I generally don't write into the F365 mailbox anymore, but with all the talk of Chelsea being the heroes of yesterday and Barcelona being "over-rated" I couldn't help myself. Plus I was bored. Here is what I wrote:
Remember that scene in 'A Time to Kill' when the defense attorney says "Now imagine she's white"? Well, now imagine that Chelsea played like Barcelona did. We wouldn't hear the end of it. It's all well and good giving out about Barcelona, but if English sides played as Barca played last night I can almost guarantee they would receive universal praise.
One more thing. To those who are calling Barcelona "over-rated". Who decides how highly to rate Barcelona? Do you? Is your opinion on a team the standard to which we must all bow? The worst thing about people calling Barcelona "over-rated" is that their opinion isn't even based on seeing things with their own eyes over a period of time and coming to their own conclusions. It's based on reading other people's opinion of a team, seeing one game, and then reacting.
My beef with the word "over-rated" is new, but I think it's valid, at least up to a point. The people I'm aiming my criticism at are those who only watch the Premier League and can't stand the thought of anything good in football being outside of it. These people read about Barcelona scoring goal after goal and sit there smugly thinking "Wait until they play a real team", i.e. an English team who play 11 defenders. Last night such an occasion took place, and Barcelona failed to score despite monopolising the ball. Of course it doesn't matter what went before the game. It doesn't even matter that Barcelona were the better team and should have won. These people see the game, judge that Barcelona didn't match up to the things previously written about them, and call them "over-rated". Instead of formulating their own opinion, they see themselves as the moderators of the opinions of others. "I'll tell you how highly you should rate a team, and if you go above that then you are wrong".
I've used the word in question in the past (quite possibly the recent past), but I'm weaning myself off of it. When it comes to football analysis -- heck, when it comes to the analysis of anything -- opinions should be formed proactively, not reactively (in the sense of reacting to other people's opinions). You watch, you take notes, you judge what is good and what is bad, and since we're unique persons, you decide what you like and don't like. To engage in this kind of analysis of last night's game leads me to only one conclusion. Barcelona weren't scintilating, but they were actually quite good. I've seen them a lot this season and I've never thought of them as unbeatable, and certain weaknesses were shown up last night, but I can't help but admire their stlye of play. Anyone who has watched Barcelona play all season wouldn't have been too upset with last night's performance, although Messi's anonymity was certainly cause for disappointment. Anyone who hasn't wacthed Barcelona this season? Well, they're probably the ones calling them "over-rated".
What did you think of Barcelona last night? You can of course disagree with me, but just not on the basis that they are an over-rated bunch of fancy dan foreigners who aren't as good as the hype they get.
Remember that scene in 'A Time to Kill' when the defense attorney says "Now imagine she's white"? Well, now imagine that Chelsea played like Barcelona did. We wouldn't hear the end of it. It's all well and good giving out about Barcelona, but if English sides played as Barca played last night I can almost guarantee they would receive universal praise.
One more thing. To those who are calling Barcelona "over-rated". Who decides how highly to rate Barcelona? Do you? Is your opinion on a team the standard to which we must all bow? The worst thing about people calling Barcelona "over-rated" is that their opinion isn't even based on seeing things with their own eyes over a period of time and coming to their own conclusions. It's based on reading other people's opinion of a team, seeing one game, and then reacting.
My beef with the word "over-rated" is new, but I think it's valid, at least up to a point. The people I'm aiming my criticism at are those who only watch the Premier League and can't stand the thought of anything good in football being outside of it. These people read about Barcelona scoring goal after goal and sit there smugly thinking "Wait until they play a real team", i.e. an English team who play 11 defenders. Last night such an occasion took place, and Barcelona failed to score despite monopolising the ball. Of course it doesn't matter what went before the game. It doesn't even matter that Barcelona were the better team and should have won. These people see the game, judge that Barcelona didn't match up to the things previously written about them, and call them "over-rated". Instead of formulating their own opinion, they see themselves as the moderators of the opinions of others. "I'll tell you how highly you should rate a team, and if you go above that then you are wrong".
