|
Post by 1raytuper on Apr 23, 2014 23:23:42 GMT
im not being disrespectful mate,your dad paid his entrance fee which is financial support,but in terms of helping the team on the pitch then he was a spectator,the players would prefer a ground full of vocal supporters than a ground full of silent spectators. What the fuck are you on about?? scroll back and you should fathom it out,prick
|
|
|
Post by sparky32 on Apr 23, 2014 23:29:38 GMT
I used to sit in block 23, but now im sit in Q Railings upper !! Ok, not so much atmosphere there, and yes more expensive but on the + side i dont have to hkeep getting up 10 mins into the game, letting guys in who fancied an extra drink i dont have to keep getting up, when they have to keep going out for a piss i dont have to keep getting up 10 mins before half time when they want to get to the bar 1st i dont have to keep getting up when they come back 10 mins into the 2nd half lost count of how much goalmouth action and goals ive missed thro this ok, i may well be a Victor Meldrew, but at least now i get to see the WHOLE 90mins
|
|
|
Post by Roy Cropper on Apr 23, 2014 23:52:41 GMT
From block 16, the south are getting louder and more consistent but the boothen is by far the loudest when it gets going.
Also, whoever keeps starting Delilah from the south stand needs to stop, it sounds fucking shit and never carries around the ground, that should always be left to the boothen.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Apr 23, 2014 23:58:35 GMT
What the fuck are you on about?? scroll back and you should fathom it out,prick People in glass houses etc.
|
|
|
Post by jmst4 on Apr 24, 2014 1:23:24 GMT
From block 16, the south are getting louder and more consistent but the boothen is by far the loudest when it gets going. Also, whoever keeps starting Delilah from the south stand needs to stop, it sounds fucking shit and never carries around the ground, that should always be left to the boothen. Most people that start 'Delilah' should stop, its sung way too often, at least in my humble opinion. Should be saved for a really special or rousing point in a match. Too many little 'Delilah'...s popping up, and sung at breakneck speed, all over the ground only detract from just how moving a united rendition can be, whether its us running away with or seriously chasing the match.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 24, 2014 4:08:22 GMT
The trouble is that you shouldn't expect a reasonable answer to that because you've tried to make out that quiet people are only spectators while loud people are supporters, which frankly, is bollocks. My dad supported the club through thick and thin for 70 years or more until he died in his 80s. He probably never sung at a match ever. If you're prepared to acknowledge that he was every bit as passionate and loyal as anyone who sings then I'll give you an honest answer to your question. Either way you'll have to wait cos I'm cutting out now. he was obviously loyal,but if he didnt give vocal support which is a massive help to the team( hence better results at home matches)then in my book he was a spectator,sitting quietly is NOT supporting . The "hence better results at home matches" part is, at best, debatable, no matter what the players might say. Studies have been done which show that crowds have basically no effect at all on the outcome of sports matches.
|
|
|
Block 19
Apr 24, 2014 4:55:45 GMT
via mobile
Post by harryh157 on Apr 24, 2014 4:55:45 GMT
he was obviously loyal,but if he didnt give vocal support which is a massive help to the team( hence better results at home matches)then in my book he was a spectator,sitting quietly is NOT supporting . The "hence better results at home matches" part is, at best, debatable, no matter what the players might say. Studies have been done which show that crowds have basically no effect at all on the outcome of sports matches. What studies? This seems unlikely to me, why do teams have such vastly different home and away results?
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Apr 24, 2014 5:57:08 GMT
Trust me, I stand at the back of block 30 and you don't hear a great lot coming from the south stand. Most starts in 19 or the boothen/seddon corner. I sit in the South Stand mate and trust me I never hear a single song from the rest of the ground (Block 19 included) except for the big staged anthems "Delilah" and "Oh When The Reds" so maybe none of us can sing so loud it reaches the other end of the ground! Like I said earlier bud, the sound drifts out if the ground because of the shit design.
|
|
|
Post by 1raytuper on Apr 24, 2014 8:43:32 GMT
he was obviously loyal,but if he didnt give vocal support which is a massive help to the team( hence better results at home matches)then in my book he was a spectator,sitting quietly is NOT supporting . The "hence better results at home matches" part is, at best, debatable, no matter what the players might say. Studies have been done which show that crowds have basically no effect at all on the outcome of sports matches. if you cant produce evidence of these "studies"i will assume you fabricated that fact .you are honestly trying to convince me that there is no such thing as home advantage?
