World Cup TV Coverage

I really like this article by Stefan Fatsis regarding the crappy US coverage of the World Cup (I also loved his book "Word Freak" about scrabble players):

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115205934369497935-p7zzoDIaTTMsg18YJAeHQhPCU50_20060803.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

Some thoughts:

Dumbing down anything is never a good idea. Educate the audience with better higlights and commentary. Teach the nuances of the games that make it interesting and you have a better chance of winning over viewers.

Yes, goals are the most exciting thing in soccer, but there aren't that many of them. If you bank on great goals captivating the US audience, you will find them disappointed for long stretches of a match. How about stuff like:

Show the juxtapostion between the sloppy Swedish defense and the organized Italian defense on the mirror image Klose /Podolski plays that I talked about in "the Semis" post.

If you don't think the audience understands the Italian style of counter-attack, show it with game footage (Example: I think it's interesting to see an opposing wing back lose the ball on a forward run and Italy look to outlet quickly to the striker who at midfield has shifted over into that open space left by the wingback. He receives it, holds, and looks to feed a streaking midfielder for the fastbreak. (Might sound complicated, but it would be clearer with video))

Other thoughts:

One of the key themes of US coverage seems to be "we need to show Americans how crazy the world is for this sport we don't really care about." If you want to cut to some palazzo in Rome after an Italian goal - I'm not crazy about it (because I mostly want to see players and coaches reactions), but I understand. But cutting to some pub in London in the middle of open play - we cut away from our world feed for this shit - come on.

Univision has had a 1/2 hour pre-game for every game, while we have had 5 minutes for almost all the matches until the semis (when they went to an hour). We get a quick starting line-up and a weather report, while other countries are discussing match-ups, tactics and how those line-ups might affect the game.

I completely agree with the point that using graphics that cover key parts of the screen is awful. The screen-covering "how the US advances from group phase play scenario" was shown more times than TNT has shown The Mummy. This further suggests a view of soccer that nothing important is happening unless there is an attack, but so much of the game is determined by the many midfield and defensive battles for posession and control of the game.

Some of the commentators:

Eric Wynalda is not very good - he seems to have studied at the Bill Walton "I must make controversial strong statements" school. I just never get the sense that this guy has really done a lot of homework watching these countries (besides the USA) play in qualifiers or the individual players play in Europe. Yes, he is one of our most decorated players in USA national team history, but he adds so little as a commentator.

Giorgio Chinaglia, who they hilariously tried to present as the "Charles Barkely of soccer", is unwatchable. He is bad enough on his own, but when Wynalda tries to get into a PTI-style battle with him, it is awful television.

In all sports, networks are slaves to the notion that you must hire ex-pros. I think the good ex-pro commentator is the exception, rather than the norm (some notable exceptions: in basketball Steve Kerr, in football Troy Aikman and Tom Jackson - I love Tom Jackson. I wish he were my Dad.) But generally, I think we need more guys like Peter Gammons and Buster Olney - they are real students of the game. They come prepared with information and stats and do a great job.

I think watching and analyzing games is far more important to good commentary than having played as a professional. Yes, ex-pros can tell us about recovery times needed between matches, recognize fatigue etc., but I think you get a lot of guys with chips on their shoulders and that clouds their judgement and commentary.

Some of these ex-players struggle just to complete sentences - they just pile cliche after cliche until they feel they've reached a period (in hoops I think of guys like Dee Brown and BJ Armstrong). Paul Caliguri has been awful on Fox - watching him speak on camera is like watching a man drowning. Kobi Jones is marginally better, but not at all good. Can't we have these guys do some more spring training off-camera before they are forced on us?

I think Julie Foudy has shown some promise, but I'm not crazy about her. Though I was impressed by her pre-tourney pick of Ribery as a player to watch. Most others would just repeat the obvious Zidane or Henry, but Ribery has been crucial in pumping some life (and speed) into an aging French side that has struggled for goals over the last few years. It showed to me that Foudy has watched Ribery run rampant for Marseilles in France's League 1, as he had really yet to become a consistent force on the national side before the Cup.

Also credit to ESPN for hiring Allen Hopkins away from Fox Soccer Channel. Allen watches a ton of soccer and really knows his stuff. He even did a great commentary highlighting Italy's Cannavaro making an outrageous defensive play against Germany when he left his man and sprinted to interecept the ball at the last second. ESPN has used more and more of him as the Cup has progressed and though I feel he has at times adhered to the network policy of keep it real simple for our audience, he is doing their best work.

I actually don't have real problems with Brent Musburger - no, he is not a big soccer fan and yes he is prone to the stock statements like "They are dancing in the streets of ____." (Was kind of hoping Togo won a game so I could hear "They are dancing in the streets of.....Togo? Dear God I couldn't possibly name a city in Togo.")

He also loves statements like "Italy and the great Totti" - I would name like 7 Italian players who have been more important than Totti this Cup. But he is a sports fan and a consumate professional who picks up really quickly on whatever he is covering.

The miscalls of players by the play-by-play guys has been hilarious. My favorites:
- Confusing Henry and Viera, saying it was Henry who missed a header in the box. Even if you have trouble telling two tall black men apart, you should know that Henry rarely wins (or even goes for) headers in the box. And you should know that Veira is a constant aerial threat in the box.
- Mixing up Cannavaro and Del Piero - two small Italians with buzz cuts. The announcer thought it was Cannavaro on an open-field attack in the box. Del Peiro is a striker - Cannavaro is a sweeper who almost never is in the opposing box during open play (he does go up for corners). The chances that was Cannavaro were like 100-1.
- By the play-by-play account, the Ukraine had 6 Andriy Schevchenko's playing (and one of them was an overlapping left-footed wing attacker who came from really far back in the Ukraine defense).
- the constant references to Christian Ronaldo.