0.BL1-2011-9.Spt-Zus-Sky

The summary of the 1st Bundesliga matches from the 9th matchday of the 2010/2011 season from the afternoon of 23 October 2010 on the Sky Deutschland channel.

The Sky Deutschland channel has acquired the rights to exclusively broadcast the German Bundesliga (Leagues 1 and 2). This brings a variety of programming to the television landscape for every subscriber. You have the choice of watching a single match or selecting the conference, but of course there is also a summary of all matches in analogy to the tried and tested Sportschau on late Saturday afternoons, which has had a fixed place in every football fan’s diary since the introduction of the single league in 1963.

Now the view is expressed here that the broadcaster Sky Deutschland is on a drip and that its predecessor Premiere has already been bought up by the British broadcaster Sky England, which is doing well. These problems, however, are home-made, so the claim goes, because the broadcaster, with its poor reporting, is successively cutting off its own water with one arm and sawing off the branch on which it is already sitting very shakily with the other, in order to soon rush headlong into the swampy ground caused by the dug-up water – to put it in a slightly exaggerated way. A brief mention of the cause: In their view, football is a product that sells itself, no matter how many negative words are used in the reporting.

However, this is by no means the case. There is plenty of evidence for this, at least for the deficiency of the reporting. Whether there is a connection between the threat of bankruptcy and the quality of the reports is something everyone should consider for themselves. In any case, this text is intended to make a contribution to convincing people of the low quality of programme preparation.

The text has the following content and structure: First of all, the summary that is shown every (Bundesliga) Saturday from 5:30 p.m. on Sky Deutschland under the title “Alle Spiele – alle Tore” (All games – all goals) will be recorded completely and without commentary, in this case that of the concrete 9th match day of the 2010/2011 season. In it, both the reports of the games and the coaches’ and players’ comments will be found.

In the following part, a short evaluation of the games will be given, which reserves the right to look at very different aspects. Among other things, a few rule questions or the assessment of individual scenes in a different way may well fall under this. However, one’s own views on the rules and their interpretation, which may be touched upon, should not be dealt with in too much detail. For this purpose, one should pay attention to the references to the individual chapters and, if necessary, study them.

Nevertheless, a brief note on this:
One fundamental view is held everywhere. This is that the referee’s decisions are to a large extent against the attacking party. Even with hindsight, “clear penalties” that were not given are spoken of much more often than a given one is given the rating “flayed”. In the same way, when it comes to offside decisions, the generally recognised mistakes are clearly to the disadvantage of the attackers. In addition, there is the firm conviction that more goals could increase the attractiveness of the sport of football enormously and that this could be achieved very easily with the proposed rethinking process of “in doubt for the striker” (instead of the other way round, as is the current practice). However, a “correct” whistle would easily suffice to achieve the intention of “more goals”. These views may shine through or seek confirmation here or there – and certainly find it.

Afterwards, the recorded reports and votes are reprinted, to be annotated individually, section by section, or in the case of noteworthy trivia and other conspicuities, with their own annotations.

The idea is this: The reader can first make up his own mind through the recorded summary how the games were and whether he likes the comments, seems appropriate, is positive or negative on the whole and in general whether he gets a good impression of the games, it looks like quality and excitement, whether one would like to watch the next summary — or rather not.

The subsequent viewing of the games should perhaps show what was not discussed or what perhaps came across as other than pleasant, positive. It should show a little more facet than the reports, which are often composed of platitudes.

If the comments are looked at in this way, perhaps a more precise description of a scene, an overlooked detail, a misrepresentation, a misjudgement can be pointed out, which of course then goes “into the guts”. However, here – on a randomly selected match day – an attempt is being made to give fodder to the view of inadequate reporting. And the idea that a match day was deliberately or maliciously chosen on which the reports turned out to be so negative, while otherwise they always turn out to be good, exciting, favourable, hopefully refutes the multitude of matches and thus the multitude of chances for the reporters to get something positive out of it.

Another important remark beforehand: If, as is suggested, the viewer is NOT supposed to know the outcome of the games at the beginning of the broadcast, then, in order to maintain suspense, any tendentious comments that give clear indications of the outcome of the game are prohibited. This requirement has long been rarely complied with, as was (quite painfully) experienced in one’s own childhood, since maintaining suspense was a central concern.

So the commentary begins at the first scenes of the game — and after a few sentences one guesses how the game will end. This “problem” seems to be due to the fact that the most important thing for the speaker is to enhance his own person. But anyone who robs the audience of suspense in such a way, even though he knows the outcome, just to be seen as a good prophet, is somehow reminiscent of tattletales and copyists from school days, who must have ranked pretty much last in the honour rankings.

Another remark of a very essential character: In England, for example, no one would think of making a “post-commentary”. This has cause and effect at the same time. The live commentary is so authentic because of the tension felt and conveyed during the game that there is no need for a post-commentary. The viewer/listener is automatically and irresistibly drawn into the action. The overly curious can read the outcome of the play beforehand if they feel like it. Suspense is maintained, is conveyed and there are already enough smart alecks. “Teacher, I know something.”

In this country, this would be impossible, as the commentary during the live broadcast already offers nothing that one would like to hear a second time, as it is full of stupid teachings that are wrong everywhere, and widespread boredom followed by silly troubleshooting. In this respect, there has to be a follow-up commentary.

However, the follow-up reports in this country have a similar shortcoming…

It should also be noted that a post-match report should be a much easier task to keep the viewer in front of the TV, since he is only presented with selected highlights. In comparison, a game with live commentary is a much more difficult task – and usually even less successful. So basically, the recording of a summary should actually be unsuitable for pointing out deficiencies in the commentary. In this sense, please look a little more closely at what is actually being said by the commentators.

1) Part 1: The record of the comments

Note: The unannotated part, which is printed in its entirety, can now be skipped, as no responsibility can be taken for the content – not as far as authenticity is concerned but the pure content — and the entertainment value is considered to be decidedly insufficient. It is here for the sake of completeness and for the interested reader who would like to form his own opinion.

On to Part 1, the complete record of the comments. Where necessary, the speaker’s name or a part necessary for understanding is added in brackets and italics, as well as lower case.

(Jan Henkel from the studio)
Welcome to the reports of the games of the 1st Bundesliga from the 9th matchday, Friday’s opener with the top match HSV – Bayern 0:0, Sunday then come the top teams with Dortmund, with Mainz, Leverkusen still with them, then the last team in the table Stuttgart, and Saturday framed five matches, these we have back there, with many questions. Wolfsburg at Nuremberg, what do Cologne do at Hannover, FCK at Freiburg, Bremen at Gladbach and Schalke at Eintracht Frankfurt.

a. Eintracht Frankfurt – FC Schalke 04

(Jan Henkel continues concretely on the first match)
And Schalke, yes, so far with two faces, the Champions League and the Bundesliga face, and Eintracht Frankfurt on the other side, they have won three times in a row in the Bundesliga recently. And both have a centre-forward up front, really successful. Gekas on the Frankfurt side with seven goals and Klaas-Jan Huntelaar — by the way, here we have the goals from both of them (the strikers are shown in the back with their goal output) — with five goals. They were both the coaches’ favourite strikers, Michael Skibbe’s Gekas and Felix Magath’s Klaas-Jan Huntelaar. First Real Madrid, then AC Milan, where it didn’t work out, now Schalke, where it seems to work out well, and, Tom Bayer, maybe he’ll get a bit more support from his strike partner now, because since last Wednesday there’s a new top scorer in Europe…?

(Tom Bayer now with pictures from the Frankfurt – Schalke match)
Yes, three days ago Raul scored twice against Hapoel Tel Aviv in the Champions League and now leads the eternal list of top scorers with 70 European Cup goals and Raul wants to follow up his only goal in the Bundesliga as soon as possible.

51,500 spectators, Eintracht in red and black, a nice one-two pass, Ochs, who gets the ball again with the first shot attempt of this match after four minutes. The Schalkers were hesitant in the early stages, taking a relatively long time to get going for the first time.
Jefferson Farfan, the Peruvian, that is Jurado, against Tel Aviv also goal scorer, Farfan, and that is Raul with the first chance for the guests from the Ruhr area after 18 minutes. Bad luck for the 33-year-old, who also fetched the ball himself in midfield. We have seen this more often this season, and then he has the overview to anticipate this situation, from the left to the right, he only fails to hit Oka Nikolov.

So the first big chance for Felix Magath’s team.
Then shortly after, free kick on the other side, Benjamin Köhler, today left defender for the ill Tzavellas, and that’s Halil Altintop, 25th minute, hits the net from the wrong side. But actually it was offside with Köhler’s free kick you see Chris beyond the white line, there it doesn’t even bother that Rakitic deflects the ball before, actually this situation should have been whistled back.
Eintracht now have a slight advantage. Again and again, they come dangerously from the wings. Schwegler, Altintop, Köhler, a nice combination, and then the top scorer in the middle, Gekas, hard pressed by Christoph Metzelder, doesn’t get a chance.

Schalke also had something to offer in the final phase of the first half. Ivan Rakitic, and then Benjamin Köhler with this bad mistake, Klaas-Jan Huntelaar, normally you can’t afford such a bolt against the Dutchman, but here he fails against Oka Nikolov, who again reacts excellently.
(The replay is played in) Here again the mistake by Köhler, who is then also played out, and Hunelaar, always successful in the last five games, fails.

(Amanatidis is shown in civilian clothes) Ioannis Amanatidis, the Frankfurt striker, today only in the stands due to muscle complaints, was quite satisfied at the break, at least with his team’s play.

Watch out, Manuel Neuer, because here comes Marco Russ’ header, the first scoring chance in the 47th minute. Again after a free kick by Benjamin Köhler, who was responsible for almost all the standards for the hosts today. And Eintracht now really put on the pressure. Patrick Ochs. Altintop for Alexander Meier, and Manuel Neuer prevents the first goal in this match. 66th minute.

The Schalkers were now having problems at the full-back positions, while the Frankfurt team was always able to excel offensively.
Joel Matip, substituted for Jurado, looks anything but good, ball loss, Ochs with a good eye for Halil Altintop, and why he didn’t put it in the goal, Halil Altintop will probably think about that for a few hours tonight. He simply had to do it after Patrick Ochs’ well-timed pass, and Eintracht coach Michael Skibbe, a native of Gelsenkirchen, saw it the same way on the sidelines.

Frankfurt now had a really strong phase and put the Schalkers under pressure. Again Meier on Theofanis Gekas, the instinctive footballer, who has scored seven times this season, hesitated too long and in the end the angle was too acute.

90th minute. The substitute Martin Fenin against Christoph Metzelder, who is tunneled and run over, and then Köhler has the 1:0 on his foot, but somehow the goal didn’t fall.

Schalke had no chance to score in the second half. The goal difference in the second half was 10:0 for Eintracht, and still it was only enough for a goalless draw. Jens Westen has collected voices in the Frankfurt camp.

(Halil Altintop, ex Schalke player, in an interview) We showed that we have a good team, we prepared very, very well, so the Schalkers didn’t stand a chance, and of course you could see that here and there they still don’t have much going for them, but we’re only looking at ourselves and it’s a shame that we couldn’t crown our good performance with three points today.

(Patrick Ochs afterwards) Because of the second half, we had a lot of chances and, I think, Schalke didn’t score once in the second half, normally we should have won, but that’s the way it is, we’re happy with a point, everything’s ok.
(Question from Jens Westen to Patrick Ochs:) I didn’t think so, because Frankfurt were so superior in the second half?
(Patrick Ochs: ) Yes, definitely, we would have liked to have had the three points here, sometimes it’s just that a bit of luck is missing, and then you have to be satisfied with a point. I think it was similar against Freiburg here at home, or at least a bit more even, and they scored the goal in the last minute, and nobody understood it anymore, so a point is okay.
(next question from Jens Westen: ) But that’s very modest.
(Patrick Ochs: ) Yes, very modest, what can we do. Always bake small rolls and keep working. (laughing)

(Tom Bayer takes over again)
Yes, the Schalkers also have to bake small rolls after the happy draw, but for the first time they remain without conceding a goal, and Michael Skibbe’s team plays for a draw for the first time this season.

(Jan Henkel from the studio)
Yes, did we just see a slight smirk on the face of ex Schalke player Halil Altintop when he said that you could see that not too much was working for them yet?
In any case, no goals despite good offensive quality. We showed it before, Gekas seven goals, Huntelaar five goals and also Europe’s top scorer with 70 European Cup goals, Raul, all no goals. You’ve already heard from Tom Bayer that this was also due to the statistics of the second half regarding shots on goal, and I assume that Jens Westen also confronts the Schalke coach with this.

(Jens Westen interjected with Felix Magath; first question Jens Westen)
A statistic for you Mr Magath, from the second half. Frankfurt scored ten goals, Schalke zero. What does that say about your team’s play today?

(Felix Magath answers: )
That definitely says that you don’t want to judge the first half, but only the second. If you could tell me now: What was the ratio like in the first half?

(Jens Westen: )
It was even in terms of chances. In numbers, Frankfurt had seven shots on goal, Schalke five. Nevertheless, the second half is striking, I don’t want to hide the fact that the game was even in the first half.

(Felix Magath replies: )
Well, then you can say that we came under pressure in the second half, that we defended badly, didn’t really go out at the back, didn’t do enough going forward, and that’s why we were under pressure, and in the end we got a lucky draw here.

(Jens Westen: )
And how do you see it overall over the 90 minutes? They wanted to turn things around with all their might and get out of the bottom. You’re treading water as far as the table is concerned.
(Felix Magath: )
As far as the table is concerned, but we haven’t played to nil so far, as you said before the game, but now we’ve played to nil for the first time, albeit with a bit of luck, but we haven’t had that all the time, so that’s a step forward. We have seen that we have a hard time after a Champions League game, because we invest a lot in the Champions League, and now we have to take that into account and make sure that we get the points beforehand.

(Jens Westen: )
So, it sounds as if you are optimistic, and the certainty that you recognised on Wednesday, was it also there today, as you had hoped?
(Felix Magath: )
Well, the insecurity wasn’t an argument for this game or for the second half, but we didn’t give ourselves enough confidence, and maybe I sent out the wrong signal by not training on Thursday morning.
(Jens Westen: )
So next week we’ll train every day.
(Felix Magath: )
No, but the day after a game we will train again.
(Jens Westen: )
So tomorrow training at Schalke. Thank you, Mr Magath. Back to Munich.

(Jan Henkel, Studio Munich)
There he is nodding, in the background. So keep working, working, working, Felix Magath’s motto, he takes the positive out of it, puts it in a positive light, although the statistics were clear just now, as far as the second half is concerned. It’s the fifth 0-0 this season, that’s relatively few, three of them Bayern by the way.

b. Borussia Mönchengladbach – Werder Bremen

And three players were missing from Borussia Mönchengladbach’s game at home against Werder Bremen today. And all three, that’s the special thing about it, with straight red. That’s where we have the players. (The three are faded in, with a referee in front of them, red card in hand)
Arango, Brouwers and Schachten. Those are the three. And all three, as I said, with a straight red card, not in the game. Still, Michael Frontzeck today solves the whole thing offensively, attack is the best defence, with four attacking ones up front, that’s neat.
But with the Bremen team on the other side, there during the week, they played 1:1 in the Champions League, against Enschede, and the decisive scene, however, which had a little shock character, (the scene in which Tim Wiese was injured is played) was this one by Tim Wiese, no opponent present. Background: Tim Wiese has already torn two cruciate ligaments in his career, his right knee, he was then carried out, substituted, and thank God, the examinations showed that it is nothing torn, but a sprained inner ligament, ten days break, three days are already over, so Tim Wiese will miss about another week.

Accordingly, today, in goal, Martin Groß, not the number two, but the number three of Bremen.

(Martin Groß with pictures from the game)
Because the number two, Christian Vander, is also injured, 21-year-old Sebastian Mielitz made his third Bundesliga appearance and Igor de Carmago was to give him a good run for his money. The man who had come from Standard Liege made his first start for Borussia Mönchengladbach after a long period of injury.

The game started fast. Marin with a good run against Bradley, which was hardly visible, Bradley fouled Marin, seen here, with his left knee he gets caught on Marin’s right foot. Günter Perl, the referee, who did an excellent job by the way, had seen everything right, free kick for Gladbach (speech error; Werder had it) in the fifth minute and it’s in! 1:0 for Werder Bremen by the man Thomas Schaaf had put up because of that, or because he had played in Gladbach. Extra motivational boost for Marko Marin, who is lucky the ball rolls through everyone, Logan Bailly beaten.

But Gladbach with Idrissou came very quickly in front of Mielitz’s goal, first chance for the hosts through Torben Marx.

The former world champions (Vogts and Bonhof are shown in the stands) of 74, Rainer Bonhof and Berti Vogts saw a very good Bundesliga game, with incredible pace, with a lot of offensive spirit and hesitant defence. Wesley, two nil Werder. Just twelve minutes had been played. Bailly could only shake his head, because several things came together unhappily.

(The replay of the goal)
First of all, Wesley can drive the ball 30, 40, 50 metres, Marx goes away, and at the moment Anderson decides to go up there, he also deflects it awkwardly, Bailly still on it, but beaten for the second time. That was Werder’s second shot on goal, with the result that Gladbach fans were already whistling after 20 minutes.

They did their team an injustice, because Gladbach put this 2:0 away, played forward and had this chance. Idrissou against Mielitz. Unbelievable. 23rd minute, at the latest now it was clear, Mielitz would have a very good afternoon, great, the reaction.
The subsequent corner kick. there comes de Camargo and on the line Torsten Frings helps the post. Only 23 minutes played and already plenty of chances at Borussia Park. And so it went on.

Daems here, unlucky, Bobadilla from an impossible angle, 26 minutes gone. That’s how it went at Borussia Park. And Gladbach was doing really well.

But then, 30th minute, counter-attack, Marin, classy through against Levels, and alone in front of Bailly and then he misses the almost safe 0:3. First 1 a, how he asserts himself against Levels, and then he just wants to do it too well, instead of passing the ball somehow. The lob clearly missed the goal.

It went forward again and again, on both sides. Here Bobadilla, who scored twice in the 4:3 against Bremen last season, has a shot. There was a bit missing, as so often in this first half for Gladbach. Great offensive action, but when they did hit the net, there was always Mielitz.

It was a super game and with such a little smile we went into the break, Wesley’s eightfold overhead kick against Levels.

Second half. The game continued to be fun and then became dramatic. 51st minute, Idrissou, this ball simply has to go in. Mielitz only had a slight sideways glance over, then concentrated on Werder’s counterattack via Marin and Hunt, Hunt, ball deflected, ball in, unbelievable. Unbelievable what was happening. On one side, Borussia Mönchengladbach had a huge chance to tie the game, namely this one. I’m sticking with it, the ball just has to go in. Compliments to Mielitz, of course, who again reacted superbly on the line, and then on the counterattack Hunt deals with Wissing, who was making his first start, who is too hesitant, Daems has a body part in between this time, and so it was 0:3.

Change, de Camargo’s working day was over, he can certainly do more, he tried hard, not so goal-dangerous, unlike Idrissou and Reus, he misses this chance and then Mertesacker helps, that was Gladbach’s offensive play, they had chances, but couldn’t put the ball in the goal themselves, and then suddenly Per Mertesacker helps. Third own goal by the way from Werder this season, they lead this category.

And suddenly, of course, there was still something in it for Gladbach, as strange as this game had been until then. But Werder didn’t want to get involved in gimmicks and played forward. Arnautovic had a great chance in the 73rd minute. He even had a similar one a minute later. Werder were on the verge of scoring the fourth goal with four minutes to go, and that’s what happened. Wesley’s great pass was converted by Pizarro in the 74th minute. Gladbach risked everything going forward, they were outnumbered, but Anderson was powerless against Wesley’s pass in the middle. And Pizarro makes history in the Bundesliga, because this was his 134th Bundesliga goal. He replaced Giovanne Elber as the league’s top foreign scorer.

It was the highlight for Werder on a very good afternoon of football that left jubilant Bremen fans, but of course left Gladbachers brooding as well. We, however, deal with the winner for now. Ecki Häuser did that.

(Substitute goalkeeper Sebastian Mielitz in the interview) Yes, I still have to understand everything a bit, I haven’t really realised what happened today.
(Claudio Pizarro in interview) Poh, that was outstanding today. Miele (goalkeeper Mielitz is meant) helped us a lot, helped the team a lot today, and I’m very happy for him, he made an outstanding save.

(Ecki Häuser asks Sebastian Mielitz) You passed your baptism of fire with flying colours today, but the highlight is still ahead of you, with the cup match against Bayern, are you looking forward to it?
(Sebastian Mielitz) Definitely. I think that’s the highlight of my career so far, so to speak, and I’m really looking forward to it.
(Houses) Thank you very much. (Mielietz) May I greet someone else? (Houses) Sure. (Mielitz) Mum and Dad, hi, and my girlfriend and my grandma. Thanks, Mielietz. (I got it. Thank you.

(Martin Groß takes over) Isn’t that nice? So, it’s really hard to transition to these pictures. Take a look at this: It’s the ninth matchday and tears are flowing unrestrained in Gladbach. But it was also a crazy afternoon. Mielitz held everything except for the goal Mertesacker conceded, and Gladbach loses 1:4, even though the team played really good football. Jan please.

(Jan Henkel from the studio) So after the game you are still completely under the impression of the scenes, and Mielitz’s statement. Mum, dad, girlfriend, everyone said hello again, he just enjoys it, still has to realise it, got the compliments from the team, great performance from him and then Bayern are coming next Tuesday.

But, Borussia Mönchengladbach, what’s going on there, there were one or two Gladbach fans who said, why did Tim Wiese have to get injured now? You might remember that 6:3 against Bayer 04 Leverkusen, that great game, after that there was no more victory, that was already the third home defeat of the season, and, yes, that historic flood of goals conceded: 27 goals in 9 games. That’s the statement that simply stands, even if they had many chances themselves today, but goals didn’t happen, we want to hear the coach, he’s with Ecki Häuser.

(Ecki Häuser with Gladbach coach Michael Frontzeck) Back at Borussia Park, with me the head coach of Borussia Mönchengladbach. Mr Frontzeck, what worries you most at the moment?
(Frontzeck) Yes, I mean, of course it’s not a pleasant situation, that’s clear, we didn’t make it too difficult for Werder today, we were two nil down, and then we have, I think, four or five really big opportunities where the thing doesn’t want to go in, we regroup at half-time, come out, have a thousand percent, and in return you get an own goal. And that’s the way it is at the moment, we have to face up to it, and it’s a difficult situation.
(Ecki Häuser) Does Borussia Mönchengladbach have a fundamental problem that needs to be solved as soon as possible?
(Frontzeck) Yes, there are various reasons, which then have to be mentioned directly after the game, that… (Houses interrupts) I mean basically. (Frontzeck) In the end, that always sounds like an excuse, and I’m not up for that. As I said, we’ll face the situation and deal with it together, as early as next Wednesday.
(Houses) This is not just an analysis of today, but basically of the entire last few weeks. I mean, you’ve conceded 27 goals, don’t you have to change that immediately, and if so, how?
(Frontzeck) Yes, it’s complicated at the moment because today was the last game. As you know.
(Houses) Yes, you’ve got three players suspended for red, but that’s certainly also an issue, indiscipline in the team? How do you want to put an end to all that?
(Frontzeck) Indiscipline? No, that was foul play. Foul play, that was a lack of discipline, he reacted wrongly, and the other three situations were foul play. It was in the fight for the ball.
(Houses) The situation doesn’t get any easier when you look at the table. How do you want to get out of it now?
(Frontzeck) Yes, let it sink in, rebuild against Leverkusen on Wednesday and offer a good cup fight here.
(Houses) That means you’re still in good spirits?
(Frontzeck) Yes, I’d be a very bad coach if I wasn’t.
(Thank you very much.

(Jan Henkel from the studio)
Yes, he was there emotionally, Michael Frontzeck, and maybe it helps, we had said it, this 6:3 on the second matchday, the match was called Borussia Mönchengladbach against Bayer Leverkusen and exactly that is now also in the DFB Cup.

c. SC Freiburg – 1.FC Kaiserslautern

In the match between SC Freiburg and Kaiserslautern, it’s about time for Lautern to win again, because they’ve only picked up one point in the last six matchdays and things started so well in the course of the season, right at the beginning they won 3:1 against Cologne, away, then at home this 2:0 against Bayern, and after that lost, drew, lost, lost, lost, lost. So, the last four defeats, and normally, Torsten Kunde, the reaction there is that you get restless, that the club is restless, the fans, the management, the coach maybe too, but with Kaiserslautern it’s completely different.

(Torsten Kunde) Yes, that is indeed new at 1.FC Kaiserslautern, a critical phase for the coach, for Marco Kurz, but no restlessness, instead a realistic attitude of expectation, so in that sense FCK has become a bit more Freiburg, the badenova stadium reported sold out.
And Lautern in white again with Bugera, and Lautern started very, very strong. Highly concentrated, we’re in the 8th minute from a throw-in, and that’s Ilicevic and that’s Moravek, and it’s 1:0 for 1.FC Kaiserslautern, by the young Czech, his first Bundesliga goal for Lautern and we’re looking at Marco Kurz’ reaction.

