Not Hard to see progress for the forseeable future

[Platypuss]

How would you feel about a blind ref?

They seem to keep getting selected regardless.

[Southbank Old Boy]

But, conversely, had we been trying to sign those four players we replaced, we'd be paying more than for the four we did bring in to replace them. Of course the likes of Shorey and Kitson et al were cheaper when we bought them, it was years ago for a start.

Not sure how we could have signed them as we were selling them....

The point being that in probably 3 of the 4 cases we made a huge profit on a player and replaced them with some of equal ability for less money.

Not sure what is wrong with that !

Have we replaced them with equal ability?

You think Hunt is a good a player as Kitson?
Armstrong as good as Shorey?
Cisse as good as Sidwell?
Duberry as good as Sonko?

The only one close for me is Duberry being as good as the Sonko that left, he's better. As good as the Sonko we saw before his injury? No way

[Royal With Cheese]

If you're watching highlights then your opinion on a specific incident is valid as you've actually seen it but your opinion on someone's performance over 90 minutessimply isn't, compared to someone who's seen the whole game, as you're only seeing a fraction of the game and what you see is dependent on the edit.

So, by that reconing, the opinion of anyone who has seen a game on Sky - a full 90 minutes with the benifit of not only being able to pause the action when you want to go and have a piss but multi incident and slow motion replays is actually more valid that someone who has been to a game purely because of the amount of information available to them?

I have some sympathy with your highlights arguement as it, obviously, only shows the major incidents in a game.

[readingbedding]

I have no opinion on Pele or Maradona because I never saw him play, live, as is performed.

Watching football on TV is a poor second, but at least it gives you the gist of what is happening.
Listening to a football commentary on Radio is something else altogether.

[Sun Tzu]

Have we replaced them with equal ability?

You think Hunt is a good a player as Kitson?
Armstrong as good as Shorey?
Cisse as good as Sidwell?
Duberry as good as Sonko?

The only one close for me is Duberry being as good as the Sonko that left, he's better. As good as the Sonko we saw before his injury? No way

Is Bikey or Duberry the repalcement for Sonko ? Bikey is certainly a better player

Armstrong or Shorey ? Defensively I think Armstrong is better. He doesn't add as much to the attack as Shorey but since Shorey left Hunt has taken on the role of supplier from the left.

Hunt or Kitson ? Very different players. Our attack as a whole has looked better this season than last - but then it should do ! Hunt does not have the touch that Kitson had but works harder and probably fits the team better.

Cisse and Sidwell ? Well i did say 3 out of 4 !!!

None are clear cut from the 3, but I don't think it is outrageous to say that the 3 incoming players are performing just as well as the 3 who left would have done.

[Schards#2]

If you're watching highlights then your opinion on a specific incident is valid as you've actually seen it but your opinion on someone's performance over 90 minutessimply isn't, compared to someone who's seen the whole game, as you're only seeing a fraction of the game and what you see is dependent on the edit.

So, by that reconing, the opinion of anyone who has seen a game on Sky - a full 90 minutes with the benifit of not only being able to pause the action when you want to go and have a piss but multi incident and slow motion replays is actually more valid that someone who has been to a game purely because of the amount of information available to them?

I have some sympathy with your highlights arguement as it, obviously, only shows the major incidents in a game.

If you see the whole game on sky then yes, that's as good as seeing the game live and, arguably, better as you have the benefit of replays.

I doubt that such access has been available for most reading games this season yet people still give their opinions. Ironically some of those who haven't actually seen the games tend to be the most outspoken.

[rabidbee]

Personally, I completely disregard the opinions of someone commenting on a specific game that they haven't seen as they are parroting the opinions of someone else and are, therefore, pretty much worthless.

This spells the death of my career.

[Royal Lady]

Personally, I completely disregard the opinions of someone commenting on a specific game that they haven't seen as they are parroting the opinions of someone else and are, therefore, pretty much worthless.

This spells the death of my career.

History and a football match aren't quite the same thing! I'd worry more about being ginger with a beard.

[rabidbee]

M'eh. It's forming conclusions based upon the analysis of a range of different sources, of which eye-witness accounts are the most important. If I can argue about the trial of Charles I, without having been there, why not QPR on Saturday?

[Archie's penalty]

M'eh. It's forming conclusions based upon the analysis of a range of different sources, of which eye-witness accounts are the most important. If I can argue about the trial of Charles I, without having been there, why not QPR on Saturday?

An excellent and well made point (speaking as a fellow historian).

[readingbedding]

M'eh. It's forming conclusions based upon the analysis of a range of different sources, of which eye-witness accounts are the most important. If I can argue about the trial of Charles I, without having been there, why not QPR on Saturday?

If I was at the event, I would trust my account over anyone else's.
If I wasn't, I would have to trust someone else's interpretation of the fact, preferably if they were there.

