us "soccer"

[tcmahoney]

Originally posted by skipshady
Shows *cough Goff* how paranoid *cough both Treckers* you are *cough Jones* when you *cough Merz* have to *cough Dure* manufacture facts *cough Dell'Apa* to maintain *cough Lewis* your "American *cough Vescey* media bashes *cough Bell* soccer" delusion.

Overall, American media as a whole is supportive, or at least tolerant of soccer. Even guys who don't cover soccer are fans, or give the game a lot of respect, like the Sports Guy, Kenny Mayne and Wilbon & Kornheiser.

falcon6, if your head is hurting, that's because you keep bumping it against reality.

Don't fight it anymore. Embrace reality. Come join us in the light. Once you've done that, you'll never want to go back.

[skipshady]

Originally posted by falcon6
Yeah right. What of Lupica, deford and Rome just to name a few. Not to mention all of sports radio. I think your the one who is delusional.
1. This was your original post.
Originally posted by falcon6
If you can put up with the constant media soccer bashing in the states, its not bad
If it was "constant", you'd be posting at BigSoccer more often.

2, Sports radio? There's your problem. There is very little that is redeeming in any talk radio. It's enterntainment. Not to be taken seriously. Only idiots do.

3. Your heroes Lupica, Deford and Rome are columnists and/or commentators. Their job is to provoke. If they were saying "Isn't ice cream great? Boy do Brussel sprouts taste nasty!", they wouldn't be doing their jobs. They're not out to convince you, but to state their opinions on controversial issues and have you agree or disagree. The fact that soccer is brough up so often tells you that there are enough people who are into soccer and would disagree with them.

4. To go with the above, you are overestimating their ability to change opinions. A youth soccer player isn't going to listen to NPR, hear Deford bashing soccer and say, "Mommy, enough of this commie crap! Give me baseball" A dad isn't going to Rome and pull Timmie and Katie out of JV Soccer. Someone who's ambivalent about soccer isn't going to read Lupica and go out and burn down Crew Stadium. As I said above, they pander to their audience, piss off the thin-skinned or both at the same time. They're not Moses and no one treats them as such.

5. Going back to your first post, "you can put up with the constant media bashing", the great thing is, you don't have to nail yourself to the cross and play victim. That's right, you can ignore them.

6. And to go with #5, there are plenty of non-soccer media types that are not anti-soccer. Plus, watching soccer is a whole lot more enjoyable than playing victim.

[frightwig]

Originally posted by Mike Toole


I really like where the MLS is right now, and hope that it continues to gradually expand. My only complaint now is that ten teams isn't enough-- there are other big markets that desperately want teams (Florida should have one team, hopefully better planned than the Fusion or Mutiny were, and why not give Portland a team?).


The MLS needs to put a team in Portland or Seattle, but I think clubs could do well in both cities. Soccer has long been popular in the Northwest.

A team or two in Georgia, Carolina, or Florida would be good. I'd also like to see the league have a greater presence in the Midwest. There is a team in Chicago, and one in Kansas City. That's hardly serving the middle of the country. Put a team in Minneapolis! And think about St. Louis, too.

Btw, my girlfriend called the cable company yesterday (which was AT&T Broadband but has just been acquired by Comcast) to ask about digital cable packages. Turns out they're offering a 6-month trial at $30/month; after that, it's $7 more per month above the cost of regular cable. So I'll give that a go.

If anyone else here has Comcast as the local cable provider, and you don't already have digital cable but wish you could get FSW, give 'em a call and see if they have the $30 trial offer in your area.

[copaantl98]

Originally posted by skipshady
Well, I agree, except there is a huge room for improvement. We shouldn't pass off obvious problems as "differences", specifically the apparent fear of dead air. The need to let every second of air filled is really annoying. Let the game do the talking, I say.

American commentators often seem to forget that we're watching the game too. If Olsen makes a run down the sideline and fires a cross to the near post, they don't need to tell us that. If they just say "Olsen", we can see that it's Olsen doing all of the above.

What's good about not letting the game do the talking is if I want to talk about or reflect back on the game with someone, I can always imitate the commentator. It makes the reflecting back more exciting to talk about.

[copaantl98]

Originally posted by The Wanderer
What pisses me off here is that the American announcers don't have a GOOOOOOOOAAAALL call. C'mon, during WC highlights on ESPN they played the goal call from the Spanish stations......so Joe Six Pack likes that $hit. I mean, it's an effing goal for god's sake, and it's football, there should be a release of emotion.

Other things that bother me about the announcing here: When a scoring chance is created, get excited also---the shot just went inches over the bar you dolt, that was close. When a defender or midfielder makes a good play, point it out---that helps the casual fan understand the 'nuances' of the game that make it special and different from other sports.

I can't believe that in the suburbs of Dallas, TX we get better cable packages than those in the New York city area. Fox Sports World(and FSW en Espanol) is an option on my cable company's basic package for $5 a month extra.