There was no sign of insecurity at all, his team played strongly, from a throw-in this should never happen from Freiburg’s point of view, and Moravek scores in his second game for 1.FC Kaiserslautern, 20 years young, on loan from Schalke 04.

This is Sippel’s reaction and this is the reaction of Sportclub Freiburg. Schuster, still scored in Bremen to make it 1:1, and of course Cissé always involved. He has already scored seven goals and has scored in every home game so far.

In the beginning, Freiburg only scored from set pieces, but even that was not a serious test for Tobias Sippel.

But slowly, the Sportclub Freiburg built up pressure. Bastians, good cross, and there is Cissé, of course. Freiburg has a goal scorer. One one, strong cross from Bastians, mistake from Rodnei, and then Cissé, his eighth goal, and thus he is again the sole leader in the current goal scorer list. Pappis Demba Cissé.

And we look at the reaction again of Marco Kurz. He somehow saw it coming, the cross from Bastians was not prevented, Kurz was downhearted, but then also typical, again emotional, again cheering for his team.

Second period, and FCK came out of the dressing room strong, Rodnei, the centre-back, with the first goal chance for FCK in the second period.

Robin Dutt (Freiburg’s coach) sensed that things were not going well and he reacted by taking out Yano, the striker, and bringing in Stefan Reisinger, who had recently made his comeback for one minute in Bremen, but had been injured for a long time. A little later: There is Bastians again, and attention, there is Stefan Reisinger, three minutes forty-five seconds he was in the game and he puts Freiburg in the lead.

(The replay is on) And again through the strong left side, so Lautern had a lot of problems on the right, Kirch is too far away and then of course Bugera doesn’t look good either, and Reisinger with risk, with class, with quality, and no chance of course with Sippel. He scored last, Stefan Reisinger, in November 2009, against Nürnberg, was injured for a long time, as I said. Robin Dutt did everything right.

And 1.FC Kaiserslautern came, showed reaction and fought back, via Bugera, and then via the strong Tiffert, but perhaps that was the shortcoming, the determination and also the penetrating power in front of the opponent’s goal was missing. His team (coach Kurz faded in). Kurz also reacted. Double change, brought Hoffer and Nemec, full risk and also because of that Freiburg had counter chances, had Reisinger (exactly at that moment a shot by Reisinger, the voice is tearing up here) counter chances. The chance was there, for 3:1, for the Sportclub from Freiburg. He really blossomed after his goal, Stefan Reisinger.

(Lautern coach Marco Kurz) The fact is that we make amateurish mistakes, which really invite the opponent to equalise, and are not compelling enough, yes, and if that continues, we really won’t win any games in the long run. We play well, we play well, we are well aligned, but this final determination, whether in defence or in attack, is missing, yes, and this is the first Bundesliga, and we see what other teams do, and accordingly I like to hear again that we have played well, that we are the better team, but in the end we just drive with nothing, and that is not manageable in the long run.

(Torsten Kunde) So, clear words from Marco Kurz, let’s keep in mind, Freiburg triumphs and sets itself apart from a direct competitor for the time being, also thanks to Cissé, and FCK concedes its fifth defeat in a row, the situation for Martin Amedick and Co. is getting more and more difficult.
Unity and calm are now all the more important for 1.FC Kaiserslautern.

(Jan Henkel in the studio) And that’s an image we’re familiar with, Marco Kurz always makes the circle and the first address to the team after the end of the game. Christian Tiffert really attacked, Marco Kurz analytically, but both with the same statement: It can’t go on like this.

Conversely, Freiburg are better than they have been for a long time, 15 points from 9 games, congratulations on that, the last time they were this good, or even better, was a long, long time ago, when Harry Decheiver was still playing, perhaps the last goal scorer for Freiburg, but now his name is Cissé, SC Cissé, so he is now ahead with eight goals.
Cissé, SC Cissé, is now the top scorer with eight goals, and because Gekas didn’t score, he’s now the top scorer alone, and there’s not a home game without a goal from him, and Cissé is just as good as the entire FC Bayern. Because Bayern have a goal ratio of 8:8 so far, eight conceded, and eight scored, all Bayern together, Cissé has done that alone.

d. 1.FC Nürnberg – VfL Wolfsburg

VfL Wolfsburg also have a really good offensive, they had to travel to Nuremberg today, and the three in front, yes, Diego behind the leaders, behind Dzeko and behind Grafite, and the three of them have scored 13 goals out of 14, and here is the list of how it is distributed exactly, Grafite still without an assist, but Dzeko one and Diego one (according to the graph Diego has two assists; goals: Dzeko and Grafite 5 each, Diego 3). And Diego, he can play because he was released. We might still have the scene from last week in the back of our minds when he had the kick against Vidal there, but there was no suspension.
And they have another weakness, the Wolfsburgers. They often lead by two goals in games, like once against Leverkusen or against Mainz. And that’s a conjunctive table. If they had won these games, brought them home, then perhaps they would be where they see themselves, in third place behind Dortmund and Mainz. That’s actually their ambition, to get back there in the medium term, but to do that they also have to win a game like the one away in Nuremberg, Oliver Seidler, but since yesterday the Nurembergers have a new, a very short-term goal.

(Oliver Seidler with pictures from the game)
Yes, the Clubberer, led by the recently outstanding Leitwolf (Andreas Wolf, the captain of the Nuremberg team in the picture leads his team on the field) could write history, for the first time after eighteen and a half years to pass FC Bayern at such a late stage in the season. 40,000 fans were hoping for a victory with a two-goal difference for the sweet triumph against their great rivals from the Free State.

And those in red and black from 1.FC Nürnberg in the first passage very aggressive in the duel, fast over the wings, here with Mike Frantz, who had cured his foot injury, back in the starting line-up, for Ekici, third minute of the game, first chance for the hosts.
We look at the 11th minute. Throw-in, Hegeler extends the ball, Hasebe has cleared everything, the situation is cleared up, but Gündogan is there and makes it 1:0, turns 20 tomorrow, makes himself the best birthday present.
(Repeat): But how could that happen? First Kahlenberg is too late against Hegeler and then Schieber takes care of the ball, Hasebe had fumbled and didn’t clear the situation, and Gündogan plays it against the goalkeeper’s direction of travel, so Hitz has no chance to defend.

Again, Steve McLaren had plenty to write down, his defence is often its own biggest opponent. The Nurembergers continue with momentum and a lot via the strong left side. There’s Pinola and everyone was expecting a cross, and the Argentinian just takes a shot and from the back of the net we’ll see how close it actually was.

Wolfsburg were back and that was a blow for the Nuremberg team, who had been in great form in the first half. Again and again led by Andreas Wolf, he was his team’s best defender with a 100% pass rate.

Second half, Wolfsburg’s play slightly improved, but Nuremberg’s will, passion, heart and fight were stronger. Here again a defensive embarrassment for VfL, then Schieber, Gündogan, Frantz is there. 2:1, he had also scored in the last home match against Schalke 04. (the replay is coming): Here Dejagah and Kjaer clear each other, then a great run by Schieber, but watch out, Ekici is offside when Gündogan passes, perhaps slightly obstructing the view of Marwin Hitz, whose reaction time might be shortened and who therefore intervenes later here. No reproach to the referee team, it was extremely difficult to see, but for the sake of honesty it has to be shown.

Then this scene, Schäfer comes out of it, knocks down his own centre-back Nilsson, Wolfsburg can go for the goal, but Dzeko doesn’t play any more, he is absolutely fair, takes care of the Nuremberg player and helps him back to his feet. It looked bad but Nilsson could play on after a second of shock.

And Nürnberg again, header Schieber with an outstanding play — there was Marwin Hitz not out of the goal — the loan from VfB Stuttgart dazzling, a troublemaker, a constant, not to get a grip on the Wolfsburg defence.

Eigler meanwhile substituted, 88th minute, and look, what does Simon Kjaer do, he goes in badly against Eigler, gets only the yellow card for it from Giudo Winkmann, shows his thumb, practically thanks the referee, he doesn’t even look at the ball (said for repetition), that’s rough play from the centre-back of VfL Wolfsburg, should have seen the red card here.

Last scene in the game, we are in injury time, Diego with the cross, and then Kjaer, there is Dzeko, and there is the 2:2, but the flag of the assistant referee Marcel Pelgrim is up. The goal is disallowed. Similar situation as earlier on the other side, but much clearer here. Dzeko is not offside, but Grafite, who clearly obstructs Schäfer, is clearly recognisable, a correct decision by the referee team.

So it remained 2:1, two tricky situations and a Marcel Schäfer who complained to referee Winkmann, Tim Niedernholter asked.

(Marcel Schäfer, Wolfsburg, interview)
I just thought that there was a similar situation with us and it wasn’t given, and, um, well, of course there are emotions involved, I know that in the end it doesn’t help, the referee just wants to do a good job, and, um, yes, maybe you have to keep yourself in check a bit more.

(Andreas Wolf, Nuremberg, in interview)
You have to get the points at home, that’s what we’re doing at the moment, we have to continue to stabilise, continue to concentrate and see that we get three points away from home as well.

(Oliver Seidler again)
But for me the scene of the game was Edin Dzeko, who helped an opponent with a chance during the game. And Per Nilsson said about it on Tim Niedernholter.

(Per Nilsson from Nuremberg) I’ve always said that Dzeko is the best striker in the league, he can do everything and as a type I have nothing to say against him, he’s just as good a footballer as he is a type, so he’s simply outstanding.

(Oliver Seidler again)
Third home win in a row for the club, last time that happened was in 2007. Great day for Nuremberg, only they didn’t pass Bayern.

(Jan Henkel in studio)
Equal on points with 12 points, but due to the slightly worse goal difference the Nurembergers didn’t make it. But nice scene really with Edin Dzeko too.

e. Hannover 96 – 1.FC Cologne

We’ll be back in a moment. Short break and then there’s a lot more. Namely Hannover 96 against 1.FC Köln, and the Cologne team almost has to win in Hannover.

(Other voice with pictures from the announced match)
Because they are winless since five games, so this match in Hannover is incredibly important. Lanig tries it, a lot of scenes, guaranteed, right after a short break.

———– (Commercial break)

(Afterwards Jan Henkel again)
Hannover 96 against 1.FC Köln, and Köln’s manager Michael Meier recently said, our external image is to run away, and, as if it needed any more proof, during the week, you may have noticed, it wasn’t a real press conference by goalkeeper Mondragon, but it was a statement he made and that was clear and above all remarkable.

(Jan Henkel again) So the comparison is already very questionable, Mondragon and Jesus, but when he came back from the national team, before the game against Dortmund, he had already been told by the coach, you don’t play from the start, but you go on the bench. He said, no, if I’m not good enough for the starting eleven, then I won’t sit on the bench. They agreed and he wasn’t there. The same situation now again, after this statement that he made there, Mondragon said, I won’t sit on the bench, and it was agreed again, he is not in the squad. Of course, that’s also a sign to the team, there’s no clear statement from the club, it doesn’t work like that, a player can’t decide for himself whether he’s in the squad or not, and it’s more or less a sign that you can do what you want. There’s a bit of a lack of a clear line at 1.FC Köln. None of that helps, only, Marco Hagemann, in the current phase you have to hold on to everything, maybe it helps a bit that you’re going to Hanover now of all times?

(Marco Hagemann from the game) Let’s take a look back at last season, when 1.FC Köln travelled to Hannover on the 28th matchday, having previously lost seven games, and then Zvonimir Soldo’s team won here 4:1, the FC also needed such a liberating sense of achievement this afternoon. Hannover, from right to left, recently with two defeats in a row, started here as expected, speculating on counterattacks and they did have an artist in their ranks, Didier Ya Konan. 4th minute, the early lead for the 96ers. There was no sign of any fighting from FC, Ya Konan had all the time in the world, because Mohamad let him circle beautifully and Mondragon’s substitute, Vavrodic, had no chance at all.

Well, that was a great start for Zvonimir Soldo, who has also been criticised, no question about that. He still has the backing of Wolfgang Overath, the president, on the left (you can see Overath and Meier in the stands) Michael Meier is no longer the one sitting firmly in the saddle, the manager. So chaos days at 1.FC Köln, the players have to provide positive results, but Hannover had exactly the game it wanted, Köln had to, and Hannover could play fast up top, with Rausch and Ya Konan. 2:0, a quarter of an hour only played.

(The replay is shown) The ball loss right in front, in Hannover’s half, by Matuschyk, before also Jajalo with no good passing, and then this lightning-quick switching, that is the game of Hannover 96, via Stoppelkamp, Abdellaoue, Rausch and Ya Konan. In the end, it’s also difficult to defend. Fifth goal of the season for the Ivorian.

Well, bitter, (you can see Cologne’s coach Soldo shaking his head) quarter of an hour played, 0:2 behind, yes, what else can you do.

FC tried hard, but without being really dangerous, Podolski, again the only top player, tried something, but nothing much came out of it.

Two nil Hannover, Mirko Slomka looks, well, he is not satisfied, because he knows we still have a lot of football to play here. But his team was the more dangerous one. With Moritz Stoppelkamp, 37th minute, a shot that didn’t go in. At the break, 1. FC Köln were trailing 0:2 and Overath and Meier had to talk.

Novakovic came on at the beginning of the second half, many had expected him to start, but Soldo decided against it. Now he was part of the team, so the FC had two players, Podolski and Novakovic. First came Martin Lanig, 30 metres, Fromlowitz. Strong save, 51st minute. Was that a wake-up call for 1.FC Köln? Not at first. Quickly the pressure was off again and Hannover defended well and the Lower Saxons remained dangerous up front. Avevor, 59th minute.

What else came from FC Köln. Winless for five games. Only one win this season, five points, that’s not enough. Djakpa, who loses the ball to Novakovic, who takes Andrezinho with him, altogether disappointing, the right-back, and then Lukas Podolski. He was often involved in goals, but not compelling enough.

And slowly time ran out for Zvonimir Soldo’s team. Hannover got the counter-attacking chances, so far they played it unfocused to the end, the substitute Chahed, the Cologne team can’t free themselves, and there comes Korter Rausch and the ball just misses the FC goal.

Man oh man, in the middle of the relegation battle (you can see Overath again), Wolfgang Overath, who travelled especially with the team here in the ICE to Hanover. But the FC showed morale. Martin Lanig, the newcomer’s first competitive goal and renewed hope for 1.FC Köln, five minutes before the end. Up, up, we still have a bit of time (you can see Soldo on the edge of the field; then to the replay): Resulting from a throw-in, Hannover’s defence had been really strong until then, but here it was unsorted, and Lanig put the game back into focus.

And Mirko Slomka, outside, knew exactly what to do in the closing minutes. Read lips. Watch out, watch out. Final phase in the AWD Arena in front of more than 40,000 spectators, record attendance when it comes to Cologne. Long balls, crowbar, Mohamad and Fromlowitz. A goal wouldn’t have counted if it had been one, dangerous play by Mohamad, that wasn’t visible, Fromlowitz had the ball anyway, and that was it, the last action of the game. Hanover wins, quote Slomka, the “directional game” with 2:1 and the criticism will not become quieter in the direction of Zvonimir Soldo and 1.FC Köln. The match-winner was clearly Didier Ya Konan. Effectively it was from Hannover 96, so, all uphill again, right?

(Marco Hagemann) Well, the FC shouldn’t keep playing like that, the fans, they’ve got their collars up, let’s hear it. (Fan chants of “We’re fed up”) Martin Lanig explains why.

(Marco Hagemann)
So the liberating sense of achievement failed to materialise in Hanover this season, Wolfgang Overath must be worried, things won’t get any quieter for Zvonimir Soldo and possibly also for manager Michael Meier.

(Jan Henkel from the studio)
Exciting days now in Cologne. First of all, congratulations to Hannover 96, who are now in third place in the table, but the facts about FC are also clear, so the fans have their opinion, Soldo out and Meier too (a poster is shown in the background, from the stadium) but FC have never been so bad. Three defeats in a row, we have the data on that, that never happened under Soldo, they haven’t won six games now, and that’s the worst interim balance ever, so after nine matchdays only five points, and if you’ve been with us all day, dear spectators, you’ve listened to Zvonimir Soldo several times, he deals with the situation in a relatively sarcastic way, at the press conference in Cologne, he said, well, there’s more and more going on here, more and more journalists are coming because FC is in a bad way and he’s very relaxed about his situation. We are curious to see how he is now in the interview with Wolf Fuhrmann.
(Wolf Fuhrmann asks Zvonimir Soldo)
Zvonimir Soldo, the effort was there, the goal was there, but why wasn’t it enough?
(Zvonimir Soldo) Yes, well, that’s difficult to explain. We had other plans, but after a quarter of an hour we were already leading two nil and then the first half was difficult. In the second half we tried, but it wasn’t good enough for us to equalise.

(Wolf Fuhrmann)
Ya Konan, we know that, he scored his fifth goal today, he was completely free, he was hardly attacked, not on either goal, can you explain that?

(Soldo) Yes, ok, we prepared for the game, then our biggest problem in the first half was tackling, it can’t be that a player 20 metres in front of the goal, with the ball, turns around and shoots free on goal, that, normally, that must not happen.
(Wolf Fuhrmann)
Now you have to ask, what now? The situation is getting dicey, how do you actually react when you see a poster like Soldo out and Meier too.
(Soldo) Yes, the situation is not easy, as I said, but we have the quality to get out of the situation.
(Wolf Fuhrmann)
Yes, but you need points. Quality alone is not enough.
(Soldo) Yes, we also need points, we need a sense of achievement. So far, that was the worst, I mean the first half, the worst game this year.
(Wolf Fuhrmann)
How are we supposed to do that against HSV, they’re not a team you can just blow away?
(Soldo)
Not an easy opponent, but now we’ve got the cup on Tuesday.
(Wolf Fuhrmann)
Do you think you’ll still be on the bench as coach next weekend?
(Soldo) No comment. I’m just concentrating on the essentials, that’s all I can do.
(Wolf Fuhrmann) I wish you all the best, thank you.

2) Part 2: Your own assessment of the games

a. A little general information about football

When the common football fan looks forward to Saturday, it usually has a longer tradition, which can even propagate within families. There is Bundesliga. The day is approached with a certain pleasant anticipation, which is certainly partly related to the general weekend feeling, but also partly to the knowledge that something exciting will happen from afternoon to evening. The stadium-goers in any case, those who are very special fans of a team, but where the team is playing away and a journey is out of the question, and the few (but nevertheless surprisingly many) who have made the journey to the away game, either because they always do, or because a favourable opportunity presented itself for this particular game, possibly due to geographical proximity.

This special anticipation, which one has on around 32 (yes, there are English weeks) of usually 52 Saturdays a year, has at least one, if not quite a few reasons. One is picked out here, which certainly has a special significance: Almost everyone who becomes a football fan has kicked a ball themselves at some point. Certainly a good 50% still play the game or have played the game as a club at some point. This means, unlike many other sports or other leisure pursuits, that when it comes to the game, you usually know how hard it is to judge what those players down there are particularly capable of, and enough of them still dream or have dreamed of a similar career at some point.

To sum up: It is the best you get to see in this discipline in this country. They are the best representatives, the best players you can find and everything they achieve is for almost all of them (yes, quite a few really make it, will make it, have made it or have already made it) far and above what you would be able to achieve yourself. This is what makes these boys down there on the pitch stars, many of whom are known far beyond the borders of their own country, and this also applies to the numerous imported exceptional talents.

It’s a kind of circus that we get to experience pretty much up close and almost weekly. And it is even so close that we ourselves try our hand at this art, usually somewhat unsuccessfully. As beautiful as the dream of scoring a drop goal may be, almost no one succeeds, let alone at this level. It is the greatest, best, most exciting thing there is in terms of football.

So anyone who has a critical word to say about these kickers should be invited just once afterwards to a little warm-up session with those they have just criticised and, for fun, be put in the middle for 5 minutes in a game of 3 v 1 or 5 v 2. Well, the duration is probably determined by the man himself and his constitution. Because if he still hasn’t touched a single ball after that, but his tongue has long since been hanging out on the floor, then the bystanders might bend over him worriedly for a moment, but then ask quite kindly but firmly whether he would like to speak of a “stick error” next time again, for example, if he has failed to take a 40-metre pass perfectly in the greatest distress and in full flight, or, if an outfield defender actually has to let his opponent pass him on the dribble, to speak of “catastrophic tackling”? Next week, if he decides in favour of a “yes”, it will then be increased to 10 minutes of “warm-up”, for demonstration and teaching purposes as to who can do what and how much of it here….

It is such a high level of art, mastery and perfection that is demonstrated to us that you really just have to sit there with your mouth open and marvel the whole time. Just like in the circus. In this context, just one question: Who would think of criticising a trapeze artist who does a three-and-a-half somersault with a twist instead of applauding him, but last week there was someone on television who could have done the same with a double twist?

So every word of criticism should be chosen very carefully. Those who even dare to speak of failure, sleepiness, carelessness or lack of commitment should at least consider to what extent they themselves are capable of doing so. But he should also confidently ask the question, just like that, for himself, to what extent he is advertising himself at that moment or to what extent he is doing it for the game and to what extent the spectators, who are ultimately supposed to finance the whole spectacle, want to hear these critical tones.

b. A few remarks about this matchday

So it was the 9th matchday of the 2010/2011 season. The World Cup has done a noticeable amount of good to the mood in this country. The German team has caused quite a stir worldwide with great, extremely modern football. This football is characterised by optimistic but fast-paced offensive play, which delivers the decisive moments of surprise with lightning-like combinations of sometimes speculative, direct passes to undermine a defence. This requires the use of several players, one or the other of whom might be missing if the ball is lost further back. It is certainly attractive, but the German team proved at the World Cup that it can also be effective, possibly ushering in a whole development that can only be beneficial to the further spread of the game – even worldwide.

This was more than evident in the first Bundesliga match days of 2010/2011. The example set by the German national team had an effect either on the coaches or directly on the players. There was a lot of offensive play, a lot of turned games, but also a lot of goals and changing and therefore exciting courses of events.

First of all, the top teams in particular pointed out that they might not find each other so quickly due to the shortened preparation time – and unmentionable: a possible loss of substance. In addition, there is the effect that teams that are allowed to play in the top division, the Champions League, for the first time have to manage this balancing act. There were predecessors at home and abroad, and quite a few of them, who were less successful. That’s why: balancing act.

The impact of these effects is perhaps much more drastic than expected, but it does not detract from the excitement in the least. The table is a little upside down before this matchday, with Mainz 05 at the top, while Bayern, Wolfsburg and Bremen have no direct connection to the top and, almost more dramatically, Schalke and Stuttgart are in the relegation places. Dortmund has caught up with the frontrunners, somewhat surprisingly, but in relation to the other teams and their current position – also in view of Dortmund’s good second half of the season – it can almost be described as “normal”.

A small side note at this point: No matter how many coaches are dismissed. It is guaranteed that there will always be three teams in the last three places, which will then apparently always be the target of particularly sophisticated criticism, as long as their coaches are also dismissed…

All in all, however, these are brilliant omens that could, or should, be very conducive to marketing and selling the match day on offer. The field has been tilled, so to speak, and now it’s time to harvest.

The pairings themselves from this match day, from Saturday afternoon in particular, have no particular conspicuous features. If you like, the teams ahead in the standings were not at the start, and neither was Bavaria, yet there is enough at stake for each of the participants. And if it wasn’t “at stake”, then it should still remain a game if possible… Is the game itself at stake?

c. The individual pairings in the assessment

i. Eintracht Frankfurt – FC Schalke 04 0:0

Well, obviously at least one of the effects occurred here. Schalke had a Champions League match on Wednesday, which was won with great passion, dedication and commitment. Now it’s the grey everyday life. A look at the table doesn’t necessarily give you courage either. You’d like to get to the top, sure, but it’s a long way and a huge effort. That can have a paralysing effect.

On the other hand, there is Frankfurt’s Eintracht, which has actually shown several great performances this season, not only with real – but successful – fun football, but also with a winning streak and even, which was not always the case, with extremely enthusiastic fan support. This hardly made Schalke favourites for this match. Apart from that, the coaches (to whom it is best to listen whenever you want to learn or understand something) or players almost all emphasise that the level is very even and basically anyone can beat anyone at the moment (which otherwise only applied to League 2).

All in all: Eintracht played a great game. The actions you see are full of determination, self-confidence and the highest art of football. If you (could) disguise the jerseys and faces of this team and this game and play the distorted pictures to one of the commentators, you wouldn’t be surprised if he came to the conclusion that FC Barcelona might have played there.

It was a veritable firework display of offensive actions, shots on goal, spectacular actions that should warm the heart of every football fan. The fact that the ball ultimately didn’t find its way into the goal didn’t particularly annoy either fans or players. They were simply thrilled, happy and satisfied about the inspiring game, as could also be seen in the pictures afterwards.

