JK
Oozaru
Posts: 42
|
Post by JK on Jun 17, 2020 17:55:19 GMT
In your opinion, would it be better to only show highlights of football matches rather than the entire 90+ minutes? After all, as any football fan will admit there isn't usually a whole lot of action for most of the game. You could probably just show 15-10 minutes and that would be plenty of entertainment. I know they show highlights the next day anyway but I'm asking if we really need entire matches being broadcast? (Except for Plymouth Argyle because every Argyle match should be available to watch in full.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Summoner on Jun 17, 2020 18:00:17 GMT
The reason to watch football is to watch your favorite team and to enjoy the sport. A true connoisseur wouldn't want it any other way and if you think a full match is boring, maybe the sport isn't for you.
What do you do with the time between highlights anyway? Punditry?
|
|
|
|
Post by BloodChuckZ on Jun 18, 2020 12:58:56 GMT
Highlights always miss important moments that hugely influence the game. It's as boring as watching just the knockout of a boxing match. Or watching a chess match, but only seeing the final two moves before the checkmate. I want to see the patterns and strategies that lead to the moments of victory. Seeing the whole game becomes especially important for developing talent. If a country only shows the goals on tv, their kids will all become players who only know how to kick a ball into a goal, but don't know how to get the ball near the goal in the first place (pretty much England in the early 2000s). i read that the UK used to have a comic where the main character always scored goals by just getting an accurate long ball from deep and that that played a role in English players favouring sending balls over the top, rather than passing it around like successful teams of mainland Europe and South America.
|
|
