Kevin De Bruyne 2016/17

[KDBestplayerintheworld]

"I only said, to agree with Daxx's point, that to watch the game at home on a screen with the comfort of replays, etc. is much better suited for objective in depth analysis. Whether or not you actually want to do that or like doing that, is something else."

Would you or Dax care to explain why Sky TV have launched a whole new way to watch televised games then?

It seems odd that Sky's expert analysists have frequently said they use the 'tactical cam' to gain their info. As it gives them a much better perspective of the game than the tradition footage.

I do wonder why Sky would spend their money making this facility firstly available to their pundits and then secondly to its viewers if it's not as good as the traditional camera view.

There is literally no sane arguement to suggest watching a game on TV or through highlights is better than seeing the entire game in front of you.

As you've been asked and you've ignored, why the hell would clubs spend money, waste time sending directors of football, scouts even managers to games all over the World if watching on TV was not only comparable but according to you better?

Surely that can't make sense to anyone?

I haven't said that traditional camera view is better than whatever Sky Sports is developping, as a matter of fact it sounds like a great initiative.

I don't know if you read all of it, but I did agree on Pablo's point where he said that traditional camera view doesn't give you the helicopter view that you have high up the stands. If Sky Sports now found a solution for this, I can only be very happy. It takes away the only counter argument to why watching in the stands would be better for match analysis. (Again I'm talking about analysis, not the joy of watching a game)

As for the scouts. A lot of the actual analysis is done through videos. And I'm sure it will be even more when this tactical cam thingy or whatever it's called is well known and used everywhere.
For them to go to the games is also to show explicit interest in the player, have a word with his agent, meet some club officials, in other words PR.

 

[Shaelumstash]

You are a strawman argument machine. You just can't help but throw up strawmen. It's quite amusing.

Mate, you just did a 400 word post explaining why your detailed analysis from watching the game back multiple times on youtube has given you an insight that nobody at the game could possibly have had.

I'm telling you it's bollocks.

You can't see team shape, movement off the ball, pass selection etc from youtube. You'd either have to be there, or have a birds eye view camera shot of the whole game, which I doubt is available on youtube.

 

[mancity1]

Like any player if his form is such that he should be replaced then that's what he should be.

I would like to think he can be a much more consistent performer in the future for us especially in the big games at home and away and abroad.

 

[Yarisken]

City just sucks for the moment.

I never wanted us to sign KDB. I felt he was overated and overpriced. I now feel he is a luxury player, but exactly the luxury player we will need. We aren't going for like for like, as who is exactly as good as Merlin and Yaya. If Pep comes, then the players will look at us as their 1st option. Pogba and his like will be very keen. If Pogba comes, plus a huge upgrade on our fullbacks plus Corman then KDB is then part of a more coherent team and will shine.

I said it before and i say it again. The only reason that KDB is at city is because Pep asked this as one of his conditions to come to city. Pep is going to create a new team and KDB will be part of this team. City has the money, the academy with young players, the vision to become top 5 in the world.
In five years we will be custom to see us play at least semi final of the champions league.

 

[schfc6]

This is a silly argument to be in really, as there are ni satisfactory answers. So I'll simply show whg that is.

1. Managers, Directors, and scouts who go watch players live, don't solely watch those players live, they also watch videos of them. So asking 'why do they go to games if video viewing was better' is silly because it presumes they don't watch videos. Which they all do.

It's like asking why do business people also use bar charts for their presentations if pie charts were better. The answer is simple, because more ways of viewing the same thing is often better than fewer ways of viewing it. This though says little about which one is better.

2. If the question was which one is better for analysis, watching a game once at the stadium or the option of repetitive views on a video. Repetitive views on a video is better. And the reason has little to do with your view, and more to do with your ability to manipulate. Your ability to manipulate a video, pause it, rewind it, analyze short sections over and over, beats any ability to see the whole field once. Thus, in that respect video is better. And it's not even close.

3. You can use the same reasoning in point #1 to understand tactical cam. It's just like video, an additional way to view what's going on. Generally, you are more able to view the formation, and group movement of the players, how compactly they play e.t.c But most of this is apparent on a regular broadcast.

That said, I understand the emotional connection humans have with traditional ways of doing things. This connection though, is not proof of superiority.

You are totally missing the point, and I've only got to point 2. There is simply a huge difference between watching a game live and live on the tele.
There is no arguement to be had.