The fact that Schalke only had the role of extras in the second half is a side effect that almost goes unmentioned. But it is logical that Magath sees the positive, emphasising that his team at least held on to nil for the first time, albeit somewhat fortunately.

An exciting, attractive football match with lots of scenes that can simply make football fun. What is there to criticise, what is there to be negative about?

ii. Gladbach – Werder Bremen 1:4

Again, a particularly exciting, good first league match. If one might mention – which is basically alluded to in the report – that the kicker on Monday came up with a chance ratio of 9:9, then this reflects best what kind of game it was: a very balanced one, in which this time a large number of chances were converted in favour of one of the two teams. When you consider that Werder’s substitute goalkeeper Mielitz was named player of the day, you might know even better that it was just a bit of bad luck that got in the way of Gladbach on this day. They played great – the same goes for Werder – but only one can win. Of course, a draw would by no means be an unfair result under the circumstances. One chance in here, one chance out there, it’s very close and can easily lead to that result, even if 1:4 sounds clear. This is also shown by the dramatic development before the 0:3, when Mielitz prevented the seemingly safe 1:2 with an incredible reflex and then the 0:3 with a deflected shot.

A great game with an incredible number of spectacular scenes. Pure advertising for football and a somewhat unfortunate loser, a slightly unfair outcome that one would gladly put up with, as long as it didn’t trigger the rolling of heads. Enjoyed by all – except the few Gladbachers perhaps?!

iii. SC Freiburg – 1.FC Kaiserslautern 2:1

This game was chosen by the author as the one to watch live over 90 minutes. Here the conditions were quite clearly in favour of FCK. They had a lot of great actions and an incredibly determined performance. Freiburg’s 1:1 equaliser came pretty much out of nowhere, but today it’s often individual actions that can decide games. Bastians’ cross was absolutely perfectly struck, even if from far inside the field. The ball had a Kaltzian spin, turning the ball away from the goal, but falling precisely on the rushing Cissé, who was able to sink the ball with perfect technique.

After that, the Lauterians were not shocked at all and continued to go forward courageously. They felt they were the better team here and showed it on the field. However, it has to be said in all honesty that Freiburg’s play got much better after the equaliser. The game went back and forth and you couldn’t have any certainty who would score the next goal. The fact that Reisinger, of all people, who had been injured for so long and had just come on as a substitute, was able to receive another perfect cross from Bastians and hammer it into the goal is one of the pretty stories that football writes. If Bugera admits to himself being partly to blame, then it does him credit. But more of that later.

FCK was far from defeated even after falling behind. There was another firework of actions in the direction of the SC goal, but it should be noted that with the defence exposed, a 3:1 was just as possible. The match remained contested until the very last action and all in all it was a lucky home victory, because Lautern were even the slightly better team overall and should have taken at least a point.

That’s Bundesliga football. The fact that both teams were constantly playing forward is representative of German football at the moment, but even if said repeatedly and for more than one game, it makes it constantly exciting and beautiful to watch. The chance ratio of 8:4 stated by the kicker does not correspond to the observed, perceived value. Even if many actions were not completed, one could still feel the danger of scoring in Lautern’s actions.

A small proof for the bad luck: Lakic hit the crossbar with a great header from 14 metres shortly before the end…

iv. 1.FC Nürnberg – VfL Wolfsburg 2:1

The same applies to Nuremberg as to Frankfurt: They simply play good football. This has already been seen in several games this season and was confirmed in this match. With comparable shirt and face designs, you wouldn’t be able to tell whether it was Bayern Munich, Manchester City or just 1.FC Nürnberg.

VfL Wolfsburg, on the other hand, cannot really back up its claim as a contender for the European Cup places at the moment. The problem was surely the sequence of games against Mainz and Leverkusen, both of which were not only clearly dominated, but also by the score 3:0 the first and 2:0 the second, with no apparent problems in winning them. Both were still lost. That something like that happens twice in one season can be a major blow.

In addition, the coaching decision in favour of Steve MacLaren is not one hundred per cent convincing. This is not so much due to language or competence problems, but rather to mentality problems. In England, a very different kind of football is played. Not worse, no, as Europe’s rankings show, but just totally different. Now there is the problem of either trying to implant this English football philosophy here or adopting the German one. This may well lead to some friction.

Certainly, the VfL officials have thought of something, but then they must also have the patience to wait a little longer for the realisation of lofty plans.

The goal that was not given in the last minute for Wolfsburg was quite rightly not given, but the question arises whether Grafite, who actually had to know that he was offside, had to go towards the ball at all. If he had not, there is a possibility that the ball would have gone in even without the irritation.

Only mentioned to show that here, too, individual scenes of play would be sufficient to call the judgement made into question again. “Deserved victory for Nuremberg”, but if the score had been 2:2, one could just as well have said “Just draw”.

But the fact remains: Nuremberg was the (slightly) better team.

v. Hannover 96 – 1.FC Köln 2:1

It was of course striking that FC were hardly on the pitch and were already behind. Going into a game like this with such a mortgage can have a devastating effect on any team. Of course, one can ask how the goal was scored and look for mistakes in this context. However, in the case of this goal, it is better not to do so: If someone is able to put the ball into the corner of the goal with absolute perfection and maximum spin from 20 metres in such a world-class manner, then it is better to stick to the circus comparison. That was the ultimate mastery and, a tip for commentators (and as a relief for defenders): You can’t prevent everything. World class, tongue in cheek. The cashier should shrug his shoulders and move on. The commentator should get out of his chair — and if possible get the spectator to do the same.

The second goal perhaps deserved a little more mention in the sense that Rausch really does have a lot of free space on the left when he crosses. The fact that Ya Konan also sank this ball with wild determination but cool head held in at the right moment in absolute perfection is then as a consequence another tongue twister, but just a possible consequence of the excessive free space on the left. However, before that you see a typical, undesirable but occasionally unavoidable ball loss in the forward movement and a strongly played counter-attack with several players from Hannover moving forward.

A game doesn’t have to be decided at 2:0, but in modern football it’s actually too much, especially when you’re trailing and heading for the bottom of the table. After that, the game was almost completely even, but the way back for Cologne was possibly too far.

The 1:2 5 minutes before the end brought more suspense, especially since there was the final scene in which the referee rather hastily decided on a striker’s foul, which was not recognisable, but goalkeeper Fromlowitz actually had the ball, so that the goal would not have been scored anyway. Such an action only shows that even if the game is clearly judged, it can often still only depend on one scene, whether it’s this way or that way. One point would certainly have been enough to speak of brilliant morale and to secure Soldo his coaching post for the time being.

That’s how close this and that often are… and better words than “luck” or “bad luck” have not yet been discovered…

3) Part 3: The comments with own remarks

(Jan Henkel from the studio)
Welcome to the reports of the matches of the 1st Bundesliga of the 9th matchday, on Friday the opener with the top match HSV – Bayern 0:0, Sunday then come the top teams with Dortmund, with Mainz, Leverkusen still with them, then the last team in the table Stuttgart, and Saturday framed five matches, these we have back there, with many questions, the Wolfsburg in Nuremberg, what do the Cologne in Hanover, the FCK in Freiburg, Bremen in Gladbach and the Schalker at Eintracht Frankfurt. Well, the “many questions” can be summed up quite briefly, at least as he puts it: “How will the games turn out?”. In any case, what he says does not distinguish this matchday from any other. Lots of questions. How do they play there and how do they play there? In total, there are five questions, when you get right down to it. Especially since five games. How do they turn out?

a. Eintracht Frankfurt – FC Schalke 04

And Schalke, yes, so far with two faces, the Champions League face and the Bundesliga face, and Eintracht Frankfurt on the other hand, they have won three times in a row in the Bundesliga recently. And both have a centre-forward up front, really successful. Gekas on the Frankfurt side with seven goals and Klaas-Jan Huntelaar — by the way, here we have the goals from both of them (the strikers are shown in the back with their goal output) — with five goals. They were both the coaches’ favourite strikers, Michael Skibbe’s Gekas and Felix Magath’s Klaas-Jan Huntelaar. First Real Madrid, then AC Milan, where it didn’t work out,
It’s cheeky to say that it didn’t work out there. Huntelaar had some playing time at both clubs. Besides, there are only the very few who get a contract there. Those deserve respect instead of a “didn’t work out”. Still, he certainly wanted more playing time.
Now at Schalke, it seems to be working out well, and, Tom Bayer, maybe he’ll get a bit more support from his strike partner now, because since last Wednesday there’s a new top scorer in Europe…?
Of course, it’s nonsense to base the difference in help on the two goals scored last time. Raul had also helped before.

(Tom Bayer now with pictures from the Frankfurt – Schalke game)
Yes, three days ago Raul scored twice in the Champions League against Hapoel Tel Aviv and thus he now leads the eternal best list alone with 70 European Cup goals and Raul of course now wants to follow up his so far only goal in the Bundesliga as soon as possible.

51,500 spectators, Eintracht in red and black, a beautiful one-two pass, Ochs, who gets to the ball again with the first shot attempt of this game after four minutes.
At least he starts with a kind of compliment. “Nice one-two”. But a closer look at the scene shows that the double pass was only intended, but doesn’t work at all. So Ochs is played by a teammate who runs straight through, he tries to play the ball into the lane, a Schalker gets in between, spits the ball away to another Schalker. The ball is deflected slightly and comes back to Ochs, who takes it perfectly with his chest and shoots directly with a beautiful full-stretch shot that sails just past the goal.

The term “attempted shot” is a much-used one, but a nonetheless, at least at this point, inappropriate one. It was a shot, not just an attempt at one. What he (and presumably anyone else who uses this phrase, which sounds at once negative) probably wants to express is this: It was an attempt to score a goal with a shot, of which he draws attention to the failure by means of commentary already during the execution. In order to capture the action skilfully and excitingly, he would have to say: “Great attempt here by Ochs, ouh, it goes just over.” Playing the tension in this way, at least temporarily, since the spectator doesn’t yet know whether it will be anything. Anticipating with “shot attempt” is negative, as it expresses a certain awkwardness, and kills tension.

Alternatively, go the English way. Live exciting narration, then you wouldn’t even need to commentate.

The Schalkers hesitant in the early stages, took a relatively long time to get going for the first time. As soon as you switch to generalisation, the individual scene loses its value. “Hesitant” is negative, “taking a long time to get going” is derisive and condescending. The tension of the scene being played is neglected.

Jefferson Farfan, the Peruvian, that’s Jurado, also a goal scorer against Tel Aviv, Farfan, and that’s Raul with the first opportunity for the visitors from the Ruhr after 18 minutes.
The scene looks like this, here’s a possible custom-made commentary:
“The Schalkers come into the Frankfurt half, Raul plays with clarity to the outside right, to Farfan, runs through, a lot of movement in the attack, the ball steeply into the top to Jurado, Jurado just inside the 16, is put down, takes the ball around, looks, sees the running Farfan coming from the back, Raul goes into position, pass to Farfan, Farfan directly on to Raul, Raul, first touch of the ball very clever, has him in shooting position on the right, Raul shoots, into the left corner . … the goalkeeper clears with a foot save.”
A German commentator describing a scene almost always limits himself to mentioning the player on the ball. There are no descriptions of actions, and certainly no expressions of quality. At the same time, the ball is mentioned in leading marginal remarks that have nothing to do with the game scene. Surely one cannot speak of an “excitingly experienced scene” if during its course one is supposed to think about a player’s country of origin or recent past? All out of place anyway.
Bad luck for the 33-year-old, who also fetched the ball himself in midfield. We’ve seen that more often this season, and then he has the vision to anticipate this situation, laid off from the left to the right, he only fails to beat Oka Nikolov. That’s the extremely sparse description of the slow-motion replay.
So the first big chance for Felix Magath’s team.

Then shortly afterwards, free-kick on the other side, Benjamin Köhler, now left-back for the ill Tzavellas, and that’s Halil Altintop, 25th minute, hits the net from the wrong side. Again the same principle. No scene description but marginal notes. Hardly a trace of the scene. “Free kick from half-right into the penalty area. A bunch of Frankfurt players near the ball, Altintop gets it, puts it to rights, right-footed … …into the outer net.”
But actually it was offside with Köhler’s free kick, you see Chris beyond the white line, it doesn’t matter that Rakitic deflects the ball beforehand, actually this situation should have been whistled back.
Well, the attacking line is advancing. Five or six men go for the ball. Altintop is rather not offside, the ball is deflected and ends up with Chris (who was probably offside with his upper body when the free kick was taken), who passes back to Altintop. Sure, if you wanted to, offside would be correct. Only it’s wafer-thin, anyway, there are a lot of players there, whoever gets to the ball can’t be seen from the sidelines, and there was even a clause once that was supposed to give the strikers the benefit of the doubt.

Awkward, though, whenever the spectator doesn’t get a chance to object. “That should have been whistled back.” Is a postulate, a god-like utterance. How about: “For me, that was offside”? The spectator retains the right to make up his own mind. One could call that “sympathetic” if it were not self-evident in itself.

Eintracht now have a slight advantage. Again and again dangerously coming over the wings.
Aren’t we allowed to form our own opinion? Show the scenes, play in as many beautiful ones as possible, as many as there were, from both sides, comment on them appropriately as scenes of the game, without fringe banter, exciting, then you already know who was superior when. Besides, always remember: while this is being said, something is happening on the pitch that is not captured by this (and might be worth it). That’s wasted comment time per general assessment that doesn’t earn you anything. “Over and over again”… what’s the point? Even if it should happen to be true … Pointless, superfluous, annoying, uninteresting, bad.

Schwegler, Altintop, Köhler, a nice combination, and then the top scorer in the middle, Gekas, hard pressed by Christoph Metzelder, doesn’t get a chance.
Even if the commentator were to invoke that the viewer “sees everything after all, what’s the point of explaining anything to him?” there are still very different ways of dividing up the speech customers. “Nice combination” is true in any case and is even positive and resembles a scene description to some extent. This was direct play via the left side, where Köhler starts directly into space after a clearance and is used via a third station, namely Schwegler, breaks through on the outside, moves dangerously to the baseline at the corner of the penalty area – without an opponent, whom he has shaken off by about two metres. The cross to the inside is perfect. A sharp flat ball to the short post, towards which Gekas runs. The fact that the opponent doesn’t even get to the ball in front of him but only just blocks the way to the goal is probably an “uninteresting peripheral detail”. In any case, the “not getting a chance” is not true at all. Gekas is on the ball, but just fails to get it under his feet, perhaps a metre past the goal. The fact that Gekas even jumps up directly and points towards the corner flag at least suggests that it was possibly only Metzeler’s leg that got in the way that prevented the goal.

As a striker, do you only “get your chance” when the ball is in? A sad black and white painting.

Schalke also had something to offer in the final phase of the first half. Ivan Rakitic, and then Benjamin Köhler with that terrible mistake,
Are spectators supposed to stare in amazement at this “bad mistake”? Is this the way to lure the viewer in front of the screen? Very weak, very bad, even weaker? The Sky subscription figures speak a different language….
Köhler actually gets his head to a long ball at the back post. Now let’s bear in mind: he’s quite small, so certainly not a special, practised header specialist. Then he plays left-back, which is definitely not his learned position, as he has more strengths in the offensive per se. Then he has a world-class goal scorer at the back.
So now he reaches the header, relatively unchallenged. But what may even have been the strategy of the goal scorer lurking behind him: his good anticipation. Köhler is looking for a team mate, practically standing in the air. He finds none. An old rule says that if in doubt, you should head the ball outwards, but never into the centre. So at the last moment he decides to head outwards. That’s exactly what Huntelaar was hoping for. The ball comes straight to him.

A bad mistake? No, that’s football at the highest level. Perhaps discuss the class of the attacker? No, out of the question. Surely for one reason: the speaker doesn’t recognise it, doesn’t even want to recognise it. He only knows about mistakes and more mistakes and even bigger mistakes. And he babbles and babbles. Only in order to stop this babbling do you have to take action yourself, it seems…

It was simply an exciting scene. Only the Almighty is “merciful”. A sports reporter’s main job, no matter how inept, inhuman, listener-scaring he may be with it, is to expose error in potentiated form. Hugh.

Klaas-Jan Huntelaar, normally you can’t afford such a bolt against the Dutchman, but here he fails to beat the again superbly reacting Oka Nikolov.
Now it degenerates into an all-round strike. “Bolt” is a shirt-sleeved expression. It puts the speaker a bit higher himself, because it could practically be the flippant commentary of a world star on the pitiful efforts of a district league kicker. But at the same time, Huntelaar is also given the other half of the well-divided Black Peter. “He usually does one of those”. So, one adds, “But today he also had a lousy day.” Thus, blunder follows blunder, even when one learns that the goalkeeper reacted “excellently”.

(The replay is played) Here is Köhler’s mistake again, which is then also played out, further aggravation of the blunder. “First such a bolt and then being danced out? No, please get back in line in the Landesliga!”

One may calmly “assume” that a goal scorer of world class calibre kept such a distance to Köhler (and did not go straight at him) that it was impossible for him to head over him. In addition, he benefited from being “at the back” so that Köhler simply could not know the position of the attacker. The header over, let’s say, five metres, failed because Huntelaar had taken up exactly that distance. Köhler, of course, gets a fright. Huntelaar sees the chance to score in a one-on-one (by the way, a reporter’s favourite request when they, in their own estimation, have had to wait too long for a goal and are allowed to broadcast a behavioural tip to the kickers down there over the airwaves: “They don’t succeed in a one-on-one”, or “they should try it in a one-on-one, that’s where he or she has his or her strengths”) against an opponent who is also panicking for the moment.

This is the situation. In this “ideal situation”, because he is running at speed towards the defender and would have quite a few options, including a pass or a shot on goal, is it not even allowed to win a one-on-one? Another question for Mr. Smarty Pants: Who was actually the active part in this scene? “Köhler is also played off”. The active Köhler lets himself be outplayed by the passive (grammatically speaking) Huntelaar? Wasn’t it much more the other way round, that Huntelaar skilfully circumvents Köhler? The perspective of “being played” not only focuses on the wrong side, it is also the negative side. It’s not true anyway.

And now a small observation worth making at this point: what would we have heard if Huntelaar had got stuck, not to mention if Schalke had lost the game in the end? The conviction is pretty strong: “The few chances Schalke didn’t create but had to rely on gifts, like this one from Köhler, they failed miserably. A striker of this calibre should be able to get past an opponent in a situation like this.”

Finally, what would a football match look like from the point of view of the reporters if all these (imaginary, exposed) mistakes were finally stopped? Not a single chance. How nice. Always 0:0 and we could finally celebrate the funeral.

And Hunelaar, always successful in the last five games, fails.
Yes, yes, how beautiful, this failure. The truth: “Great shot, great save.”

“When we fail, I personally always turn up the sound. For me, the highlights of the highlights.” Caught this the other day at the neighbour’s house…. Except the nearest one who has Sky lives two kilometres away.

Keep it up, guys! You still have a few subscribers! You’ll still manage to choke them off!

A small addition that could be useful for understanding the scene: You can really see Huntelaar waiting for Nikolov to open the short corner. But he just doesn’t do it. But he can no longer change his plan to place the ball there. Of course, it is always only a matter of tenths of a second or even less.

A general observation, by the way: In itself, it was the classic way for the attackers to place the ball in the far corner. That’s only logical, because that’s where there’s the most space. Very often – even today – you have the situation that there is enough space there and the goalkeeper, speculating or not, simply can’t get to it.

On the other hand, it can be observed, increasingly in recent years, that the absolute top goalkeepers have been able to adapt fantastically to this variant of shooting into the far corner and always anticipate in time to reach the ball despite the still available large space. But since the top strikers also have the right to make a contribution in terms of their own success, one can observe that they were often able to brilliantly exploit the early anticipation – in this sense a “pre-reaction” – by simply pushing the ball into the short corner, which was actually closed and easy to cover. Even if the goalkeeper then looks “stupid”, it is in any case legal and interesting to see. Of course, the following always applies to both sides: a combination of speculation and variety. As a striker, you have to be able to do as much as possible, and as a goalkeeper you have to be ready for as much as possible.

Here Nikolov correctly guessed that Huntelaar was aiming for the short corner and kept to the path. Huntelaar could no longer change the plan, largely due to the situation. Of course in the sense here: 1:0 for the goalkeeper, but this should in no way be taken as a “mistake” by Huntelaar.

Watch out, Manuel Neuer, because here comes Marco Russ’ header, the first scoring chance in the 47th minute. Again after a free kick by Benjamin Köhler, who was responsible for almost all the standards for the hosts today. Really vivid, isn’t it? “Careful” is pretty, too. The sympathetic call to the national keeper. Not that you think the speaker already knew what was going to happen? Besides, the “Obacht” sounds like: “If you’re not careful, you’ll score a goal later. And that’s not what we (Schalke fans, or what is he?) want.” Emotionless it is anyway.

The only element the announcers use to create tension – which could then be safely classified as “accidental” – is raising the voice at the moment the finish is scored, perhaps until the chance is averted. In the case of a goal, it stays up a little longer. However, everything seems “faked” anyway, because the viewer knows that the reporter is already informed about any outcome, both in terms of the scene and the game. In other words, if the viewer should actually inadvertently feel suspense because the reporter has cleverly concealed the outcome of the game (which almost never succeeds), then one should already have the feeling of having been “taken in”. One was led astray.

A clear vote for exciting live commentaries that have so much quality (at the moment, the distance that has to be overcome is about as great as that between the writing of an average third-grader and a novel by Hennig Mankell, but one could tackle that – without wanting to disparage third-graders…). that they could be played afterwards. Only this scenario would be able to draw the viewer/listener into the action and convey true suspense. Or is it the viewer’s opinion that all they really want to hear is a smart-ass and see a parade of mistakes to go with it?

The scene was like this, by the way: A free kick from half field, 45 metres from goal. However, thanks to perfection, such standards have increasingly become an extremely dangerous weapon in recent years. The ball is kicked towards the goal so that, if possible, it could hit the ground without being touched. To do this, as many attackers as possible – then logically accompanied by defenders – run into this ball. It becomes infinitely difficult for the goalkeeper because the ball is either not touched at all or is deflected, extended, accelerated, whatever, by the attacker or also by the defender. Where he would have to react is therefore completely open, while the available reaction time is extremely short because of the proximity to the goal. In addition, it is almost impossible for goalkeepers to make their way to the ball through the onrushing crowd of players, apart from the high probability of missing it completely.

This variation has initiated a great many goals in recent years.

That is also what happens here. The ball comes perfectly or even just “as planned” to the back post, Marco Russ climbs highest (or has the best timing; a possible perfection suggested here: the best header is framed by own players so that he cannot be prevented from jumping) and extends the ball towards the goal. Neuer wouldn’t have a chance, but the ball misses the goal by a razor-thin margin.

And Eintracht really put on the pressure now.
Yes, that really heightens the sense of tension. It’s one scene, then the next. It couldn’t be simpler than commenting on a summary. Unfortunately, these are all a mess. It’s a generalisation. And therefore not useful. It does not serve to describe the scene. And if you now play four goal scenes in a row, all with the same jerseys in the attack, then the viewer has his picture, without any smarting.
Patrick Ochs. Altintop for Alexander Meier, and Manuel Neuer prevents the first goal in this match. 66th minute.
Again only player names and no scene description. Either he really doesn’t see anything that makes football interesting, (of course the variant that can be strongly assumed after so many futile attempts) or he doesn’t want to see anything, let alone illuminate what the spectator sees or provide entertainment, excitement. In any case, to stay in the picture, his place would be neither on the substitutes’ bench nor in the stands, nor in the hospital. Er, what’s next then?

“Double pass play down the right. Ochs runs down the line, gets the ball played right into his path, three Eintracht players in the penalty area, good cross, Altintop gets in behind, passes it over three metres to the better-positioned Alexander Meier, who shoots directly … but the well-placed low shot into the left corner is blocked by the well-responding Neuer. Corner kick…” Something like that would be out of the question, wouldn’t it, gentlemen?

The Schalkers now had problems at the full-back positions, while the Frankfurters were able to make their mark offensively again and again.
No scenes of the game are described – possibly with the flimsy justification that the viewer “sees it all for himself”. Okay. However, one should definitely ensure a fair distribution of the selection of goal scenes, of course keeping the suspense content in the foreground.

If one would like to explicitly draw attention to a distorted picture, then one could make this clear with an additional remark.

Once again, the active part emphasised is the one who had problems. Namely the Schalkers. What about the Frankfurt players? They just didn’t accept the generously distributed gifts? Frankfurt “passively” benefited from the Schalkers “actively” offering opportunities?

The alternative and logically correct portrayal (which only coach Magath would be allowed to criticise in this case during the video analysis with his players, especially towards his players, by showing here or there where they should stand even closer or go more energetically, or, if necessary, even recognise their own tactical deficits, wrong instructions; the speaker is not entitled to do this and he is also mistaken) is that the Frankfurt team combined insanely fast here, looked wide awake and dangerous. The good situations were cleverly played out, clearly recognisable to the true expert.

