Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Monty13

Is Football entertainment?

Recommended Posts

There’s been a lot of threads which when broken down seem to centre around watching entertaining football versus the necessity of getting results, I don''t want to get into the NCFC specific debate, of what you think of Hughton, whether Lambert would be better etc., there’s plenty of other threads, please comment on them.

I think it’s true that as club supporters the results we achieve to a certain degree justify the means, we would rather achieve a bore draw than lose a thriller. Or would we? England’s result seemed to be the point we needed yet Hodgson has come under terrific fire for the way we played.

So have we stopped worrying about the manner of our performances? Does the result justify the means? And in which case what do we want from our club? To tread water at all costs? (May I say whoever is in charge) Many acknowledge that every year we could finish 7-20th so isn’t the manner in which we do so also important?

Football is entertainment industry, is it not the duty of all clubs to entertain to justify the money they receive? If you take away the thousands NCFC fans who care about the result, what about the millions of neutrals around the globe who fund the PL to be entertained?

Football is not unique (although I think team sports in general are in this regard), in that through TV money they receive the vast majority of the income based in no way on how they entertain us as consumers. If a singer churns out mediocre albums as consumers we don’t buy them, they lose fans and they lose money. If a film/game is terrible we don’t watch/play it and it loses money, if TV series is terrible it gets cancelled for low ratings.

And yet the amount of neutrals (including our supporters on here) grumbled for years about Stokes way of playing for example and there is no comeback.

People often profess that football is a business, and it is, yet it is one of fairly unique (outside other team sports) setup. A club does not run itself in a business format recognisable to even the rest of the entertainment industry.

While there are singers with die hard fans if that singer goes off the boil fans tend to desert them, “used to like their old stuff”. While we all have favourite films, franchises don’t really hold a loyalty, TV series may have a group of die hard fans but they rarely stop their TV series being cancelled when it is deemed unpalatable to the masses.

In other individual sports such as golf, tennis etc. participants receive money based on their final position almost exclusively rather than a handout for taking part (while admittedly doesn’t guarantee they are entertaining in doing so!).

Have we neutered football as entertainment because now the majority of Clubs are only interested in maintaining the status quo at all costs? Was it even different before the big TV money? (even though the stakes are obviously higher now) What are peoples thoughts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imagine if we sacked a manager who was getting us points at every home game.and picking up the odd (1 point) on the road as well.We would be the laughing stock of the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn''t really my question Reading, I honestly couldn''t care less about the Hughton debate at the minute, it''s been 4 games! Although reading back I appear to have slanted it that way, it genuinely wasn''t intended, I''ve been entertained by games under Hughton and bored the cra#p out of myself watching games under Lambert.

 

Genuinely interested though from those going batsh#t crazy on either side of the fence what they see the club and football as? Are we to love unconditionally, is league position the be all and end all of our wants? do we as consumers have the right to demand to be entertained?

 

Boards back managers based on their own goals, it''s a boards job to worry about the bottom line. Supporters are a pricklier bunch though, some demand to be entertained, some demand increasing improvement, some go to games whether its Old Trafford, Pride Park or Huish Park.

 

But if you can accept that what your watching isn''t very good and still be happy, is it entertainment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Entertainment!!!!!What, like watching a film, play or live music event?Certainly not, it''s far too serious to be entertainment.Now if you''d said life and death I might have agreed with you.

Some people ay, enterbloodytainment, oh deary deary me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s entertainment. Most forms of entertainment are also money makers...TV, movies, sports, video games, etc. The only free entertainment you''ll find is staging hobo fights at the park. And trust me, eventually someone will find a way to make money on that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anything can be entertainment ......... within reasonthe problem you should be looking at is how much football should be changed to make it more entertaining or how much change to provide the type of entertainment the ''happy clappy'' types want

at City we already have some dimwit who comes onto the pitch before the game to co-ordinated the even dimmer into some kind of mass shriek and music was played when a goal was scored - all to enhance the experience, so we are told.... but of that formation stupidity affected the gamejust keep it that way and if can''t find what they want watching the game then they will drift away as fast as they camejust leave the game alonethat''s all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question Monty and a good thread. However I expect people will quickly lose interest if it''s not used as a vehicle for knocking Hughto.

