Unalysis

As we are all acutely aware, sports in general, and football in particular, all have their own internal language, a series of clichés and descriptive phrases which are used over and over, generally with the end result of communicating very little indeed. Football, and especially football commentary (I'm talking to you, ITV) can become almost impenetrable due to the constant recycling of the same words and turns of phrase, and because everyone subscribes to it, the end result is something approaching gibberish.

At the same time, language trends are fashionable, and certain words seem to come to dominate discourse at certain times. For example, a number of years ago there was a newfangled vogue for describing goalkeepers as 'shot-stoppers', and judging the merits of a given 'keeper based on his adeptness at said skill. I mean, isn't shot-stopping the most basic pre-requisite for any number one? However, once phrases like this take hold, it is very difficult to escape them.

Another example might be the shift from describing a player as being 'interfering with play' (or not) when discussing the offside law. Now, commentators and analysts routinely blather on about being passive and active, and exploring the semantic differences inherent in these words, when in fact the law remains as it was, save for the terminology being used. However, use of the terms passive and active now dominates.

The reason for my writing it is this: I simply cannot stand use of the term 'end product' to describe an attacker's effectiveness. I just cannot. It seems that this term has only really come into vogue in the past eighteen months, but now totally dominates discussion amongst television, radio and newspaper analysts.

'End product' began, as far as I can discern, with Cristiano Ronaldo, and specifically, his metamorphosis from supremely talented bag-of-tricks winger to a truly effective attacking player who creates and scores his fair share of goals. Beginning last season, commentators began telling us that Ronaldo was suddenly becoming a top player, because he had improved his end product. And now the phrase has become ubiquitous, and insufferable, and not just restricted to Cristiano (although it seems to help your case if you are a Portugese winger).

"If he concentrates on his end product as a wide player, which is ultimately crossing the ball, then he'll prove a useful player."
--- 23rd June 2008

"Second of all, they are the absolute pinnacle of inefficiency. They are Arsenal at their worst – a glorified training session with no end-product."
--- 20th June 2008

"But it is down to the individuals to improve on their end product once they have taken someone on. Can they make that final pass?"
--- 23rd June 2008

"...strong as usual but no end product."
--- 25th June 2008


....and so on.

I can't take it anymore.

I am not sure why I have taken such umbrage with this phrase in particular, but every time I hear Lee Dixon, Gavin Peacock or Martin Keown smugly refer to 'end product' while flirting across the couch with Adrian Chiles, I feel an irrational sense of rage.

What did people do for descriptive phrases in the days before end product? Is it too much effort to contemplate using other phrases? End product is vague as a phrase, and more than that, it is beyond lazy and below analysis. In theory, you can comment on just about any endeavour known to man while using relative quantities of 'end product' as a benchmark. Why do we put up with this level of unalysis?

End product is symptomatic of a greater trend, that of the coming and going of transitory buzzwords. Unlike 'doing a job', which I find endearing (see below), end product is a lazy and not particularly helpful.

And for some reason, whenever I hear talk of 'end product', I think of a morning on the toilet which inevitably follows a long night on the beer. And perhaps that is where the problem lies...