TV opinions and live opinions

[The Great Mass Debater]

A stick oft beaten over the head of us distant fans who watch via streams is that our opinion on player performances is less valid.

I agree to some extent. The cameras follow the ball, which means some things just dont translate over the waves. It is difficult to appreciate the off the ball movement of a player, his vision or reading of the game, the overall shape of the teams etc, when you can only look where the cameras point you.

This I get.

BUT, I also feel there is an element that the TV picks up that being at the game robs you of, and there are other things the 'live fan' dismisses when getting into the competition of who is the better fan and who's opinion is invalid.

The main thing for me is that you can get sucked into a culture when you are at a game and be unduly influenced by those around you. If you watch a game at home, often on your own there are several things that are different.

1. You have commentary. Now when this comes from the mainstream like Sky, it is very biased, most of the time you wouldnt even know a team called Norwich was playing. But, many of the streams are refreshingly balanced, with pundits who actually seem to know what theyre talking about. You are given facts you werent aware of, and stats. 

2. You have replays. Reliable replays from multiple angles of contentious issues and discussion, which quite often, make you reassess your gut opinion of how something happened. Its very difficult to go back on your opinion after a game when you saw something once, were convinced it was a penalty and then spent the next 2 hours protesting about the unfairness of it all.

3. Player bias. Imagaine you find yourself in part of the ground where a number of fans around you have the knives out for one player. Its difficult to have a balanced view of a players performance when you hear groans from around you when they get the ball, or the same repeated accusations from the same people week in week out. This you dont get when you watch on your own and are allowed to form your own opinion, rather than being vulnerable to adopting that of the mob.

I totally accept that there are some things you can never appreciate via the cameras. But I would contest that the opinions of those who watch via a stream could potentially be more balanced, for the reasons I have outlined above. Im thinking about peoples deeply engrained ideas about certain players, which never seem to change regardless of how they played. For some, supporting Norwich seems to be a competition and this often extends to dismissing the opinions of those who dont go to church. But I would argue that the two shouldnt be seen as competing, more complementary. Both methods of watching a game offer different viewpoints and help inform debate. And this can only be a good thing

 

[Canaryboy]

For some, supporting Norwich seems to be a competition and this often extends to dismissing the opinions of those who dont go to church

And thankfully we haven't seen much of that on this forum, as of yet. 

You can't beat a live match, and I'm slightly to ashamed that I haven't been to one yet - the fixture list in the second half of the season is much kinder to me than the first half. 

I seriously doubt that watching a stream makes it any more difficult to determine whether a team has played well or not, or any more difficult to identify which players have had a good game and which have had a poor one.

But watching live does give you more appreciation of a players movement off the ball.

 

[morty]

And thankfully we haven't seen much of that on this forum, as of yet. 

You can't beat a live match, and I'm slightly to ashamed that I haven't been to one yet - the fixture list in the second half of the season is much kinder to me than the first half. 

I seriously doubt that watching a stream makes it any more difficult to determine whether a team has played well or not, or any more difficult to identify which players have had a good game and which have had a poor one.

But watching live does give you more appreciation of a players movement off the ball.

Agree on the last point.

 

[Canaryboy]

You can't beat a live match, and I'm slightly to ashamed that I haven't been to one yet

Just to clarify, I mean haven't been to one this season. 

I had a season ticket for 13 years! 

 

[SussexYellow]

Most sport except for golf is a better experience watched live. Golf is a big exception, when you are there you watch golfers with only a limited view of what is happening in the tournament, whereas on TV you get to watch the tournament.

However I do not buy in to this less valid opinion argument. Everybody's opinion is valid, it is after all exactly that, an opinion. You do not have a "lesser" opinion because you watch on TV or a stream, buy a casual ticket rather than hold a season ticket, or live outside the ring road.

 

[Bethnal Yellow and Green]

However I do not buy in to this less valid opinion argument. Everybody's opinion is valid, it is after all exactly that, an opinion. You do not have a "lesser" opinion because you watch on TV or a stream, buy a casual ticket rather than hold a season ticket, or live outside the ring road.