Now GolTV is coming out who will show every one of Real Madrid's games---looks like I'll have to get a satellite set-up soon.

To the Chelsea fan in the Poconos, look around for international PPV's--I watched Holland and Argentina on my package, and I also watched a lot of Euro 2000 too.

What's good about the commentating here is that the commentators DO point out the good plays.

[bbsbt]

Originally posted by skipshady

2, Sports radio? There's your problem. There is very little that is redeeming in any talk radio. It's enterntainment. Not to be taken seriously. Only idiots do.
Entertainment?... then so is television, and that includes sports and non-sports programming.
The point here is, both radio and tv have the potential to change peoples minds, add to their misconceptions. Granted, tv can affect on a far greater scale, but still, radio does have an affect also.


3. Your heroes Lupica, Deford and Rome are columnists and/or commentators. Their job is to provoke. If they were saying "Isn't ice cream great? Boy do Brussel sprouts taste nasty!", they wouldn't be doing their jobs. They're not out to convince you, but to state their opinions on controversial issues and have you agree or disagree. The fact that soccer is brough up so often tells you that there are enough people who are into soccer and would disagree with them. Then by this logic, they should be bashing baseball, NFL football and basketball on a daily basis(since there are a lot more fans). And not a particular bad play, but the sport itself. :rolleyes:


4. To go with the above, you are overestimating their ability to change opinions. A youth soccer player isn't going to listen to NPR, hear Deford bashing soccer and say, "Mommy, enough of this commie crap! Give me baseball" A dad isn't going to Rome and pull Timmie and Katie out of JV Soccer. Someone who's ambivalent about soccer isn't going to read Lupica and go out and burn down Crew Stadium. As I said above, they pander to their audience, piss off the thin-skinned or both at the same time. They're not Moses and no one treats them as such. You couldn't be more wrong; I have a 12-year old nephew who is into soccer with a passion, When he and his friends are around "soccer-bashing" students at their school(or other group events), they have to maintain a low profile and not discuss anything about soccer openly, otherwise the ussual "soccer is for sissies/q***rs/f**s" name-calling will ensue. He says a few of his friends get discouraged and to feel accepted they have to get involved with other "main-streams" sports.
Now the question here is: Why would such young kids bash a sport in such a demeaning way? And more important, why/where did they pick-up such hatred for the sport? Remember, kids at this age usually try to emulate grown-ups, either their parents or some other authority(sports, for example).
Now, you may pass the above example as an isolated exception, but I can't help but think, how often is it being repeated accross the US.

[usscouse]

Originally posted by copaantl98
What's good about the commentating here is that the commentators DO point out the good plays. And the real point is that if you need someone to tell you that something good just happened then.......geesus... If you take that nail out of your foot you won't go around in circles.

[usscouse]

Originally posted by bbsbt
You couldn't be more wrong; I have a 12-year old nephew who is into soccer with a passion, When he and his friends are around "soccer-bashing" students at their school(or other group events), they have to maintain a low profile and not discuss anything about soccer openly, otherwise the ussual "soccer is for sissies/q***rs/f**s" name-calling will ensue. He says a few of his friends get discouraged and to feel accepted they have to get involved with other "main-streams" sports.
Now the question here is: Why would such young kids bash a sport in such a demeaning way? And more important, why/where did they pick-up such hatred for the sport? Remember, kids at this age usually try to emulate grown-ups, either their parents or some other authority(sports, for example).
Now, you may pass the above example as an isolated exception, but I can't help but think, how often is it being repeated accross the US.
Yes, it does happen. But do you know what? It's changing and fast. Maybe not fast enough for a 12 year old, but I've coached a lot of teams in the last 20 years and I've seen the game change exponentially during that time. I have a team of 15 year olds now and they don’t care what the others think at this age. (And they’ve only lost one game in the past 2 seasons.)

A franchise team In Seattle would be great. They have thousands of young players up here for support as well as us oldies.

[skipshady]

Originally posted by bbsbt
Entertainment?... then so is television, and that includes sports and non-sports programming.
The point here is, both radio and tv have the potential to change peoples minds, add to their misconceptions. Granted, tv can affect on a far greater scale, but still, radio does have an affect also.Well, you're right. Except talk radio is generally there to appeal to like-minded people. It's mostly Republicans listening to right-wing radio and likewise, sports radio jocks are generally talking to the joe-sixpacks. If you disagree what they say, you're probably not in the target market.
Then by this logic, they should be bashing baseball, NFL football and basketball on a daily basis(since there are a lot more fans). And not a particular bad play, but the sport itself.Let me clarify. They bash something that has achieved critical mass in terms of popularity or acceptance, but not quite in the mainstream yet. Take, for example, punk rock in the 70s. It would have been fashionable in the 70s to bash punk because it was the "next big thing" but it hadn't quite achieved mainstream status yet - they wouldn't bash rock 'n roll as a whole, because the genre had established itself by then, nor would they have bashed hardcore polka, because it is nowhere near critical mass.
Basically, soccer has achieved that sort of big status, but not quite part of the Big 4.
You couldn't be more wrong; I have a 12-year old nephew who is into soccer with a passion, When he and his friends are around "soccer-bashing" students at their school(or other group events), they have to maintain a low profile and not discuss anything about soccer openly, otherwise the ussual "soccer is for sissies/q***rs/f**s" name-calling will ensue. He says a few of his friends get discouraged and to feel accepted they have to get involved with other "main-streams" sports.

