Why British Commentators Are Crap

[JohnR]

I copied this note from Grant Wahl's Sept. 19th column, since it unwittingly supports a long-time beef of mine -

• The best British commentators are as good as Tim McCarver is at baseball. That is, they point out important things viewers might not have noticed otherwise. On the highlight show after the U.S. had qualified for the second round, ITV showed Portugal's Luis Figo, his team down two men but tied 0-0 with South Korea, hoofing the ball aimlessly downfield. Bob Wilson was onto Figo's game. "It's as if he's saying, 'You have possession of it, as long as you don't score we're both going through.'"

Uh, yeah Grant, I think I figured that out. As insights go, this ranks right up there with "Notice with a 7-run lead, how the pitcher has eliminated his curve ball and is just throwing strikes."

Which is my point -- the British guys, while witty and urbane, pretty much tell me what even I know. And that ain't too much, it's not like I was raised with this sport.

Things I would like to know, and would expect to hear from an expert who surely must understand the game better than I do -

1) Lineup adjustments - Has either lineup been adjusted in response to perceived strengths and/or weaknesses in the other team?

2) Player matchups - Are any players adapting their game (e.g., making fewer forward runs, more one-touch passes, and so forth) in reaction to the opposition, or the weather, or some other factor? Are their particular players who are giving special problems to the opposition?

3) Form - How does the player's current form relate to how he has been playing recently? If he botches a couple of crosses, is this unusual? Or is this part of a recent pattern that may land him on the bench? Who on the squad is pressing this player for playing time?

4) Coaching tendencies - If the team has a 1-0 lead in minute 70, what is the coach's tendency? Will he have the players bunker? Hold up the ball? Play normally but cut back on their forward runs? Attack hard in the theory that a good offense is the best defense? Will the approach vary depending upon weather, quality of opponent, home/away, etc.?

I could think of several other items, but honestly, I'd settle for even an attempt at these answers. Instead of the usual, "Oh, he made a hash of that ball." Gee, thanks.

[WarrenWallace]

Originally posted by JohnR

• The best British commentators are as good as Tim McCarver is at baseball. That is, they point out important things viewers might not have noticed otherwise. On the highlight show after the U.S. had qualified for the second round, ITV showed Portugal's Luis Figo, his team down two men but tied 0-0 with South Korea, hoofing the ball aimlessly downfield. Bob Wilson was onto Figo's game. "It's as if he's saying, 'You have possession of it, as long as you don't score we're both going through.'"

You and I knew this going into the game or figured it out during the game. But the people that only watch soccer during the World Cup probably didn't know it. I watched the game verses Poland with some friends and family. They all thought that we would go though regardless if we had 4 points and Portugal had 4 points. Their theory--> we beat Portugal.

[tpm]

Originally posted by JohnR
I copied this note from Grant Wahl's Sept. 19th column, since it unwittingly supports a long-time beef of mine -

• The best British commentators are as good as Tim McCarver is at baseball. That is, they point out important things viewers might not have noticed otherwise. On the highlight show after the U.S. had qualified for the second round, ITV showed Portugal's Luis Figo, his team down two men but tied 0-0 with South Korea, hoofing the ball aimlessly downfield. Bob Wilson was onto Figo's game. "It's as if he's saying, 'You have possession of it, as long as you don't score we're both going through.'"

Uh, yeah Grant, I think I figured that out. As insights go, this ranks right up there with "Notice with a 7-run lead, how the pitcher has eliminated his curve ball and is just throwing strikes."

Which is my point -- the British guys, while witty and urbane, pretty much tell me what even I know. And that ain't too much, it's not like I was raised with this sport.

Things I would like to know, and would expect to hear from an expert who surely must understand the game better than I do -

1) Lineup adjustments - Has either lineup been adjusted in response to perceived strengths and/or weaknesses in the other team?