Besides, it’s a generalisation that, as usual, robs tension. “had problems in the outside positions…”. Or are we now supposed to look fascinated because of all the problems the Schalkers had? Yes, that’s fun. And anyway…

Joel Matip, substituted for Jurado, looks anything but good, ball loss,
Wonderful. Once again, only the negative part of a scene is mentioned.

Frankfurt play pressing. At all times and in all divisions, it can happen that a team is under pressure and can no longer play its game. You can puzzle all you want on the pitch about what the reason is, but it doesn’t change the fact much. Now it’s a matter of at least not conceding a goal.

The coaches on the other hand, the top coaches in the highest leagues, know very well that this phenomenon exists. However, on the one hand they believe in the strengths of their players, on the other hand they want to establish a style of play, to improve it. Maybe one day they will be the ones who can put their opponents under such pressure more often because of the growing possibilities of the game? Football continues to develop, that is the general statement.

In short, coaches in the highest leagues try to teach their players to look for a playful solution as often as possible, preferably always. There are those situations where it is impossible, where you have to “knock the ball into the stands”, in sportsman’s language. But they don’t want to (have to) see it, as rarely as possible. The players follow this and dare to do it. Look for the playful solution, keep the ball in the ranks.

As for the scene itself: A young player like Matip, who has only just been substituted and has not yet noticed his teammates’ diminishing strength on the pitch due to the pressure of the opponent and the Wednesday game, which is still in his bones, should be allowed to integrate himself into the game first. In any case, he is looking for a playful solution at the left-back position, something his coach has certainly demanded of him more than once. It is already possible that it was necessary here to push the ball away, possibly he had the opportunity to do so for a split second – there is no guarantee of success and recognition, especially from the reporters – however, he receives the ball rather “by chance”, as it rolls to him from another clearing defender, so it was not a planned pass. The Frankfurt players follow up very energetically and win the ball back.

There is only one “anything but good” in the wide area. And unfortunately, he makes himself heard the furthest.

Ochs with a good eye for Halil Altintop, and why he didn’t put it in the goal is something Halil Altintop will probably think about for a few hours this evening. He simply had to do it after Patrick Ochs’ perfectly-timed pass, and Eintracht coach Michael Skibbe, a native of Gelsenkirchen, saw it the same way on the sidelines.
As always, there’s a lot of fuss, no description of the scene. It even starts with the recognition of the “good eye”. However, then the misperformance is highlighted, as always emotionless, inconsiderate, apathetic and – as is even more usual – wrong. “He has to do it” does not exist at all. Sure, people say it here or there, maybe even the player himself or the coach to him. But they don’t mean it, at least no one except the reporter. It was a great chance, well played. That’s what we want to see, exactly like that. Sometimes with the impact sometimes with the amazing miss – and the tragedy or despair captured.

In this scene the chance is quite big, but the reporter’s error of judgement here is mainly due to the fact that Altintop gets up immediately after missing the chance and runs back. He does not stay on the ground to hold his head in despair, nor do you see even the slightest shake of the head as he runs back. This suggests that he was well aware of the difficulties of missing the goal-scoring opportunity and most probably does not think about it at all, certainly not for several hours, that same evening.

The scene is like this: After winning the ball against Matip through a very determined tackle, Ochs, unguarded for the moment, gets to the ball. His very sharp, low cross actually goes through to the far post. The intention of the crosser is 100% to create a goal threat. He is only able to decide in a fraction of a second which option is the most favourable for the situation; this happens much more intuitively. But you can see in the scene that he briefly raises his head – that’s exactly what time is for – and possibly really recognises Altintop in the corner of his eye, who is rushing towards the far post – that would be great.

Altintop now rushes in at full speed. But an opponent is already throwing himself in his way, and the goalkeeper is already rushing into the corner. The space he has is extremely small, the time even shorter. On the other hand, the distance to the goal is small, which suggests a particular increase in the size of the chance. Nevertheless, one should take into account his own full speed, with which he reaches the ball, but this is an obstacle to perfect ball control. The ball goes over the goal. For people who deal with probabilities, here’s an estimate: the size of the chance to score (although one might always like to ask for a time here, just to increase the complexity; at the cross, at the finish?) was a maximum of 50%. So it is at least “normal” not to put the ball in the net. Of course, the large number of missed opportunities of comparable size allow the verdict “unfortunate for Frankfurt” to be very loosely applied to the game as a whole.

Frankfurt now had a really strong phase and put the Schalkers under pressure. Again Meier on Theofanis Gekas, the instinctive footballer, he has already scored seven times this season, here he hesitated too long and in the end the angle was too acute.
It’s so wonderful when someone “hesitates” again, and “too long” at that. That’s one of the biggest errors of judgement in the whole game. The “hesitation” is probably meant to imply that he could just hammer the pill in whenever he felt like it. He thought, as the reporter put it, “Well, do I do it now or do I do it later. Should I maybe ask the keeper in between where he would like it to go?”

None of this is remotely true, least of all the “hesitating too long”.

Here’s the scene: a long ball from inside the own half comes up, exactly on Meier, who is standing just outside the penalty area. He takes the ball with his chest in the direction of the Schalke goal, which alone is an outstanding masterstroke that is lost in the reporter’s mish-mash.
Anyway, onwards:
You can see exactly how Gekas breaks away from his opponent at that moment and creates a gap of three or four metres. He points, shouts, Meier knows where he is, Meier enters the penalty area and gets the ball past two opponents towards Gekas, but not quite perfectly because of the pressure. Neuer rushes towards Gekas, Gekas would come close but Neuer is only a metre away from him, which would mean a very unfavourable angle for a direct shot, Gekas lets the ball run, but Neuer is not a national goalkeeper for nothing, he knows exactly how to defend it, runs with Gekas towards the back post, the chance to finish does not arise very favourably at any time. The ball rolls on untouched, Gekas could now, could now, but he lurks to see if he will eventually find the moment to get it past. It doesn’t happen, but shortly before reaching the corner of the goal area he decides, of necessity, to finish, which is still covered by the brilliantly reacting Neuer.

Mistake? Not on the one side and not on the other. Hesitation? Only the programme director shouldn’t have hesitated with the dismissal of the blabbermouth.

What we would have seen: top-class football. In all its facets, which among other things also means observing and recognising defensive performances. The viewer would have deserved a speaker of calibre…

90th minute. Substitute Martin Fenin against Christoph Metzelder, who is tunneled and run over, and then Köhler has the 1:0 on his foot, but somehow the goal doesn’t fall.

Also not true. Most of it, at least. “Gets tunneled there” is so derogatory again, well, so be it. Fenin does a great job, outplays Metzelder, serves Köhler at the short post, but the goal distance and the angle are nowhere near so favourable that one could speak of “highest danger”, let alone “having it on the foot”: if anything, Benjamin Köhler makes the most of it by really hitting the ball so far super that if it can go in at all, it goes in like this. It’s not “having it on the foot”, which by missing it again suggests a deficiency that wasn’t there far and wide, but it’s a great move that once again shows what the boys down there are capable of.

Hit the ball like that, you chatterbox! “Naa, I’m just talking about it.” Adding: “I don’t have a clue. What for?”

Schalke without a goal-scoring chance in the second half. Goal-scoring ratio in the second half 10:0 for Eintracht, and still it’s only enough for a goalless draw. Jens Westen collected votes in the Frankfurt camp.
Even in the summary, he does not manage to say that anything good came out of it. 10:0 scoring chances, but it’s just not enough. In itself, one should be neutral. Whatever came out was enough, namely exactly the result that happened. This applies to both teams. One of them may have more reason to be satisfied, one less. This may very well have to do with the course of the game, but also with longer-term goals. In any case, “not enough” is what the Frankfurt fan would have to say. “Despite a disadvantage of chances, it was enough for a draw for the Schalkers.” That would be the way to put it positively. Neither is appropriate.

It was a great, rousing game, as could be seen not least from the spectators’ reactions in the stadium. Bundesliga football “at it’s best”. Footballer’s heart (neutral), what more do you want? Perhaps the goals were missing from this match, but that doesn’t even matter for a summary. There were plenty of exciting, interesting and, above all, excellent situations. Was it enough or not enough? That would only be possible if one had taken a fixed perspective, as mentioned before, in a match between a German team and a foreign team, for example. As a reporter, one might be allowed to admit to a following in exceptional cases, but it would then have to be clear in advance, but even then it would still not be suitable for a summary. “Neutral” would be called for. And “it wasn’t enough” is not neutral. It wasn’t enough for them, but it was enough for others. So: inappropriate.

(Halil Altintop in the interview) We showed that we have a good squad, we prepared very, very well, so the Schalkers didn’t stand a chance, and of course you could see that here and there they still don’t have much going for them, but we’re only looking at ourselves and it’s a shame that we couldn’t crown our good performance with three points today.
That’s exactly how it’s explained. It’s a pity that they couldn’t crown the performance with three points. Even if this is said by a Frankfurt player, who is therefore actually out of the question in terms of objectivity, this assessment of the game would also have suited a commentator. Because in fact, when you see this multitude of chances, you are allowed to abandon neutrality to the extent of expressing regret, if only for reasons of a sense of justice. That does no harm to anyone.

In addition, the mention of “we only look at ourselves”. A very nice piece of wisdom that is heard very often, but nevertheless both contains much more useful truth and is just as regularly “overheard” by the reporters. There is always talk of season goals, or performance put into perspective, whatever. The truth: Everyone looks best at themselves, looks from game to game and sees that as many points as possible come out of it in the end.

(Patrick Ochs afterwards) Because of the second half, we had a lot of chances and, I think, Schalke didn’t score once in the second half, normally we should have won, but that’s the way it is, we’re happy with a point, everything’s okay.
You see a beaming Patrick Ochs and cheering fans in the stands. Everyone is actually happy because they played an outstanding game. The sensitivity and perceptiveness of a domestic reporter is not enough for something like that, as you have to realise. Patrick Ochs sums up what he, fans, team-mates and coaches feel. Everything was fancy today. With performances like that, if repeated, you can look way up.
(Question from Jens Westen to Patrick Ochs:) I wouldn’t have thought so, because Frankfurt were so superior in the second half?
Not recognising this, not even the simply beaming face, he should be talked into a dissatisfaction.
(Patrick Ochs: ) Yes, definitely, we would have liked to have the three points here, sometimes it’s just that a bit of luck is missing, and then you have to be satisfied with a point. I think it was similar against Freiburg here at home, or at least a bit more even, and they scored the goal in the last minute, and nobody understood it anymore, so a point is okay.
(next question from Jens Westen: ) But that’s very modest.
Insisting on dissatisfaction. But you have to…?
(Patrick Ochs: ) Yes, very modest, what should we do. Always bake small rolls and keep on working. (laughing)
Perfect modesty of a happy person. Great performance, keep it up, even if the rolls are small. If it was always like this, maybe one day it would become trees and they could grow into the sky. There’s no need to talk about it. Work is always good.
(Tom Bayer takes over again)
Yes, the Schalkers also have to bake small rolls after the happy draw, but for the first time they remain without conceding a goal, and Michael Skibbe’s team plays for a draw for the first time this season.

(Jan Henkel from the studio)
Yes, did we just see a slight smirk on the face of ex Schalke player Halil Altintop when he said that you could see that not too much was working for them yet?
In any case, no goals despite good offensive quality. We showed it before, Gekas seven goals, Huntelaar five goals and also Europe’s top scorer with 70 European Cup goals, Raul, all no goals. You’ve already heard from Tom Bayer that this was also due to the statistics of the second half, as far as shots on goal are concerned, and I assume that Jens Westen also confronts the Schalke coach with this. We can be a little lenient with the young man here. He probably didn’t have quite the right plan of what he wanted to say?

(Jens Westen faded in with Felix Magath; first question Jens Westen)
A statistic for you Mr Magath, from the second half. Frankfurt scored ten goals, Schalke zero. What does that say about your team’s play today?
A concrete question. A very specific one. But more of a leading question. “We were abysmally bad” is the answer to be elicited and would be the only way to “silence” the questioner. Actually, the question already contains the answer – for Magath there is “no escape”.

Normal would be this, if you already have the chance to get a great coach in front of the microphone: “Mr. Magath, please tell us your assessment of today’s game.” That would be respectful. And far beyond that is the aspect that this would give one the greatest chance of getting something meaningful out of it. But this does not seem to be the aim.

In his mind, the goal of the defiant nine-time kug playing to the fore would probably have to look something like this: “We all know what came out of it. And everyone saw that Schalke was underground. Even fine words from the coach can’t change that. Now I’ll see how I can get the coach into trouble. Hehe, he can prepare himself for a nice beating.”

(Felix Magath replies: )
That definitely says that you don’t want to judge the first half, but only the second. If you could tell me now: What was the ratio in the first half?
Due to the effect of the stupidity of the question, you can already no longer expect to be able to tease out willingness and thus a chat that could interest the viewer (who is interested in the viewer at Sky anyway?). The skirmish is on.

(Jens Westen: )
That was even in terms of chances. In numbers, seven shots on goal Frankfurt, Schalke five. Still, the second half is blatant, I don’t want to hide the fact that the game was even in the first half.
At least the guns are armed to such an extent that the nosy guy got hold of the statistics beforehand. Otherwise it would be a showdown right away. At least, since Frankfurt was ahead there too, the arguments are getting tighter. Nevertheless, the questioner also shows minimal effect.

(Felix Magath answers: )
Well, then you can say that we came under pressure in the second half, that we defended badly, didn’t go out the back properly, did too little going forward, and that’s why we were under pressure, and in the end we got a lucky draw here.
This kind of evasive answer is absolutely correct, but it does not reveal what would interest a spectator. The question would be whether a more skilful questioning technique, as suggested above, would not get something out of it that is not completely “washed clean”?

In any case, a friendly conversation would look different. So the term, which was not only visually clear: “Buttoned up.” is accurate.

(Jens Westen: )
And how do you see it overall over the 90 minutes? You wanted to turn things around with all your might and get out of the bottom. You’re treading water as far as the table is concerned.

Yes, the true, the really true experts know exactly two things: current results and the standings. On the other hand, they have nothing to do with the course of the game, differences in performance, quality characteristics and, above all, excitement and drama.

(Felix Magath: )
As far as the standings are concerned, but as you said before the game, we haven’t played to nil so far, but now we’ve played to nil for the first time, albeit with a bit of luck, but we haven’t had that all the time, so that’s already a step forward. We have seen that we have a hard time after a Champions League game, because we invest a lot in the Champions League, and now we have to take that into account and make sure that we get the points beforehand.
He already mentions the Champions League, which is of course absolutely right and has already caused many supposedly top teams throughout Europe far more worries in everyday league life – up to and including relegation, because they have not managed precisely the balancing act. Nevertheless, he exposes himself to further questions of “excuse-seeking”.
(Jens Westen: )
So, it sounds like you’re optimistic about it, and the certainty that you recognised on Wednesday, was that also there today, the way you wanted it to be?
Dumb question. He’s having a private speaking duel rather than attempting to elicit some subtleties from a true and certified expert. Also, again, suggestively posed. You want to hear a “no”, challenge, he’s probably thinking in this way, “But he can’t escape me like that.”
(Felix Magath: )
So the insecurity today was not an argument for this game or for the second half, but there we didn’t have enough confidence, and maybe that was the wrong signal from me, that I didn’t do any training on Thursday morning.
Nevertheless, Magath is even prepared – surely he is also a self-promoter to a certain extent – to admit a mistake. The fact that he runs his mouth with the “It wasn’t the insecurity” doesn’t make the questioner any the wiser.
(Jens Westen: )
So next week, training every day. Now I’ve got you.
(Felix Magath: )
No, but the day after a game we’ll train again.
(Jens Westen: )
So tomorrow training at Schalke. Thank you, Mr Magath. Back to Munich.
He must have the last word. It’s even the case that the camera is on him, Who wants to see this man, what significance does he have? Magath slinks away in the background because he’s been cut off. Shrugging his shoulders. Even if the man somehow presents himself as the “winner” by simply ripping the mic away and having the last word: It was piss-poor. It’s also nonsense what he says at the end, because Magath of course meant the days after the Champions League. Even if he didn’t, it would be very bad style. He won’t climb to the supposed eye level at which he wants to talk here in a hundred years and with platform soles. Not even the height to be able to hold his own.

(Jan Henkel, Studio Munich)
There he nods, in the background.
Mistakenly, he shrugs his shoulders and smiles smugly. In any case, he will reveal even less to this Hirsel at the next interview. What if they feel so great now? In any case, Magath is not responsible for the ratings…
So keep working, working, working, Felix Magath’s motto, he takes the positives out of it, presents it in a positive light, although the statistics were clear straight away as far as the second half is concerned.
It’s the fifth 0-0 this season, that’s relatively few, three of them Bayern by the way.

b. Borussia Mönchengladbach – Werder Bremen

And three players were missing from Borussia Mönchengladbach’s game at home against Werder Bremen today. And all three, that’s the special thing about it, with straight red. That’s where we have the players. (The three are faded in, with a referee in front of them, red card in hand)
Arango, Brouwers and Schachten. Those are the three. And all three, as I said, with a straight red card, not in the game. Still, Michael Frontzeck today solves the whole thing offensively, attack is the best defence, with four attacking ones up front, that’s neat.
But with the Bremen team on the other side, there during the week, they played 1:1 in the Champions League, against Enschede, and the decisive scene, however, which had a little shock character, was this one from Tim Wiese, (the scene in which Tim Wiese was injured is played) no opponent was there. Background: Tim Wiese has already torn two cruciate ligaments in his career, the right knee, he was then carried out, substituted, and thank God, the examinations showed that it is nothing torn, but a sprained inner ligament, ten days break, three days are already over, so Tim Wiese will miss about another week.

Accordingly, today, in goal, Martin Groß, not the number two, but the number three of Bremen.

The game started fast. Marin with a good run against Bradley, which was hardly visible, Bradley fouled Marin, seen here, with his left knee he gets caught on Marin’s right foot.
It’s nice to have a slow motion. It was certainly not necessary. For spectators and referees a simple decision. Marin is over and falls. What would cause him to do that other than foul play? He was around, wasn’t he?
Günter Perl, the referee, who did an excellent job by the way, had seen everything right, free kick for Gladbach (speech error; Werder had it) in the fifth minute and it’s in!
Again, the ultimate and maximum drama to be expected here. Free kick in the minute – and it’s in. It’s amazing how the man comes off! It makes you jump out of your chair when you hear that!
1:0 for Werder Bremen by the man Thomas Schaaf had put on the team for, or maybe because he played in Gladbach. Extra motivational boost for Marko Marin, who is lucky to have the ball roll through everyone, Logan Bailly beaten.
Absolutely incomprehensible what the speaker does here. The scene simply needs to be described in more detail, as a reporter should:

“Free kick on the left touchline, half-field position, Marin kicks it, sharp in front of goal, 10, 12 players go to the ball, the Bremen players run in, Mertesacker with his toe on it, extends into the far corner. No chance for the keeper, who had to reckon with everything. This free kick in the ‘well taken’ version is a nightmare for all goalkeepers.”

Afterwards, Mertesacker runs back, jubilant, is faded in large, without any teammates or opponents. The narrator tells his story about Marin, during which the unnamed player and the insertion of Mertesacker inevitably make you wonder at what age Merte was supposed to have been at Gladbach? And even at the “denouement”, when he mentions the name Marin as the goal scorer, the viewer is still far from understanding what he could actually be talking about?!

Well, minor mishaps may happen here or there, but the following questions remain in urgent need of clarification in this scene (although suggestions for solutions can be made here):
If Marin was indeed declared the goal scorer, then the cheering Mertesacker would at least have to be explained to the spectator. Perhaps even provide the suggestion for the officials to check the goal scorer again more closely. For it is immediately obvious that Mertesacker is not a goal scorer who is measured by goals and who, as an irreproachable sportsman and national player, deserves a special position and special treatment. If he allows himself to be celebrated, if he cheers in such a way, then the assumption is very obvious that the first visual impression that he has extended the ball was not deceptive. This matter should be urgently investigated, at least by the reporters, because the spectators cannot be left in the dark.

Now here is the search for explanations: The officials may hide behind certain impractical clauses. Here is the offer for the match scene: Mertesacker’s touch may or may not have taken place, but one does not concern oneself with this any further, since the trajectory of the ball did not change direction. Although this can very well be observed, it is precisely this decision which, according to the view taken here, Mertesacker makes consciously, albeit in a fraction of a second, and thus gladly instinctively again. “I get to the ball, I could extend it here or there, no, that’s where it fits best.” This is more or less the spinal cord thinking of Per Mertesacker. Since the goalkeeper senses at the same moment that the player getting to the ball could choose any direction – small, unmentioned detail here: Mertesacker is already past the ball at the touch, so has his back to the goal –, and he is therefore quite paralysed. The goal distance is too close to react. If no one had touched and the goalkeeper had been appropriately prepared, he would probably have easily clawed the ball out of the corner of the goal.

In summary, this: The change of direction called for by the officials may make sense if there is talk of accidental deflection. This is not the case here. Scorer: Mertesacker.

The fact that he did not discuss it shows in particular what kind of person he is: he does not begrudge his team-mate Marko Marin the goal, because as an attacking player he is measured much more by goals.

The scene should have been clarified as a matter of urgency. If an announcer misses the fact that the wrong player is cheering, someone else has to register it or it has to be clarified later in the studio.

Apart from that, such a special situation, which should always be welcome to a journalist, was also a moment of suspense.

Well, another chance missed. Instead, much, much nonsense was spouted.

But Gladbach with Idrissou came very quickly in front of Mielitz’s goal, first chance for the hosts through Torben Marx.
Nix, again no description of the scene. Instead of “They came quickly in front of the goal” – which could be interpreted as “several times” or “only at that moment” – one could have calmly described the scene. In any case, it is not plastic. Idrissou crossed the ball inside, but he pulled it back rather flat to the edge of the penalty area. De Camargo was the first to reach the ball on the edge of the penalty area, saw Torben Marx in a shooting position behind him, laid the ball on him in a well-timed manner and the well-placed and hard low shot was so close that Marx tore his hair out.

The former world champions (Vogts and Bonhof are shown in the stands) of 74, Rainer Bonhof and Berti Vogts saw a very good Bundesliga game, with an incredible amount of pace, with a lot of offensive spirit and with hesitant defence. Wesley, two nil Werder.
So much disillusionment after so much played enthusiasm. One could easily let the generalisation pass, especially since it was positive. Not, however, when an exciting scene, even leading to a goal, is taking place in the meantime. But the worst is definitely the “anti-climax” with the “hesitant defence. Especially since it’s not true, of course, but even if it were true, it robbed one of joy. Anyone who simply wants to enjoy successful actions — which definitely include a successful goal finish — and who, above all, is not biased. The announcer would have to assume at this moment in the programme “All games – all goals” that the vast majority are neutral, want to have this fun and don’t want to have it spoiled by defeatism. Nobody was “hesitant” at all. To recognise this, however, you would have to learn more than just pointing your finger randomly at a saying in the phrase book and then reading it off. You would need a little bit of that: football sense.

The scene is immediately explained on its own, but the commentator’s artful vividness should be prefaced here.

Only twelve minutes had been played. Bailly could only shake his head, because several things came together unhappily.
At least there seems to be an understanding that there are elements like “luck” or “bad luck” after all? In any case, Bailly is shaking his head because it was unfortunate. That’s (probably) true.
(The replay of the goal)
First of all, Wesley can drive the ball 30, 40, 50 yards, Marx goes away, and the moment Anderson decides to go up there he also deflects it awkwardly, Bailly still on it but beaten for the second time. That was Werder’s second shot on goal, with the result that Gladbach fans were already whistling after 20 minutes.

It is true that Wesley drives the ball far into the opponent’s half from the halfway line. It is also true that one should not make the pre-story of a goal replay too long. However, it would of course be interesting to know how the ball was won (or, alternatively, lost by Gladbach). Because here Wesley actually has so much space that one has to assume a Gladbach ball loss in the forward movement. Of course, this was due to the fact that Gladbach, already behind, were looking forward.

In any case, the description “can drive the ball over 30, 40, 50 metres” is wrong and unfair at this moment. First of all, the “can” is obviously meant to suggest that someone would have to be there to stop this. Now this is nonsensical, at least without precedent. The phrase “30, 40, 50 metres” is also intended by the rising tone to indicate the increased inadequacy of the defence. Thus interpreted, what he thinks or suggests the listener to think: “After 30 metres there’s still no one there, after 40 there still isn’t, after 50 maybe at last?”

But it would be nonsensical for the rushing back Marx to want to immediately set the ball leading Wesley. That’s simply not the way to defend. Marx does everything right by trying to prevent the penetration into the danger zone – i.e. the penalty area. That’s how it’s done, the criticism is misguided. Now, of course, Werder, once in possession of the ball, also have the right to do something to bring down the defensive line. A Werder player tries to run over his own teammate on the outside left – that is, on the side where the attack is taking place. Shortly before, however, you can see Torben Marx indicating to his teammate, who is also in the centre of defence, that Wesley is his man. Now Wesley simply holds the ball for a moment, so he delays, stops his swift run and waits until the overrunning left winger gets into position. That’s how the attackers have their opportunities too, that’s how it’s done. And simply taking the ball away doesn’t work. When Marx sees this disaster coming from the left and has to reckon with the play to the outside in the next moment, he orients himself there for a moment. This is perfect defensive behaviour, especially as the centre-back Anderson is now ready to take over Wesley.

