In case any of you have missed the input of the various pundits and commentators during ITV and BBC coverage of the World Cup, I though it would be a good idea just to clarify a few points.
The Pitch
First, it is important to realise that the pitch is not the simple thing it appears to be. No, there are invisible sections and facets that only commentators, pundits and analysts are able to see, and draw our attention to. While most of you might suppose that a pitch consists of two goals, two penalty areas, a centre circle, all conforming to dimensions as dictated by football's governing bodies, there are some further aspects to be aware of, as follows:
Gullies, Channels and Pockets
The Hole
In Between the Lines
In and Around the Box
The Final Third
These phenomena are touted as though they are integral components of any match, although most objective observers would rightly accuse the proponents of these terms to be tossers. Gullies [a real favourite term for Andy Townsend] are of course features created by running water, and so if there were ever a true gully on a football pitch, then the match would not be played until the groundsman had rectified the problem.
Channels is so fucking vague and nonsensical that I defy anyone to actually locate the cunts. This is sadly a term that is gaining momentum in the punditry world, as twats seek to portray themselves as knowledgeable and competent. Ha!
Pockets are also apparently in abundance on a pitch. Now, I do know that in another environment where play is conducted on a green rectangular surface, pockets do indeed feature - but that's fucking snooker and not football! At least with snooker, we all know where the things are. Apparently these illusive features are not easy to see or locate - unless you're a pundit or commentator.
The Hole is not (unfortunately) a place to bury the twats who refer to it every fucking few minutes, but a mystical place that exists somewhere behind a striker. This is similar to the position of discarded earth when a dog is digging a fucking hole - 'somewhere behind it'.
In Between the Lines is a favoured cliche for this world cup. It's a place where everything should happen, apparently. Any criticism of a player or a team will commonly involve admonishment for not directing efforts "in between the lines", unless of course there is previous mention of holes, pockets and gullies.
The most persistent advocate of In and Around the Box is the maestro himself, Andy Townsend, who will talk all day long and utter shite at anyone prepared to listen. In trying to sound so reasonable, authoritative and educated, he comes across as one big cliche. I still struggle to understand the fine distinction between this part of the football pitch, and the Final Third, as the "in and around the box" is surely contained therein? Perhaps Andy Townsend's very best moment came during the match between England and Uruguay, as Sturridge was brought down by Godin, and in watching the replay he came out with the fantastic statement: "He's got his hand in and around Sturridge's throat" - such classic bollocks from AT!
And so, to the Final Third, the most overused part of the cunting pitch, an area that's neither marked out, fixed in size, useful as any form of reference or a basis for judgement of a team's performance. Every fucker in the game has jumped on the band-wagon, and adoption of this drivel is pretty much universal among any twat with a microphone, earpiece, contract to talk shit about football, or Adrian Chiles, who always deserves a category of his own, as he is a sofa-ridden disaster.
Tactics
Away from the pitch itself, we have been pestered for ages by information that is as fucked as the brains that impart the crap. Commonly used bollocks (so it follows that each of the following is "a bollock") include:
What a fucking player has got In His Locker
Teams Parking the Bus
Formations that include 4-1-2-2-1, 5-1-1-1-1-1, 4-2-1-2-1 and any other randomly twattish shite
I have no desire to know what any footballer has In His Locker, but Martin Keown seems to know rather too much about the contents in just about every player's locker. As for any other attributes that can have a bearing on a football match, I'll let you decide what may fall into this category. I hear from time to time from commentators that certain players like to Open Their Legs. Well, I'll look the other way, thanks. Aside from the silly combinations of numbers that outline alleged formations and tactics, which often have little to do with what the players are actually doing in a game, I get frustrated with the completely pathetic use of Parking the Bus by just about every cunt linked to commenting on a match. Most footballers are shit drivers, for a start, and most couldn't hit a fucking bus with a football, so a 24ft x 8ft goal is rather more beyond them.
Outcomes
There is a weird and incessant drive to waffle on about The Positives, whether after a game and explaining why someone or other will "take them" [to try and deflect attention from the fact that the game was lost] or to try and add credence to there being any sort of benefit from having given a shite performance. Collecting 'positives' is not any substitute for playing well, winning, trying hard, or living up to expectations. I suggest that mentioning the collecting of any positives is only reasonable if the result itself has been positive. That way, the pastime of collecting these little gems is not doled out as a fucking excuse for losing. This applies to other bollocks, such as "tiredness", "a long season", "poor conditions", and loads of other twaddle.
Dissent
There was once a time when 'Dissent' from any player warranted a yellow card from a referee. In football, unlike Rubgy, the referee is not respected at all. Any decision is simply an opportunity for a footballer to moan, dispute, gesticulate and harass the referee. Whereas a decision by a rugby referee is not disputed or challenged, in the world of football, players believe they have the right to behave like cunts. Even when a flock of fuckers is not surrounding the referee to complain and appeal, individual players are now routinely seen Finger Wagging. This is a complete fucking insult, and an insidious development in undermining all and any authority that those charged with officiating may cling on to. The act of wagging a finger is dissent, even if the verbal equivalent is a snide: "No, no, no, you got that wrong, you daft cunt - I'm right and you made a mistake". The arrogance of players who see nothing wrong in cheating, and appealing for every little thing to go their way is amazing. Every finger-wag is dissent, and should get a yellow card. None of the pundits or commentators ever suggests that a player wagging a finger is in any way guilty of disagreeing with the referee.
The other favourite is for a player to mime holding, or putting his hands around a ball in front of him. This "I Got The Ball" bollocks is so often acted out when the player concerned most clearly did not get the ball, or if he did, then it was after travelling through his opponents body parts at 30mph without due care and attention. Making out that he got the ball is in effect dissent. All too often, the commentators and pundits give opinions that are contrary to what's actually just fucking happened.
...
No comments:
Post a Comment