Woah, woah, woah. This is going slightly off topic but eveyone's opinion is not valid.

It could be my opinion that Bradley Johnson should be dropped because he prays to a golden statue of John Wark in his house every evening while sacrificing baby canaries and drinking their blood.

That is not a valid opinion to have - one opinion can be more valid than another if it is coming from someone with expertise - I would trust a doctors opinion of which medicine I should take over some guy down the pub; or from a position of having greater access to information; I would value someone's opinion of a Norwich game if they had watched it, over someone if they had just read the match report on the official website.

TV over actually being there is a fine line, but if someone had never seen a game before went to the game and told me their opinion I would value that less than if Louis Van Gaal had watched it on TV and given me his opinion.

Not all opinions are equal and not all opinions are valid.

 

[Yellow Fever]

Very good OP. A classic example of the live game miss was somebody on here attributing a sloppy clearance to Turner that lead to the first goal. Those watching on-line wouldn't have made that mistake. The clearance was by Martin and it wasn't sloppy and nor did Wes 'lose the ball'. It was taken off him with an excellent tackle by Ralls who then made an exceptional finish for the goal. Their second goal was even better, but could have been prevented if Olsson had got back into position in time, instead of forcing Hooiveld to play FB and thus leaving a gap to be exploited. These were well analysed on my stream, but I also agree that you don't get a good impression of play off the ball on-line.

 

[cityoldboy]

Agree with all that has been said but one thing that has not been mentioned is being at a game to support the team.

In particular at away games where support tends to stand for entire game and be squashed into a corner or up in the Gods 

( as at Newcastle ). The view is not always great and if other fans are like me they tend to devote their efforts into singing 

and supporting the team to counter the in balance of numbers in favour of home team.This added to the pre match beer

usually results in fans missing the finer points of the game. 

I am usually texted by friends who are watching it on a feed or live on sky and informed during the game so fans at home and at game can 

work together. Having said that if you make the effort and pay out large amounts of money to go to a game only to be told by someone 

who did not that you are wrong it can be irritating. 

 

[Beauseant]

I agree that you get a better conception of the game as a whole if you're there, but TV and streams have their merits too. Ultimately, though, it comes down to Bethnal's point, that validity of opinion is tied into the objectivity of the person providing it. I like to think that I have a pretty rational approach to the game and don't post on twitter etc when I'm at a game so have the chance to think it through before I write anything. When watching a stream, however, I become subject to tweeting Tourette's and post some utter crap, which often embarrasses me afterwards!

 

[Lake District Canary]

Agree with the op.  

What you get at a match is the raw emotion of being part of a crowd.   You can't beat that.  But you don't see everything at a match - especially if you are at one end or the other and the action is at the other end.  You do see things that a camera won't always pick up - marginal decisions like throw ins for example when they are near you, but equally you can easily miss things - sometimes even miss goal scorers.

What you get on a TV or stream is a picture that can be analysed and is totally clear from aspects of who is doing what - as long as they are in camera shot.  The wider off the ball running is not always there, but opinions based on tv viewing can be better than being at the match in some aspects - but equally, opinions from being at the match can be better in other aspects.  Its not cut and dried either way, but as long as you have seen the whole match, your opinion is valid.  If you watched on the radio, or just watched the highlights, you are never going to have opinions that hold water on a deeper level - but you can still have opinions of course.  

Opinions are what make football interesting to talk about - we all have them - we should all be able to express them with equality.

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

I suppose thats the difference between following and supporting the team. When I watch the side it is for me, my entertainment and so I can enjoy discussing the game over the next week. The club gets nothing from me. I would say watching on a stream is more following than supporting (even though you're not physically following anyone!)

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

Interestingly my stream for the Cardiff game had no commentary, replays or scoreboard - hence my confusion on the match thread!. That was weird but felt more like being at a game. Ive been at games when Iv missed something, spent the whole game wondering and couldnt wait to get back home to find out what had happened!

The worst thing for me is highlights. Iv been at games where iv later watched the highlights and been outraged at the impression given of the game

 

[eatonparkboy]

If you live 400+ miles away from Norwich then streaming is the only option. Whether that is good enough for overall judgement, I wouldn't like to say. But I think it gives those watching a right to comment.

