Commentators' bias

[DPDPDPDP]

Normally the "danger in the use of statistics" is about them being taken out of context or selectively quoted. These statistics are in context because they have been produced for this study. They're not out of context and they are (it seems) outlined at length.

They seem like a pretty serious bunch, so I would imagine that if they had found statistically significant differences between the countries they'd have said so (though, obviously, I don't know this for a fact)

Ebbe Skovdahl, former Aberdeen manager ( and a useless one at that), came out with a great quote along the lines of “statistics are like mini skirts. They are nice to look at but they hide the most important thing(s)”

[KyleRoteJr.]

White players - gritty, blue collar, "lunch pail" guys, "play the game the right way"

Let's not forget those other classic descriptors of white players in American commentary: "gym rat" and "he has a high motor."

You'll never see a black player described as such. The above descriptors are always applied to white players who usually are undersized and supposedly less naturally talented but who make up for these shortcomings with extreme dedication and hard work ("gym rat") and great attitude and hustle ("high motor"). Never mind the fact that to play professional sports, one has to be extremely naturally gifted (even if not perceived so) to step on the field in the first place, hard work and hustle notwithstanding.

[Incandenza]

Let's not forget those other classic descriptors of white players in American commentary: "gym rat" and "he has a high motor."

You'll never see a black player described as such. The above descriptors are always applied to white players who usually are undersized and supposedly less naturally talented but who make up for these shortcomings with extreme dedication and hard work ("gym rat") and great attitude and hustle ("high motor"). Never mind the fact that to play professional sports, one has to be extremely naturally gifted (even if not perceived so) to step on the field in the first place, hard work and hustle notwithstanding.

I feel like I'm seeing Wayne Chrebet or David Eckstein while reading this.

[ursus arctos]

They were Gritty before he was a mascot

[Jobi1]

It was interesting watching the West Ham - Chelsea game last night in light of this study. In his analysis over the replays following Yarmolenko's denouement, Gary Neville paused as the camera focused on Rudiger getting turned before the finish before saying "lack of intelligence", then didn't use any similar phrase to describe Alonso's part in it when they showed another replay beginning earlier in the move. Not in any way suggesting that Neville is (consciously) racist, but it was quite startling to be given such an obvious example of the study's findings so soon.

[1974ddr]

I feel like I'm seeing Wayne Chrebet or David Eckstein while reading this.

I literally had no idea who these people are. I've heard of Billy Eckstine... I wasn't even sure the first one was a real name, but apparently he was a 'wide receiver'. Is that like a big phone?

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

It was interesting watching the West Ham - Chelsea game last night in light of this study. In his analysis over the replays following Yarmolenko's denouement, Gary Neville paused as the camera focused on Rudiger getting turned before the finish before saying "lack of intelligence", then didn't use any similar phrase to describe Alonso's part in it when they showed another replay beginning earlier in the move. Not in any way suggesting that Neville is (consciously) racist, but it was quite startling to be given such an obvious example of the study's findings so soon.

That really jumped out actually. Also you could almost hear the pause for thought when he realises what he's just said, and he goes on to give mikel alonso both barrels. He doesn't track back with the runner, he's cost his team the game, that's why his future at the club is under threat. It's much more serious criticism, but it doesn't undo what he said the first time. See the thing here is that that should have been his first reaction. What neville said was fucking stupid, and comes straight from the analysis school of keano, where a goal is conceded, now lets find the most obvious cunt and burn him, There's actually very little rudiger could have done about that situation once he realised that there was no full back, and yarmolenko had the entire left hand side of the pitch to himself.

You can say he needs to show him down the outside all you fucking want, but Rudiger has to race over to where yarmolenko is, at top speed. He then has to slow down from top speed to near stationary and then show yarmolenko down the outside, while yarmolenko, who already has the fucking ball is supposed to stand there and wait for him to do this? Particularly when we know that Yarmolenko has no interest in waiting to be shown down the outside. That's what he's famous for remember. All yarmolenko has to do is wait for rudiger to approach, and wait for him to commit to slowing down, before making his move. It doesn't matter when rudiger slows down to make his 'stand', that's the moment that yarmolenko is waiting for. the problem in all circumstances comes down to there being no runner with yarmolenko. Rudiger has been left in an absolutely no win situation, and is relying on yarmolenko fucking up in some way for this not to end up in a goal. Rudiger gets across, stops then accelerates back the other direction and nearly gets a block on the shot. Something that is kind of miraculous when you remember just how big rudiger is, and how fast he was moving, and all he basically gets called a footballing idiot for not being able to actually pull off the miracle.

