Skip to main content

Football is boring

I need to gromble about football. It's boring! Having just slept through my second 90 minute England game, I've discovered a way to make the experience marginally more bearable. Live pause the programme, and play at double speed after about an hour of pause. Many advantages:
  • You get no sound. No bloody vuvuwhatevers (sounds like your living rooms been attacked by bees). No pratt telling you 'if only they'd score more goals, they'd be winning'. No loud-mouthed lout on the pitch giving the ref a hard time. No gum-chewing expletives from an overpaid foreign manager on the sidelines.
  • No ads... fast forward even faster through them. Even the one that flashed on our screen during England's only goal against the USA. Brilliant timing! 
  • No wankers at half time lolling about on sofas telling us who's having a good or bad game (we can bloody see for ourselves).
  • And most importantly, the players look a lot more skillful while the ball itself travels FASTER. At normal speed, the ball takes forever to get to the next player, who then either passes backwards (really boring), forwards, sideways or gets tackled. If you add up all the seconds of proper excitement in a normal game (England at a world cup game produce none), you probably get about a minute - max. That means 89 minutes of excruciatingly boring passing stuff - now compressed to a slightly less painful 45 minutes.
So why is footie so damn boring. Well firstly it was invented with too few rules. There's nothing to think about:
  • Use your foot to kick the ball, not someone else
  • Kick it into a goal more often than the others
  • Don't get (and this does, I admit, verge on complexity) offside
Now I'm a rugby fanatic (rich source of future grombles by the way). Rugby is for intellectuals. It has an infinite number of rules. No-one understands them all and new ones are invented at random all the time. People with huge brains, called referees, decide whether any have been broken - and people get to hit each other really hard - legally! Plus you get scores like 65-24 and usually decent beer to drink at the grounds. Good sausages and chips too. I've just watched 90 minutes of England drawing 0-0 with Algeria (Algeria! Famous for terrorists and dates). Had this been a club game, chances are I would be writing this from a hospital bed nursing multiple stab wounds having fallen asleep on an opposition supporter's shoulder, and a wallet lighter by hundreds of pounds (well a lot more than a premiership rugby game costs to watch live).

Now I'm not arguing that footie doesn't require great athleticism, or that a few goals are truly amazing feats of genius. But oh how rarely we see them. And once you've seen one 6-packed player (bastard show-off) expertly trap and kick a ball past an opponent, why hang around to watch another do the same thing? Pass forward, pass back, pass sideways, pass, pass, pass, shoot, miss. Pass forwards,....

Sorry - Football is boring, except for the bits that aren't, and there aren't enough of them to keep me awake. Pause and fast forward... it's the only way.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Thanks for taking an interest.

Popular posts from this blog

To kill or not to kill.

Had an interesting discussion with a Muslim friend today about the ethics of killing. Could it ever be morally justifiable? Abrahamic scriptures, especially the old testament, are awash with murders and killings, some sanctioned by the prophets and assorted mouthpieces for god. Some killing is even mandatory. For example all Jews are instructed in the old Testament to kill everyone belonging to the 7 Canaanite tribes for example - Deut 20:17 , or to slaughter Amaleks, especially their children - Deut 25:19 . So accepting for a moment that these draconian instructions were written in times when tribal leaders had fewer options available to them with respect to managing miscreants and maintaining some sort of law and order, I suspect that most people today would agree that killing people is a bad thing and should not be condoned except under extraordinary circumstances. My friend and I then proceeded to try to list those circumstances. We started with self-defence or perhaps protecti...
1 comment
Read more

Phillips screws - yes I'm angry about them too

Don't get me wrong. They're a brilliant invention to assist automation and prevent screwdrivers from slipping off screw heads - damaging furniture, paintwork and fingers in the process. Interestingly they weren't invented by Mr Phillips at all, but by a John P Thompson who sold Mr P the idea after failing to commercialise it. Mr P, on the otherhand, quickly succeeded where Mr T had failed. Incredible isn't it. You don't just need a good idea, you need a great salesman and, more importantly, perfect timing to make a success out of something new. Actually, it would seem, he did two clever things (apart from buying the rights). He gave the invention to GM to trial. No-brainer #1. After it was adopted by the great GM, instead of trying to become their sole supplier of Phillips screws, he sold licenses to every other screw manufacturer in the world. A little of a lot is worth a great deal more than a lot of a little + vulnerability (watch out Apple!). My gromble is abo...
7 comments
Read more

Defending the BBC against Trump - an idea that might turn the tables and amuse the nation.

So President Trump wants to sue the BBC for damages related to 'harm' he believes he experienced as a result of some biased editing by the BBC around his speeches before and during the Jan 6th 2021 attack on the US Capitol. The law suit is being raised in Florida since the statute of limitation for libel in the UK is 12 months but up to 2 years in Florida. Apparently Trump wants to sue our Beeb for over $1bn. This is typical of the widely ambitious law suits he's filed many times before, but if he wins, which he rarely does, courts tend to settle for far less. It's all part of his tactics to scare the opposition into settling out of court rather than drag out very expensive 'lawfare', as it's known. Far from being able to afford $1bn if he's successful, the BBC probably can't even afford to defend itself using American lawyers, let alone the best of them. But the BBC is much loved by the British people, who own it. Attacking our precious institution,...
Post a Comment
Read more