Upsetting 1071

Fair enough.

But re valid opinions of football, I think there are other things to say. Firstly, I wasn't meaning to give the indication that I was blind, simply making the point that a blind man can have a valid opinion on the game.

Those who watch the game on Sky think they know more about it than someone who listens on the radio. I think this is to some extent flawed. After all, surely the people who watch on television rely on the footage they are shown, and the way the match is presented for their opinion? Rather like big brother, the camera decides what you do and don't see, just as the commentator decides what the listener does and doesn't know about. Tireless work off the ball, great runs into space that don't receive the pbutt they deserve, these things are all missed by the camera, and, in fact, may be more, not less, likely to get pointed out by radio commentators, who feel a greater compulsion to paint an overall picture.

So I don't necessarily buy the point that those that watch the game on tv have a greater idea of what's going on.

Then there are those at the game, who feel that they know more about what went on than those who actually watch it at home. But here, too, things are unclear. A man sat on a seat at a fixed point in the stadium can only see so much detail. They do, true, have a greater overall feel for the game, and can see all those things the camera and radio commentator might miss out, such as an unfashionable player's tireless efforts off the ball. However, would a guy on the wrong side of the stadium have seen Gudjer's handball? I think it's fair to buttume that, naked eye viewing angles being what they are, not everyone in the stadium sees everything in the game.

So, ultimately, no one has a definitively better notion of what went on in the game. It could justifiably be argued that those in the stadium are in the best position overall, but there's a lot more by way of grey areas in this argument than some would make out.

Plus which, only a minute percentage of fans can attend any one game, and the rest must watch at home or listen on the radio. For this great majority, their notion of the game is filtered, edited, produced and presented, in an incomplete fashion, by the media. Whether this be Sky's cameras, or the BBC's commentators, I think it isn't right to say that watching, rather than listening to, the game at home gives you a greater right to pbutt comment.

And judging by the huge number of emails that plop into this NG during games, I think it's fair to buttume that a lot of fans sit at home and digest their football in this way, and it wouldn't hurt them to realise that their buttured stance over the validity of their view of the game isn't as solid and unshakeable as might be thought.

Just because you watch a game presented and filtered for you by Sky, it doesn't mean you have a better idea of what went on than a person who listens to a game that has been presented and filtered for them by the BBC, on the radio.