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 24, 2014 12:05:46 GMT
The "hence better results at home matches" part is, at best, debatable, no matter what the players might say. Studies have been done which show that crowds have basically no effect at all on the outcome of sports matches. if you cant produce evidence of these "studies"i will assume you fabricated that fact .you are honestly trying to convince me that there is no such thing as home advantage? It's an interesting article actually, it's always stuck in my mind since I read it in 2008, just managed to find it online: www.theguardian.com/sport/2008/feb/03/features.sportmonthly16 "The fans, the players and the media have merely bought into a myth of their own relative power or powerlessness, one that fits what they want to believe. There is no evidence that home advantage is much affected, if at all, by the size, intensity or commitment of the fans. Instead, home advantage is remarkably consistent within individual sports across different locations and different crowds. Where it varies, the factors that count are the ones that usually count in sport: skill, luck and changes of circumstance. So, for example, home advantage in English football has been relatively steady across the four main leagues for the best part of a generation, unaffected by crowd size or levels of fan interest: though it varies a bit season by season, overall the home teams win roughly 60 per cent of all the points on offer."Home advantage is caused by a variety of factors, but the crowd is apparently not really one of them, however much we want to believe it is. harryh157
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Apr 24, 2014 12:22:38 GMT
Two examples of the crowd having an impact on the game for me from this season: Birmingham in the Cup, penalties facing us in the away end... we absolutely psyched out the Birmingham takers. Arsenal at the Brit, we ground them out in the game, but our constant barracking from the stands, saw their heads drop and Arsenal lost any hope of clawing their way back in to it. Obviously not scientifically measurable, but definitely an observable phenomenon. Added to that Shawcross, Odemwingie and Arnautovic have all talked about the positive effect the crowd has. I'd suggest even if it's only a marginal effect in encouraging players, keeping their dander up, the 'atmosphere' is important in getting a little extra on the pitch. Margins are important in the Prem.
|
|
|
Block 19
Apr 24, 2014 12:40:12 GMT
via mobile
Post by harryh157 on Apr 24, 2014 12:40:12 GMT
if you cant produce evidence of these "studies"i will assume you fabricated that fact .you are honestly trying to convince me that there is no such thing as home advantage? It's an interesting article actually, it's always stuck in my mind since I read it in 2008, just managed to find it online: www.theguardian.com/sport/2008/feb/03/features.sportmonthly16 "The fans, the players and the media have merely bought into a myth of their own relative power or powerlessness, one that fits what they want to believe. There is no evidence that home advantage is much affected, if at all, by the size, intensity or commitment of the fans. Instead, home advantage is remarkably consistent within individual sports across different locations and different crowds. Where it varies, the factors that count are the ones that usually count in sport: skill, luck and changes of circumstance. So, for example, home advantage in English football has been relatively steady across the four main leagues for the best part of a generation, unaffected by crowd size or levels of fan interest: though it varies a bit season by season, overall the home teams win roughly 60 per cent of all the points on offer."Home advantage is caused by a variety of factors, but the crowd is apparently not really one of them, however much we want to believe it is. harryh157Not read all of it yet but I do like the bit where they say crowd noise can effect a referees decision making in favour of the home team; can't see this impacting on the result!
|
|
|
Block 19
Apr 24, 2014 18:25:06 GMT
via mobile
Post by pickins on Apr 24, 2014 18:25:06 GMT
Extra time vs manure at the brit may not have physically helped but it certainly felt like something came from the crowd.
