The thread is on women commies, pundits, not really about Barton.
No, this thread is about Barton using a
specific example to drive home his point that women should not be commentating because they are not knowledgeable and others are afraid to correct them.
The problem is that the
specific example is not even true or relevant to the point that he was trying to make because it was a clear “comprehension fail” on his part and he butchered what the commentator was implying.
The general point regarding the value women bring to football commentary and whether they should be in the job or not certainly has merits but it is imperative (you can google the meaning of “imperative” if you don’t know what it means) to use valid examples to drive home that point.
Otherwise, the focus shifts to how big an idiot Barton is rather than the general point that he is trying to make. Same goes for other people who are blindly support Barton on this and quoting the example that he cited without understanding what the commentator was actually trying to say.
Ive explained the reasoning but again only those who have played football would understand. You claim Barton is silly but he knows football well and he knows English terms. Lacing your boots is an English term and unless you have played football here reguarly growing up, you will have no clue, which you have shown time after time in football threads. I still recall you not understanding what a foul is . lol.
You explained nothing. The only thing you demonstrated was the classic “I am going to dig a hole for myself” because you did not have the decency to admit that you failed to comprehend what the commentator was trying to say and did not listen to to the full piece of commentary.
I know what “putting your laces through the ball” mean in football terms. It is a very common term and anyone who was watched football is familiar with it. It simply means striking the ball with the top part of your boot (where the laces are) so if you put your laces through it you are striking it with full power and not guiding or placing the ball in the corner.
Gerrard scored plenty of goals in his career with this technique and he was one of the best ever at showcasing this skill. However, the chances of hitting the target with this technique is relatively lower and most players, especially the less skilled one, send the ball sailing over the bar when they put their laces through it.
Endo didn’t do that and side footed the ball into the top corner. He showed good composure because had he put his laces through it, he would have most probably not scored the goal.
This is what the commentator was implying and this is what Barton and you missed. You (him, you and others who have successfully embarrassed themselves with this example) heard the term “put your laces through the ball” and got super excited because it triggered your agenda and bias and you failed to listen to the full commentary to understand what she was implying.
It was actually a very clever piece of commentary - she not only described what Endo did but also explained what he did right. This is what tv commentary is all about.
It is about not only describing a piece of play but also adding context to the situation.
You mentioned that a “normal commie would have simply said,
'Salah finds Endo at the edge of the box, who clinically side foots it home in style to level the game'.”
This is exactly what we don’t want to hear from the commentators. Stating the obvious. Thankfully we weren’t listening to you or a normal commentator instead because this “normal commentary” would be better for radio than live TV.
A radio commentator has to describe the passage of play to create a visual image in the listeners’ heads. A tv commentator, at least the good ones and not the “normal” ones who are average, don’t just describe the passage of play because tv viewers can see, with their own eyes, what happened.
I don’t need a commentator to tell me that Endo side footed the ball because I can see it with my own eyes, but a commentator telling me that Endo did the right thing by not putting his laces through the ball because there is a possibility that I and others wouldn’t have thought about that in that moment and good commentators give you something to think about.
This is why everyone loves to listen to Peter Dury. He doesn’t explain what we see on the screens like a “normal” commentator would but creates emotions and stories that makes you look at football and the situation in a completely different way. He makes the moments better and bigger than they actually are and those moments because even more memorable because of his commentary.
Lastly, I don’t remember the context of the foul discussion that you are referring to. I hope you are not talking about the thread where you were laughably claiming that Salah isn’t a diver?
Or was it the one where you were trying to justify how it is perfectly fine for you to support and spend your money a club that has signed Israeli players? You cannot support Palestine and pretend that you stand up for them while supporting Liverpool.
Please leave English football terms to those who live in England.
The least you would expect from people who been born and brought up in the UK is to have, at the very least, a working knowledge of the English language and the ability to quickly comprehend the English language. However, my experience of spending 20+ summers in the UK and interacting with the people on this forum tells me that living in the UK doesn’t matter.
The real difference maker is the quality of the education and I thank my parents for helping top notch education where I can speak, write and comprehend English better than most people who were born and educated in the UK.
www.independent.co.uk