Now this is the sort of analytical mistake that pundits make all the time, focusing on incidents as a series of one vs one battles, which are won and lost by the manly warriors, In most instances the pundit is being completely wrong, and only expanding the blame game, if they feel like they want to hammer more people. Because it is a mistake on their part, it does have the virtue of stripping away the justification excuse from what they say, so you can see what they say as a reflection of how they feel and their underlying bias.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue8g_RMqMRo] Here are the highlights of the game. [/url] Now there are two incidents you can describe as careless or stupid, and the first is the penalty that diop gives away on pulisic. You can say whatever you want about that, as long as you also say the same thing when white players do that, and they do it all the time. The second is christensen doing a complete David luiz and being completely unaware that there is an unmarked michail antonio right behind him. That's a bad basic error, and I'd shovel some blame Azpilicueta's way for not shouting at him. I don't get the criticism of the positioning of the keeper for the free kick. The free kick is perfect, and if the keeper had stood further to the right, willian would just have tried to kick it into the other corner. The keeper is where he is, because he knows that willian is basically equally likely to put it either side. Here are six consecutive willian free kick goals, with the goalkeeper standing in different positions. Once again it's an example of the pundit criticizing a player with the benefit of full hindsight, and unaware that the attacking player is able to respond to the situation as well. Also it suggests that gary neville's knowledge of WIllian is considerably more scanty than rudiger's knowledge about yarmolenko.

The thing is with this survey though, I think the really important bit is the allocation of criticism. That's where the dirt is done. In the hierarchy of praise in english football, Power, pace and strength, the three manly virtues are right at the top, and if a white player has these attributes, commentators, pundits and fans fucking love to go on about it. every bit as much to the expense of "intelligence" as for black players with these attributes in abundance. There's also skill, which is god given, and not something that is worked on, and if you can't explain something by these four means, that's when you start to hear about experience, or intelligence, which is a catchall term to explain why every victory doesn't always go to the most manly. Intelligence was how you explained the presence of a 40 year old midfielder who stopped for a woodbine every ten minutes during the match, but was always in position to kick the forward in the knee cap. But I think you can see this very clearly in how people talked about John Barnes and Paul mcGrath. Back in the eighties people were most impressed by Johnny barnes being the size of a centre half, but being by far the fastest and most skilful player in the league, and the most striking thing about paul mcgrath at euro 88 was him knocking dutchmen over like skittles, while carrying one around on his back. By the nineties, when injury had robbed them of power pace and strength, it was all about barnes's intelligent midfield play, and "Franco Baresi could learn a few things about defending" at USA 94.

If you go back to the not too distant past where black players were very rare, you can hear that this is how commentators and pundits talk about all white teams. I was watching the highlights of some old game between Man utd and LIverpool, and I think the phrase "Liverpool couldn't handle the power and pace of joe jordan on the counterattack" will live with me forever, and made it abundantly clear that this was a league that was ready for the invention of Cyrille regis. (Interestingly enough When I heard john Giles' tribute to regis after he died he was 1. A really lovely lad 2 obviously a very good player 3. A very intelligent lad. (something he would repeat three times in the course of the tribute, but that's because he worked with him, and it wouldn't necessarily have been apparent from simply watching him play football)

It's not the use of the positive adjectives by pundits that is the problem (No-one has ever praised steven Gerrard's "intelligence" yet people were trying to give him jobs within hours of his retirement) It's the negative language that does the damage. That and people who are pundits, who are supposed to know about the game, seem to be so utterly unaware that football has become such a complicated sophisticated mixture of rigid instructions and improvisation within those quite prescriptive frameworks. The whole thing requires vastly more concentration, focus and mental effort than at any point in the past. It's the underselling of this that is a huge part of the problem, because not talking about this masks just how much football has changed, which combines with the uncomfortable fact that most football clubs are owned or run by people who know very little about football, and who generally wind up appointing someone who reminds them of what managers were like when they were young. There's no recognition that most prermier league footballers are broadly speaking about as fast and strong as each other, you only get to see these moments that everyone gets excited about, because the players involved have engineered a situation that shows off their power and pace etc.

[Walt Flanagans Dog]

What's Sam Matterface?