Wesley, however, recognises this – action and counteraction, a very interesting aspect – and foregoes the planned play, anticipated by Marx, and moves inside, just one step. Most skilfully, because it puts him in shooting position. Now both defenders realise that Wesley is planning the shot. They do what they have learned and what they have to do. You can’t prevent everything (a phrase that true experts – unfortunately these are not to be found in the reporters’ booth — have been hearing more often lately, presumably to stem the tide of mistakes that have supposedly been revealed). They both block the shot, throwing their bodies in between. Nevertheless, Wesley gets enough pressure behind the ball — which he owes to his own skilful creation of free space, but also to the outside man simply running along cleverly — and in addition gets precision in the shot towards goal. That’s all he was trying to achieve. Aiming or circling is hardly possible at this moment, at about 18 metres goal distance.

Anderson, the centre-back referred to, deflects the shot, but in itself with almost no change of direction, so that Bailly could not actually be surprised. However, the deflection turns the ball into a bouncer, so that it actually slips through the goalkeeper’s fingers. A “bouncer”, however, which Wesley of course did not intend at all, owes its reputation for being dangerous – especially when hard – mainly to the problem that it is much harder to calculate the trajectory after it has touched the ground. Especially since a built-in spin – which in this case was guaranteed to be added by the deflection – can be an additional complication.
In any case, the ball had the trajectory and the direction of the goal. The goalkeeper was in the corner and would probably have held it without the deflection. Hence the shake of the head.

“When Anderson decides to go up there” is now totally off the mark and also inadequate in tone and sound. A mistake anyway, as explained above, to explain this as a mistake, or carelessness of the kind. “Oh, now Mr. Anderson is getting comfortable towards the ball, too, will you?” But to that end, yes, it was interpreted to both of them as “hesitating”, which is as far from the truth as his chair should be in front of the door afterwards.

They defended as well as they can at this level. Of course, you don’t want to get into such dangerous situations (the origin of which remained open here), possibly the coach will even address something like that, how early in the game you should already do without protection to the back, taking into account the concrete situation. After that, everything was “state of the art”, so to speak.

However, the real problem of the smart-ass attitude only becomes apparent in the event that the action (and perhaps two others) were not successfully completed and Werder did not win the game. Then, according to the reporters, they would not have “made use of the generous free spaces” or “made far too little out of such scenes” or even “missed many chances miserably” if, in the end, Wesley had not “hesitated too long”.

It cannot be proven that this is the case. But you keep listening for a while and find nothing but confirmation…

You can, however, cancel your Sky subscription. And that has already happened. Not quite yet from all….

Here’s a possible alternative scene description that could even fit live, possibly making post-match coverage unnecessary?

“Wesley, Wesley, driving the ball forward, plenty of space in front of him. Still Wesley. On the outside, Marin runs along, offers himself. Wesley looks, moves inside, sets up the ball, 18 yards goal distance, Wesley shoots! Good shot, deflected, Bailly still on it. In! 2:0 for Werder. Great action, great shot by Wesley but also a bit unlucky for Bailly, who was at least irritated by the deflection.”

Said to the fans’ whistle: you do hear the whistle, only it is independent of this situation, possibly a later action in which the referee made a decision with which they did not agree, possibly also a recognised unsporting behaviour by a Bremen player. He simply assigns them to being behind and claims they whistled their team out. That is cheap journalism, the lowest drawer.

They did their team an injustice, because Gladbach also put this 2:0 away, played forward, and had this chance. Idrissou against Mielitz. Unbelievable. 23rd minute, at the latest now it was clear, Mielitz would have a very good afternoon, great, the reaction.
First of all, as always; no scene description. “Yes, you see everything, don’t you? What should I describe?” But it is partly about highlighting the quality of the actions or the players. Idrissou did indeed turn up completely free in front of goal. However, in this case, the occurrence was rather coincidental, as a cross from the half-field showed no recognisable winner in a header duel at the edge of the penalty area and was possibly also extended by the Bremen player’s head to the inrushing Idrissou, who was able to pick up the ball without an opponent about 7 metres from the goal.

However, he is of course very close to the goalkeeper with it and somewhat surprised, as it was not a planned, expected pass. Mielitz immediately rushes towards him and does what every goalkeeper does. Shorten the angle, body wide. Sometimes he goes in, sometimes not.

The inference of a “very good afternoon” after 23 minutes is not only complete nonsense — since he could easily concede 4 goals after that — one, two, three or all “at fault” or whatever. If it achieves anything, it is that as a spectator you know who is winning. Is that supposed to be desirable? Does the intention to celebrate oneself or be celebrated even go so far as to sell a known knowledge of the final outcome as expertness? As sad, regrettable, actually ridiculous such an undercurrent would be: there are far more than isolated signs of it. “At the latest now it was clear….” No, silly, sillier, reporter.

The ensuing corner kick. there comes de Camargo and on the line Torsten Frings helps the post. 23 minutes played and already plenty of chances at Borussia Park. And so it went on.
“…there comes” is well described. Body part doesn’t matter, quality of the cross doesn’t matter, quality of the finish doesn’t matter and certainly no drama.

Fact: The corner is precise. De Camargo rises high, gets to a textbook header, heading the ball as a touchdown towards the right corner from 13 metres. The post is occupied by a defender, as also seen in the textbooks. Everything right, everything good, all football at the highest level. Great action. There is nothing more to say.
“That’s the way it went on” is somehow positive in the context of the many chances, but you could really take that deteil from the pictures now. If he has to fear that the viewers are already thinking of switching off and he wants to keep them with this “promise”, then he would be delivering the admission that it is not exciting enough and needs to be spiced up a bit. After all, it is a summary, there are only highlights. We’ll see how many there are.

Daems here, unlucky, Bobadilla from an impossible angle, 26 minutes gone. That’s how it went at Borussia Park. And Gladbach were really good at it.
Another scene not described. Well, not worth mentioning anymore. Making plastic and highlighting quality features seems beneath him. And the “that’s how it went at Borussia Park” can only, if anything accomplish, kill the tension by generalising. The scenes are great, show them to me, describe them. But don’t explain to me that it went “like that”, that is, according to a “familiar, repetitive” pattern of knitting. Are we to assume that he means it always went like this: Borussia has the chances, Werder scores the goals? Is that the pattern?

Fact about the scene: There is one of those free kicks from half-field – maybe 40-45 metres from goal, half-right, hit into the penalty area, if possible in the direction of the goal, into which all the players run. For the goalkeeper, this is one of the most unpleasant situations, as friend or foe can deflect and the ball can go into any corner (see 1:0 Werder). This one comes exactly as planned. Daems approaches, tries a change of direction, standing with his back to the goal, but only heads the bouncing ball to the ground, so that it bounces too high and in the wrong direction, However, Bobadilla is still lurking at the post, but the ball bounces a little too far out, so that the angle becomes (too) acute. Maybe he could have put it back instead of going for goal.

But then, in the 30th minute, a counter-attack, Marin, with a great run against Levels, and alone in front of Bailly, and then he misses the almost certain 0:3. Of course, you can sense, from the pictures, with the Gladbach attackers moving up a lot, that the home team is already running against the 0:2 with a certain desperation and is abandoning the protection at the back as far as possible. Logically, spaces open up. The small, skilful Marin is brilliantly played free, takes off and Levels is robust, but of course a little slower.

Rule excerpt: “Skilled” it is from Marin, but both work quite hard with their arms. Now this is in no way meant to imply that the action could be interpreted as a striker’s foul. It is simply unpleasant that the rules are so poorly observed and that there seems to be no way of correcting this. Compared to the past, when players used to fight each other fairly with duels shoulder to shoulder, arm applied as a top priority, nowadays almost only the hands are in the opponent’s face to somehow row free. No, there must be possibilities. This digression has nothing to do with the commentator.

Well, now it’s his turn again. “Sloppy” is not only so infinitely negative, it is of course totally wrong. There is no such thing as 100%. Not in any scene. Not before it’s finished. It’s a normal 1 vs 1 situation, attacker vs goalie, that you actually see in football in almost every game, usually multiple times. The yield of the attackers is around an estimated 35%. Of course, there are scenes where it is easier because you have created more free space and are in a more favourable position. However, even then the goalkeepers win enough duels. Logically, there are also differences in the quality of attackers and goalkeepers, which again have a smaller influence on the conversion percentage.

Marin is known as an excellent technician. This gives him the facilities to try a lob, which, if successful, of course also looks great (which, admittedly, would not matter). How high the chances are with this compared to a hard shot is difficult to judge. Of course, at that moment he thinks his conversion has the best chance of success. He also does it well, lobs over the goalkeeper, but the ball trundles past the post. Of course, a lifting action then looks unfortunate for the shooter in the sense that it looks casual. However, conversely, the goalkeeper would look bad if a very slow shot overcomes him.
So to infer a “sloppy” from this is complete and embarrassing nonsense. You would like to put the ball in his hand in this scene and ask him ten times not to “miss”. But just so you could have a good laugh, after the tenth miss….

First, 1 a, how he asserts himself against Levels, and then he just wants to do it too well, instead of passing the ball somehow. The lob clearly past the goal.
The great advice of the true expert is to “play it past somehow”. Well, it can’t come out worse than no goal. So you can pretty well stink with your pants full. What’s this nonsense about? “Why don’t you shoot it in instead of missing? Then it would be a goal and you’d have 3-0. You fool.” A great expert.
The opposite advice to my smart-ass friend: “Why don’t you put it in, but stop slobbering!” That’s all that can be said.

It kept going briskly forward, on both sides. Here Bobadilla, last season’s double scorer in the 4:3 win against Bremen, takes a shot. There was a bit missing, as so often in this first half for Gladbach. Great offensive action, but when they did hit the net, there was always Mielitz.

It’s nice that it was fun. “Lively forward”. The scene commentary is once again replaced by a general, informative statement. “Two-goal scorer last season” instead of “Bobadilla from an acute angle – ouh, just missed”. This would reflect the tension of the scene. You can save the info or save it completely.

The scene was red-hot, when Bobadilla actually gets to the ball almost at the baseline – surely surprised that the ball bounces there – the angle is too acute to pull on goal. Possibly he would have scored more if he had put it back, even sharply.
“But if they ever hit the goal, there was always Mielitz”. Yes, fine, Mielitz held that ball too (the one before that, before it bounced to Bobadilla). But what good could a general explanation of this construction do, other than take away the tension? At that moment, no one could know how many more times Mielitz would hold, or how many times he would miss, or how many times he would have to reach behind him. But he, the would-be expert, already knows and wants to apply his ridiculous foreknowledge as soon as possible. He doesn’t care about the listener’s enjoyment or excitement. A pupil has figured out a mental arithmetic problem with the calculator under the bench and proudly announces the solution first. Ridiculous and embarrassing. One could perhaps still forgive a pupil…

It was a super game and with such a little smile we went into the break, Wesley’s eightfold overhead kick against Levels.

Well, when the world class degenerates into a “smile”? Surely Wesley did not intend to offer a circus-like performance at that moment, but the idea was to create a goal action. If it had “only” been an artistic interlude of this kind, the comment would still have been misguided, inappropriate, precisely because it requires far more skill than the suggestion that one should/can smile about it suggests. In any case, the speaker’s assumed position, which he never intends to leave, is: “We used to do jumps like that in the sandbox too – and we shook with laughter. Nothing can surprise him, nor can it please him. Smile? All right, you can smile. Not him, of course. That’s the viewer’s job.

By the way: Wesley reached his goal and actually came up with an excellent cross, which, however, did not find a teammate. Not worth mentioning either? Yes, the speaker should rather go back to shovelling coal. I’m sure he’d have more fun doing that.

Second round. The game continued to be fun and then became dramatic. 51st minute, Idrissou, this ball just has to go in. Mielitz only had a slight sideways glance over,

The most beautiful of all scenes is also “left out” of the description, so to speak. Supplied here:
Reus starts on the right wing, the pass is probably played perfectly by Levels, just at the right moment, so that Reus finds enough space for a precise cross, which lowers exactly at the five-metre area in a central position on the head of Idrissou. Idrissou, of course, comes in at full speed, but has enough time and space (reason: class) to place the pike header in flight (!) against the direction of Mielitz. The latter possibly recognises while still falling that Idrissou is planning this and stretches his left foot far into the corner he has just left – and holds it! A fantastic move, of course, from all involved. Mielitz had really gradually played himself into a frenzy and also held this incredible ball. Nothing else could be said about it. There was no mistake or poor finishing from Idrissou far and wide. He does it as well as he can. There is no such thing as 100%. Here he got maybe 80%, which he had to work out first by anticipating the ball’s trajectory and running into the right position, as well as converting it with class.

“This ball simply has to go in” is about the stupidest thing you can say. Especially since such a scene would give you the chance to get a little emotional, i.e. sympathetic, for Gladbach. That wouldn’t hurt anyone, guaranteed. “What bad luck for Gladbach. But also simply world class from Mielitz, how he still gets there.” Especially as the bad luck only increases in the following scene….

then concentrated on Werder’s counter-attack via Marin and Hunt, Hunt, ball deflected, ball in, unbelievable. Unbelievable what was happening here. On the one hand, Borussia Mönchengladbach had a huge chance to score a goal, namely this one — I’ll stick with it, the ball simply has to go in. Compliments to Mielitz, of course, who again reacted superbly on the line — and then, on the counterattack, Hunt deals with Wissing, who was making his first appearance from the start, who is too hesitant, Daems has a body part in between this time, and so it was 0:3.

You can’t help but get out of your seat at scenes like that. If he still has anything like professional honour, then these are the moments when you as a journalist get the gift on the plate. You can’t let this chance go by. However, he actually does everything to spoil the experience.

Because: The scene is again commented on in a highly superficial way, with at best the leading ball being mentioned by name. What does he do with it? “Well, take a look for yourself.” No, it’s not like that. As a speaker who is enthusiastic and wants to arouse enthusiasm, and at the same time wants to be a man of the trade, there simply has to be more to it. But as soon as the ball is in, which in his case culminates in a profane “in”, delivered emotionlessly and thus sold as a kind of matter of course, the troubleshooting begins. But actually already before that. First of all, he “sticks to the fact that it has to go in” (suggests: whoever misses it will have to expect the death penalty to be imposed on him immediately after the reintroduction of the death penalty, or what chance is there against a “has to”? Idrissou does it perfectly; he sails in the cross, you first have to get there, and hits it perfectly, the goalkeeper reacts simply world class), then “Hunt deals with Wissing”, which is tantamount to an absurd trivialisation of the tension and drama on all sides, in order to then already state a “hesitant”, which automatically suggests that Hunt could simply be slowed down, if only one went there. “Daems has a body part in between this time”, the ultimate tension release, which is also recognisable in the tone of voice, “and so stands 0:3”.

Great job, kid. More of that, then even the last ones will switch off.

In fact, you first have to take into account the score, which logically caused a certain despair in Gladbach: well played and down by two goals. The attempt is there to play positively and forward immediately after the break. Even the art and class are there to make it work. However, bad luck stood in the way. It becomes a “ball loss in the forward movement”, so to speak, because the attack does get to finish, but it remains in play after the header is cleared with the foot on the line, so there is neither goal nor corner nor kick.

It is only too understandable that this or that person in the team is preoccupied for a brief moment with missing this great opportunity. It is also understandable that the almost last team with an inexperienced central defender Wissing can lose out in a one-on-one situation. However, this could also happen to a better one, no question. The scene is incredibly reminiscent of the one before the 0:2. Not only conceptually was there talk of a “hesitant defence”, which in both cases is nothing but utter nonsense. The heaped bad luck is expressed here — however, the spectator has to make up his own mind about it and shut the slobberhead up (sound off is the least!) — when he says that “Daems has a body part in between”. At the front he doesn’t go in with a perfect finish, and here a deflected shot bumps over the line. Well, emotions belong here, which capture the tragedy. “You just feel for the Gladbachers.” That’s how it is. But it only works if you don’t have to endure the chatter.

If you look very closely, you even notice that Hunt doesn’t even dare to cheer because the happiness is somehow too much for him. It simply makes him uncomfortable. Of course, the action was perfectly okay, because the shot was aimed towards the far left corner of the goal. Daems’ knee gets in the way, so that the goalkeeper, who would nevertheless probably have parried the really well-shot ball from 18 metres, was hopelessly loaded. Further counteracting any exuberant jubilation is the fact that Gladbach had so narrowly and unluckily missed the 1:2 seconds before. In any case, it is human/sympathetic to see such a reaction from Hunt. It’s a pity that something like that is not recognised and not mentioned. The “rough everyday life in the Bundesliga” is perhaps not as less human as is often portrayed.

Change, de Camargo’s working day was over, he can certainly do more, he tried hard, not so goal-dangerous, unlike Idrissou and Reus, he leaves this chance and then Mertesacker helps, that was Gladbach’s offensive play, they had chances but couldn’t put the ball in the goal themselves, and then suddenly Per Mertesacker helped. Third own goal by the way from Werder this season, they lead this category.

It is very difficult to see that a goal was scored here. Sure, when you look at the pictures you notice it and he speaks to the pictures. But still, the scene description is anything but vivid.

While he deals with the poor performance of de Camargo and his substitution (presumably, as he would like to suggest, he personally whispered to the coach during the game that he should take him off), there is a beautifully presented attack, which he hints at in a subordinate clause: “different from Idrissou and Reus”. Idrissou plays a superbly timed, deadly pass to Reus, who is running through in the centre. Reus is actually the first and only one to get to the ball, about one and a half metres in front of his opponent. The latter, falling, tries to hinder Reus, which of course he succeeds in doing to a certain extent.

See above, the little note about foul actions against attackers. Here it is the case that the foul action actually begins outside the penalty area, but continues into it. The referee would of course have had the excuse (against the penalty) of moving the scene outside. However, since the determined Reus seeks the finish despite the obstruction – on the one hand knowing that he would never, ever get a penalty, on the other hand in the positive approach “I’ll put it in” –, this bending of the rules (which, however, as explained elsewhere, would make perfect sense; foul recognised, nevertheless waiting for the finish; no goal, now still a penalty or at least a free kick) does not apply. Well, Reus shoots in spite of an obstruction, Mielitz holds the ball, as he is running towards it just as determinedly, nevertheless skilfully, but the ball bounces off him and straight to Mertesacker’s feet, who cannot defend himself at all against the extension into his own goal. Certainly a little unfortunate for Werder in this situation, but, as described, the scene was almost worth a goal and Gladbach deserved one anyway. Apart from the obstruction of Reus, which could have been a penalty if interpreted correctly or at least possibly.

“That was the offensive play of Gladbach”? Yes, exactly like that: great. Not only does he try to do it badly, but he is supremely successful at it. “They couldn’t get it under” and “Werder had to help” and “that’s how the offensive game was” is all so low – but at the same time wrong. Only one of them would have to be replaced, but it is to be feared that there will only be “equivalent replacements on the bench” for the man behind the microphone. A similarly competent fun-killing chatterbox.

Even if it is somehow informative that Werder “lead the category of own goals”: it remains the negative that is being highlighted. Should we laugh at them now, the stumbling kings?

And another thing: the term “the working day” expresses exactly what is very successfully conveyed here. You have your working days and at some point you have free time. The speaker has to do his stupid job right now, the striker his. The latter has happily finished his. He himself has to slave away for a while before he can finally do something interesting, beautiful and entertaining. Just no more commentating on games. Man, that sucks!

And suddenly, of course, there was still something in it for Gladbach, as strange as this game had been until then. But Werder didn’t want to get involved in gimmicks and played forward. Arnautovic had a great chance in the 73rd minute. He even had a similar one a minute later. Werder were on the verge of scoring the fourth goal with four minutes to go, and that’s what happened. Wesley’s classy pass was converted by Pizarro in the 74th minute. Gladbach risked everything going forward, they were outnumbered here, but Anderson was powerless against Wesley’s pass in the middle. And Pizarro makes history in the Bundesliga, because this was his 134th Bundesliga goal. He replaced Giovanne Elber as the league’s top foreign scorer.

How one is supposed to tell that there was still something in it for Gladbach is unclear, as there is no scene for it. As nice as it would be that he was simply wrong and intended to spread tension: here it was unfortunately misplaced.

That they “didn’t feel like getting into shenanigans” sounds as if it is up to them how the game goes. Either they go along with the shenanigans or they take it into their own hands. Does that do it justice? Is that how they make it exciting? They played forward, that’s pleasing, they had this or that successful action that could be described instead. By the way: If Gladbach had actually managed to connect + equalise, he would certainly have declared Werder’s “playing forward” a ridiculous misconduct. The fact is: In this game, football was simply played. Both wanted to score goals, both succeeded, one a little better thanks to luck.

The prediction of the fourth Werder goal is, of course, ridiculous again. “They were on it and on it – and then it happened”. He really “guessed” that well, the man. He should go into television…

The action is really great to watch. Wesley has shown absolutely exceptional form in all his appearances so far anyway and Pizarro, who has been known in the Bundesliga for so many years, is not to be begrudged taking the lead, which of course had to be explained, no question. But he didn’t really get emotional. What a pity, another missed opportunity, Mr. Reporter and supposedly skilled journalist!

It was the highlight for Werder in a very good afternoon of football, which left jubilant Bremen fans, but of course left Gladbachers brooding as well. We, however, deal with the winner first. Ecki Häuser did that.

As nice as it is to end with a compliment to the game. It was “very good”. But: He always has the right to judge it and not leave this to the spectator? Maybe I, as a Gladbach fan, didn’t like it? What are the quality characteristics? It was exciting, there was a lot of goal action and a lot of drama. We saw that – and would have had the chance to have it conveyed thanks to him. No need to stand on high ground again: This game was good, that one was bad. What’s the point?

(Substitute goalkeeper Sebastian Mielitz in an interview) Yes, I still have to understand it all a bit, I haven’t really realised what happened today.
(Claudio Pizarro in interview) Poh, that was outstanding today. Miele (goalkeeper Mielitz is meant) helped us a lot, helped the team a lot today, and I’m very happy for him, he made an outstanding save.

It doesn’t get much easier than interviewing a winner. The young keeper’s demeanor is very likeable.

(Isn’t that nice? Well, it’s really hard to transition to these pictures. Take a look at this: It’s match day nine and tears are flowing unrestrained in Gladbach. But it was also a crazy afternoon. Mielitz held everything except for the goal Mertesacker conceded, and Gladbach loses 1:4, even though the team played really good football. Jan please.

Yes, seeing the crying fans is quite touching. But what does that have to do with Matchday 9? Rubbish. The crying young woman, who was presumably being consoled by her partner, was simply crying because her team played so well and still lost. Fortunately, he still says it. Only: By the time of the interviews, this fact will have been forgotten. Then only bare results count. No arguments will help. As you will hear in a moment…

(Jan Henkel from the studio) So after the game, you’re still completely under the impression of the scenes and Mielitz’s statement. Mum, dad, girlfriend, everyone said hello again, he just enjoys it, still has to realise it, got the compliments from the team, great performance from him and then Bayern are coming next Tuesday.

But, Borussia Mönchengladbach, what’s going on there, there were one or two Gladbach fans who said, why did Tim Wiese have to get injured now? You might remember that 6:3 against Bayer 04 Leverkusen, that great game, after that there was no more victory, that was already the third home defeat of the season, and, yes, that historic flood of goals conceded: 27 goals in 9 games. That’s the statement that simply stands, even if they had a lot of chances themselves today, but goals didn’t happen, we want to hear the coach, he’s with Ecki Häuser.

Yes, the whole thing suggests what it was: bad luck. You’re just not allowed to say it. Of course, there are still a few more backgrounds. But even these are not accepted, if they are mentioned. “Historic flood of goals against”. Yes, but in this game there were at least two deflected shots that went in. Differentiation is called for! But there is no such thing in this country. Lost is lost and goals count in football…

(Ecki Häuser with Gladbach coach Michael Frontzeck) Back at Borussia Park, I’m with the head coach of Borussia Mönchengladbach. Mr Frontzeck, what worries you most at the moment?

This question is already so suggestive that it’s no longer fun. Neither for the coach (who is most tormented by it) nor for the spectator. Only one person seems to be rubbing his fingers because he has someone ready to shoot: The smart-as-nails and dumb-as-a-button questioner, who can count among his vast wealth of experience the impeccably learned mathematical inequality “4 is greater than 1”.

Unthinkable in England, such a question. “Are you worried?”, “Are you worried about something?”, might just be possible. But you wouldn’t even hear a questioner in England, let alone see one in the picture. Who cares about this boozer? No, you would only get a statement, without a preliminary question. He would calmly, soberly, factually and informatively analyse the game, perhaps even the overall situation. The hyenas would be off the air. It is certainly the kind of thing that adds information for the interested viewer/listener. That’s how it’s done. In this country, it’s a pain. Worryingly, the embarrassed questioner somehow acts (and seems to feel) victorious because he is facing a “loser”.

