Well, to be fair, it always does for most of the family, but usually I manage to break free. How have I managed to get myself from mid-Pyrenees, free and following my own whims, to a position where I feel almost my first priority is to follow what's happening in the world of football? This is a truly alien world.
What have I started? Still in bed at 12:35 and the first match of today's 3 has aleady started. It takes a long time to get up with a broken ankle so today i wait til the rest of the family have finished with the bathroom. And while I wait, I'm finding out about the World Cup. Not a well-rounded balanced view from multiple sources but what The Times has to offer as that's all that's to hand right now.
And golly there's a lot to read. How can it be possible to read all of this and watch 3 games and fulfil 2 social commitments all in one day? Comments on today's World Cup events will clearly continue yesterday's ill-informed rambling. But when has ignorance stopped even the professionals offering opinions?
So, the host nation score the first goal of the competition and France have managed to capture the first Red Card and both matches end in a draw.
So, the host nation score the first goal of the competition and France have managed to capture the first Red Card and both matches end in a draw.
Apparently the France-Uruguay game was rather dull. Isn't a draw always fairly unsatisfactory? On paper France had the better game. Why not convert the draw to a win by using the stats to determine the winning side. And thinking about it, isn't it so unfair to decide a winner on penalties. Easy as ever to get the stats and award the game on the basis of simple Maths. Cricket would benefit even more. At least in football you only waste 90 minutes in a match that ends up with no ultimate winner. In cricket, it's six DAYS (I think) and no result. Who ever thought that was a good idea?
So, S Korea v Greece. Watch it, read more newspaper commentary or get dressed? Have to go out in a couple of hours so the football has to take second place. Can't watch the Argentine/Nigeria game this afternoon and I have visitors this evening so even the England game is in jeopardy.
So tomorrow looks like being a day of catch-up, except that I have a social engagement tomorrow as well. Everyone is being so solicitous and worried about me getting bored that I'm busier now then ever. All well-phrased and vaguely plausible assessments of the games would be welcome so I can regurgitate them as my own. Sorry, what I mean is so I can put them alongside other well-informed opinion and form a view of my own. Oh, and perhaps if you could give me a clue about the offside rule, that would be very kind.
Well, I did end up in front of the tail end of the S Korea/Greece game and have only just realised it's finished. I get the feeling I'm not truly committed to this yet today. S Korea won. Greece let themselves down by the sound of it, but that pundit on the left. Has he only just got up? He sounds even less interested thanme I was until yesterday. Who's the guy on the left. He's much more animated. Sadly, no informed viewers here beside me to give me any answers.
I'm quite sorry I'll be missing the Argentina/Nigeria game. I'd have liked to see if the "hand of god" was part of the Argentina toolkit. Just seen him on the screen - I'd never realised how tiny he is. No wonder he needed a helping hand!
Will have to see about the England game. At least Capello thinks they can win. What else could he possibly say? The ITV presenter (no idea who he was, sorry) could surely have managed more than "let's at least try to talk positively about England".
So, off to socialise and swot up on football. Any help in my education very gratefully received.
Well, I did end up in front of the tail end of the S Korea/Greece game and have only just realised it's finished. I get the feeling I'm not truly committed to this yet today. S Korea won. Greece let themselves down by the sound of it, but that pundit on the left. Has he only just got up? He sounds even less interested than
I'm quite sorry I'll be missing the Argentina/Nigeria game. I'd have liked to see if the "hand of god" was part of the Argentina toolkit. Just seen him on the screen - I'd never realised how tiny he is. No wonder he needed a helping hand!
Will have to see about the England game. At least Capello thinks they can win. What else could he possibly say? The ITV presenter (no idea who he was, sorry) could surely have managed more than "let's at least try to talk positively about England".
So, off to socialise and swot up on football. Any help in my education very gratefully received.
I'm keeping a close-eye on haircuts and kit in true girl style to try and keep my interest up. South Korea had the better hair. Jess x
ReplyDeleteHi Mum! Couple of things...
ReplyDeleteYes, draws can be somewhat unsatisfactory, but in the group stage the teams that go through will do so on points first and foremost, so the one point you get from a draw can still be crucial. There isn't really any need to "resolve" the match to a win until you get to the knock-out stage. Incidentally, try telling the US that a draw was an unsatisfactory result - they might differ.
In the knock-out stages though, obviously you have to have a winner and a loser. The first resort after full-time is (in the case of this World Cup) to play extra time - another half hour of normal football to see if either side can take and hold onto the lead. Failing that, matches will go to penalties. A lot of people find this an unsatisfactory way to decide a game, as there's a large element of luck involved (mainly in whether the keeper guesses the right way to dive), but personally I find it quite exciting. I'm not keen on your idea of deciding games through stats for a number of reasons. Firstly, it corrupts the pure simplicity of the idea that the goal is king - there are an infinite number of ways to win, lose, or draw a game of football, and deciding purely on scoreline doesn't pre-judge some subjective idea of the "best" way to success. I think that's more interesting. Equally, rules guide behaviour, so if you tell someone "get a draw and it'll be decided on the number of shots you get on target", for instance, then all of a sudden you'll get players taking unlikely pot-shots from all over the field to bump up the stats. It would make for a far less nuanced game of football by effectively punishing patient build-up play, which can be some of the most interesting to watch. Whichever stats you focus on, they will have some prejudicial effect and change how the game is played, and I think that would be a shame.
Lastly, brief summary of the offside rule: when a pass is played forward, any player on the team in possession can be offside if there are less than two opposing players further up the pitch than him. This number usually includes the opposition keeper, but doesn't have to. There are exceptions - for instance, if the attacking player is judged not to be "interfering with play", or if he's in his own half - but that's the basic rule.
Keep it up, good hustle etc.
Hi, James
ReplyDeleteOK, I see your point on using stats to turn a draw into a conclusive result, but I still don't like the idea of a match being decided on penalties. Thanks for the explanation of offside. I'll have to see if I understand it enough to spot any.