 

To attempt answer your question I''ll ask you one. In your post you mentioned that although he got the required minimum of a point Hodgson came under fire for the way we played. That''s very true. But my question is would he have come under more or less fire if we''d lost a fantastic game of football 6-5 and failed to qualify for the world cup finals?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ReadingCanary"]If Hughton keeps getting us points while playing "negative football" the board will keep paying him.So sorry haters. You''re gonna have to get used to it.[/quote]

oh dear

does anyone over the age of 12 use that expression ?

and for the record I don''t think there is any genuine City fan who hates Hughton

dislike the type of football City are playing at away games yes, hate the man no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It comes down to the individual fan, I think.

Some people watch for entertainment. They will watch any game and any team because they simply love the game. It is entertainment, prima facie. They follow a team, but football is football and they are just happy it''s on.

Then you have the die hard fan. They follow one team. They enjoy the game, but there mood changes based on how well (or not well) their team is doing. They probably watch/know a lot about all the other teams in the league, but mainly because they want to know exactly where their teams stands. The level of entertainment had, at least to this fan, is highly dependent upon whether their team wins or loses.

In order for the teams to make money, they have to keep everyone happy. Staying in premier league is obviously the biggest goal. That''s where the money is. It seems that fear of doing poorly results in less aggressive play. However, if more aggressive play is risky, it can be understood why more reserved tactics are used.

I think that if you took it back to a time when money /status quo wasn''t the most important thing, you would find that people played to win. Now people play to stay in the premier leagues; there''s a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My "argument" for want of a better word is not that we''re not entertaining enough (I couldnt care less, I''ll go watch my team as long as I can afford to and if I can get to the match regardless of how entertaining I think we are).My argument is that by setting up the way we do (away from home) we dont give ourselves enough of a chance to actually try and win the 3 points or avoid defeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Portland if a TV program is crap I switch over, if a video game is rubbish I stop playing, if a film has bad reviews I don’t go.

 

I watched every minute of the 3-0 Sunderland defeat (there you go a Lambert game to try and keep us off Hughton for 5 mins!), it was awful from start to finish, we were so bad, yet I watched it all. So was I entertained, I don’t think I was? So was it entertainment?

 

Nutty almost certainly more, but for the fact he lost the game, maybe as supporters we just like moaning? But that doesn’t mean it’s not justified. I’d certainly be moaning if I’d took some holiday paid for tickets, flights, hotel, food and drink and then been treated to that display.

 

ThatGirlFromNJ – So are the people who watch for entertainment satisfied? I tell you when I’m a neutral watching I find the majority of PL games dull affairs (not all, sometimes there’s some crackers for the neutral). And surely with the billions being pumped into football its not so each supporter can see his team (if it’s not a top 6 club) play 4 or 5 times a year on telly. The main goal of the PL as a business should be the PL being entertaining should it not?

 

City1st- I’m not sure any of that matters to me personally, I couldn’t care less, I don’t love goal music but I’m used to it, doesn’t bother me. I only care personally about the game in front of me, if there was a way to make it more entertaining without spoiling it I would be all for it.

 

Would we all want to see free flowing attacking football every game if we could? I’m not saying when we don’t get that it’s not entertaining; watching us totally snuff out Arsenal last season was brilliant. But if we could, if we had the choice, would we want to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree. I think that if the teams really played it would make it more entertaining. If we are all too concerned about staying PL, I think the quality of entertainment goes down.

I often think the lower league games (of any sport) are often more entertaining. I think because the plays are far less scripted (tactically speaking). But, the quality of the sport itself is usually lower.

Can you imagine if all the greats in the PL were instructed to play lie they mean it? Would the overall quality go down? I''m not so sure. Especially if that''s how the teams practiced. Like I''ve said previously, I''m quite new to watching soccer, so maybe putting that into practice wouldn''t end well. But, as far as entertainment factor, I think it would be much more enjoyable to watch.