What worries the most first of all assumes any worries at all. Surely he will have some, but why impute? And the multiplicity insinuated at the same time is just nasty. Everyone saw that luck was lacking today and that the team played well. He wants to suggest, to tease out the answer: “The defence worries me the most. In itself, this is the only permissible answer. But from the viewer’s point of view, you could save yourself the whole interview.

So, let’s assume that Frontzeck agrees to the “suggested” interview. Then it would go like this: “What worries you most?” Answer Frontzeck: “The defence”. Question: “How do you intend to remedy these problems?” “We will train next week. We already did that last week.” “Yes, but there has been no improvement?” “No, you said it.” “How do you hope to turn things around?” “Train, prepare, line up, play, then add up goals, count up if we get points for it.” “Are you the right man for that?” “I don’t know.” “Are you still on the bench next week?” “I don’t know.”

Then, turning to the audience: “But he was tight-lipped and thin-skinned. A clear indication that he’ll soon be sacked…

(Frontzeck) Yes, well, I mean, of course it’s not a pleasant situation, that’s clear, we didn’t make it too difficult for Werder today, we were two nil down, and then we have, I think, four, five really big opportunities where the thing doesn’t want to go in, at half-time we regroup, come out, have a thousand percent, and in return you get an own goal. And that’s the way it is at the moment, we have to face it, and it’s a difficult situation.

He also wriggles around the word “bad luck” in the knowledge of the media. Because you can’t say that. In any case, it was a very good game for the last team. You just don’t always get points even with good performances.

(Ecki Häuser) Does Borussia Mönchengladbach have a fundamental problem that needs to be solved as soon as possible?

Since Frontzeck didn’t want to give the ready-made answer, he now has to be poked in the nose by Mister Dummdreist, or so he thinks. An ordeal for the spectator.

(Frontzeck) Yes, there are various reasons, and then to give them directly after the game, that … (Houses interrupting) I mean basically.
towards a loser you can allow yourself anything, even to cut off the word. Especially as the suggested answer is based solely on knowledge of the sum of the goals conceded anyway. “Yes, you idiot, it’s the weak defence. And it’s MY fault. And here, now eat your mic.” Shove it in his mouth and stomp off. That would be a good alternative.
(Frontzeck) that always sounds like an excuse, and I’m not up for that. As I said, we’ll face the situation and deal with it together, as early as next Wednesday.
(Houses) This is not just an analysis of today, but basically of the entire last few weeks. I mean, you’ve conceded 27 goals, don’t you have to change that immediately, and if so, how?
Dumb, dumber, bolder, Ecki Häuser. He doesn’t get the only permissible answer. But he has to squeeze it out. It’s like torture. For coach and spectator. “If so, how?” Get to the point, he must be saying. Dismiss yourself here and now, yourself. I brought your chair. Leave it by the door. Come on!
Moreover, the cheek to dictate to the coach, the true and recognised football expert, what this is all about: “This is not about …, it’s about …. You answers wrong.” Yes, are you still there?
(Frontzeck) Yes, at the moment it’s complicated because that was the last line-up today. As you know.
(Houses) Yes, you’ve got three players suspended for red, but that’s certainly an issue too, indiscipline in the team? How do you want to put an end to all that?
(Ecki Häuser with rudiments only remotely reminiscent of brains: “But I still have something up my sleeve. Hehe. You can’t escape me here with cheap excuses 27 goals against are 27 goals against. I’ll get you down by any means necessary. You’ll be sacked today. I can do that.”)
(Frontzeck) Indiscipline? No, that was foul play. Foul play, that was a lack of discipline, he reacted wrongly, and the other three situations were foul play. Was fighting for the ball.
The hostility was sown by the questioner. As one shouts into the forest… But now Ecki has made a mistake. Embarrassing? Sorry? No way. Change the subject!
(The situation doesn’t get any easier when you look at the table. How are you going to get out of it now?
(“I got him, I got him!”)
(Frontzeck) Yes, let it sink in first, rebuild against Leverkusen on Wednesday and offer a proper cup fight here.
(Houses) That means you’re still in good spirits?
(Frontzeck) Yes, I’d be a very bad coach if I wasn’t.
(Houses) Thank you very much. What do you call that then? Sarcasm?

(Jan Henkel from the studio)
Yes, he was emotional about it, Michael Frontzeck, and maybe it helps, we had said it, this 6:3 on the second match day, the match was called Borussia Mönchengladbach against Bayer Leverkusen, and exactly the same now in the DFB Cup.

c. SC Freiburg – 1.FC Kaiserslautern

In the match between SC Freiburg and Kaiserslautern, it’s about time for Lautern to win again, because they’ve only picked up one point in the last six matchdays and things started so well in the course of the season, right at the beginning they won 3:1 against Cologne, away, then at home this 2:0 against Bayern, and after that lost, drew, lost, lost, lost, lost. So, the last four defeats, and normally, Torsten Kunde, the reaction is that people get restless, that the club is restless, the fans, the club management, the coach maybe too, but at Kaiserslautern it’s completely different.

Is the aim to stir up unrest? There is a simple explanation that there is calm: The fans recognise very well when the performance is right. That is always acknowledged and looking at the results almost fades into the background. On the media side, things look different: Football expertise is reduced to knowledge of results.

(Torsten Kunde) Yes, that is indeed new at 1.FC Kaiserslautern, a critical phase for the coach, for Marco Kurz, but no restlessness, instead a realistic expectation, so in that sense FCK has become a bit more Freiburg, the badenova stadium reported sold out.
And Lautern in white again with Bugera, and Lautern started very, very strong. Highly concentrated, we’re in the 8th minute from a throw-in, and that’s Ilicevic and that’s Moravek, and it’s 1:0 for 1.FC Kaiserslautern, by the young Czech, his first Bundesliga goal for Lautern and we’re looking at Marco Kurz’ reaction.

As always: a description of the scene is omitted. As nice as one could see it, an emotional description of a scene, a ball reception, a finish, highlighting the quality, for once addressing, describing, recognising something that the viewer doesn’t see than always just blandly mentioning the name of the player in possession and reporting the ball in the goal. No. Boring and insipid. Repeated here: Live commentary would have to be played. There, the announcer was guaranteed not to know yet whether it would be a goal. But this would only work if the live commentary was good, oriented to the game and emotional, passionate.

You simply have to go along with it, as a spectator, and the commentator has to accompany you. Here is a (possible) scene description:
“Long throw-in by Bugera. Surely surprising for the Freiburg players that Ilicevic simply runs through and passes two, as quick as a flash. However, what he then does is first class: he outdances another opponent, enters the penalty area from the left corner of the penalty area, is surrounded by three opponents, but in the last moment he slips the ball over to Moravek, who is running with him, who puts the ball forward once again, thanks to the space created by Ilicevic, and then places it hard and well into the front corner of the goal. Great action by all. Bugera’s throw-in also worth seeing.”
It looks like a little trick: “You take off long, suddenly, and I throw it into your path.” The momentary panic and thus the inevitable abandonment of the counterparts of the Freiburg cover players is simply triggered by the lightning action. That’s just how goals happen. Fortunately, it is.

We look at the reaction of… Okay, we looked. And what did we see? Sure, every now and then you can leave the viewer alone with images. But all the time? This is enthusiasm and passion, pure joy and emotion, what we see. It’s nice that it’s like that. It could also be told as an emotional outburst after a long stretch.

There was no sense of insecurity at all, his team played strongly, from a throw-in, of course, that should never happen from Freiburg’s point of view, and Moravek scored in his second game for 1.FC Kaiserslautern, 20 years young, on loan from Schalke 04.
Class characteristics remain hidden from him. The clarification that it “must never happen like this” is as superfluous as the famous goiter. If it didn’t happen here and there, but not there either, because it could always be said “must never happen like this…”, then at some point we would only have 0:0 games. Desirable? Desirable?

This is Sippel’s reaction and this is the reaction of Sportclub Freiburg. Schuster, still scored in Bremen to make it 1-1, and of course Cissé is always involved. He has already scored seven goals, has scored in every home game so far.
Again, the scene is only announced and not described. Very well. “Of course Cissé always involved”? Ridiculous. Why of course? There is also repeated talk of goal scorers who are not seen the whole game and then suddenly strike. Sometimes they remain pale throughout. “Natural” is somehow supposed to pretend expertise. It would be better to describe what is happening at the moment. A corner comes in front of goal, Cissé gets in, heads, but just past the left post.
At the beginning, Freiburg only scored goals from standard situations, there was little from the game, but even that was not a serious test for Tobias Sippel.
Nice, well, then we are curious from now on? Standards are a means. And a “…went little” is firstly negative and secondly superfluous. And so is the generalisation. Here comes a ball, there it flies, the shoots, almost in. “No serious test” once again emphasises the detrimental. It was a finish, a shot on goal. If it’s not in, surely there’s no need to emphasise that? If they try again and again, like this, in this way, it will go in eventually. It was good, from all sides. A great shot, which Sippel bends to the corner with his fists. The speaker is and remains emotionless and not tense. “I’m just doing my job here.”
Well, no wonder, he already knows what’s going to happen. It is also important for him to make that clear. Is this the model for the future? Well, in any case, an alternative is suggested here. As a spokesperson: one is curious, one is excited, one is surprised, one is enthusiastic, about this or that, and one shows it.

But slowly the Sportclub from Freiburg built up pressure. Bastians, good cross, and there’s Cissé, of course. Freiburg has a goal scorer. One one, strong cross from Bastians, mistake from Rodnei, and then Cissé, his eighth goal, and with that he is again the sole leader in the current goal scorer list. Pappis Demba Cissé

“But slowly Sportclub built up pressure…”. Yes, take a look, a goal is about to be scored. Ridiculous and embarrassing, as always. The prophet is back. Then there’s “Cissé again, of course”. Yes, that’s how football is fun. Everything is explained to you. Freiburg has a goal scorer. Also great. But “strong cross” is at least a description of a scene. Unfortunately, it’s the only one far and wide. “One One”. That’s been dealt with, it’s not worth saying another word about it. It’s there and it’s one one. That’s it. Of course, the “mistake by Rodnei” is not to be missed, so that one loses one’s desire. What does one care about an analysis of who is making a mistake, man?
Alternatively, or simply a Suzenen description delivered later:
The cross comes with a lot of spin from more than 40 metres from the left half of the field to the far post, towards which Cissé runs, is first to the ball and sinks it technically perfect as a volley from 6 metres, i.e. from the corner of the five-metre area, yet seemingly playfully easy. Simply classy, to the point of being tongue-in-cheek. And no “mistake, mistake, mistake.” The defender is outflanked, that’s the way it is. What’s the point of spoiling the spectators’ enjoyment of these beautiful goals over and over again? After all, one automatically feels like a layman when one should now jump up enthusiastically while he is blathering about a mistake: “Oh well, if it was a mistake, I’d better sit down. I thought something was well done. At first glance I would have liked it. With the sound on, I now know: it was nothing. The ball was in, but only because of mistakes.”

Cissé’s jubilation is remarkable, if you enjoy football and goals at all: He holds the ball up to the crowd, kisses it and then throws it in. All not worth mentioning?

And we look at the reaction again of Marco Kurz. Saw it coming somehow, Bastians’ cross wasn’t prevented, Kurz down, but then again that’s typical, emotional again, cheering for his team again.
It’s so ridiculous to mention not preventing the cross. No coach would order his players to prevent crosses from half-field. Anyone who has been on the pitch themselves knows what they say about that sort of thing: “He’s allowed to do that.” If it turns into a goal, you can either applaud it, be angry, surprised or annoyed. But you haven’t made a mistake. What else was there to prevent? Perhaps the kick-off? “There must be someone with him.”

Plus the ridiculous analysis that the coach sees it coming. It’s quite simple: you see the perfectly struck ball, you sense it’s going to be dangerous, you puff out your cheeks thinking “I hope someone else gets in there”, then the ball hits and you’re disappointed, shocked.

Yet Kurz knows very well that it was rather a lucky equaliser at that point. His team was the better one. That is what moves him. He also simply feels for his boys, which is both sympathetic and human. The cheering happens because he knows they haven’t done anything wrong. Besides, it’s 1-1, all open, all in, go on, men, we’ll get something here.”
Second period, and FCK came out of the dressing room strong, Rodnei, the centre-back, with the first scoring chance for FCK in the second period.
Yes, it’s getting boring. What he says and what you can say about it: What was the scene like? You don’t know, it’s just not described. At least we now know what position Rodnei was playing….

“Corner by Tiffert, spot on, Rodnei comes on, heads, misses.” That would be enough, wouldn’t it? “Came out strongly”. Yes, well, but you could also tell from a scene described? They had a chance.

The verdict is true, but FCK were simply good throughout, so the modest verdict from a local perspective.
Robin Dutt (Freiburg’s coach) sensed that things were not going well and he reacted by taking out Yano, the striker, and bringing in Stefan Reisinger, who had recently made his comeback for one minute in Bremen, but had been injured for a long time.
Sure, the substitution is part of the story of the game and it made it very special. For Reisinger, for SC Freiburg. Only: Why do you have to mention beforehand that it didn’t go that way? How would the commentary have turned out if he hadn’t changed at all? Every coach has his options and even plenty of motives to change something. Some want to keep the result, some want to bring in their reserve players, some want to give a substitute a chance, substitute a weaker or exhausted player, sometimes it can be done to protect against a red card. There are substitutions in practically every game. “It didn’t go that way” isn’t even true. In the game, Lautern were better and the result was favourable for Freiburg. So it’s even more of a positive “run”. Well, you should just save it. Especially as it becomes a prophecy, so to speak, due to the subsequent scenes – and thus becomes ridiculous because of one’s own knowledge of the course of events. Without Reisinger it didn’t work, but with him it did…

A little later: There is Bastians again, and attention, there is Stefan Reisinger, three minutes forty-five seconds he was in the game and he puts Freiburg in the lead.
As always, the description is omitted. Doesn’t he need it? Needless to say more about it? It’s certainly understandable that most of the interviewees unanimously say to the comments: “Well, you have to switch him off.” You just don’t learn anything enlightening, you’re rather bored and smart-mouthed.
It is informative though, the wait for the goal, it’s just that by the time it’s mentioned, the (not really sparked) enthusiasm for a goal already subsides.

(The replay is on) And again about the strong left side, so there Lautern had ne a lot of problems on the right, Kirch is too far away and then of course Bugera doesn’t look good either, and Reisinger with risk, with class, with quality, and no chance of course with Sippel. He scored last, Stefan Reisinger, in November 2009, against Nürnberg, was injured for a long time, as I said. Robin Dutt did everything right.
Exactly: a load of rubbish. Funnily enough, but of course coincidentally, he is almost right with one remark. Namely that “Kirch was too far away”. He is not really too far away, but he does not use the remaining time to make an important move towards the flanker. This becomes obvious on replay (this added as an author’s verdict, so to speak).

To accuse the author of taking a higher position is both correct and appropriate. However, the means of verification would be available here, which is gladly suggested: Did coach Kurz talk to the player Kirch about this “negligence” in the following week? There was indeed one, so the claim goes. And one is willing to put this assessment to the test.

“Bugera doesn’t look good”: absolutely right. After all, his team has just conceded a goal. And after a goal, not a single player on the team looks good. Certainly not during the making of it either. How would that sound: “Everyone defends perfectly, the full-back is in the right position for the opponent, the centre-back is in the right position to intercept the cross, the opponent of the shooter covers him perfectly – but the ball is in.” Everyone looked good. But they just conceded a goal?

Ridiculous, then. The truth here: The cross is just as precise as the one before, before the 1:1, and even by the same player. The centre-back is outflanked, the ball SHOULD come down at the far post, and not be intercepted or headed out beforehand. Coaches trying to teach their players could teach nothing but this. But when they do succeed, it is supposed to be blamed on a defensive weakness? Pure nonsense. This cross is as good as a cross can be. You have to kick it like that. Even Lautern’s coach wouldn’t say anything against it. He would only say something to Kirch. Because: sometimes it’s enough to put the shooter under pressure just by being decisive, so that the cross slips by a whisker.

Still unmentioned: the cross comes right at Reisinger, at the back post. Opposite number Bugera can’t get to it. Reisinger lets the ball drip forward (the brief consideration on the part of the transcriber as to whether it might have been with his arm was in itself rejected), past Bugera, and hammers it into the goal from an acute angle with his second touch of the ball. It was certainly not well-aimed. Of course, the proximity to the goal creates the greatest danger, even at an acute angle. However, to claim that Sippel had “no chance” is once again pure nonsense. The goal is always small when you shoot from this position. Sippel does the jumping jack, what else. It’s just that the ball goes past all his limbs. What’s more, he says “of course”. What was that supposed to mean? He knew it beforehand? Or a typical situation where he wouldn’t have a chance? No, it’s all nonsense, unfortunately the only truth. Two such missed opportunities – this would be just as perfectly normal – and the buck stopped with the strikers, who, in the reporter’s view, then presumably “…failed miserably several times in promising positions”.

And 1.FC Kaiserslautern came, showed reaction and fought back, via Bugera, and then via the strong Tiffert, but perhaps that was the shortcoming, the determination and also the penetrating power in front of the opponent’s goal was missing.
Yes, you can see this lack of determination right away. It’s connected to the fact that the defence, in his opinion, had two lapses, presumably? Since Lautern scored 1 goal, they could even have won, theoretically? Apart from that: speaking in generalities again. You’re supposed to recognise something of a lack of determination in this scene? Well, that’s nonsense.
His team (coach Kurz faded in). Kurz also reacted. Double change, brought Hoffer and Nemec, full risk and also because of that Freiburg had counter chances, had Reisinger (exactly at that moment a shot by Reisinger, the voice is tearing up here) counter chances. The chance was there, for 3:1, for the Sportclub from Freiburg. He really blossomed after his goal, Stefan Reisinger.
It has been mentioned often enough now. But one more time, do you intend to create tension by generalising? “Oh, now I’m really excited. Freiburg still had a few counter-attacking chances”? Is that the idea? Or is it more about being clever?
As usual, the scene is not described. Generalisations are made and tension is supposed to be sensed in the raised voice. It doesn’t work. “He really blossomed” is supposed to make your mouth water?
Why don’t you show the scene and describe it?

Final phase, ten minutes before the end, Lautern threw everything forward. Once more Lautern, once more Lakic, and only the crossbar. Penalties missed against Frankfurt, crossbar now in Freiburg, the bad luck of a goal scorer. That was the last chance, that was the final whistle and that was Robin Dutt’s emotions. 2:1 was the final score. So Lautern lose again, and Freiburg win somewhat happily but by no means undeservedly.
The summary once again spares the description of the scenes, which are always supposed to be seen, grasped by the spectator? Why talk about it when you see everything? Suggests again to look at England just once, just once. Anyone who does will find that, even if they don’t understand the language, they can’t look away and almost have to force themselves to look, despite the stupid comments.

“Great cross, right on Lakic’s head, header from 16 metres, a lot of drive behind it, it’s quite dangerous – wow, only the crossbar. What a chance, good cross, great header by Lakic from that distance. A lot of bad luck for Lautern.”

Best of all, and not a bit damaging: “Somehow you would have grudged them the equaliser.”
But this would have been more the job of the live announcer — who didn’t use it either. But this would have saved the commentary. And not primarily because the speaker could have saved himself the time, but in the sense of “saving the spectator”.

Absolutely nonsensical is the statement that can be heard again and again – but which never loses any of its triggered annoyance – that it was “lucky but not undeserved”. “Lucky” is the opposite of “deserved”. In the past, people knew something like that in this country, too. The many very, very fortuitous and lucky final appearances and tournament victories of the German national team have blurred this. Since Germany always wins – and they don’t want to leave any doubt about their legitimacy, also out of self-protection – at some point it becomes the case that every victory is deserved per se. If one feels that it is not, one attaches this nonsensical sentence to it. One is probably also afraid that if one were to speak of a lucky success, one would be dismissed as a layman who has not recognised the laws of football and is more or less stuck at the level of “oh, the grass is nice and green”.

(Felix Bastians from Freiburg in an interview) That was a very important game, we knew that we could distance Lautern with a home win, we certainly didn’t get into the game well at the beginning, we had unnecessary ball losses, Lautern did very well, played very disciplined, but, yes, that’s the character of the team at the moment, that we can come back even after falling behind and turn games around.
Perfectly expressed. Of course, he doesn’t necessarily want to use the word “happy” either. At some point, one has learned that luck does exist – and even in accumulations – but that you simply don’t have to say it.
(Christian Tiffert from Lautern) It’s crazy how we lose games. And then afterwards it says: Freiburg celebrated. That’s inexplicable to me, those are crosses that are in the air for 10 minutes, and Freiburg makes two goals out of that. And we try to do overhead kicks or side kicks after crosses instead of going for it with our heads.
Unusual and somewhat astonishing, but on the other hand one should be happy to concede an emotional statement to a key player who was outstanding in this match. But tackling your team-mates like that is not the best way to go about it. The crosses were well struck. And they were just not converted well. Of course one is disappointed, even very disappointed. But it doesn’t have to be that way.
On the other hand, a clever reporter would of course have the chance to interpret this reaction – as well as the entire match beforehand – correctly: the more unfortunate a defeat was, the more emotional the responses could be.
However, it should be noted here that the reactions have a lot to do with the fact that one already knows that one will not receive justice from the media.

He probably meant the sideways kick after a successful cross from himself, which was not converted. Surely he felt on the pitch that he was not responsible for the defeat with a strong personal performance. The good ones sometimes open their mouths – without necessarily having taken it too full beforehand.

(Lautern coach Marco Kurz) The fact is that we make dilettantish mistakes, which really invite the opponent to equalise, and are not compelling enough, yes, and if that continues, we really won’t win any games in the long run. We’re playing well, we’re playing well, we’re well aligned, but that final determination, whether it’s defending or attacking, that’s missing, yes, and this is the first Bundesliga, and we can see what other teams are doing, and accordingly I like to hear again that we’ve played well, that we’re the better team, but in the end we’re just going with nothing, and that’s not manageable in the long run.
Well, he’s squirming because he knows who he’s talking to. But it’s also true that this time he’s not wrapping his players in cotton wool for the sake of preserving his position for those in charge. In addition, of course, the disappointment simply comes through, no matter how controlled he talks. But “amateurish” is of course a purely media-friendly expression. He wants to give the interview so that nothing can be said against him, but to get rid of the stupid questioner – as, unfortunately, the multitude of interviews he has heard does not allow it to be interpreted any other way – as soon as possible. The quickest way to do this is to simply “talk his mouth off” by telling the same nonsense as the reporters do. And, as you can see, he succeeds with this strategy. The answer left no further questions unanswered.

If he had told the truth – for the benefit of the viewer — and answered: “We played well and had some bad luck”, then you know that not only would the interview have continued, but he would also have been directly put through the wringer by the super-smart reporter who knew the result: “Aren’t you making it too easy for yourself?” And on and on. The so-called “attack surface” would have been addressed.

(Torsten Kunde) So, clear words from Marco Kurz, let’s note, Freiburg triumphs and sets itself apart from a direct competitor for the time being, also thanks to Cissé, and FCK concedes its fifth defeat in a row, the situation for Martin Amedick and Co. becomes increasingly difficult.
Unity and calm are now all the more important for 1.FC Kaiserslautern.
Well, first of all, a sensible summary, a sensible conclusion would be needed to ensure this calm. And that is not likely to happen, nor is a meaningful conclusion. Of course, he could be indifferent to the fate of FCK or that of coach Marco Kurz. On the other hand, a little sympathy wouldn’t do any harm.
His own job is not in danger, it seems. It is easy to see that his job is not at stake under any circumstances. The reason: The others don’t do any better, do they? At least that’s true…

(Jan Henkel in the studio) And that is an image we are familiar with, Marco Kurz always makes the circle and the first address to the team after the end of the game. Christian Tiffert really attacked, Marco Kurz analytically, but both with the same statement: It can’t go on like this.
Jan Henkel also picks up the passed ball. “It can’t go on like this.” It can, if you continue to be unlucky. Apart from that: would it be desirable if they played badly from now on and lost? Or even play badly and win?

The truth is this: The good results are pretty much inevitable in themselves, in the long run, provided you always do as much right as the Lauterians did this afternoon. It’s just that the truth doesn’t seem to be in demand. Or the only one that exists, but is thus so boring, is: “The game ended 2-1, full stop.”
Talking of good long-term results, since the losers are not left alone, they are almost forced to change things. This is also true for those in charge, who then usually sack the coach, focused on by the media. Accordingly, there is no “long-term”.

