Why?

I was at work last night and didnt even listen to it on radio...got the last 10mins on one of the girls mobiles and she kept telling me the score.....so i dont comment on match as i didnt go and the match thread is bolloxs as well...how can you get a reflection of the game without seeing it.

No, I think you'll find yours are.

You can not have an opinion on something you didn't see.

You can get a decent idea what is going on via commentary IF!!!!! the commentary is factual and unbiased. However there of course is no substitue for being there.
But to dismiss someones thoughts because they could only listen is ridiculous.

tbf to Briscoe it was a horrible bounce. It was his all the way and it bounced right over his head and into Roberts' arms.

Agreed it bounced to perfection from a Wigan POV, still think it should have being dealt with prior to the bounce though.

Yeah it was really poorly defended by everyone involved. However the try in the 2nd half were the ball was kicked to the wing and then kicked back inside left me fuming, not one single Hull player reacted to either kick. By the time Wigan collected the ball to score it appeared to me that almost every single Wigan player was closer to our tryline than any of ours. In fact we just stood and watched it was pathetic.

Correct it should have.

I never made any analogies.




pmarrow said judging a team's performance based on a listening to a commentary on it is like judging a TV programme you haven't seen. That is a pathetic analogy.

Not really....

Id say he wasnt that far off.

Disagree mate.

If you haven't watched a TV programme you have no idea what happened.

If you have listened to a match commentary, whilst clearly you cannot form as clear an opinion as if you have actually seen the game, you have a good idea of how the team and individuals performed. Particularly if the commentary is unbiased as the Five Live was last night.

Maybe he isn't, but then it is quite possible in some instances to judge a TV programme without seeing it. For example, if ITV2 were showing a documentary about Anne Widecombe's fanny, you'd know without seeing it that it was horrible and messy. Rather like Hull's performance last night.

There you have it Wilf, " the quote of the week " for the diary mate!!!
give it 15 mins it will be on humberside that wideicombes minge reeks
cant blame Agar for that .....or can we....

add that to geek stats everyone raves about and you still have the square root of nowing nowt about what the fook went on at wigan

...

How does he know anne widicombes fanny is messy is a more important subject mind

Really?

You might want to think that statement through a bit more.

I know what you did there

Say you didn't watch something on tv the other night, I don't know, lets say Lost. Your mate at work did watch it and tells you it was rubbish. Then someone else asks you what you thought of it. Do you tell him a) you don't know because you didn't see it, or b) it was rubbish?

By listening to the radio the commentators are giving you their own opinion, and you are then somehow trying to pass them off as your own. Yes they might be able to tell you what happened in the game, how the tries were scored etc, but you can find that out by reading the match report. Saying, "Richard Horne obviously had a good game because Gwilym told me so," is not a valid opinion (and I know those weren't your words before you start).

Must be a long way back to hull when your e then

No, it is not the same thing!

The commentators may give their opinions, e.g. "Tansey has been poor" or "Whiting should have scored" but they also provide facts, e.g. "Radford has been penalised" or "Hall has knocked on". You can listen to a commentary and form an opinion, based on what you have heard. For example I know Berrigan was quiet because his name was barely mentioned on Five Live.

In your analogy it would be like a friend describing in detail what happened in Lost minute by minute. If I hadn't listened to the commentary but someone told me "Hull were rubbish" then of course I couldn't form an opinion.

By the way, Lost was bloody brilliant this week

You're right, to an extent you can get a rough idea by listening, provided the commentry is accurate, but it is no subsitute for actually watching it, not by any means. The opinion of someone who has watched carries far more weight than someone who has listened.

This is fantastic, you actually are serious.

You're both partly right.

You can form an opinion on the generalities of a game from the commentary - although if you're listening to DDD it's a lot more difficult. For instance, forming the opinion that we gave away far too many penalties and/or didn't have enough possession doesn't require that you saw the game. What you can't form a full opinion on is the details of how well individual players performed, how good was the ref, etc. This is why I never vote on the MOM thread when I haven't seen a game for example.

And your analogy was a bit off TBH. If someone had given you a running commentary of the Lost episode you'd have been able to form an opinion of whether it sounded like a good episode or not.

So you've never formed an opinion on [ianything[/i that you haven't witnessed with your own eyes?



Think about it.

I did go to the game and did not think this Hull team would get outclassed in the way they did on friday. Without seeing TV close ups of penalty decisions it did seem that a raise in the noise levels of the Wigan fans always resulted in Mr Halibert blowing his whistle. I do wonder whether we are better suited to winter conditions than open running conditions.