2) Player matchups - Are any players adapting their game (e.g., making fewer forward runs, more one-touch passes, and so forth) in reaction to the opposition, or the weather, or some other factor? Are their particular players who are giving special problems to the opposition?

3) Form - How does the player's current form relate to how he has been playing recently? If he botches a couple of crosses, is this unusual? Or is this part of a recent pattern that may land him on the bench? Who on the squad is pressing this player for playing time?

4) Coaching tendencies - If the team has a 1-0 lead in minute 70, what is the coach's tendency? Will he have the players bunker? Hold up the ball? Play normally but cut back on their forward runs? Attack hard in the theory that a good offense is the best defense? Will the approach vary depending upon weather, quality of opponent, home/away, etc.?

I could think of several other items, but honestly, I'd settle for even an attempt at these answers. Instead of the usual, "Oh, he made a hash of that ball." Gee, thanks.

From what I've seen, this kind of stuff is handles quite in-depth by "expert" commentators in both pre-match and half-time show; which, unfortunately, we don't usually get for the EPL with FSW (not that I'm complaining). The match announcers do just that, announce the match. I, for one, am very glad they don't feel the need to incessantly drone on during a match.

[anderson]

Originally posted by tpm
From what I've seen, this kind of stuff is handles quite in-depth by "expert" commentators in both pre-match and half-time show; which, unfortunately, we don't usually get for the EPL with FSW (not that I'm complaining). The match announcers do just that, announce the match. I, for one, am very glad they don't feel the need to incessantly drone on during a match.That's a helpful point. It also tends to explain why we get so much background info during the game on the Disney nets and FSW-produced game commentary. We just don't have any place else to put that sort of info and broadcasters have apparently decided that people still want to hear that stuff. So there's just no where else for it to go other than during the game.

On a more general but related note, I'm not so sure that a preference for Brit announcers has much to do with the substance of what they say. I suspect it's more related to their presentational style. If you prefer a fairly low-key, largely nonemotional presentation, then you're going to like most Brit announcers more than Spanish-language announcers who often provide a more animated or emotional style or American English-language announcers who generally chat quite a bit and sometimes attempt continuous humorous banter.

[Cantona]

leave all the analysis for pregame/halftime...

i just want commentators to call whats going on
on the pitch...

The "teach the game" commentary is absolutey
horrible... which quite a few american announcers
practice... the last thing i want to hear watching
a match is...." a pass back to the goalkeeper, he
is not allowed to pick it up..he can only play it with
his feet "

Then there is the "american football" style..where
the commentators are rattling off meaningless
statistics and barely commentating to what is
going on, on the field. Bretos does this quite often.
Its likes sitting behind someone in the bleachers
bantering on and on and on....

crap.....ha...

CLASS

Cantona---

[Sachin]

Don't forget the stupid accents ;)

Seriously, if you had to call a typically boring European match, you'd be emotionally distant too.

Sachin

[FootyMundo]

Originally posted by JohnR
I copied this note from Grant Wahl's Sept. 19th column, since it unwittingly supports a long-time beef of mine -

• The best British commentators are as good as Tim McCarver is at baseball. That is, they point out important things viewers might not have noticed otherwise. On the highlight show after the U.S. had qualified for the second round, ITV showed Portugal's Luis Figo, his team down two men but tied 0-0 with South Korea, hoofing the ball aimlessly downfield. Bob Wilson was onto Figo's game. "It's as if he's saying, 'You have possession of it, as long as you don't score we're both going through.'"

Uh, yeah Grant, I think I figured that out. As insights go, this ranks right up there with "Notice with a 7-run lead, how the pitcher has eliminated his curve ball and is just throwing strikes."

Which is my point -- the British guys, while witty and urbane, pretty much tell me what even I know. And that ain't too much, it's not like I was raised with this sport.

Things I would like to know, and would expect to hear from an expert who surely must understand the game better than I do -

1) Lineup adjustments - Has either lineup been adjusted in response to perceived strengths and/or weaknesses in the other team?