Conversely, Freiburg are better than they have been for a long time, 15 points from 9 games, congratulations on that, the last time they were this good, or even better, that was a long, long time ago, when Harry Decheiver, perhaps the last goal scorer for Freiburg, was still playing.
Cissé, SC Cissé, is now the top scorer with eight goals, and because Gekas didn’t score, he’s now the top scorer alone, and there’s not a home game without a goal from him, and Cissé is just as good as the entire FC Bayern. Because Bayern have a goal ratio of 8:8 so far, eight conceded, and eight scored, all Bayern together, Cissé alone has done that.
Such a statistic is remarkable. It’s just that it’s pretty obvious that somehow, once again, you want to highlight something negative. You’re supposed to think, “My God, Bayern are bad this year.” Even if this is of course arguable, since he could simply claim: “Nope, I just wanted to point out how good Cissé is.” Just don’t buy it.

d. 1.FC Nürnberg – VfL Wolfsburg

VfL Wolfsburg also have a really good offensive, they had to travel to Nuremberg today, and the three in front, yes, Diego behind the leaders, behind Dzeko and behind Grafite, and the three of them have scored 13 goals out of 14, and here is the list of how it is distributed exactly, Grafite still without an assist, but Dzeko one and Diego one (according to the graph Diego has two; goals: Dzeko and Grafite 5 each, Diego 3). And Diego, he can play because he was released. We might still have the scene from last week in the back of our minds, when he had the kick against Vidal there, but there was no suspension.
And they have another weakness, the Wolfsburgers. They often lead by two goals in games, like once against Leverkusen or against Mainz. And that’s a conjunctive table. If they had won these games, brought them home, then perhaps they would be where they see themselves, in third place behind Dortmund and Mainz. That’s actually their ambition, to get back there in the medium term, but to do that they also have to win a game like the one away in Nuremberg, Oliver Seidler, but since yesterday the Nurembergers have a new, a very short-term goal.

The table that is displayed is really some really fine nonsense. By any conjunctive table (selected per team), any team could easily lift itself into first place. Other teams have also surrendered leads. Is that shown in the table? The Wolfsburg team is credited with 6 points.
Nevertheless, the two games were really spectacular and it was striking that both times it affected the same team in a negative way.

(Oliver Seidler with pictures of the game)

Yes, the Clubberer, led by the recently outstanding Leitwolf (Andreas Wolf, the captain of the Nuremberg team in the picture leads his team on the field) could write history, for the first time after eighteen and a half years to pass FC Bayern at such a late stage in the season. 40,000 fans were hoping for a victory with a two-goal difference for the sweet triumph against their great rivals from the Free State.

And those in red and black from 1.FC Nürnberg in the first passage very aggressive in the duel, fast over the wings, here with Mike Frantz, who had cured his foot injury, was back in the starting line-up, for Ekici, third minute of the game, first opportunity for the hosts.

A scene is described with generalisations, explained. What is the benefit? Does it make it fun?
In any case, curing an injury is more exciting than the match scene, as one is supposed to realise. If you just read it that way, there is no action to see. There is only one chance. That just happens from time to time. The scenes are selected according to this (of course, there are occasionally gross fouls, nasty injuries, wrong referee decisions or assaults, emotional outbursts, which are played in alternatively; but the goal actions are essential). In principle, the game is reduced to “goal chance here, goal chance there” and a bit of blah-blah around it. Other differentiations are almost completely ignored.
We look at the 11th minute. A throw-in, Hegeler extends the ball, Hasebe has cleared everything up, the situation is resolved, but Gündogan is there and makes it 1:0, turns 20 tomorrow, and gives himself the best birthday present.

Exactly like that, the same principle again. Nothing is made plastic. It’s not supposed to be. “Denkste” is not exactly the word to jump out of your chair either. “He’s there and he makes it 1-0.” Yes, but how? Did he do it well, perhaps? Was it a beautiful shot, a full-stretch shot, deliberately placed in the corner? A hammer, a ball with spin? What does the speaker know about football? One is on the ball and the ball is in. Pitiful.

Hasebe doesn’t make a mistake either, as is suggested here. He gets to the ball for a moment in the penalty area, if he had reacted immediately he might have been able to strike. It’s just that players are always stopped, especially at the highest level, when it comes to looking for the playful solution. Blindly hitting the ball away is the last emergency solution, taken from the Kreisklasse.
There are several Nurembergers around him, one behind him, who pokes the ball away from him. You could say “good follow-through”, as an alternative to “think again”. It always burns when the ball and some of the attackers are in the opponent’s penalty area, as was the case here. It is one of the goals to create a goal threat. Nuremberg managed to do that here.
Gündogan’s shot was circled exactly into the corner, flat.

But how could that happen. First of all, Kahlenberg was too late against Hegeler and then Schieber was alert, Hasebe had fumbled and didn’t clear the situation, and Gündogan played it against the goalkeeper’s direction of travel, so Hitz had no chance to defend.

At the replay we are now told “how that could have happened”. There is neither time nor space to rejoice over a successful action, over a goal. “First one comes too late, then the other one is asleep”, well, scoring goals made easy, that’s what it’s supposed to mean.

Besides, after a goal is scored, there are always only two possibilities: not in: then the shot was “too unplaced” or, if it hits the ground, a “goalkeeper has no chance”. After you know that he didn’t get close, to say “goalkeeper had no chance” is somehow ridiculous. After all, you know the result. Or are you looking for a mistake? Yes, that for sure. “Couldn’t get it”, and, if necessary, “but he should have … should have”.

Further: “against the running direction” is a completely inappropriate description for this situation. The shooter gets to the ball about 17 metres from the goal, in an ideal shooting position. He places it hard and flat into the front corner. The goalkeeper makes a long run for it, but can’t reach it. To even think about whether he could have is somehow tension-robbing, apart from being nerve-racking?
“Look, boy, remember why you made football your game. Here’s Bundesliga, the highest, best thing to watch. And the pill is in the box. Now out with the joy. That was sensational and not a bit less!” one would like to be allowed to shout to him (and all the other sleeping pills).

Steve McLaren again had plenty to write down, his defence is often its own worst enemy. The Nurembergers continued with momentum and a lot via the strong left side. There’s Pinola and everyone was expecting a cross, and the Argentinian just takes a shot and from the back of the net we’ll see how close it actually was.
It’s perfectly normal for McLaren to make a note of something. Here again is a typical case of taking the opportunity to pin something on the person who is on the losing side. It’s a bit reminiscent of the Kicker captions to a match in which, for example, one team leaves the pitch as 1-0 winners, a photo shows a duel won by the player of the winning team, and you get to read: “Not only in this scene were the visitors one step too late.” As if you can already tell from a single photo how a game will end.

“Defence is its own greatest opponent” is of course pure nonsense and habitually negative. The goal they conceded today came about as described. That’s what football lives on. Nuremberg is also allowed to play in the Bundesliga and does so very well.

The scene with Pinola is described wrongly, if at all. He simply wanted to pull in a very sharp ball from the outside position. The fact that it went relatively narrowly past the far post happened rather by chance. Nevertheless, there was a danger of scoring, a beautiful scene, but not a planned shot on goal.

And: A slow-motion replay or an unusual perspective reveals rather little, because both the speed and the angle of view are unusual. You can feel that it was close in the original, not in the replay. To what extent it was intentional on Pinola’s part remains at least open.

VfL Wolfsburg completely out of the game, no bite, no will, little passion, 28th minute, first attack, Kahlenberg is allowed against Hegeler, Simons is not with Diego, and then Marcel Schäfer, Grafite, 1:1. 28 minutes from the clock, 6th goal of the season for Grafite, because Simons does not attack Diego here, Schäfer runs behind Judt and a Grafite just needs few chances to score.
“Completely out of the game” is nice. That’s the active part again. Nürnberg watched while Wolfsburg took themselves out of the game, or something? Why is Sepp Herberger elevated to legend status, but his wisdom, so simple, is never used in announcer practice from a basic understanding? Wolfsburg played as well as Nürnberg just allowed them to, if one had any reason at all to look at the Wolfsburg perspective (rather than the neutral one). Nuremberg was good. Full stop.

A description of a scene is basically limited to naming names. You (the speaker) can’t see anything, except that Grafite gets to the ball at some point and it’s in. Pathetic. The excuse that the viewer sees everything is only valid insofar as one would really like to do without such chatter completely.

Let’s take it one step at a time: Wolfsburg has no bite and no will. Well, that’s a pleasure to watch, isn’t it? “Kahlenberg is allowed against Hegeler.” Super. Somebody’s wondering if the opponent’s allowed to play? Or is it just an attempt to use sarcasm to point out silly (from the reporter’s point of view) mistakes? Actually, he would not have been allowed to do so, as is suggested, and this action could have been stopped (just like any other, of course, and the 0:0 would have been guaranteed), if not had to be, according to the silly view. Or so: Nuremberg was already lulled to sleep by Wolfsburg’s miserable efforts and accordingly allowed them the ball for once? Well, whichever way you look at it: It somehow doesn’t get any prettier.

“Simons is not with Diego”, so presumably not where he should have been according to the instructions or where a decent, Bundesliga-ready player naturally and obviously has to be. Alternatively, what about the “skilful creation of free spaces” or “it is simply impossible to shut down a Diego over 90 minutes”? Would be much closer to the truth and would sound much nicer. Diego, it is suggested, should never actually get the ball, not in one scene and not in the next. All this just so that you can then hear that “Diego was very weak”, “didn’t get into the game at all” and “in this form is to be blamed for Wolfsburg’s crisis”.

Marcel Schäfer, then Grafite. Yes, he really knows all the names. On the other hand, he knows next to nothing about the game of football, one has to assume. The combination on the left side is just great. Direct play, precise passes, a breaking through full-back who plays a sharp, flat cross, Grafite who uses his goal-scoring instinct and his outstanding athleticism to get to the ball before the opponent, as well as masterfully controlling it and sliding it into the net, it’s simply enough to make your mouth water.

The “28 minutes off the clock” are like when you used to squint at the clock in school during the most boring compulsory lessons and nudge your neighbour: “Hey, we’ll soon be done with this. That’s exactly how it feels: like a chore for the man at the microphone. Because: only rarely do any of the kickers meet the demands of the wise patter. How can one speak of “good entertainment”? It won’t be long before half-time, there’s always a break, and we’ll get through the second one too.

In the replay we learn even more precisely about the chain of errors. Simons simply doesn’t attack Diego. If only he had, the goal would have been prevented, right? After all, friend Dämlichquatscher even recognised the class of Schäfer, who had taken off. The perfection of Diego’s pass, however, slipped through his fingers. “Grafite just needs few chances”, that’s all. That has nothing to do with class any more. You can actually look away. “Oh, Grafite has the ball? Well, then it’s probably in anyway. That’s boring.”

In the replay you see that he pushes it through the keeper’s legs, but from the shortest distance. Not worth mentioning. What’s the point? There are entertainment programmes in the evening, on Gottschalk. Here the kickers are first in the limelight with their embarrassing efforts, then they sit in the dock. This is where football and commentary “work”. No room for fun. If you trust the commentator, then the work is relatively hard, but as a rule also recognisably bad. How could one do better oneself?

Wolfsburg were back again, and that was a neck blow for the Nurembergers, who were in great form in the first half. Again and again led by Andreas Wolf, he was his team’s best defender with a 100 per cent pass rate.

Second half, Wolfsburg’s play slightly improved, but Nuremberg’s will, passion, heart and fight were stronger.
You can see that in the scenes, not in the final result. And the spectator slides back and forth excitedly. How will it end? “No, why, me and anticipate something?”
Another defensive embarrassment for VfL, then Schieber, Gündogan, Frantz is there. 2:1, he also scored in the home game against Schalke 04, the replay is coming), Dejagah and Kjaer clear each other, then a great run by Schieber, but watch out, Ekici is offside when Gündogan passes, perhaps slightly obstructing the view of Marwin Hitz, whose reaction time may be shortened, and who therefore intervenes later here. No reproach to the refereeing team, that was extremely difficult to see, but for the sake of honesty it has to be shown.

“Defensive embarrassment” is definitely what draws people in front of the screens. For years, heck, decades now. It makes you literally jump out of your chair with excitement.

It’s such fast action, Schieber tries to dribble against Kjaer, takes the ball around very quickly, surprising Kjaer, who slips the ball through his legs. The two defenders are naturally surprised by this trick, this crazy, lightning-quick trick, that they actually panic for a moment in what was previously thought to be a harmless situation. Kjaer falls. When “Duck” Lippens used to do a trick like that, people would still applaud or take off their hats, but in any case they would have talked about him playing the famous knots in his opponent’s legs, which is at least the positive perspective. Afterwards Dejagah stumbles over Kjaer. Sometimes a surprisingly falling player of his own gets in the way. Why on earth should one speak of embarrassment? There are still ways to play off a defence. Fortunately.

“Schieber, Gündogan, Frantz is there”, is once again all that is used descriptively. So you know, don’t you? So really descriptive, isn’t it? The fact that Schieber dispatches the third rushing defender with another feint, suggesting the cross, is concealed. That Schieber then pulls the ball back from the baseline, the way you learn to do it and the way it provides maximum goal danger, not worth a mention. He finds the recipient, 12 metres goal distance (Gündogan), he flicks it very nicely towards the far corner, but Frantz skillfully extends it so that it actually hits the ground.

The offside discussion is really pure nonsense. You would need a magnifying glass to prove that the ball was offside, and it is even being challenged here. But when it comes to an intervention that is supposed to be attributed to the offside player, but which is anything but obvious, then the hairs on the back of your neck stand up. Never, ever to be punished as offside. Do you want to destroy the few goal actions as well? If a referee hears that (yes, that’s right, thankfully even they do NOT, because you’d have to turn on the sound to do that and who does that? This is cynicism…) he will only raise the flag next time here too. Because: wrongly stopped actions with an imminent danger of scoring or a goal sequence cause far less of a stir than irregularly recognised goals.

However, in the replay it seems important to him to aggravate the collision of the defenders, which had already been stated as an embarrassment, this time to a “mutual clearing”.

The scene was really quite remarkable. However, one has to mention – and here one’s own experience is brought in – that as a player on the pitch it is difficult to continue playing when you see a player slump to the ground almost lifelessly next to you. These are almost primal instincts to take care of the player and not to make an effort to put the ball in the goal now that the opponent has been eliminated. As much as we like to bring out the humanity in it. Nilsson was impotent for a while, as the pictures prove.

And Nuremberg again, header Schieber with an outstanding play — there was Marwin Hitz not out of the goal — the loanee from VfB Stuttgart dazzling, a troublemaker, a constant, not to be got under control by the Wolfsburg defence.

Again and again, the description of the scene is enriched with a generality, which automatically cuts off any tension. The blunders are added as an aside. Or how else should one interpret the fact that Marwin Hitz did not come out of his goal? Surely he should have, must be interpreted? What an expert!

I’d also like to ask the gentlemen a question, just like that: Was there also a Wolfsburg player who the Nuremberg defence could not get to grips with? No? Aha. Well, then, after that remark, surely you think Wolfsburg will win the game? Or maybe the team whose strikers couldn’t be controlled will lose? Yes, that’s how you make yourself an expert! What the spectator feels, thinks, what he cares about, what he would enjoy, none of that matters, not the slightest, as long as you have the chance to ascend to the heaven of the football gods. The fact that the knowledge is already available to him and that he would in itself have the task of conveying it to the viewer in an exciting way becomes a marginal detail. They are not aware that he (and the broadcaster) have already scored the own goal. For it is precisely this nonsense that viewers/listeners would like to do without – and have already done so for the most part. Who actually checks ratings at Sky? And: even if a device was switched on: who was really eavesdropping? Listening to this is a job for masochists.

It’s just one of those typically tendentious comments from which the end result can be read. What’s the point?

Looking into an “ideal world” for a moment: if a reporter were actually capable of identifying differences in performance and one could trust these judgements – he would have watched the game for 90 minutes, only summarises here, but knows who was actually good, who stood out and who perhaps didn’t have his best day — then such references would be quite meaningful and enlightening.
“The man was in a great mood.” Simply because it is true and not because his team won. It would mean: the viewer would be informed, but would be able to maintain the suspense. There would be no shortage of entertainment value. Quite the opposite… But you would have to be able to differentiate between actual performances and have some expertise beyond the mere result. But this is not part of the requirements profile for prospective reporters. Expertise? What for? Know the result and ask perfidious questions. The varnish is ready.

Eigler is substituted in the meantime, 88th minute, and look what Simon Kjaer does, he goes in badly against Eigler, only gets a yellow card from Giudo Winkmann for it, shows his thumb, practically thanks the referee. He doesn’t even look at the ball (said again), that’s rough play by the VfL Wolfsburg centre-back, should have been shown the red card.

As much as the correctness of this assessment can be confirmed here – thus explicitly expressing an opinion – it always remains unpleasant when the verdict has already been passed, and in final finality. It is certain that Kjaer’s wave to the referee implies immediate acceptance of the decision, as well as an apology.

On the other hand, such a scene might just be a wake-up call. Defenders are taught never, but really never, to let the opponent pass. Anything is better than being outplayed. In an emergency – as you often hear in interviews – you have to kill him.

The wake-up call is for everyone: Would you rather see such a scene or would you rather see an attacker alone in front of the goal? Why is the penalty not set so high that the imposition is seriously perceived as a punishment? Kjaer shouldn’t have to see the wink of his coach’s eye (“Well done, lad, and not even get a red”), but a good kick up the backside, because he would have harmed the team by doing so, not helped it. It was an emergency stop, apart from the rough play. The striker puts the ball past one side, and wants to pass on the other. Kjaer simply puts his body in the way, in a deliberate move. Evil it is, apart from the emergency stop, because of the risk of injury, as is readily apparent.

It would simply have to be the case that the fair play would have the greatest chance of success and the foul play would bring harm to oneself and the team. You won’t know the effects unless you try it. The arguments of the conservatives would always be, “So what? It’s always been that way. And football is still alive.” Not thinking about the “still” and not thinking about the possible greater following as well as greater widespread enjoyment in the event of such a change. Not to mention the sense of justice, which is permanently trampled underfoot with the current way of interpreting the rules.

Why is it violated? If a punishable, irregular action is used to achieve a benefit, it is intuitively unjust. Why do people think they can fascinate the masses with this? The argument that these “emotions are part of it” is all well and good and often heard. But the consequences have long since been that the “fans” bash each other’s heads in. Isn’t this also a possible consequence of permanently felt, inarticulate injustice? At least we touched on the subject here.

Last scene in the game, we are in injury time, Diego with the cross, and then Kjaer, there is Dzeko, and there is the 2:2, but the flag of the assistant referee Marcel Pelgrim is up. The goal is not recognised. Similar situation as earlier on the other side, but much clearer here. Dzeko is not offside, but Grafite, who clearly obstructs Schäfer here, in this respect clearly recognisable, a correct decision by the referee team.

The decision is absolutely correct. But the comparison with the Nuremberg scene is completely inappropriate. In the latter, everything was different, because both Grafite’s intervention and the offside position are completely undisputed.

What is nevertheless surprising is why Grafite — who should actually know about his offside — goes for the ball. After all, Dzeko’s previously delivered header had the potential to go over the line even without this intervention.

One more remark: The referee team may have been right only by chance, because something is simply decided, afterwards it can be cleared up. The decision against the goal can very well be linked to the red card against Kjaer, which had not been given before. The referee would definitely have a bad conscience towards the Nürnberg players if he first “overlooked” the red and then interpreted a tricky scene into a goal against the defence, i.e. for the equaliser. Either way, he decides against the goal. This time he was just about right, next time he might not have been. Either way, he would get off scot-free.

So it remained 2-1, two tricky situations and a Marcel Schäfer complaining to referee Winkmann, Tim Niedernholter asked.

Marcel Schäfer put it very well and remained very polite. Anyone who has been on the pitch knows how difficult it can be to deal with such injustices, especially when you are so heated up in the game. Of course, from the player’s point of view it is clear that he compares the situations. However, see above, that wasn’t really the case. But in principle he also understands it.

(Andreas Wolf, Nuremberg, in an interview)
You have to get the points at home, that’s what we’re doing at the moment, we have to continue to stabilise, continue to concentrate and see that we get three points away from home as well.

(Oliver Seidler again)
But for me the scene of the game was Edin Dzeko, who helped an opponent with a chance during the game. And Per Nilsson said about it on Tim Niedernholter.

Dzeko bends down worriedly to Nilsson, who is lying motionless on the ground. Nice to highlight something like that.

But one is allowed to think a little further for fun: If Dzeko now continued to play, then he would not only have “eliminated” the opponent – additionally mentioned: Nilsson was knocked down after the goalkeeper’s own fist had been blocked — but at the same time he would have created space for himself as far as the offside question is concerned. This has already been used for the second pass forward, to the outside position, as the Nuremberg players, well trained, collectively run out of the penalty area directly after the fist defence, but Nilsson, consciously, simply does not follow, insofar as the outside player was not offside.

If one speculates further that Dzeko is now played on – also not offside because of Nilsson – then sinks the ball into the goal. The discussion then: How, please, should an unconscious player, who is not actually an active player, be able to cancel out an offside?

(Per Nilsson of Nuremberg) I’ve always said that Dzeko is the best striker in the league, he can do everything and as a type I don’t have anything to say against him, he’s just as good a footballer as he is a type, so he’s simply outstanding.
It’s nice to find Per Nilsson in good health as well. The compliments are self-evident, but probably mainly due to the fact that his team won in the end. When Dzeko himself thinks about this and seconds later sees the lively Nilsson hopping around the pitch again like a young deer, he might start to think: “Hmm, maybe I shouldn’t have…?”

Especially since, if such a practice – as has already happened for a long time – is introduced and maintained with simulated injured players, then in the end more harm than good has been done. Of course, the difference here is quite clear: Nilsson had lost consciousness, there was no doubt about that.

Incidentally, in a Hertha first division match last season there was once the following situation: a Hertha player lost the ball in his own penalty area, but the scene was disputed as to whether foul play was involved in winning the ball or not. In any case, the Hertha player was brought down during the action. The other players remained in the forward movement, so that after losing the ball there was a lot of space in front for the opponent. It was exploited directly by an opposing player rushing back into the penalty area, being played on and scoring the goal. However, the Berlin defender who was still on the ground – and possibly got there by foul play, in addition perhaps injured – was solely responsible for cancelling out the offside situation. But the goal was valid. Well, you can think about something like that, a perceived injustice remains, even if nobody complained directly.

(Oliver Seidler again)
Third home win in a row for the club, last time that happened was in 2007. Great day for Nuremberg, only they didn’t pass Bayern.

(Jan Henkel in studio)
Equal on points with 12 points, but due to the slightly worse goal difference the Nurembergers didn’t make it. But nice scene too really with Edin Dzeko.

e. Hannover 96 – 1.FC Cologne

We’ll be back in a moment. Short break and then there’s a lot more. Namely Hannover 96 against 1.FC Köln, and the Cologne team almost has to win in Hannover.

They have to win. Hmm. What does that mean? He, as a Cologne player, is allowed to say that? Or is that a general need that is being expressed? We’re all Cologne people somehow, is that what it means? Apart from that: for what purpose do they have to? If they don’t, are they relegated, or what? Who sets the goals? Is it about a goal for the season? What about Hanover? No, it’s so nonsensical, it’s hardly worth commenting on. Just the question again and again: who gives permission to speak?

(Other voice with pictures from the announced game)
Because they’ve been winless for five games, so this game in Hannover is incredibly significant. Lanig tries it, a lot of scenes, guaranteed, right after a short break.

Confirmation of the assessment? Of course you can always say “very significant”, after all it’s Bundesliga. “Lanig probierts” also makes it really tasty. The scene itself is so beautifully chosen that it could really make you want to go. If only this speech bubble didn’t have to be endured….

(After the break Jan Henkel again)
Hannover 96 against 1.FC Köln, and Köln’s manager Michael Meier recently said, our external presentation is running away, and, as if it needed any more proof, during the week, you may have noticed, it wasn’t a real press conference by goalkeeper Mondragon, but it was a statement he made and it was clear and, above all, remarkable.

(Goalkeeper Faryd Mondragon is shown making his statement. Source: FC-TV.de; he speaks in his native language, presumably Spanish, an interpreter translates his sentence here)
That’s life. If they were unfair, and deceived Jesus, we can expect anything from humanity.
So there is a lot of scepticism here, because first of all there is an interpreter involved who translates these words like this. There are certainly other customs in other countries and also other proverbs or comparisons. As soon as you try to translate them, many things can sound completely different from what is meant.

In this country, by the way, Lothar Matthäus was famously compared in a similar way after his transfer from Gladbach to Bayern, even if only by some fans…

(Jan Henkel again) Well, the comparison is very questionable, Mondragon and Jesus, but when he came back from the national team, before the game against Dortmund, he had already been told by the coach that you wouldn’t play from the start, but would go on the bench. He said, no, if I’m not good enough for the starting eleven, then I won’t sit on the bench. They agreed and he wasn’t there. The same situation now again, after this statement that he made there, Mondragon said, I won’t sit on the bench, and it was agreed again, he is not in the squad. Of course, that’s also a sign to the team, there’s no clear statement from the club, it doesn’t work like that, a player can’t decide for himself whether he’s in the squad or not, and it’s more or less a sign that you can do what you want. There’s a bit of a lack of a clear line at 1.FC Köln. None of that helps, but, Marco Hagemann, in the current phase you have to hold on to everything, maybe it helps a little that you’re going to Hanover now of all times.
It’s always the case that a series of failures brings unrest here and there. There’s a search for culprits or blame in general, dissatisfaction among the players, especially since the reserve players can of course always claim after defeats – and rightly so – “With us it couldn’t have ended worse than with a defeat – or we might have won.”