Someone had mentioned singing (may have been the OP) but that is a pretty clear example. You go to a concert, it''s top of the line, quality stuff (well, hopefully - cause that''s expensive, lol) But have you ever heard a good (even mediocre) band just messing around having a good time, doing what they love to do? Much! more entertaining! Maybe not the best example, but you get me, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you compare football to theatre or film, you''ll find that football has all elements in place for theatrical entertainment (drama, tragedy, comedy, triller... horror, you name it), but you''ll never know which one/s of these you''ll actualy see in advance, so there is a chance that you''ll be served  with something entirely unpalatable for you. (Yesterday about 50,000 Galataseray fans went to see their team against Real Madrid, but only half of them could bear watch the entire show!) Theatre/film has the advantage of being scripted, which to a degree guarantees exciting turns and that you''ll get what you paid for, but arguably its predictability is a weakness compared to football''s open-ended nature. In football there is no guaranteed happy ending.  The level of entertainment also depend on how deeply you identify with your heroes. Some people''s lives revolve around the doings of soap characters  called Jockey or Amanda. (Thankfully, I''m not one of them.) However, following the deeds of Chris, John, Ricky or Nathan week in and out, for many, might seem to be an ultimately similar experience...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly Budapest.  I was talking to a non-football watching friend before the game on Saturday and she asked how Norwich were likely to do.  I said that we "ought" to lose but a big part of the fascination of football is that you don''t know how it''s going to turn out, and by 5pm you could either be delighted or depressed or somewhere in between.  Whereas if you go to a play/concert etc, there is no uncertainty about how it will turn out.

If there are games when City play poorly away in the sense of having no ambition to win the game, sitting back, etc, like Saturday or indeed like Sunderland away the year before last, then that''s bad in both senses - poor to watch as a City fan (although it was great fun for the home fans) and also unlikely to produce a good result for us.  But compare say the Sunderland game away last season, or Arsenal, they were both really exciting games which we deserved to get points out of, but for poor referreeing decisions.

 

But if City were to start playing the traditional Stoke style in a bid to stay in the Prem, that would be a struggle.  If it really got that bad I doubt if I''d go to as many games as I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Monty13"]

 

Nutty almost certainly more, but for the fact he lost the game, maybe as supporters we just like moaning? But that doesn’t mean it’s not justified. I’d certainly be moaning if I’d took some holiday paid or tickets, flights, hotel, food and drink and then been treated to that display.

 

 

[/quote]

 

So the majority hold entertainment secondary to the result? Despite all those things, all that money spent, the majority would prefer England to qualify for the WC Finals than be entertained. But if we had qualified with a game to spare and that game was a boring 0-0 draw the opposite would apply.. entartainment more important than the result? But however much exciting football is played, meaningless and friendly matches just don''t have that edge. Not for me anyway. But I guess some will see it differently.

 

To go back to your Sunderland game I have been to plenty like that. Travel up to Preston on a cold Tuesday night, see another no show, travel back the same night, and then repeat the experience at Burnley a few weeks later! Why?? Because following your team is not just about entertainment I guess.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Entertainment in football is strange. It is without doubt linked directly to results, for instance, had we got a 0-0 at Spurs what has become our tame attacking showing would probably have been interpreted as a heroic defensive display against a team on top form. The thing is though, I''ve never quite grasped how, say, Man United fans get their entertainment. Expected to win every week, anything less than a win is disappointing. Expected to roll teams over, to be on the front foot all the time, to be exhilirating on the break - all to the point where it''s the norm.

 

The closest I''ve ever got to experiencing that was the League One season. We routinely rolled teams over, scored loads of goals but it all lost it''s edge, comfortable home victories, became SO routine that even goal celebrations in the ground seemed to be met with almost an indifference at times. Being the best kind of watered down the experience. A Man U fan is never going to experience what it feels like to go and pull off a win against the odds at a footballing giant, even if they beat Barcelona or Real Madrid it wouldn''t be a surprise as such.

 

And I suppose while this train of thought will probably be rubbished as being "lil''old Norwich" mentality, I think there''s still something magical about being a club like Norwich. You don''t know what you''re going to get served up every week, we don''t expect (rather we shouldn''t) to win every week, every season having some kind of battle - like it or not we''re still in the position where our season is a race to 40 points.

