Will Burton suit us? Bolton v Brewers, Tues 25-10-22. 7.45.

[BorsdaneWhite]

Evatt in the BN noted that the ball was in play for only 49 minutes on Tuesday. Goal kicks took an average of 35 seconds. I remember that one on 3 minutes. Jesus. There were a couple of PMs elected and disgraced before he put it on the grass.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Evatt in the BN noted that the ball was in play for only 49 minutes on Tuesday. Goal kicks took an average of 35 seconds. I remember that one on 3 minutes. Jesus. There were a couple of PMs elected and disgraced before he put it on the grass.

Interesting numbers down the piece there as well:

The Premier League record for the shortest amount of time the ball has spent in-play was set in 2010 when Stoke City faced Blackburn Rovers (39 mins and one second), the longest was a game between Manchester United and Fulham from 2012 (71 mins, 51 seconds). The top flight last season saw an average of 56 mins and 54 seconds – or 52.9 per cent of a whole game.

I knew about the Stoke-Blackburn one (Pulis v Allardyce...) 'cos I remember having to write about it, but the fact that the best you can hope for is 7/9ths of your money's worth is a little bit depressing in, shall we say, the current economic climate. Or as Evatt puts it:

“Strip everything back, football is an entertainment business and people pay loads of money to come to the football and be entertained, watch the ball actually be in play. Last night neither set of supporters saw that and it is something we have to look at. In the world we live in, the financial situation in the UK, it is difficult for people to find the money to come to football clubs. The least they deserve is to be entertained."

[Worthy4England]

Ahhh. When I strip everything back, football is not an entertainment business it's two sides competing to win. If they entertain along the journey, that's all well and good. The whole objective of competition, friendly or otherwise is to win. Sure, some people might not mind whether they do or not, that's up to them, they can console themselves with "well at least I took part."

I come to watch the ball not in play, on the grounds it's nestled in the opposition's onion bag...

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Ahhh. When I strip everything back, football is not an entertainment business it's two sides competing to win. If they entertain along the journey, that's all well and good. The whole objective of competition, friendly or otherwise is to win. Sure, some people might not mind whether they do or not, that's up to them, they can console themselves with "well at least I took part."

I come to watch the ball not in play, on the grounds it's nestled in the opposition's onion bag...

This is a belief you are entitled to have, but one I can't get my head round at all. To me, it seems equivalent to wanting to follow the world's most successful band but not because you like the music. If sport isn't about beauty, then Orwell's right about it just being war without the guns.

But as I say, each to their own...

[Worthy4England]

Ahhh. When I strip everything back, football is not an entertainment business it's two sides competing to win. If they entertain along the journey, that's all well and good. The whole objective of competition, friendly or otherwise is to win. Sure, some people might not mind whether they do or not, that's up to them, they can console themselves with "well at least I took part."

I come to watch the ball not in play, on the grounds it's nestled in the opposition's onion bag...

This is a belief you are entitled to have, but one I can't get my head round at all. To me, it seems equivalent to wanting to follow the world's most successful band but not because you like the music. If sport isn't about beauty, then Orwell's right about it just being war without the guns.

But as I say, each to their own...

If sport isn't about beauty, then Orwell's right about it just being war without the guns.

You're also entitled to your belief. Just that it's absolutely incorrect.

Well done, Orwell. There was a reason I played rugby and cricket, the first is indeed war without the guns and the second actually gives you a missile which you can hurl at someone 22 yards away at 80mph (and they didn't bother with helmets in those days).

It's not the equivalent of following the most successful music band. They're not in a league, don't play for cups and it would be difficult to judge in a direct competition between the two which was the winner or what the criteria would be. It's nothing at all similar. Sport was invented to find the best at all sorts of disciplines. You can run a good race, but there can only be one winner (apart from the odd dead-heat), it's its purpose for existing.

Can it be entertaining - of course - but that's not its purpose otherwise when we're entertainingly rooted to the foot of the table, we'd just be happy that we'd been "entertained" be it by our side or the other...

[Prufrock]

It's both isn't it?

The purely sporting side of it (i.e. Evatt and the XI) isn't about entertainment, but as far as there is a business (i.e. charging people to watch) it's surely about entertainment. Why else are people paying to watch? To be nourished? To quench their thirst?

That's then an argument about what it is that is "entertaining". For some people it's just the winning, but that's still entertainment - witnessing a sporting competition - others put more or less emphasis on the "attacking" or "exciting" bit of DSB's hierarchy.

