Watched Saturday's MotD last night. Almost certain that Dion Dublin, the big racist, thought that Evanilson, who won the three penalties for Bournemouth, is the same person as Kluivert, who scored the three penalties.
-
Yep he kept saying that and noone corrected him!
-
If Dion is anything like me, he's not very good at names. It's a constant problem that having been told someone has a specific made up name, that my brain attributes my own label, and that's that. I generally default to young man/lady, to avoid problems...but in moments of attempting to express friendship/familiarity the wrong label comes out as an extremely regular occurrence. Even when corrected, my brain continues to want to substitute my own label. When I am aware of a person with a my label, and their own made up name, I often haven't a scooby which is which.
Peoples brains (don't) work differently.
Dion's "they all look the same", isn't necessarily a (colour blind) racism.
-
Good news that Patrick Kluivert is still at the top of his game though.
-
If you being paid to analyse games on what I assume is the way most people will watch highlights, being able to correctly identify the players you are explicitly talking about seems like a minimum requirement.
-
Well some of us sat through 90 minutes of Barry Girdles, who, amongst other things, still thinks that the only reason to substitute someone is that he’s playing shit. It’s almost as if being a good pundit isn’t part of the selection criteria for being a pundit.
-
There's an ancillary point to this, which absolutely does my nut. In that if someone comes on as sub, and does well, the commentary narrative is almost inevitably that 'they will be demanding a start'. There is no consideration to the quality, balance and structure that the manager is setting up with. If someone plays well they must immediately go in to the starting eleven. No nod to the fact that some people might be more effective coming on when many of the participants are hanging. No thought that despite playing well*, it might be that someone picked to start ahead of them might be more consistent or provide more of the required attributes when a game is fresh and keenly contested. Little acknowledgement that football is now an elite athletic game, and the use of the five substitutions is key in the outcomes achieved by teams - and not every coach wants their substitutions to make the team worse. No acknowledgement that some players might be good for an hour, but some might only give you a good thirty, or even less.
Almost no complete appreciation of the game, nor any attempt to explain it to an audience, whatsoever. Just the likes of barry fucking girdles and some stats to help you select your acca.
* Playing well only only includes actions taken with the ball because that "makes an impact in the game", little to no acknowledgement or appreciation of movement to open up passing or running options, positioning to protect an attempt to beat a man, or to provide a more resilient structure in the event of a turnover. Nothing about making equally good contributions that don't lead to a goal, compared with similar actions that do. You know, the things that actually have much more impact on the outcome of a game than 'one good kick'. Having a good game seems to totally depend on looking at those things that are obvious to see, that have outcomes that happen to be associated with statistically lumpy things, and it's totally okay to do fuck all apart from a couple of those...then a man of the match award is surely yours.
-
Good chance that this month we'll play Spurs without Vicario, Villa without Martinez and ManCity without Ederson.
-
Not sure this is a positive on recent form.
-
Sure but on form Ederson is better than Ortega, so they are weaker in goal as a result of having to drop him.
-
Ortega seems to like a reckless charge out, and the defenders in front of him (even Kyle Walker - the clue's in the name these days) are slow on the turn and to run back.
One for Elanga?
P.S. Definitely have a forward running across the back line to get in front of them, and someone ghosting in at the back post. It looks like this is currently a cheat code against them.
-
But the point is he isn't on form.
-
Look at it this way. If you'd been told in August we'd be facing backup goalkeepers in those three games, you'd regard that as being a factor in our favour, regardless of whether those absences were due to fitness or form.
-
All of which is moot unless we get some shots off
-
Struggling to understand how West Ham haven't equalised yet in this game at Leicester. The home side, having scored first, have been second best. They are still reassuringly quite shit but lead here unfortunately.
-
I dislike both scorelines, although the Leicester one is more unpleasant.
