3 ms·
The way I understood the author is that we don't really see who played better, or what the story is, in anything but very lop-sided games because the low-scorin
by Amezarak 12y ago
The way I understood the author is that we don't really see who played better, or what the story is, in anything but very lop-sided games because the low-scoring nature of soccer means that we are constructing fictitious narratives to fit the events of the game, which are often better explained by chance.
I agree that who played better and the whole story are much more interesting, and I think the author agrees too. I believe his argument is that it's difficult to really see who played better. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, though.
- lukev 12y agoIt's easy enough to see who played better if you actually watch the game. There is absolutely no reason to build a "ficticious narrative" when the real narrative being streamed to every corner of the globe in realtime. I used to find soccer unutterably boring, until I had a roomate one time who was really into it. He showed me the proper way to watch a game... you're not sitting around waiting for goals, you're watching how they pass, how they handle the ball, the skill and athleticism. I still find it boring, but at least I appreciate it now.