Doherty- 7. Sounded a little rusty

I heard those squeaks on the internet, as well.

I was agreeing with some of what you were saying then I saw the words "edwards, 10, midfield and bossed" in the same sentance

Edwards did ok but lets not get carried away Larry. Compared to his usual efforts then a 10 is right in relativity though.

Griffiths deserved more than 6. Missed a few half chances but only by a whisker on more than one occasion

larry, i'm not sure that DJ or I should be allowed to comment on this thread. it is clearly impossible for fans at the game to properly appreciate the nuances and different perspectives that the commentary and molmix stream gives the fans. we are restricted to just our view of the field and miss all of the expertise that a tom ross or franksy can bring to a game.

if the commentary suggested edwards was a 10 then who are we to argue? scores very much appreciated as i was unable to concentrate on the radio and reading the text comments during this match i will look forward to more player ratings in future games - keep up the good work!

A valuable insight, Larry.

I spent the afternoon watching the BBC page, which seemed to update every 4 or 5 minutes. The statistics changed occasionally too. It was fantastic. Just like being there. In Florida.

I would say this is highly accurate

People at the game get side-tracked by the roller coaster emotions of the crowd, which shows in the ratings without the person being aware - a sort of group think brainwashing that clouds their judgement.

They won't see this. It would be like trying to argue with a cult leader's 16 year old wife

I eagerly await Herbie's ratings as he too is glued to the radio. Can I post ratings, even tho' I was watching the Arsenal match but had the BBC text on my laptop?

fire away WITSS everyone else has

gb

Maybe you could ask someone to tape the commentary for you so you can find out what really happened when you get home?

Looking back over the 25 years I watched Wolves though, it's annoying how so many people who didn't need to watch Wolves could call it just as well as the fans who were going every week. Guy at work used to call me a mug for wasting my money and thinking we were going up every season....he ended up right, it took 19 years and me spending about £30k before we did it....but how many times did we get it wrong?

It does really grate on you when you get home after an away game and some guy in the pub says that they listened to/watched the game on radio/TV and we were $$$$, need 5 players, haven't got a left back, can't pass........annoying, but it doesn't make them wrong.

There's not been a single season in my lifetime where the fans who watch live have got one over the bookies, the people who've watched on TV or just read the newspaper. Maybe getting us in summer 2008 at 13/1 and us going up as Champs was the only one?

In Wolves' case, it's more often been the opposite, in that the paying fans have thought the team was far better than it actually was, only to end up disappointed in May. It's not hard to convince yourself that the 3000 that go every week actually know more and can make a difference. They can't make any difference, and they often don't know more.

I've come out of games and met other mates who've watched the same thing as me and got a totally different opinion of what they saw.
Then again, I've met people who've watched the same game on the TV, listened to the commentary, heard the pundits....and their opinion has been more realistic than my own.

Sadly, spending money and putting long travelling hours into watching Wolves live doesn't make your opinion any more valid, or make an armchair supporter's opinion any less valid...you're all watching the same thing. It's like saying Tom Cruise is a better actor if you watch him live, rather than watching a movie. Makes no difference and is irrelevant to the performance....whether you spend extra money or not doing so is a personal choice.

There are not many Wolves fans that can go to every game and see something that a bloke who watched on the TV hasn't already seen.
Often it takes someone whose nose isn't pressed against the page, or weighed down by peer pressure to tell it like it is.


I can understand that now; following Wolves too closely can make you blind.

comment by Larry (U18847)
posted 5 minutes ago
gb

Maybe you could ask someone to tape the commentary for you so you can find out what really happened when you get home?

Looking back over the 25 years I watched Wolves though, it's annoying how so many people who didn't need to watch Wolves could call it just as well as the fans who were going every week. Guy at work used to call me a mug for wasting my money and thinking we were going up every season....he ended up right, it took 19 years and me spending about £30k before we did it....but how many times did we get it wrong?

It does really grate on you when you get home after an away game and some guy in the pub says that they listened to/watched the game on radio/TV and we were $$$$, need 5 players, haven't got a left back, can't pass........annoying, but it doesn't make them wrong.

There's not been a single season in my lifetime where the fans who watch live have got one over the bookies, the people who've watched on TV or just read the newspaper. Maybe getting us in summer 2008 at 13/1 and us going up as Champs was the only one?

In Wolves' case, it's more often been the opposite, in that the paying fans have thought the team was far better than it actually was, only to end up disappointed in May. It's not hard to convince yourself that the 3000 that go every week actually know more and can make a difference. They can't make any difference, and they often don't know more.