There's nothing to say watching on the TV afterwards doesn't give something extra.

But to compare watching a game through a camera at one angle compared to live is frankly second best.

It has nothing to do with emotion or traditionalism. The television companies are trying their best to replicate the live experience as you see more and the game is more visible.

Tactical cam is nothing like a video. It's not edited, it's not someone else's perspective. It's as close to being at the game as possible. The analysts use it as it shows the whole pitch, it doesn't just concentrate on the period of play.

I'm sorry, but this arguement is ridiculous, no doubt you'll be watching on the TV tonight.

So, I assume you'll be able to do the following,

See the movement players are making whilst Joe takes his run up for goal kicks? Nope. The camera will be panned straight on Joes dandruff free hair. The camera will not show anyone's efforts to find space. The camera will follow Joes run and ball strike. It will then follow the ball up field. The camera will fail to show the line the defence are holding, the movement they are offering, the positions they are taking. The camera will be concentrated on the man in possession and the bubble round him. The camera will follow the ball until posession is lost. Say a throw in, the camera will pan In on the thrower, making it impossible to see what players are doing out of shot. There won't be a reply to show what players out of shot were doing, no matter how many times you watch it, no matter how many times you re watch the game. Things out of shot will never be seen.

Do you now see the floor in your logic? The camera only shows aspects of the game. It can not possibly allow you the opportunity to digest the whole game. It is impossible, that's not an opinion, it's a fact.

The best example I can think of, Barcelona vs Chelsea, the camera is fixated on the Chelsea box, all the play is in 1 third of the field. Surely Barcelona must score. Suddenly Chelsea lump it forwards, there's no danger, oh hang on. There's Torres, no one could see him, he wasn't on screen, but yet he wins the game and we're left hearing Garry Chuckle orgasm. Now to this day, no one can answer weather Torres sprinted there, was he sat down on the half way? Was he chatting to the coach. No one knows, because it wasn't on camera. Do you know who does know how he got so free? That's right, those in the ground.


This is totally ridiculous. You can watch a game 100 times on TV, you'll still never see the shadow play, the positions ALL the players are taking up. You'll never see half the off ball positions.

This is Sky's footage of the Torres goal.

At no point in Barcelona's attack can you see Torres and at no point do they show how he got in such as position. Google as many views as you like, they will all be the same.

 

[Shaelumstash]

You are totally missing the point, and I've only got to point 2. There is simply a huge difference between watching a game live and live on the tele.
There is no arguement to be had.

There's nothing to say watching on the TV afterwards doesn't give something extra.

But to compare watching a game through a camera at one angle compared to live is frankly second best.

It has nothing to do with emotion or traditionalism. The television companies are trying their best to replicate the live experience as you see more and the game is more visible.

Tactical cam is nothing like a video. It's not edited, it's not someone else's perspective. It's as close to being at the game as possible. The analysts use it as it shows the whole pitch, it doesn't just concentrate on the period of play.

I'm sorry, but this arguement is ridiculous, no doubt you'll be watching on the TV tonight.

So, I assume you'll be able to do the following,

See the movement players are making whilst Joe takes his run up for goal kicks? Nope. The camera will be panned straight on Joes dandruff free hair. The camera will not show anyone's efforts to find space. The camera will follow Joes run and ball strike. It will then follow the ball up field. The camera will fail to show the line the defence are holding, the movement they are offering, the positions they are taking. The camera will be concentrated on the man in possession and the bubble round him. The camera will follow the ball until posession is lost. Say a throw in, the camera will pan In on the thrower, making it impossible to see what players are doing out of shot. There won't be a reply to show what players out of shot were doing, no matter how many times you watch it, no matter how many times you re watch the game. Things out of shot will never be seen.

Do you now see the floor in your logic? The camera only shows aspects of the game. It can not possibly allow you the opportunity to digest the whole game. It is impossible, that's not an opinion, it's a fact.

The best example I can think of, Barcelona vs Chelsea, the camera is fixated on the Chelsea box, all the play is in 1 third of the field. Surely Barcelona must score. Suddenly Chelsea lump it forwards, there's no danger, oh hang on. There's Torres, no one could see him, he wasn't on screen, but yet he wins the game and we're left hearing Garry Chuckle orgasm. Now to this day, no one can answer weather Torres sprinted there, was he sat down on the half way? Was he chatting to the coach. No one knows, because it wasn't on camera. Do you know who does know how he got so free? That's right, those in the ground.