Easy.

[Schards#2]

M'eh. It's forming conclusions based upon the analysis of a range of different sources, of which eye-witness accounts are the most important. If I can argue about the trial of Charles I, without having been there, why not QPR on Saturday?

You can, but your opinions won't carry the weight of an eye witness, however, as you'll struggle to find an eye witness to the trial of Charles 1, you're at no disadvantage to anyone else.

You can also discuss undisputed facts.

[Archie's penalty]

But an eyewitness will be tainted by their knowledge of the event and their historical position.

A historian has the benefit of hindsight and breadth of sources.

[Ian Royal]

Well I'm not convinced by that entirely.

There are plenty of people on here and elsewhere who may have seen things but their analysis of what actually happened is pretty flawed and there are others who haven't seen things first hand yet seem to be able to make extremely pertinent comments about them. It's interesting that there are plenty of US based fans whose comments are almost always on the mark ....

Which in hindsight and the bigger picture yes they are right, it's always easy to form the opinion of 'we are 2nd, coppell great job etc' when you don't fork out money every week watching it. Result comes in, still in the top 2, want to be financially well off for years etc etc As you say it is all spot on in the much bigger picture, but if yo've actually gone to the game,might be miles away seen them get thumped then it's more understandable for the occasional out of proportion rant.

From my own personal opinion I'd sooner read an opinion from someone at the matches, even if it's an opinion I might not agree with or is a bit OTT than someone's that has seen precisely nothing of 98% of the games.

I suppose anyone who wants to comment on a game they haven't seen is entitled to an opinion but it's not their opinion, it's 100% based on the opinions of someone else.

Personally, I completely disregard the opinions of someone commenting on a specific game that they haven't seen as they are parroting the opinions of someone else and are, therefore, pretty much worthless.

Therin lies your problem. It is not just parroting someone else's opinion. It is formulating your own opinion out of the available evidence which is provided to you, taking into account that it is coloured by others opinions.

Or do you think Historians just parrot contemporary sources opinions?

[Platypuss]

But an eyewitness will be tainted by their knowledge of the event and their historical position.

A historian has the benefit of hindsight and breadth of sources.

Armchair manager-wise, if you're looking at where a team's weaknesses and strengths lie and what you might need to do to improve on overall performance in the next game, I'm not sure hindsight is all that useful!

[readingbedding]

Let's all gouge our eyes out!

Seeing stuff and all that is over-rated.

[Archie's penalty]

But an eyewitness will be tainted by their knowledge of the event and their historical position.

A historian has the benefit of hindsight and breadth of sources.

Armchair manger-wise, if you're looking at where a team's weaknesses and strengths lie and what you might need to do to improve on overall performance in the next game, I'm not sure hindsight is all that useful!

True.

But the breadth of sources argument still stands.

[Royal With Cheese]

If you see the whole game on sky then yes, that's as good as seeing the game live and, arguably, better as you have the benefit of replays.

I doubt that such access has been available for most reading games this season yet people still give their opinions. Ironically some of those who haven't actually seen the games tend to be the most outspoken.

I know since my (completely self inflicted) exile I have become de-radicalised (as best way as I can put it) from my season ticket, Berkshire living days. That's partially due to the recent sucess of the club and the continued management structure in place.

[Ian Royal]

Bah beaten by the real historians.

The point is not that history and a football match is different, but that the analytical approach to history, which is required by not being able to actually be there allows one to form a reasonable opinion of a match, based on secondary evidence like reviews, internet discussion and live commentary.

Being at a game doesn't make you a good analyst, it gives you A extremely good source. Listening to the commentary and reading reviews doesn't make you a bad analyst, it gives you several passable sources. Reading a review of the game in a paper doesn't make you a bad analyst, it provides you with A possibly passable source.

In the end the analysis relies on the abilities of the person making it, and whether they have taken into account the reliability of their source(s)

[Schards#2]

Bah beaten by the real historians.

The point is not that history and a football match is different, but that the analytical approach to history, which is required by not being able to actually be there allows one to form a reasonable opinion of a match, based on secondary evidence like reviews, internet discussion and live commentary.

Being at a game doesn't make you a good analyst, it gives you A extremely good source. Listening to the commentary and reading reviews doesn't make you a bad analyst, it gives you several passable sources. Reading a review of the game in a paper doesn't make you a bad analyst, it provides you with A possibly passable source.

In the end the analysis relies on the abilities of the person making it, and whether they have taken into account the reliability of their source(s)

Don't analysts tend to deal in facts whereas we are talking here about opinions.

If you are going to analyise what actually happened then, no you don't necessarily have to be there but if you are going to voice an opinion on whether xxxx played well or the defence sat too deep or someone didn't put the work in off the ball, then you certainly do have to be there otherwise the opinions you are giving are those of the commentator/journalist/other fan rather than your own.