2) Player matchups - Are any players adapting their game (e.g., making fewer forward runs, more one-touch passes, and so forth) in reaction to the opposition, or the weather, or some other factor? Are their particular players who are giving special problems to the opposition?

3) Form - How does the player's current form relate to how he has been playing recently? If he botches a couple of crosses, is this unusual? Or is this part of a recent pattern that may land him on the bench? Who on the squad is pressing this player for playing time?

4) Coaching tendencies - If the team has a 1-0 lead in minute 70, what is the coach's tendency? Will he have the players bunker? Hold up the ball? Play normally but cut back on their forward runs? Attack hard in the theory that a good offense is the best defense? Will the approach vary depending upon weather, quality of opponent, home/away, etc.?

I could think of several other items, but honestly, I'd settle for even an attempt at these answers. Instead of the usual, "Oh, he made a hash of that ball." Gee, thanks.

Sachin - The game is NOT rocket science. There's only so much folks can point out. And you seem to be complaining that they don't approach the game as do NFL announcers - i.e. with an over abundance of stats. Soccer has tons and tons of stats. that can be analyzed, but many of them are more after the fact. Games like baseball and football are more "situational" as opposed to hockey, soccer and hoops.

[Elwood]

Originally posted by Cantona
leave all the analysis for pregame/halftime...

i just want commentators to call whats going on
on the pitch...

The "teach the game" commentary is absolutey
horrible... which quite a few american announcers
practice... the last thing i want to hear watching
a match is...." a pass back to the goalkeeper, he
is not allowed to pick it up..he can only play it with
his feet "

Then there is the "american football" style..where
the commentators are rattling off meaningless
statistics and barely commentating to what is
going on, on the field. Bretos does this quite often.
Its likes sitting behind someone in the bleachers
bantering on and on and on....

crap.....ha...

CLASS

Cantona---

Cantona sums up my feelings nicely. I much prefer the British approach to the American approach. And over time, after watching enough matches called by Brits, I'm starting to despise American announcers on things like the NFL and college football and basketball.

As an Indy resident, I watched the Colts-Texans NFL game this Sunday. I was able to handle the network announcers for about 20 minutes before I just had to turn off the TV sound and listen to the local 'homers' on radio.

[BenReilly]

Originally posted by Cantona
l
"meaningless statistics "



Cantona---

Just because you can't figure them out doesn't indicate that they are meaningless.

[JG]

Originally posted by FootyMundo

And you seem to be complaining that they don't approach the game as do NFL announcers - i.e. with an over abundance of stats.

It seems to me that he's saying almost the exact opposite...since a soccer game can't be so neatly summed up in numbers, it's even more important to have an insightful analyst who can really explain why things are going the way they are on the field.

[RichardL]

I'm curious to know what matches you get and who commentates on them. Most games that are shown as highlights over here are Saturday games and they only tend to have one commentator, rather limiting the possibility of discussion. Tactical decisions are commented on, but only briefly, perhaps just a quick mention that a player has dropped back into midfield or that a team has pushed a defender up front to try to get an equaliser.
There's much less of an emphasis on things like players pass percentages or whatever for the pure reason that nobody is counting. Maybe it's hard to grasp if you are used to being bombared with stats during your usual sports coverage, but that fact is people over here don't have any desire to know cold facts about how many forward runs a player is making compared to normal. We don't even keep a record of assists over here. They get no recognition at all.

[CHICO13]

Originally posted by Cantona
leave all the analysis for pregame/halftime...

i just want commentators to call whats going on
on the pitch...

Exactly!! One example of this was during the 98 World Cup. Andres Cantor did his usual great emotional play-by-play, and then Longo would interject some assinine commentary bordering on the ridiculous. Just call the game, give us substitutions, injuries, stoppage...etc. We can figure out the rest. It's not brain surgery.

[Bauser]

John Motson is excellent. Been around since before colour TV, but the best there is for me.