|
|
|
Block 19
Apr 24, 2014 21:02:24 GMT
via mobile
Post by harryh157 on Apr 24, 2014 21:02:24 GMT
if you cant produce evidence of these "studies"i will assume you fabricated that fact .you are honestly trying to convince me that there is no such thing as home advantage? It's an interesting article actually, it's always stuck in my mind since I read it in 2008, just managed to find it online: www.theguardian.com/sport/2008/feb/03/features.sportmonthly16 "The fans, the players and the media have merely bought into a myth of their own relative power or powerlessness, one that fits what they want to believe. There is no evidence that home advantage is much affected, if at all, by the size, intensity or commitment of the fans. Instead, home advantage is remarkably consistent within individual sports across different locations and different crowds. Where it varies, the factors that count are the ones that usually count in sport: skill, luck and changes of circumstance. So, for example, home advantage in English football has been relatively steady across the four main leagues for the best part of a generation, unaffected by crowd size or levels of fan interest: though it varies a bit season by season, overall the home teams win roughly 60 per cent of all the points on offer."Home advantage is caused by a variety of factors, but the crowd is apparently not really one of them, however much we want to believe it is. harryh157A particularly unconvincing article in my unscientific opinion. I will counter with a Wiki saying ' A researcher from Harvard University discovered in a study that some association football referees appeared to be impacted by crowd noise. His studies revealed that a home team acquired an additional 0.1 goal advantage for every 10,000 fans in the stadium.[71] Not saying that this is anymore convincing, however, are you honestly suggesting that on the basis of that article you believe that a crowd has NO impact on the outcome of a game?
|
|
|
Post by harryh157 on Apr 24, 2014 21:24:33 GMT
Recent experimental evidence suggests that the noise of a partisan home crowd may influence soccer officials to make an imbalance of decisions infavor ofthe home side (Nevill, Balmer, & Williams, 2002). Results suggest that crowd noise is associated with increased anxiety and mental effort, and that referees attempt to cope with this increased anxiety and effort by giving a more popular decision in favor ofthe home team. More recently, studies in botb professional soccer (Nevill, Newell, & Gale, 1996) and amateur ice hockey games (Agnew & Carron, 1994) have demonstrated relationships between absolute crowd size and crowd den- sity respectively with home advantage www.sirc.ca/newsletters/april13/documents/Free/Crowd%20Noise.pdfNow I'm not bright enough to understand all this but this reads like I would expect a study to read!
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 24, 2014 21:49:48 GMT
It's an interesting article actually, it's always stuck in my mind since I read it in 2008, just managed to find it online: www.theguardian.com/sport/2008/feb/03/features.sportmonthly16 "The fans, the players and the media have merely bought into a myth of their own relative power or powerlessness, one that fits what they want to believe. There is no evidence that home advantage is much affected, if at all, by the size, intensity or commitment of the fans. Instead, home advantage is remarkably consistent within individual sports across different locations and different crowds. Where it varies, the factors that count are the ones that usually count in sport: skill, luck and changes of circumstance. So, for example, home advantage in English football has been relatively steady across the four main leagues for the best part of a generation, unaffected by crowd size or levels of fan interest: though it varies a bit season by season, overall the home teams win roughly 60 per cent of all the points on offer."Home advantage is caused by a variety of factors, but the crowd is apparently not really one of them, however much we want to believe it is. harryh157A particularly unconvincing article in my unscientific opinion. I will counter with a Wiki saying ' A researcher from Harvard University discovered in a study that some association football referees appeared to be impacted by crowd noise. His studies revealed that a home team acquired an additional 0.1 goal advantage for every 10,000 fans in the stadium.[71] Not saying that this is anymore convincing, however, are you honestly suggesting that on the basis of that article you believe that a crowd has NO impact on the outcome of a game? The Observer article does acknowledge the potential effect on referees, to be fair. I suppose I probably should have worded my original point more carefully - I think there is virtually no evidence that a team's performance at home is in any way caused by crowd size/noise/intensity, and I think the article raises a number of points which would suggest it is not (teams' home form dipping after a stadium change, the consistency of home advantage across different leagues and widely varying crowd sizes etc). I just thought raytuper's point about vocal support being "a massive help to the team" was without much basis.
|
|
|
Post by JetBlack on Apr 24, 2014 22:05:11 GMT
I often wonder whether the chant "WE'VE GOT ANOTHER SHIT REF" makes any difference.