As far as the sporting contest goes, Evatt's priority as BWFC manager should be winning games, which I'm sure it is, but for football more widely I think it's a fair point to test whether the powers that be maybe want to do something about teams time wasting from the third bastard minute!

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

It's not the equivalent of following the most successful music band. They're not in a league, don't play for cups and it would be difficult to judge in a direct competition between the two which was the winner or what the criteria would be. It's nothing at all similar. Sport was invented to find the best at all sorts of disciplines. You can run a good race, but there can only be one winner (apart from the odd dead-heat), it's its purpose for existing.

Bands' success is measured in all sorts of quantifiable ways. Some of these tables are called charts. They also give old gold (and silver and platinum) rewards in the shape of old-fashioned discs, although maybe now it's a digital thing...

Seems to me that by your rationale Bolton have never had a successful season. We've topped lower divisions, but never won *the* league. Which makes your zero-sum game a little joyless, no?

Me, I can find joy in lots of places. Who'd have known that beating Burton could have been so much fun? But if all that matters is a league table, it's merely an expected goal.

[Worthy4England]

Not sure of the point of the first paragraph? Because something is measurable and quantifiable, it's sport?

You're confusing and conflating a few things here. One being why I think sport exists (to allow people to compete against one another and see who's best) and conflating that with "therefore you you wouldn't watch joyless Bolton" They're not the same question.

[TANGODANCER]

Ahhh. When I strip everything back, football is not an entertainment business it's two sides competing to win. If they entertain along the journey, that's all well and good. The whole objective of competition, friendly or otherwise is to win. Sure, some people might not mind whether they do or not, that's up to them, they can console themselves with "well at least I took part."

I come to watch the ball not in play, on the grounds it's nestled in the opposition's onion bag...

This is a belief you are entitled to have, but one I can't get my head round at all. To me, it seems equivalent to wanting to follow the world's most successful band but not because you like the music. If sport isn't about beauty, then Orwell's right about it just being war without the guns.

But as I say, each to their own...

For what it's worth, the reaction of the spectators and the glowing comment from young Bradley shows what changes despair to jubilation in five minutes. The answer is a win. Tuesday was the proof.

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/2 ... -ac-milan/

[The_Gun]

Not sure of the point of the first paragraph? Because something is measurable and quantifiable, it's sport?

You're confusing and conflating a few things here. One being why I think sport exists (to allow people to compete against one another and see who's best) and conflating that with "therefore you you wouldn't watch joyless Bolton" They're not the same question.

Yeah, but why are you interested in who’s the best out of Bolton and Burton? Presumably as a form of diversion/entertainment?

[Worthy4England]

It's both isn't it?

The purely sporting side of it (i.e. Evatt and the XI) isn't about entertainment, but as far as there is a business (i.e. charging people to watch) it's surely about entertainment. Why else are people paying to watch? To be nourished? To quench their thirst?

That's then an argument about what it is that is "entertaining". For some people it's just the winning, but that's still entertainment - witnessing a sporting competition - others put more or less emphasis on the "attacking" or "exciting" bit of DSB's hierarchy.

As far as the sporting contest goes, Evatt's priority as BWFC manager should be winning games, which I'm sure it is, but for football more widely I think it's a fair point to test whether the powers that be maybe want to do something about teams time wasting from the third bastard minute!

You can fcuk right off with your fence sitting!

As you say, the sport is about winning. We should be given our money back when they don't. That'll focus a few lazy first half displays...but seriously yes it's good to be entertained by it, albeit by dint of the fact I support Bolton, I have not too irregularly been more entertained by a beer beforehand, a half time bovril and a couple of scoops after, than the 60 minutes the ball was on the park...

To spin the reductive argument the other way. If it was about entertainment, surely we'd watch someone good at it!

[Worthy4England]

Not sure of the point of the first paragraph? Because something is measurable and quantifiable, it's sport?

You're confusing and conflating a few things here. One being why I think sport exists (to allow people to compete against one another and see who's best) and conflating that with "therefore you you wouldn't watch joyless Bolton" They're not the same question.

Yeah, but why are you interested in who’s the best out of Bolton and Burton? Presumably as a form of diversion/entertainment?

So I know where to move all the tabs on my League Ladder on the bedroom wall!

[DJBlu]

If you want cheering up watch the last 10 mins of the game with the away commentary on.

Seven? Where's he got seven from. I suppose when you're in and amongst it you don't see the time wasting.