Trotter was and how it took so long to replace the useless wanker. I could go on and on but the reason some of us are so anti Freedman is because we are there on match days watching the utter confusion and bewildering tactics and team set ups. The incredulity in the pub,in the walk to the stadium,amongst fans sat within a radius of your own seat was one of shock and disbelief when Trotter was named in the starting eleven. This cant be translated on a live stream or via chat forums,you have to be there week in week out to get the vibe and feeling the paying fans have ! I am sure someone will pour vitriol all over this little rant but its how it is and believe me on match days it aint pretty or encouraging for BWFC . Fuck off Freedman

I think you get a different perspective at a live match, but not necessarily a more accurate one. It's far easier to listen to the people around you rather than making up your own mind and looking at each particular aspect objectively. There are plenty who go to matches (for every club) that are more interested in getting pissed and abusing the opposing fans than actually taking in the game. That's fair enough, they've paid their money and if that's what they enjoy doing then they have every right to, but not for a second do I think the fact that the fact they're present every week automatically means they're more qualified than anybody else to pass comment. 

It's those who shout the loudest that have the most influence at football matches, that doesn't necessarily mean they're the best informed or correct in what they're saying. I'll take it as I see it and form my own opinions, as I do with everything else.

I've been to hundreds of games and had the luxury of watching many others being disected in super slow mo and having experts telling me what is what, so I like to think I've seen both sides of the fence.

For me - and without any doubt - being at a game is better than any view you get at home. Yes, you get thousands of different angles and freeze frames but you never actually see the bigger picture - why that player did what he did. The running off the ball, the speed of the game, the depth of the play, the context of what is happening, the actual 'feel' for the match.

I like to think I can make my own mind up as to what is happening - the boozed up moron stood next to me at the game never influenced me any more than the critical analysis expert on the TV.

The TV gives you a great 'window' into the game - but that is exactly what it is - a window. At the game you take in the whole event - not just focus on the man on the ball - even though that's exactly what many at the match actually do to!

There's a saying - there's non so blind as those that will not see. People watch things in front of their noses - either at the game or via the telly - but they see only what they want too - or even worse - told too by the commentator.

Yes, I'd rather be at the match everytime if I could - but as I can't I'm grateful for any means to follow the match - tv, stream, radio, chatbox text, ceefax - anything really!

But imo some people can go to every match - and still see nothing but their prejudices, whilst others can sit at home and grasp from whatever snippets a truer picture of what is going on - and visa-versa!

At the end of the day it's still only a game though.

I agree you see much more when you are actually at the game but you will also miss things the TV picks up on. For me being at the game you can see the attempted runs, the movement of the ball (or lack of), the tracking back (or lack of). TV has its benefits as does being at the game.

Reebok Trotter wrote:What difference does it make whether you watched the match at the ground or on TV? You still saw the same game with all the salient points!

You bellend. This isn't about what people saw and how they saw it - it's about what they have invested in BWFC.

If you're sat at home in your y-fronts watching the game on an illegal stream it's costing you nothing and you're contributing zero to BWFC so it's easy to back a poor manager.

If you're sat in the ground on a cold January afternoon having paid £30 to watch a game of football you surely expect a certain level of entertainment for your money?

If you went to a restaurant and the meal was free you would be a lot less likely to complain about poor service than if you'd shelled out hard cash for the meal.

The point is simple, it's easy to back a manager when you don't pay for watching the shite he puts out.

JAH wrote:Would like to know what website you watch Wanderers games from WL as only one championship game per week is broadcast abroad and hence is viewable on the football streams. That game will be the featured game on FL show. It was us this week but first for a long while. Do tell where you watch them?

Watched the Wigan game on an Arabic channel Jah. As Chat Room users will tell you that's the second Wanderers match screened in the last couple of weeks - us exiles are getting spoiled!

Don't understand why this thread has turned into a debate about whether you get a better perspective of the game watching a broadcast v attending the match - that wasn't the point I made.


As Natasha had said she spent 45 minutes chatting in the bar because the game was so boring - and then implied  that the opinion of those unable to attend the game live was less valid, I pointed out that watching the game on the internet gave a better perspective than you get standing in the bar chatting.

It just happens to be free and has replays etc.

Sluffy made the point that he doesn't like to be told what to think by commentators. Well in this case I had the sound off and the comments were made by all of us Nuts on the chatbox.

I think the mods need to start thinking about addressing the issue about users who suggest that those who are unable to attend the game do not have a valid opinion. It's a device that Natasha in particular often uses and unless the mods stamp it out you are going to alienate the large number of users who come to this forum because they live some distance away or abroad.

We certainly don't come on here to be lectured by the likes of Natasha who has the right to express an opinion (regardless of how stupid it might be) but has no right whatsoever to discount the opinions of others - especially on such spurious grounds.

What are you going to do about this mods?

Well I don't actually mind being told stuff by the commentators - it's more I don't take all what they say as gospel and tend to have my own views, different to theirs, at times.

As for Natasha - do you really take what she says to heart?

Most of it is just for a reaction - and she can be very funny at times.

I agree that at times it can be a bit repetitive and boring but what is the alternative - serious debate about the club 24/7 - wouldn't that become as boring after a while too?

I think we need allsorts of views and opinions on here - isn't that what a forum is about after all?

As I've said about the TV commentators above, I listen to what they say - but still make my own mind up about what to think - not follow their views blindly.  And I think that is how most of us on here take Natasha too.

Hope your back is much better btw.

Pros and cons ..... TV gets you a close up of the current action but you don't see the whole pitch...as others have said...you don't see the movement off the ball. Good commentators provide an overall view and have some insight if they interviewed the manager and players before the game.

Example.....this week they said that the Duke was running out of gas and looked knackered in the second half.  Now I couldn't see that on TV but it made sense when all of a sudden we had no out ball from the back.  Doogie addressed that in the 85th minute by bringing on Beckford.....but that's another thread.

Sluffy wrote:
As for Natasha - do you really take what she says to heart?

Absolutely. Her incisive wit cuts me to the core, leaving me emotionally battered, bruised and burnt like a redundant beaver on a Bulgarian barbecue.

Terence is right about Juke. He was ploughing a lone furrow on his own. DF should have brought Beckford on sooner imo.

Reebok Trotter wrote:Terence is right about Juke. He was ploughing a lone furrow on his own. DF should have brought Beckford on sooner imo.

A lot sooner - it would have prevented Wigan's back 4 pushing up to compress the midfield. Trotter could have gone off a lot earlier too as the game seemed to pass him by for the most part.