The English Football Thread

[14232949]

Originally Posted by Goofle11

Maybe second?

I do watch around five games a week though.

yeah, but watching and understanding aren't one in the same.
I've played the game for teams from the age of 10, still play amateur football.
I'm also a qualified youth football referee (easy cash in hand stuff, £30 for an hour) so I wouldn't base ones knowledge on a subject by how much time they've sat and watched the highest level of it on TV.

I wouldn't say I understood how to produce a successful TV show by just watching Eastenders.

[Goofle]

Originally Posted by Merrycaaant

yeah, but watching and understanding aren't one in the same.

This works for you too.

I feel that I have a very good understanding of football, considering myself a student of the game in some sense. I get things wrong of course, and there are obviously more clued up people on the game, but I don't just watch football matches to pass the time.

[Trollheart]

Originally Posted by Goofle11

This works for you too.

I feel that I have a very good understanding of football, considering myself a student of the game in some sense. I get things wrong of course, and there are obviously more clued up people on the game, but I don't just watch football matches to pass the time.

Yeah but in fairness MC said he has played in and reffed the game for years, so he has a much better "grass-roots" knowledge of it. I mean, I could watch someone make a bad tackle, say "Ouch!" but not have a clue how it actually feels. Merry on the other hand has no doubt experienced those tackles and so I would say overall has a far deeper knowledge of the game than you or I. In this case, he's not just watching, he's participating, which therefore gives him a much better understanding of the game.

To use his own analogy: watching Eastenders on the tv or taking part in it, whether it's acting, producing, directing, writing, making sets --- who is the more involved and thereby the more knowledgeable about the subject?