I've come out of games and met other mates who've watched the same thing as me and got a totally different opinion of what they saw.
Then again, I've met people who've watched the same game on the TV, listened to the commentary, heard the pundits....and their opinion has been more realistic than my own.

Sadly, spending money and putting long travelling hours into watching Wolves live doesn't make your opinion any more valid, or make an armchair supporter's opinion any less valid...you're all watching the same thing. It's like saying Tom Cruise is a better actor if you watch him live, rather than watching a movie. Makes no difference and is irrelevant to the performance....whether you spend extra money or not doing so is a personal choice.

There are not many Wolves fans that can go to every game and see something that a bloke who watched on the TV hasn't already seen.
Often it takes someone whose nose isn't pressed against the page, or weighed down by peer pressure to tell it like it is.


I can understand that now; following Wolves too closely can make you blind.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Been telling them for years

Here is another perspective - not as accurate, but better than nothing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDInXSFVleE&feature=c4-overview&list=UUQ7Lqg5Czh5djGK6iOG53KQ

larry,

i agree that watching games in no way makes anyone more able to predict the fortunes of a club long term. i would only go to old trafford if i was caught short and needed to find somewhere for a quick dump, but i have pretty accuratley predicted their top 2 finish every year for the last dog knows how many, just as i have been unerringly accurate with my forecast of arsenal finishing between second and fourth place most of those seasons.

my only problem is when people criticise actual player performances or the team's effort having not watched a game. it is a little galling to hear someone trot out the usual 'stearman is a liability who always makes mistakes' cliche, when you know they are basing that wisdom on watching him play at RB in the premier league five years ago.

i do think there is a huge difference between what some fans who go to games want from the club, compared to those whose contact with wolves is through reading the report on a monday before chatting about it with work colleagues. for the fan who can't get to the game, the result is 99% important and so long as they can bask in the glory of a winning season they are largely happy. for the 'mugs' who get to go every other week, the result is still number one priority, but things like atmosphere, entertainment, the ground, the sense of belonging all make a difference. i have said before, and i absolutely mean it, i would rather watch wolves in the champ for ten years playing good attacking and fun football, than spend one year as a stoke fan watching pulis' brand of dross.

I would rather hear us playing good attacking football as well.

you have the benefit that a lot of radio commentators, along with those annoying planks on sky sports 1 like thompson, make the game sound waaaay more exciting than it actually is when you have to sit in the freezing cold watching it live.

Agree with that GB. My enjoyment from football and following Wolves is watching the games live and all that comes with that. No matter how good a game is on tv I don't get as absorbed into it as much as if I am there. In fact I get more involved watching a boring game live than I do by watching a decent game on tv. I sometimes wonder how much my love of football would continue once I stopped going to the games. I am not criticising those that don't or cant go, but for me its being there that makes it. The drinks before/after, the buzz of the crowd, the sharing all that's going on with friends, and to me you do get a much better perspective of a game than you could ever get from tv in my opinion.

When I do get chance to attend the odd game now, such as Bradford away a few weeks ago, I usually get so pi55ed before the game that I can't remember the first half.

comment by gbwolf (U17280)
posted 13 minutes ago


you have the benefit that a lot of radio commentators, along with those annoying planks on sky sports 1 like thompson, make the game sound waaaay more exciting than it actually is when you have to sit in the freezing cold watching it live.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plus we save lots of money to spend on Christmas presents. The commentators have a more accurate opinion than the fans because they wear huge headphones

larry,

i have had one or two of those games in the past. usually the xmas season ones if i am not driving and there's snow on the ground. need a hip flask of whisky to get through the pre match waiting and there's nothing quite like falling asleep with a belly full of booze and xmas pudding while the game is on...jay bothroyd used to do it every season

"usually the xmas season ones......"

Peterborough and Ipswich last year? No amount of drink would have anesthetised you enough for what was to come...

thank dog for the large xmas jumper and the bag of heroin auntie mabel had brought me last year.

comment by DJ, blogging with embellishments (U17289)
posted 15 minutes ago

"............... I am not criticising those that don't or cant go, but for me its being there that makes it............."

-------------------------------

Really DJ !!!!!!! Maybe next time I post an opinion about players, the manager, or the game in general, you'll remember that comment.

I'm one of those you refer to. However, when I did live in the UK I went to numerous home games and some when Wolves were in London. Work commitments prevented me from going to more games.

I think that entitles you to having an opinion about all future games you're unable to witness, and comment on player performances you don't see as well.

Well, it's true that you don't need to go to the North Pole to know that it's bloody cold, in the same way that you don't need to watch Siggy to know he is a useless waste of a squad place.