 

I''ve travelled all over the country watching Norwich and I''d struggle to name many places where I have a "winning" record or even a relatively positive one (Scum is one....), but it''s still a magical experience going away, even when you get a lesson off Doncaster or beaten at Port Vale. I''d never want to swap that for the tepid experiences of a big club fan, never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you Warren.  I think ManU tend to attract a lot of fans (especially the ones who don''t go to games) who want to see skillful football and like to support a winner.  For them, winning home league games, with a few exceptions like Liverpool or ManC, means nothing because it is so routine, even winning the Prem means little.  So to quite an extent they can sit back and enjoy the skill on offer and not be too involved with the game.  Plenty of them would drift away if they stopped winning and/or started playing boring football.

 

So I do think there''s a different mentality between that sort of fan and those of us who follow a club like City, where winning seasons like L1 are an exhilarating exception and the joy when we win away at places like Man C or Spurs is much bigger than they can ever experience while ManU are at the top of the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hogesar,I think you are right. It is probably a combination of everyone except the big teams playing the same nullifying 4-2-3-1 formation and the fact that three of the traditional top 4 teams havent really got going yet under new management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it isnt about entertainment, then football gets reduced to its basic components. Which is 22 men kicking a pigs bladder around a field. Noone would care about this if we didnt find it entertaining. People are entertained by the thrill of their team battling and hoepfully coming out on top. It is not called the beautiful game for no reason. If people werent entertained by football they wouldnt watch it, and their profession would hold no value in society. If people stop watching, the money stops coming in.

Yes, football is about entertainment. If it wasnt, noone would care how many times some blokes on a field had put something round in a basket. If it stops thrilling us, we stop caring as when reduced to its base components, what a footballer does in his job is pretty unimportant when compared to what a farmer does or a surgeon. Some footballers (and indeed all entertainers) would do well to remember this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And just to add to the debate (and nail my colours to the post) I watch football for the entertainment value. Consequently I would accept a rollercoaster ride of a season which involved some thrilling 4-3 defeats etc and last gasp winners that entertained me, thrilled me every week and saw us finish 16th or 17th, over boring dross, filled with very little effective football (in the quality rather than the result) but which got us more points and saw us finish 11th-12th. There is very little difference in those league positions other than money. Its not going to lead to European football. Would more money mean more exciting footballers came in? Not necessarily if the football brand remains boring.

I would rather watch a team every week that is full of fight and flare (cant think of a good example) that finished 17th, than watch Stoke finish 10th with their style of play.

A teams position in the league means nothing to me unless it influences the next season (ie it means we change leagues or it brings in European football). I couldnt care less what the clubs balance sheet is unless it restricts the quality of play. I dont care about bragging rights (for instance I am not lauding it up over fans of teams we finished higher than last season as it is all forgotten and old news. Great performances however, like Swansea away - that I remember. I rememeber performances. Not league positions. I cant get excited about words on a piece of paper or numbers on a bank balance. I get excited by the beautiful game. Its the only reason I watch it. I find spirited performances just as entertaining as deft footwork and fancy moves by the way. It doesnt have to be artistic, Ill happily take a bit of swashbuckling!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

 

Why do you support Norwich then mate? Why not a Barcelona or Munich who play unreal football.

 

I think it goes deeper than just enjoying watching your team play.

I would rather see Norwich win 1-0 in an awful boring game, than lose 4-5 in a thrilling encounter

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ellis206"]

^^^

 

Why do you support Norwich then mate? Why not a Barcelona or Munich who play unreal football.

 

I think it goes deeper than just enjoying watching your team play.

I would rather see Norwich win 1-0 in an awful boring game, than lose 4-5 in a thrilling encounter

 

[/quote]

You cant choose who you fall in love with ;) Norwich were the first team I ever saw play as a little boy and I was obsessed all through my childhood - though noone at my school could understand why I supported Norwich, not being from the region at all (everyone else supported Man U!). Once you''ve nailed your colours to the mast, theres no going back. I tried supporting the local team when I was at University, as I wondered what it would be like to be cheering on my local community, and not being in a long-distance relationship, but it just wasnt the same. Norwich were my first true love and my loyalty is still as deep to this day. The club is deeply engrained within me. Its the reason you dont chuck your partner every time you see someone more attractive!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just to add to the debate (and nail my colours to the post) I watch football for the entertainment value. Consequently I would accept a rollercoaster ride of a season which involved some thrilling 4-3 defeats etc and last gasp winners that entertained me, thrilled me every week and saw us finish 16th or 17th, over boring dross, filled with very little effective football (in the quality rather than the result) but which got us more points and saw us finish 11th-12th. There is very little difference in those league positions other than money. Its not going to lead to European football. Would more money mean more exciting footballers came in? Not necessarily if the football brand remains boring.

