A month to go - Dougie Freedman Review

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.

wanderlust wrote:

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.

This is bullshit.

I didn't say people who go to games have a more valid point, I said it's a lot easier for someone who doesn't pay hard cash to back a failing manager. Would you dispute this?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

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. 

I said it's a lot easier for someone who doesn't pay hard cash to back a failing manager. Would you dispute this?

Of course. It makes no sense.
And it makes a bunch of assumptions ranging from "attending games is the only way to make a financial contribution to the club" to "paying an entry fee to attend matches influences fans' objectivity more than their emotional investment in the club".
More obviously, it assumes Dougie is failing which for most people remains unproven for now.

wanderlust wrote:
Of course. It makes no sense.
And it makes a bunch of assumptions ranging from "attending games is the only way to make a financial contribution to the club" to "paying an entry fee to attend matches influences fans' objectivity more than their emotional investment in the club".
More obviously, it assumes Dougie is failing which for most people remains unproven for now.

I think you're just taking the piss now, no one misses the point so many times in one conversation.

Let me spell it out for you.

Few would dispute that overall this season the football being played has been less than entertaining, and at some low points absolute garbage. Surely you would accept that watching something crap (football match, film, play etc) is made worse when you've actually paid to watch it.

Let's say we have two Bolton fans. One pays £30 to watch a game, drives an hour to get there, and freezes his balls off sitting down on a plastic seat for 90 minutes. The other switches his laptop on at 2.59pm, makes himself a hot drink and a snack, sits down in his comfy armchair and watches the match on a dodgy free stream.

Both fans witness the same awful game - which one is going to be more pissed off?

For what it's worth, I actually agree in principle with your point, Sweet Cheeks, but your argument is fundamentally flawed for the reasons cited above by Lusty regarding it (your supposition being based on sweeping generalisations and massive assumptions.)

See, this is the point I was making yesterday:

Relevant? Yes, it's about the Wanderers.

Drivel? Yes - massively flawed argument, backed up with sarcasm and that patronising air that posh people adopt when trying to win an argument with us plebs.

Breadman wrote:your supposition being based on sweeping generalisations and massive assumptions

The people happy with Freedman were, in general, those that don't go to the games.

The people wanting him moved on were, in general, those that go the Reebok for home games.

Where is the massive assumption?

The simple fact is that, in the main, those having to pay to watch the shite football have had enough of freedman.

I've just conducted a quick survey to try and prove or disprove your theory.

Of the people questioned, 100% said they hadn't been to the Reebok since the last home game of last season (Blackpool).

When asked "Do you rate Freedman and want him to continue as our manager?", the same 100% said "No, he's a wanker and needs to go."

Whaddya make of them tomatoes......?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:
Of course. It makes no sense.
And it makes a bunch of assumptions ranging from "attending games is the only way to make a financial contribution to the club" to "paying an entry fee to attend matches influences fans' objectivity more than their emotional investment in the club".
More obviously, it assumes Dougie is failing which for most people remains unproven for now.

I think you're just taking the piss now, no one misses the point so many times in one conversation.

Let me spell it out for you.

Few would dispute that overall this season the football being played has been less than entertaining, and at some low points absolute garbage. Surely you would accept that watching something crap (football match, film, play etc) is made worse when you've actually paid to watch it.

Let's say we have two Bolton fans. One pays £30 to watch a game, drives an hour to get there, and freezes his balls off sitting down on a plastic seat for 90 minutes. The other switches his laptop on at 2.59pm, makes himself a hot drink and a snack, sits down in his comfy armchair and watches the match on a dodgy free stream.

Both fans witness the same awful game - which one is the sucker?

You are quite right. I am taking the piss.
Still I think you are stretching the point to suggest that handing over your hard earned dosh and then feeling upset because the match was "absolute garbage" makes you more inclined to blame the manager as opposed to blaming the players, the opposition, the ref, the financial situation the club is in, the perceived lack of value for money, the Board, our bad luck, Phil Darkside or yourself for handing over the money yet again in the full knowledge that you were taking a gamble on what would happen during the game.

I'm not taking the piss - my data stands.

Breadman wrote:I've just conducted a quick survey to try and prove or disprove your theory.

Of the people questioned, 100% said they hadn't been to the Reebok since the last home game of last season (Blackpool).

When asked "Do you rate Freedman and want him to continue as our manager?", the same 100% said "No, he's a wanker and needs to go."

Whaddya make of them tomatoes......?

I'm wondering if a survey of one is statistically significant.... 

Depends on your perspective.

It's 100% significant in our house.

And let's not forget that governments get elected that way all the time -

60m people in the country.

45m on the electoral roll.

Turn out is 30% (15m voters)

38% of them vote Tory.

Therefore, 5.7m people's wishes and opinions translate into the rest of us having to put up with the bastards telling us what to do and how much a pint costs.

5.7m out of 60m.........

We need a revolution.