This is totally ridiculous. You can watch a game 100 times on TV, you'll still never see the shadow play, the positions ALL the players are taking up. You'll never see half the off ball positions.

This is Sky's footage of the Torres goal.

At no point in Barcelona's attack can you see Torres and at no point do they show how he got in such as position. Google as many views as you like, they will all be the same.

The end.

 

[Dax777]

@schfc6

This was your question:

As you've been asked and you've ignored, why the hell would clubs spend money, waste time sending directors of football, scouts even managers to games all over the World if watching on TV was not only comparable but according to you better?

My answer: More ways of viewing the same thing is better than fewer ways. So just because organization personel go to games, is not proof its better. It just proofs more ways of viewing is better than fewer ways. Because we know they almost always watch videos too.

I answered your direct question by explaining why its not supporting proof that stadium viewing is better for analysis.

 

[Dax777]

Mate, you just did a 400 word post explaining why your detailed analysis from watching the game back multiple times on youtube has given you an insight that nobody at the game could possibly have had.

I'm telling you it's bollocks.

You can't see team shape, movement off the ball, pass selection etc from youtube. You'd either have to be there, or have a birds eye view camera shot of the whole game, which I doubt is available on youtube.

Again, understand the limits of an argument. It doesn't matter what I can or cannot see. Which isn't very much to start with, but my argument is about something much more simple.

I have a better impression of a game than any average person who watched a game at a stadium 3 months ago, if I have just viewed a video of that very game 2ice in the last day or 2 and specifically focusing on a particular time period at issue:

I.E. the First 25 minutes of a certain game.

Unless you have watched a video of the game recently (baring the very rare possibility you are one of the very few humans alive with a photographic memory), its impossible for you to have a better knowledge, view, remembrance, or memory of what happened than I do.

This is my point. I have a fuller much more detailed picture, knowledge and account of what happened than any average person who was at the game months ago.

Of that, I have no doubt. And most people wouldn't either.

There is a reason why video evidence is superior to eye witness account. The former can be reviewed, the latter is highly suggestible, and often inaccurate.

 

[schfc6]

@schfc6

This was your question:



My answer: More ways of viewing the same thing is better than fewer ways. So just because organization personel go to games, is not proof its better. It just proofs more ways of viewing is better than fewer ways. Because we know they almost always watch videos too.

I answered your direct question by explaining why its not supporting proof that stadium viewing is better for analysis.

Yes, as I've highlighted above. A video doesn't show the whole game. Never has. The basis of this ludicrous arguement, Silva's attributes are more evident at a game than on video. Much of his work is off the ball.

As the Torres video highlights, there is no way when watching on TV or a video that you can see everything. Can see everything at the game, and then use videos and highlights to re watch specific actions.

 

[Shaelumstash]

Again, understand the limits of an argument. It doesn't matter what I can or cannot see. Which isn't very much to start with, but my argument is about something much more simple.

I have a better impression of a game than any average person who watched a game at a stadium 3 months ago, if I have just viewed a video of that very game 2ice in the last day or 2 and specifically focusing on a particular time period at issue:

I.E. the First 25 minutes of a certain game.

Unless you have watched a video of the game recently (baring the very rare possibility you are one of the very few humans alive with a photographic memory), its impossible for you to have a better knowledge, view, remembrance, or memory of what happened than I do.

This is my point. I have a fuller much more detailed picture, knowledge and account of what happened than any average person who was at the game months ago.

Of that, I have no doubt. And most people wouldn't either.

There is a reason why video evidence is superior to eye witness account. The former can be reviewed, the latter is highly suggestible, and often inaccurate.

Nope. Completely flawed argument.

I saw everything at the game, all of the off the ball movement. No matter how many times you watch your youtube clip, no matter how recently or fresh in your memory it is, you will never be able to see that movement. It's simply not there.

Your analysis is the equivalent of someone robbing a bank vault. Me seeing the accomplices first hand and watching their every move. You are watching a CCTV footage of the inside of the bank, but unfortunately the robbers aren't on that footage. They are downstairs in the vault where I am. There's no cameras.

You can watch the CCTV footage of the upstairs of the bank on a loop for the rest of your life if you want, but you won't ever have the insight I have because I saw the whole thing take place.

It's an absurd argument you are trying to have, and it's in everyone's best interests that you stop now because you're becoming silly and "emotional" about it ;-)