[whirlwind]

Motson's very good. I prefer Martin Tyler, myself. He seems to assume that (1) you're watching the game, and can see for yourself that a pass has been made, and (2) this isn't the first soccer game you've ever watched, and you don't need the rules explained to you.

[jeeeesus]

motson gets on my nerves, trying to inject excitement where there is none. if there's nothing to talk about, shut up.

i'd much rather listen to radio commentary when possible, at least they're not afraid to tell you when a match is rubbish.

[JohnR]

Originally posted by JG


It seems to me that he's saying almost the exact opposite...since a soccer game can't be so neatly summed up in numbers, it's even more important to have an insightful analyst who can really explain why things are going the way they are on the field.

Precisely! Thank you very much.

Thanks to the rest of you for reading, and for responding (for the most part) fairly unemotionally to my admittedly controversial headline. (Just trying to drum up some readership.)

I agree with the notion that soccer is different than baseball or football, much less of a static and statistical game. Actually, while Grant Wahl mentions baseball and Tim McCarver, my comparison point is Doug Collins and basketball. I know 5 times as much about hoops as about soccer, but every time I watch Doug Collins (or other top basketball announcers) I learn. If Shaq is further away from the basket than usual because he has to keep an eye on Divac, Doug will pick up on that before I will.

So no, I don't really believe that British announcers are crap. It's just a different style. But I do say to defenders of that style, that it's simply inaccurate to represent good analytic commentary as unnecessary for the informed fan. I guarantee you, that a top ex-manager knows more about the players and the game than you do -- at least in some instances -- and that if permitted, he could teach you things.

[RichardL]

Originally posted by JohnR

I guarantee you, that a top ex-manager knows more about the players and the game than you do -- at least in some instances -- and that if permitted, he could teach you things.

Yeah, I also remember going into the last minute of the England v Romania WC match in 98 with the score level, expert summariser Kevin Keegan saying "if there's going to be a winner now it will be England". Ooops.

Also a few days later, as David Batty stepped up to take the penalty to keep England in the world cup...
commentator: So Kevin, you know David Batty more than most. Will he score?
Keegan: (emphatic) Yes!

Oh dear.

One problem we do have over here is that managers & players past and present tend to be very pally with one another and so are almost never critical.

[superdave]

I pretty much agree with JohnR. What advantages do this hypothetical Brit have over us?

1. It's his job, so he has the time and resources to have watched the last 5 Bolton and Arsenal matches on tape, so he can tell us what each team is doing differently. If he can put that to use and add to my insight into the match, he should do it.

2. He can see the whole field. Is team A's off the ball runs designed to get wide? Is team B bringing their strikers way back defensively? Again, if the announcer can mention stuff like that and add to my insight, he should do it.

[wunderkid]

One reason why announcers in US broadcasts...like ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 explain rules is that soccer is a "new" sport. A lot of people have never really followed soccer and therefore they dont know a GK can't pick up th eball on a back pass...Sure it is annoying hearing it over and over, but in a sense, those announcers are attempting to explain the rules in a slightly subtle way while still keeping up with the action.

[JohnR]

Originally posted by RichardL


Yeah, I also remember going into the last minute of the England v Romania WC match in 98 with the score level, expert summariser Kevin Keegan saying "if there's going to be a winner now it will be England". Ooops.

Also a few days later, as David Batty stepped up to take the penalty to keep England in the world cup...
commentator: So Kevin, you know David Batty more than most. Will he score?
Keegan: (emphatic) Yes!

Oh dear.

One problem we do have over here is that managers & players past and present tend to be very pally with one another and so are almost never critical.

Oh dear is right. If that is what is seen as "analysis" across the Atlantic now I better understand the English vitriol about analytic-style commentary.

I don't mind if a manager/player isn't overtly critical. I want insights, not judgments. But if they're a cheerleader, as Keegan apparently is, omigod that's annoying.