I cater for a rugby team every other Saturday so won't be able to comment on performances too much as I can only glance at streams as I am working. But it is important just to able to discuss NCFC with other people. For instance, to be able to say that Grabban was robbed of a sixth goal because Turner was following in. I am sure the ball was going in anyway after Grabban's touch and in my opinion I think it is far more important for a striker to amass a good total and even be top of the goalscorers list. But as I couldn't see what was happening behind the play, I can't justify my opinion as worthy as someone who was at the game. But I wonder how many just follow the ball even when sat in the stand.

So while I agree that streaming is only a substitute, I do think it is good enough for an opinion. 

 

[Safri15]

As a fan who really only ever watched streams/on TV until this current season where I finally have my season ticket I can see both views to this argument. You do miss more of the "on the ball" action at the games, but get a wider view of the game as a whole from the ground. I guess its more personal preference and situation that counts. For me its a 12hour round trip to Carrow Road by train and coach, and that's without stopping for a beer!!

Sometimes I miss so much at the games as I'm too busy chanting at away fans or watching something else going on somewhere else on the pitch. I've been to a lot of Arsenal games thanks to the Mrs being a big fan of theirs and I must admit, its nice having the big screens showing the replays of the goals and contentious decisions from all angles as you really do get the best of both worlds then!

 

[Lone Star Canary]

Here's a 4,800 mile away perspective.  I'm also someone who has watched some sporting events VERY differently in the past because I have called ice hockey play-by-play on the radio (and still put on a headset a few times a year).  I cannot stress how much different it is watching a game from that perspective, and how it can make me very lazy when I'm watching a game I'm not calling and lean on the p-b-p.

I'm in the same boat as TGMD above in that Saturday's game was the first time I watched a NCFC broadcast with no commentary whatsoever - just the raw feed and crowd noise... and I thoroughly enjoyed it - even at halftime when we were down 2-0.  It forced me to watch the game differently than one with commentary because of course I had to focus more - as though I were at the game.  What's the configuration?  Who has the ball.  Where are they?  Who is around them?  Where might they go next?  I watch games most Saturday mornings with bleary eyes and cup of coffee, and if I'm having to stream it (only the Ipswich game has been broadcast live on TV here this season) I'm multitasking (tweeting) a lot more on the computer than if I'm on the couch with my tablet or phone.  I don't have a huge issue with the quality of my tweets because I tend to focus on the positive and rarely have it out for a player (our guy may suck, but so long as he's wearing yellow I'll support him).

To touch on some other points made here and there in the thread:

American football has, for quite a while, been a better product on TV than live, especially with digital recording allowing you to stop/rewind/replay a play.  Football as a TV product started in the 60's when NFL commish Pete Rozelle focused on making the NFL a made-for-TV sport.  In-game product has been catching up a little at a time as new stadiums (like the Death Star down the road from me) feature larger and larger replay screens, but the costs of the venue and the tickets are getting crazy.  What you don't get on TV, of course, is the atmosphere... which for college football is a very big deal - and is why I don't think twice about dropping $100 a ticket to see my Sooners when they're in town playing Texas Christian (be a lot more expensive ticket if I tried to catch a home game).

Ice hockey - live is always better.  The field of play isn't huge, but the TV takes away all sense of the speed of the action.  It's why the NHL has ALWAYS had better attendance than the NBA (even in the Sunbelt), but the NBA has better TV ratings.

Auto racing - road course is definitely better on TV for the same reason golf is better - you can get exposed to the whole venue.  I think that even oval track events (most NASCAR/IndyCar event) are better on TV, which is why Texas Motor Speedway this year installed the world's largest HD TV screen (20,633 square feet), known as Big Hoss.

 

[Din]

There are pros and cons to both sides. The thing that annoys me most is when people form their opinions on something like Match of the Day. I genuinly had someone from my work tell me that David Stockdale is better than John Ruddy, because the pundits had analysed Stockdale once and had never done that to Ruddy. It's ridiculous.