|
|
|
Post by 1raytuper on Apr 24, 2014 23:10:38 GMT
A particularly unconvincing article in my unscientific opinion. I will counter with a Wiki saying ' A researcher from Harvard University discovered in a study that some association football referees appeared to be impacted by crowd noise. His studies revealed that a home team acquired an additional 0.1 goal advantage for every 10,000 fans in the stadium.[71] Not saying that this is anymore convincing, however, are you honestly suggesting that on the basis of that article you believe that a crowd has NO impact on the outcome of a game? The Observer article does acknowledge the potential effect on referees, to be fair. I suppose I probably should have worded my original point more carefully - I think there is virtually no evidence that a team's performance at home is in any way caused by crowd size/noise/intensity, and I think the article raises a number of points which would suggest it is not (teams' home form dipping after a stadium change, the consistency of home advantage across different leagues and widely varying crowd sizes etc). I just thought raytuper's point about vocal support being "a massive help to the team" was without much basis. without much basis? i despair go read another study
|
|
|
Post by SneydGreenStokie on Apr 25, 2014 8:40:09 GMT
The trouble is that you shouldn't expect a reasonable answer to that because you've tried to make out that quiet people are only spectators while loud people are supporters, which frankly, is bollocks. My dad supported the club through thick and thin for 70 years or more until he died in his 80s. He probably never sung at a match ever. If you're prepared to acknowledge that he was every bit as passionate and loyal as anyone who sings then I'll give you an honest answer to your question. Either way you'll have to wait cos I'm cutting out now. he was obviously loyal,but if he didnt give vocal support which is a massive help to the team(hence better results at home matches)then in my book he was a spectator,sitting quietly is NOT supporting . Bollocks. I'm quite vocal but to suggest that if your not means your not supporting and just spectating is utter shite. Supporting means far more than simply shouting out loud. The money you pay etc are all contributing factors to supporting your club. Your comment is ridiculous and you are clearly a bit of a dick for suggesting what you did. SGS
|
|
|
Post by 1raytuper on Apr 25, 2014 10:52:41 GMT
he was obviously loyal,but if he didnt give vocal support which is a massive help to the team(hence better results at home matches)then in my book he was a spectator,sitting quietly is NOT supporting . Bollocks. I'm quite vocal but to suggest that if your not means your not supporting and just spectating is utter shite. Supporting means far more than simply shouting out loud. The money you pay etc are all contributing factors to supporting your club. Your comment is ridiculous and you are clearly a bit of a dick for suggesting what you did. SGS read my post again and you might realise i typed VOCAL support,paying for your ticket is financial support,watching the match without giving vocal support is not supporting the team,it is spectating.
|
|
|
Post by mrred on Apr 25, 2014 11:05:28 GMT
I think it's a bit of a running joke in the South stand these days that you barely hear a peep from the Boothen End.
'Boothen, give us a song' is becoming more frequent. No offence, like.
|
|
|
Block 19
Apr 25, 2014 11:46:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by stokefaninde on Apr 25, 2014 11:46:59 GMT
Players are too used to hostile fans to let it cause too much effect by the time they make it to the Prem. Doubt it changes play too much.
|
|
|
Post by 1raytuper on Apr 25, 2014 11:56:28 GMT
Players are too used to hostile fans to let it cause too much effect by the time they make it to the Prem. Doubt it changes play too much. i may be wrong,but im guessing you are a "spectator"
|
|
|
Block 19
Apr 25, 2014 15:34:46 GMT
via mobile
Post by stokefaninde on Apr 25, 2014 15:34:46 GMT
Players are too used to hostile fans to let it cause too much effect by the time they make it to the Prem. Doubt it changes play too much. i may be wrong,but im guessing you are a "spectator" Nope. Depends on who I am with. But when I do it Its out of passion for my team, not to motivate men who should be self motivated.
|
|
|
Post by adi on Apr 25, 2014 15:48:51 GMT
It is poor effort from the q railing stand. If the whole ground had their umf we'd be silent 95% of the game.
|
|
|
Post by wrighter on Apr 25, 2014 16:02:32 GMT
It is poor effort from the q railing stand. If the whole ground had their umf we'd be silent 95% of the game. Sadly, i have to agree with you, it is like a f&cking morque in there.............but Im not paying a £60 train fare, and a 8 hour round trip to no longer sit in the Boothen, and have countless guys arses push into my face as i try and watch a game ive paid to see [ look at my earlier post] The old Boothen at the Vic was great, no probs as we all stood up Sorry its quiet in QR"S i have tried to get some singing done, but to no avail
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Apr 25, 2014 16:02:54 GMT
It seems all the singing comes from the south stand these days. Trust me, I stand at the back of block 30 and you don't hear a great lot coming from the south stand. Most starts in 19 or the boothen/seddon corner. When Block 30 get going, everyone knows about it!
|
|