I would rather watch a team every week that is full of fight and flare (cant think of a good example) that finished 17th, than watch Stoke finish 10th with their style of play.

 

 

So we MUST stay up then? I think that is pretty much how Chris Hughton sees it too.

 

Also, we did have some games like you describe, 4-3 win, 4-3 loss, late winner against Everton...you''re just not going to get that every week and it''s unrealistic to think that you will.

 

Honestly, all those that think what they''re watching is dross either have some sort of memory problem or have been spoiled over the last 3 or 4 years. Getting beat 4 something at Luton, that was dross. Being given a footballing lesson by Doncaster Rovers, that was dross, was it Tranmere away where Bryan McGovern scored an undeserved winner, that was dross. In fact, most seasons will have a reasonable amount of dross served up in them. As a Norwich fan, I never go away with too much expectation, I''ve seen it all before, whole seasons without an away victory, seasons where we''re half decent away from home are fairly sparse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes GMD, the true comparison is whether you''d prefer to watch a season of thrilling games and end up 18th, or a season with many dull wins at home etc which leaves us 11th and well placed for the following year.  Saying you wouldn''t mind if we end up 17th is a bit of a cop out IMO.

 

I don''t care about the finances in themselves, but I do like the fact that we can now bring in a higher calibre of player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To follow a sport you have to be engaged by it. It has to mean something and to engage you in some way. That will include but is not limited to entertaining you. Sport engages or it is nothing. Boxing disgusts my father but fascinates me. I love rugby union but find the allegedly more entertaining league to be superficial. It is whatever graps us as individuals.

Football tends to be team based and you are more likely to get divorced than change your team. What people get out if following a particular team is unique to them. It may begin with entertainment but continues even if the entertainment does not.

The paradox is that sport is ultimately about contest and competition. So winning is the goal. Not entertaining. If you want entertaining without real competition then watch wrestling. Look how fans ignore friendlies. Sport is different.

Another paradox is that truly great sports performers are so good and so focused on winning that they are often not attractive to watch or entertaining. Schumacher, Navratilova and Tiger Woods were exemplary champions but were so good and so ruthless that they rarely entertain the neutral.

I wonder if the entertainment in sport comes from fallibility. From the heroic rise from loser to winner. Even brilliance mixed with fallibility is loved eg Seve.

We find entertainment in football. As long as it is a sport with contest and victory at its core, it can never be just or even primarily entertainment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="It''s Character Forming"]

Yes GMD, the true comparison is whether you''d prefer to watch a season of thrilling games and end up 18th, or a season with many dull wins at home etc which leaves us 11th and well placed for the following year.  Saying you wouldn''t mind if we end up 17th is a bit of a cop out IMO.

 

Going down would be a disaster for the club. Whilst I can see what a lot of people meant when we went up, and posts started coming out that people preferred the championship, clubs can easily decline or go bankrupt in the championship. Though its arguably a more competitive league.

Staying up is essential, so no, I wouldnt advocate entertaining football over survival. But I dont see why we are so terrified to express ourselves. We did that in our first season with far poorer players and stayed up far more comfortably. We were more in danger of being relegated last season than we were in our first season back. Finishing 11th glossed over just how much danger we were in for much of the season. We played with passion in that season, I just dont see it this season. I dont think we need to play with so much fear of the opposition. On paper now we are not inferior to almost all sides like we were that first season.

Relegation hurts. And would mean the following season would see a poorer quality of football because we''d be in a lower division and would have to take on less able players.

We have to stay up. But I dont think entertaining football leads to relegation. Perhaps others do. I think we are capable of more than attrition football

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...