The coaching tasks are very diverse and especially in such phases of failure – repeatedly mentioned: the media influence is gigantic, also on the environment – these can quickly grow over one’s head. That a goalkeeper as deserving as Mondragon at the age of 37 has no desire to sit on the bench is nevertheless understandable in a way. The agreement on this can be reached in so many different ways (example also: Mondragon accepts, but says that it is then better to give the junior goalkeeper a chance for the case after all) that one could also very confidently put the cloak of silence over it. If only then results continue to be lacking, one must reckon with everything. In any case, only a look at the results can reveal the alleged “missing line”. In success everything was guaranteed to be right anyway, in failure everything wrong (according to the widespread media view).

“There is … no clear line at 1.FC Köln” is a bold presumption, if not impudent. But can you do that with losers?

(Marco Hagemann from the game) Let’s take a look back at last season, when 1.FC Köln travelled to Hannover on matchday 28, seven games winless beforehand, and then Zvonimir Soldo’s team won here 4:1, the FC needed such a liberating sense of achievement this afternoon.
It also strikes a chord. In itself a “no-go”. What about the Hanoverians? What do they need or want? How can you talk past their supporters like that? Pass them over? They need this, the others need that. So: leave everything out. Comment on scenes!
Hannover, from right to left, recently with two defeats in a row, started here as expected, speculating on counterattacks and they did have an artist in their ranks, Didier Ya Konan. 4th minute, the early lead for the 96ers. There was no sign of any fighting from FC, Ya Konan had all the time in the world, because Mohamad let him circle beautifully and Mondragon’s substitute, Vavrodic, had no chance at all.
Oh yeah? There was that tingling description of a goal again! So first of all Hannover started as expected? They speculated on counterattacks? Truth: 0. So to speak, every bet that the coach didn’t prescribe counter-attacking football in his own stadium. What’s this nonsense? It’s a home game, you’re playing against a team from the bottom half, you’re obliged, for the spectators, to play forward. Of course, the opponent is allowed to counter as much as he can and maybe even play out advantages. But one tactic, the counterattack tactic, was guaranteed not to be called out. Complete and pure nonsense. But that at the same time one is dragged into this complete nonsense, and supposedly expected it at the same time (“..as MAN had expected”), is incredibly brazen and stupid. To crown it all: How can one speak of such a thing after four minutes and how should one have recognised it? No, no, no. A change of profession is the only thing that helps. But he shouldn’t be good enough to be a market crier either.

To the scene itself: Ya Konan is played very precisely, about 20 metres from the goal. In fact, his opponent is 2 metres away for the moment, which is further than normal compared to other situations. This gives Ya Konan the time to set up the ball optimally. The perfection with which he hits the ball is simply brilliant, fantastic, outstanding and forbids any other mention, especially not that of the opponent’s shortcomings. The ball has such an impact, as a flick into the far corner, that the goalkeeper tries to get close to it with a flying save, but simply can’t do it. A magic goal and nothing more. Wonderful, simply wonderful.

“No visible duel behaviour” is so weak, off the mark, sobering, inaccurate, ridiculous and spoils the excitement and fun that you have to make a choice: better off with the subscription today than tomorrow. “Has all the time in the world” fits right into the line, suggesting that anyone could handle such a ball if given so much space. The “completely without a chance” is true, but once again illuminates the situation from the wrong perspective. Without a chance because the shot was so outstanding.

Well, that was a great start for Zvonimir Soldo, who is also being criticised, no question about that. He still has the backing of Wolfgang Overath, the president, on the left (you can see Overath and Meier in the stands) Michael Meier is also no longer the one sitting firmly in the saddle, the manager. So chaos days at 1.FC Köln, the players have to ensure positive results, but Hannover had exactly the game it wanted, Köln had to, and Hannover could play quickly up top, with Rausch and Ya Konan. 2:0, a quarter of an hour only played.
Again, a beautifully vivid description of the scene. First the all-out attack against the whole of Cologne, and then this: “Hannover had the game what it wanted”. That’s great. Every team likes to lead. That’s not a Hanoverian peculiarity. You get the space then often enough.
“Cologne had to, Hannover could play quickly up top”. That’s also brilliant for this beautiful scene. It is combined quickly, the ball nevertheless comes rather by chance to the outside left. The cross is very well struck, but how Ya Konan runs through to the ball, gets to it first and sinks it cannonball-like with his head is the true class to be admired here.

(The replay is shown) The loss of the ball at the very front, in Hannover’s half, by Matuschyk, before that also Jajalo with no good passing, and then this lightning-quick switching, that is the game of Hannover 96, via Stoppelkamp, Abdellaoue, Rausch and Ya Konan. In the end, it’s also difficult to defend. Fifth goal of the season for the Ivorian.

That’s the first successful commentary(part). Exactly, it’s difficult to defend when the opponent plays so well, crosses so accurately and scores so precisely. He probably wanted to take the fault-finding as usual, but just swallowed it up. Thank you! A boon, albeit a very temporary one.

Well, bitter, (you can see Cologne’s coach Soldo shaking his head) quarter of an hour played, 0:2 behind, yes, what else can you do.

FC tried hard, but without being really dangerous,
Thanks for anticipating the final result.
Podolski, again the only top player, he tried something, but not much came out of it.
“Much” = a goal. “Not much” = no goal. Somehow the world of the shield citizens and small minds.

But this free kick was really quite harmless.

Two nil Hannover, Mirko Slomka looks, well, he’s not satisfied, because he knows we still have a lot of football to play here. But his team was the more dangerous one. With Moritz Stoppelkamp, 37th minute, a shot that didn’t go in. At the break, 1 FC Cologne were 2-0 down and Overath and Meier had to talk.

“His team was the more dangerous” = “I know the result”. What would the commentary on the scene have been like if the shot in the commented scene, which really misses the goal by a long way, had been fired by the team behind?

The “need to talk” is, of course, also imputed. If only the Hannover officials had been caught out for a moment. Then you could have seen them talking here, too.

But dissatisfaction is indeed reflected in the mines. How could that be surprising? What manager or president would look satisfied at 0:2? This is one of the ways in which the coach’s dismissal is being launched by the media.

Novakovic came on at the beginning of the second half, many had expected him to be in the starting eleven, but Soldo decided against it for the time being.
Another little jab at the coach. “Many had expected him…” means: win or fly.
Now he was in, so double top at FC, Podolski and Novakovic. First came Martin Lanig, 30 metres, Fromlowitz. Strong save, 51st minute. Was that a wake-up call for 1.FC Köln?
Again, nothing remains of this so beautiful scene. Whoever has just reached into the chip bowl doesn’t look up. Lanig lets the ball drip wonderfully off his chest and hits it exemplarily, so that it flies exactly in the direction of the triangle. Of course, it was a very strong save, as you can see afterwards not only from the expressions of gratitude from the team-mates, but also from the very slight, barely suppressible glow on the goalkeeper’s face.

How could such a great save be necessary without an equally great shot? Why always so one-sided? There are enough facets. Show them to the spectator! Or are they possibly not recognised at all?

“Was that a wake-up call?” is also a great oracle. However, one has to correct this right away. Because a) you (as the speaker) already know and b) you don’t want to entertain the audience, you just want to look good yourself. Besides, Cologne has already been picked on enough to make it impossible to take this would-be suspense mongering seriously. A commendable attempt nonetheless: more of it.

Not at first. Quickly the pressure was off again and Hannover defended well and up front the Lower Saxons remained dangerous. Avevor, 59th minute.
There’s real excitement and enthusiasm here now, isn’t there? The pressure was gone and the others were dangerous. Who should believe in a surprising turnaround now? The good thing about it is that it will soon be over, it’s just a summary…

What else came from FC Köln. Winless for five games. Only one win this season, five points, that’s not enough.
Actually, everything is always “too little”. Provided you take the “right” perspective. Especially draws are often commented on as “too little for both sides”. Well, would it have been better if one of the two had lost voluntarily? Then at least they could have been picked on all the more violently.

Djakpa loses the ball to Novakovic, who takes Andrezinho with him,

If you pay attention to the tone of voice, you’ll easily notice that the “he” followed by a “him” is not only tension-killing, but also condescending. Of course, the scene can become nothing, commented on so tersely. Besides, it is supposed to make clear a certain simplicity in the attempts. In any case, this speech is disrespectful.

What do you get out of it? You put yourself on the market and advertise your beautiful, fresh, large inexpensive eggs as small, lazy and expensive. Like the Schildbürger or Münchhausen, for example. “I have goods to offer. Football. But the football here is not good.”

Disappointing overall, the right-back, and then Lukas Podolski. He was often involved in goals, but not compelling enough.
It is important to include a few generalities (“often”) and judgements (“not compelling”) during the attack, preferably negative ones, instead of finally saying something about the scene. “The right defender” is of so little interest that you’d rather go and water your flowers. In any case, you don’t miss anything, that’s the impression.

Podolski was often involved in the endings. It’s nice to know something you can do something with. At least that suggests that Cologne had more than the goals they showed, maybe they weren’t as bad as they’re supposed to be, from someone who has turned out to be a master at counting goals?

The “not compelling enough” is again such an anti-climax that the momentary joy that had just arisen has long since disappeared. Is there an expectation that every shot is a hit? How should he have shot for it to be “compelling”? Into the goal, of course, that’s the opinion. Only: if Cologne had been leading, the same action — like the one from Stoppelkamp’s 37th (which in truth was nothing, much less than the one just shown) — would have received the rating “Cologne always dangerous” or something similar (if the sleepiness of Hannover’s defence hadn’t been denounced). Does he want us to believe that he can tell the score or the final result from a single scene?

What story does he actually want to tell? The one that comes out is a) boring and b) wrong. It could also simply remain “The game ended 2-1”. When asked, “Nothing more to say?” “No. 2-1, that’s all.”

This was simply a nice action in a Bundesliga football match. One should be grateful that one gets to see enough of it. The reading of “too little” is entirely due to the notoriety of the — and by spreading the wisdom, so to speak — trumpeted interim result (so the ball doesn’t go in) and the final result.

Fact about the scene: Podolski is beautifully played free with a pinpoint pass from Andrezinho, cleverly takes the ball around almost on the edge of the penalty area and takes a low, hard and well-placed shot, just past the post. Football at the highest level (speaker at the lowest…).

And slowly time ran out for Zvonimir Soldo’s team. Hannover got the counter-attacking chances, but so far they played it out in an unfocused way,
It’s great to hear in a half-sentence that they were both bad. Hanover “played unfocused to the end”. If only they would finally concentrate. But wait: Then we’d see a goal, but we’d be guaranteed to learn not about “concentrated Hanoverians” but about “unfocused Cologne cover players”. How can one get out of the mill of inadequacies? Quite simple: switch off. The only remedy.

A little more philosophy: If you “play concentrated to the end”, what does that look like? It’s a generalisation at first, because it doesn’t describe anything concrete. There was someone free who could have run along, there was a lot of space on the right, or something like that would be concrete. But if it went to his satisfaction, i.e. “concentrated” (as indicated above, that’s impossible, but let’s assume…), how could one then describe the attack? Then it would be somehow like chess. The bishop offers check (attacker drives the ball), the king has to evade, the rook comes into play (play to the outside), the opponent’s knight moves in between, the queen … (cross, header, on goal) … puts checkmate (in).

But if the scenes were like chess moves, would anyone want to watch them? Chess is not particularly popular with spectators precisely because it lacks action, variety and variation. It is dull and dull (for the untrained viewer) because there are no facets. So if you follow the tendency to generalise that has been pointed out, thus “flattening” the game, so to speak, surely you must inevitably expect a decline in interest?

It doesn’t matter. How thick is the branch I am still sitting on at the same time, but which I am still trying to saw off? How rotten will my beautiful eggs soon be, because really no one buys them, since I’ve managed to convince everyone that they’re small and expensive?

the substituted Chahed, the Cologne team can’t break free,
The grammatically active Cologne players can’t free themselves, while the Hanoverians, passive in the same sense, have the ball? Amazing how you can rape an entire sport with bad German, spiced with a huge pinch of illogic.

Cologne can’t free themselves … from Hannover’s possession of the ball? Yes. They simply don’t give the ball away. So who was active? Cologne didn’t actively do anything about not having the ball. Yes, it’s getting…

Meanwhile, Hannover passively watched the ball-less Cologne players.

Korter Rausch’s shot goes just wide of the FC goal.
Here comes one and the ball goes past the goal. Beautiful. You can really feel Mr. Killjoy pursuing his only and greatest passion. “Scaring away spectators is my hobby. Because: I only talk nonsense.” “…sometimes really close”. Nice.

There is plenty of space, so one has to assume a very advanced minute of the game, in which the Cologne team threw everything forward in last desperation. This is spared us as spectators, as is actually everything else interesting (here it would be the mention of a minute of play as a minimum). Commenting on such a scene should simply be fun, because so often you see tightly packed defences, often for long stretches in the game, where there is no getting through.

Here there is space without end, a lone Cologne defender in the centre while four Hanoverians swarm out. The Cologne players are rushing back, though, so time is running out. But the cross comes well and well timed from the right outside position, from penalty area height. Nevertheless, a Cologne player just manages to get his head in between, but of course he can’t clear it in a controlled manner, it’s rather great that he gets there at all (commentary on it: “… can’t free himself.” Nonsense high how much?), the ball comes to Rausch, who however only gets above the corner of the goal area, so actually not in a suitable shooting position. He nevertheless takes the bouncing ball full-on – a technical masterpiece – and, as was well recognised, hammers it wafer-thinly across the box.

Nevertheless, the viewer is deprived of pretty much all of the beauty and class, you have to make it up yourself if you stay on the channel. Because the man at the mike has seen it all anyway, back in the intergalactic league, when he was allowed to celebrate the Milky Way Cup with the world selection, twice as a player, three times as a coach, and can only suppress yawns with difficulty for such earthly scenes – however, it is enough to convey boredom and for that he is perfectly chosen.

Man oh man, in the middle of the relegation battle (you can see Overath again), Wolfgang Overath, who travelled especially together with the team here in the ICE to Hanover. But the FC showed morale.
Oh, is there something brewing? In “showed morale” you see Lanig, who gets the ball in the penalty area by quite a few coincidences. But it’s great how he lifts it past the goalkeeper with great control. All this is, as usual, concealed.

One man has the ball, the ball is in. He got everything out of the scene, our beloved entertainer.

Martin Lanig, the newcomer’s first competitive goal and renewed hope for 1.FC Köln, five minutes before the end. Up, up, we still have a bit of time (you can see Soldo on the sidelines). Resulting from a throw-in, Hannover’s defence had been really strong until then, but here it was unsorted, and Lanig put the game into focus again.
The replay of the scene. Oh, now you suddenly recognise everything. From a throw-in. Wow! And “put in focus” really captivates the viewer now. All those who have long since been scared away with stupid and permanent oracles are now supposed to assume that something is still happening? No, he can’t be serious.

“Unsorted” is again the usual class … of the reporter. In pointing out mistakes. You just say it like that. Because: you can hardly be wrong, because the ball was in (and if it wasn’t, the others would be to blame, with their “unfocused play”, for example). And if someone comes along who contradicts and says: “Why unsorted? They weren’t unsorted, were they?” He’ll rub his competence in his face again: “Then why was he in it?”

And Mirko Slomka, he knew exactly what to do outside, in the closing minutes. Read lips: Watch out, watch out.

Final phase in the AWD Arena in front of more than 40,000 spectators, record attendance when it comes to Cologne. Long balls, crowbar, Mohamad and Fromlowitz.
It really gets boring when you always say the same thing. That also applies to a writer. A scene description consists of naming names. This time, however, the long ball and the crowbar (so that it becomes really exciting by way of generalisation; keyword: pattern recognition. Presumably so that you don’t have to look?).

Even if it’s true. The scene is very concrete. The long ball is not just a long ball, but one that arrives. It is forwarded directly into the penalty area and it becomes extremely dicey. The goalkeeper and the attacker go for the ball at the same time… Fromlowitz has it.

The goal wouldn’t have counted if it had been a goal, dangerous play by Mohamad, that wasn’t visible, Fromlowitz had the ball anyway, and that was it, the last action of the game.
It was dealt with. The important thing is: “that was it, the last scene”, so that you don’t get the idea of watching another game live in the near future. If you think about it carefully, you could have saved yourself almost all the scenes. In the past, it was occasionally said, “There were so many great scenes that we can’t show them all.” Maybe that would have motivated people for the next live part? Here and now, they suck a few scenes out of their fingers whenever possible, but explain that they were all flawed and boring in themselves, but moreover that one shouldn’t expect there to have been any more.

The foul play really could not be seen. But for safety’s sake, the referee had stopped it anyway. On the subject of “goalkeeper protection”, there is a special chapter that addresses overprotection. Even outside he is apparently subject to this protection rule: “If you drop the ball or fall yourself, then you’ve been fouled.” In any case, the protection of the goal is guaranteed: no one can go in there and if they did it wouldn’t count.

Hanover wins, quote Slomka, the game that points the way forward, with 2:1 and the criticism will not become any quieter in the direction of Zvonimir Soldo and 1.FC Köln. The match-winner was clearly Didier Ya Konan. Effectively it was from Hannover 96, so, all uphill again, right?

(Wolf Fuhrmann asks Hannover coach Slomka)
Are you back on track now after those two defeats? Is it already?
(Mirko Slomka) Yes, we never stopped believing that we could win here at home now against Cologne, and we also played well against St. Pauli, even better than today, but we lost, but today we were the more effective team, that’s what football is about, and
As usual: If you want an objective judgement of a match, you should listen to the coach, who is subjective in himself (because he is biased), and not to the commentator, who is objective in himself, but whose expertise is limited to the comparison of the two numbers of goals.
Obviously, Hannover was not that good, superior in the game. Of course, the early score of 2:0 can be used to explain the behaviour on the pitch, but it still seems clear that Hannover was rather lucky in this game.
(Wolf Fuhrmann) It’s your game, too?
(Slomka) That’s our game, that’s exactly how it is. We like to play it that way.
Being right is always a good way to get the interview over with. Otherwise, as a statement it is extremely weak, if not questionable.
As a rule, one should first assume that the phrase “the more effective team” is a substitute for “the luckier one”. And then: what kind of football game is this supposed to be, in which you limit yourself to effectiveness? You don’t actually play at all, and yet you wait for the chances? No, it doesn’t work like that. “Effectiveness” can be good, but in the long run it’s about creating as many chances as possible, and of course using as many of them as possible. But that is not a way of playing. If anything, it would be a quality. Without creating chances, there wouldn’t even be the requirement for the term “effectiveness”.

What he meant, and as the glow of happiness also expresses, not only after this match, Hannover is simply having a good run and the coach doesn’t care for the moment whether it came about a bit luckily or not. “It’s our game to be lucky. And we like to keep doing that.”

(Marco Hagemann) Well, FC shouldn’t keep playing like that, the fans, they’ve got their collars up, let’s hear it. (Fan chants of “We’re fed up”) Martin Lanig explains why.

(Martin Lanig: ) When you play away, you can’t sleep the first 20 minutes and fall behind after three minutes, so it’s very difficult to win away, especially in our current situation. Uh, we’re not bursting with confidence, that’s normal, but it’s deadly for us if you’re 2-0 down after 20 minutes.
It’s very simple to put it in a nutshell. Sometimes you’re behind, sometimes even by two goals, and that’s before the game has really started.
(Marco Hagemann)
So the liberating sense of achievement failed to materialise in Hannover this season, Wolfgang Overath must be worried, things will not calm down around Zvonimir Soldo and possibly also around manager Michael Meier.
If there was no crisis before, then it will simply be triggered. That has nothing to do with objectivity.

(Jan Henkel from the studio)
Exciting days now in Cologne. Exciting because heads are finally rolling? First of all, congratulations to Hannover 96, who are now in third place in the table, but the facts about FC are also clear, so the fans have their opinion, Soldo out and Meier too (a poster is shown in the background, from the stadium) but FC has never been so bad. Three defeats in a row, we have the data on that, that never happened under Soldo, they haven’t won six games now, and that’s the worst interim balance ever, so after nine matchdays only five points, and if you’ve been with us all day, dear spectators, you’ve listened to Zvonimir Soldo several times, he deals with the situation in a relatively sarcastic way, at the press conference in Cologne, he said, well, there’s more and more going on here, more and more journalists are coming because FC is in a bad way and he’s very relaxed about his situation. We are curious to see how he is now in the interview with Wolf Fuhrmann.

(Wolf Fuhrmann asks Zvonimir Soldo)
Zvonimir Soldo, the effort was there, the goal was there, but why wasn’t it enough?
Unthinkable in England that such a suggestive question is asked, which already leaves no way out. “What do you think about the game?” is the obvious question, but one that could be avoided. A pure coach’s statement would suffice. In England, you wouldn’t see a total fringe player and the main character in one picture either. That is presumptuous on the part of the questioner and a mistake on the part of the broadcaster. Are these two supposed to be on equal terms? No, mores have crept in that are simply unbearable.

(Zvonimir Soldo) Yes, well, it’s hard to explain. We had other plans, but after a quarter of an hour we were already leading two nil and then the first half was difficult. Second half we tried, but that was not enough, good enough for us to equalise.
Well put, well described. But the realisation is that the niggle doesn’t really give him a chance to explain anyway. The truth: it’s one game, one single game, it turned out that way, it could have turned out differently. If you, Mr. Fuhrmann, have understood that, then we can continue talking.
(Wolf Fuhrmann)
Ya Konan, we know that, he scored his fifth goal today, he was completely free, he was hardly attacked, he didn’t score either goal, can you explain that?
“Yes, I can explain it to you. But first eat this microphone here.”

(Soldo) Yes, ok, we prepared for the game, then our biggest problem first half was tackling, can’t be that a player 20 metres from goal, with ball, turns around and shoots free on goal, that, normally, that must not happen.

Of course Soldo also saw the 2-metre distance that his defender kept from the attacker. But the fact that the goal is a dream goal is still partly luck (or, from Cologne’s point of view, bad luck). He speaks up for safety’s sake. The verdict is unalterable anyway. Now he can still cut a good figure for the media (and bite his tongue accordingly).

(Wolf Fuhrmann)
Now you have to ask, what now? The situation is getting more and more dicey, how do you actually react when you see a poster like Soldo out and Meier too.
Does anyone seriously think that enlightenment will come from these stupid questions? What is the real idea? Reporters are supposed to look good and give the losers a real run for their money (by knowing the result). To grow a little themselves. Is that the plan? Thank you, if it is, it will be done without a spectator. For he has already pronounced the damning verdict: “I love the Bundesliga. But I don’t buy rotten eggs. Without me.” Premiere is already bankrupt. Sky soon will be too.

(Soldo) Yes, the situation is not easy, as I said, but we have the quality to get out of the situation.
Good, perfect, congratulations Mr Soldo, without any reservation. Above all, keeping this calm commands respect.
(Wolf Fuhrmann)
Yes, but you need points. Quality alone isn’t enough.
The cheeky pupil, blabbing cluelessly again. But he knows something. He thinks he does. The total number of points. His last lifeline. It has to be thrown now.
(Soldo) Yes, we need points, we need a sense of achievement. So far, that was, bottom, I mean first half, look worst game this year.
Talking to the mouth remains the safest concept. I wonder if he really thought it was that bad. Well, well, suppose so.
(Wolf Fuhrmann)
How can we do that against HSV, who are not a team you can just brush off?
Stupid, cheeky, Fuhrmann.
(Soldo)
Not an easy opponent, but now we’ve got the cup on Tuesday.
At least you can give a little slap in the face with all your aplomb. Has the fool forgotten the cup game or should they just give it away?
Embarrassed, exposed, Fuhrmann….
(Wolf Fuhrmann)
Do you think you’ll still be on the bench as coach next weekend in any case?
Then, after the forced change of topic due to proven stupidity, you still have the ultimate question ready.
(Soldo) No comment. I just concentrate on essentials, that’s all I can do.
Extremely good answer. Thank you, Mr Soldo, very serious.
(Wolf Fuhrmann) Wish you all the best, thank you.
Not believed. Please just never have to hear it again. But a) the request is not fulfilled and b) the replacement would not be one bit more pleasant. Consequence? Just like that: resignation.

Have you already resigned or are you still being tormented?

Author: admin

Click here to cancel reply.

Verpassen Sie diese Tipps nicht!

0.BL1-2011-9.Spt-Zus-Sky

Author: admin

Related Posts

Click here to cancel reply.

Verpassen Sie diese Tipps nicht!