I've used the word in question in the past (quite possibly the recent past), but I'm weaning myself off of it. When it comes to football analysis -- heck, when it comes to the analysis of anything -- opinions should be formed proactively, not reactively (in the sense of reacting to other people's opinions). You watch, you take notes, you judge what is good and what is bad, and since we're unique persons, you decide what you like and don't like. To engage in this kind of analysis of last night's game leads me to only one conclusion. Barcelona weren't scintilating, but they were actually quite good. I've seen them a lot this season and I've never thought of them as unbeatable, and certain weaknesses were shown up last night, but I can't help but admire their stlye of play. Anyone who has watched Barcelona play all season wouldn't have been too upset with last night's performance, although Messi's anonymity was certainly cause for disappointment. Anyone who hasn't wacthed Barcelona this season? Well, they're probably the ones calling them "over-rated".
What did you think of Barcelona last night? You can of course disagree with me, but just not on the basis that they are an over-rated bunch of fancy dan foreigners who aren't as good as the hype they get.
9 comments:
I saw the game last night and althought I haven't heard the reaction to it I would be astonished if people were praising Chelsea as much as you say. All Chelsea did was park 10 people behind the ball and said 'go ahead get past that'. Essentially all they did was differed the real game to Stamford bridge. As far as I'm concern nothing can be taken from last nights game. The second let when Chelsea have to attack and the Barca defense will be tested and the likes of Messi will have space will show us who's who and how wise Hiddinks tactics were last night.
Much of my criticism is aimed at the general public who comment on blogs and so forth, but some journalists are really quite praising of Chelsea. Look at the fleet street section of F365.
hopefully, HOPEFULLY we will get a better second leg.
Jesus I'm shocked at that fleet street shit. The idea that sitting ten men behind the ball and giving Barca all the possesion is a 'tactical masterclass' is daft. I'm gonna go on record and say there's no way, with Barca missing 2 central defenders and Chelsea forced to attack that it won't be a cracker at the Bridge. What did you think of the united game? O'Shea (not just the goal), fletcher, Anderson and Tevez were all great. I think it was a victory of enthusiasm, determination and tenacity over flair or ability.
Oh and another thing. Cech got man of the match? He made some good save I'll give you that but he still looks very dodgey. Two or three times he came for the ball and didnt get it. With Van der Saar looking a latent liability waiting to reach his calamitous potential and Valdes being Valdes it's probably true to suggest Almunia is the best keeper in the last 4 of the Champ League... where have all the great keepers gone???
It feels a bit weird saying it, but I think you're right about Almunia. He's certainly proved me wrong anyway, likening him as I did to a bum off the street who wandered into Arsenal's training ground and suddenly became their goalkeeper.
As for the United game, they were absolutely immense for the first 35 minutes, and after that it came in fits and starts. I pretty much agree with the four players you singled out, which makes F365's ratings utterly nonsensical in my opinion. Sometimes I wonder if I watched the same game as some people. Ronaldo - 7, Fletcher - 5? No way sir.
What about the plight of the Toon, Sir Declan of Bloggingshire? I'd love to see an in-depth analysis of that.
To use a Dunphy-ism, I'm not gonna spoof ya. When it comes to watching football I am an elitist, therefore my knowledge of the bottom half teams is limited at best. What I can do however is watch their game against Middlesborough (which should determine their fate) and make sweeping judgments based on it. One thing I know for sure based on their performances against Arsenal and United is that they are not utterly shambolic. Mixed in with the dross is some kind of threat. I honestly believe that if someone like Mourinho was managing this Newcastle team for the whole season they would be somewhere close to where everton are.
But Shearer wasn't their manager against Arsenal and United. Shearer is clueless. Different formations for every game. I think I agree with Barton's comments.
I did agree with Barton's appraisal of the English national team after the world cup, so I see no reason to doubt him now. I can't say I've seen Newcastle under Shearer, but it sounds like they were better off without him. This is pure conjecture, but it seems to me that the players dont care if Newcastle go down. The club has no identity, no soul, and relegation would almost be a good reason to get out of such a mess.
Post a Comment