But back to the original point, obviously on tv you get replays, commentaries etc, but being at the ground allows you to see things that you wouldn't see on the tv. For example, for Callum Wilson's goal against us the other week, I was pretty much in line with our back 4, and I was able to watch them sort out who each one of them should be marking and where they should be, and I was able to see that it was Whittaker who was meant to be marking Wilson. But on the tv, because the ball is on the other side of the pitch, you don't see that, you only see Wilson tap the ball in.

You can't beat going to a match. It's often the highlight of my week, and any proper football fan would agree that it's a hundred times better than watching the game on tele, but there are definitely certain things that you miss out on by being at the ground, rather than watching it on your sofa.

 

[SussexYellow]

Most sport except for golf is a better experience watched live. Golf is a big exception, when you are there you watch golfers with only a limited view of what is happening in the tournament, whereas on TV you get to watch the tournament.

However I do not buy in to this less valid opinion argument. Everybody's opinion is valid, it is after all exactly that, an opinion. You do not have a "lesser" opinion because you watch on TV or a stream, buy a casual ticket rather than hold a season ticket, or live outside the ring road.

  

Woah, woah, woah. This is going slightly off topic but eveyone's opinion is not valid.

It could be my opinion that Bradley Johnson should be dropped because he prays to a golden statue of John Wark in his house every evening while sacrificing baby canaries and drinking their blood.

That is not a valid opinion to have - one opinion can be more valid than another if it is coming from someone with expertise - I would trust a doctors opinion of which medicine I should take over some guy down the pub; or from a position of having greater access to information; I would value someone's opinion of a Norwich game if they had watched it, over someone if they had just read the match report on the official website.

TV over actually being there is a fine line, but if someone had never seen a game before went to the game and told me their opinion I would value that less than if Louis Van Gaal had watched it on TV and given me his opinion..

Not all opinions are equal and not all opinions are valid.

Bethnal, what I am trying to say here is that everybody has a right to an opinion and that it matters not whether you watch the game on TV, live, are a season ticket holder or live outside the ring road. As LDC rightly says we should be able to express them with equality.

Whether you agree with an opinion is another matter. If we all agreed or there was one supreme opinion then these forums would be dull places. Yes some are better qualified to give an opinion, but it is a personal choice as to which opinions we value.

Hands up my terminology of valid is probably incorrect.

 

[Yellow Fever]

The whole point of a message-board is to enable people to express opinions. The advantage of this one is that you can do so without being attacked. 

 

[It's Character Forming]

The whole point of a message-board is to enable people to express opinions. The advantage of this one is that you can do so without being attacked. 

Binner !

Just kidding...

Seriously I think there are pros and cons to each way but if you want to make the best analysis of a game, the best way is watching it on Sky because you'll see a good quality picture with numerous camera angles and replays with close-ups etc.  I don't find the commentary and half-time analysis to be that great TBH - depends a bit on who they've got and who they're biased for or against.  I still remember watching our game against Spurs near the start of Worthy's Prem season and one of the guys on Sky going on about how many changes Spurs had made to their team over the summer and how hard it would be for them to gel etc, completely ignoring the fact that our team had made just as many changes !

Downsides to watching TV compared to live are that you can't see the wider pitch so you can't see players movement off the ball, and you're limited in what you can hear too - the microphones can give a pretty distorted idea of what it actually sounds like.  I remember near the start of last season watching RVW making endless runs into the channels pointing to where he wanted the ball delivering... the pass was rarely played to him, normally the play was slowed down until he was closely marked.  Downsides to being at the ground are you can only see part of the pitch well.  Often if something happens at the far goalmouth, you can't tell, or if you're distracted you don't have a replay. 

As for watching on a stream... mostly for me the picture quality is poor and ends up being a small rectangle in the middle of my laptop screen, and every 5-10 minutes you need to reload it and you miss a couple of minutes, so it's a bit frustrating.  You normally get replays and maybe commentary so it's nowhere near as good as watching Sky but far better than being stuck with the BBC website text updates !  I'll be trying for a stream tonight, defo !

 

[kirku]

Just to clarify, I mean haven't been to one this season. 

I had a season ticket for 13 years! 

Plastic.