Now the question here is: Why would such young kids bash a sport in such a demeaning way? And more important, why/where did they pick-up such hatred for the sport? Remember, kids at this age usually try to emulate grown-ups, either their parents or some other authority(sports, for example).
Now, you may pass the above example as an isolated exception, but I can't help but think, how often is it being repeated accross the US.You think all that's because of a few columnists and radio jocks? You can't be serious. If all of a sudden, Deford, Lupica, Rome et al make a joint announcement that "Soccer is a really neat-o sport", you think soccer players would stop getting teased?

That's going to happen regardless of what soccer bashing media personalities say, because "soccer = f-g sport" is an accepted notion in some parts (I didn't experience it in Raleigh, NC however).

Soccer is relatively new in the American consciousness. It's considered foreign. The fact that people dismiss it has nothing to do with soccer bashers in the media. Is it conceivable at all that people already think soccer is a sissy sport, and the soccer bashers in the media are simply picking up on it?

[seahawkdad]

Originally posted by usa1950
It's great. We can watch games from many different countries.

Do they have Television in your part of England?
This reminds me that parts of the US have television but no indoor plumbing...

The quality of the remark makes me think that usa1950's part of Indiana is one of those...:D

[The Wanderer]

Originally posted by usscouse
And the real point is that if you need someone to tell you that something good just happened then.......geesus... If you take that nail out of your foot you won't go around in circles.

Well, c'mon 'mate. If people who are not familiar with soccer are watching, this helps them to learn how to understand the game.....after multiple viewings.

[usscouse]

Originally posted by The Wanderer
Well, c'mon 'mate. If people who are not familiar with soccer are watching, this helps them to learn how to understand the game.....after multiple viewings. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear, my comment was aimed at "copaantl98" and his attitude of "If it aint American, it aint crap!"
Not the people who really want to learn the whole football/soccer spectrum.

[The Cadaver]

Just a couple of thoughts to add when you consider U.S. commentators:

At least in LA, the Galaxy games were often symulcast on radio and TV. The announcer, even one versed in the game and its subtlties, has a hard line to walk there. You can't do the Martin Tyler simple string of names bit - the radio audience would have no idea what was going on. You can't do the full blown word-picture radio version, because it would be redundant with what people see on the tube. Inevitably the announcer is always erring one way or the other.

Secondly, for better or worse, broadcasters hope to be drawing in casual fans who do not know the game. If your are broadcasting in the UK, it is safe to assume a certain level of game sophistication on the part of an audience that grew up with the game. Not so here, where many fans have never played, and many viewers don't even qualify as fans. Put it this way, if Vin Scully were calling a baseball game to be broadcast in the U.K., don't youy think he would do it a little different than he does here?

[usscouse]

Originally posted by The Cadaver
Just a couple of thoughts to add when you consider U.S. commentators:

At least in LA, the Galaxy games were often symulcast on radio and TV. The announcer, even one versed in the game and its subtlties, has a hard line to walk there. You can't do the Martin Tyler simple string of names bit - the radio audience would have no idea what was going on. You can't do the full blown word-picture radio version, because it would be redundant with what people see on the tube. Inevitably the announcer is always erring one way or the other.

Secondly, for better or worse, broadcasters hope to be drawing in casual fans who do not know the game. If your are broadcasting in the UK, it is safe to assume a certain level of game sophistication on the part of an audience that grew up with the game. Not so here, where many fans have never played, and many viewers don't even qualify as fans. Put it this way, if Vin Scully were calling a baseball game to be broadcast in the U.K., don't youy think he would do it a little different than he does here? Point taken, if it is a simlecast!

But I've been here probably longer than you and I still think baseball is a great sandlot game and a waste of time when it come to pro-ball..;)

[The Cadaver]

Originally posted by usscouse
Point taken, if it is a simlecast!

But I've been here probably longer than you and I still think baseball is a great sandlot game and a waste of time when it come to pro-ball..;)

I don't want to get into a debate about the qualities of another sport, baseball, but suffice it to say that I do think you "see" the game differently if you grow up playing it than if you see it first as a spectator. As much as I love soccer, and have watched a lot over the last 15-20 years both here and in the U.K., I never played it as a kid and I am SURE that I am missing some of the nuances.

[RichardL]

Originally posted by The Cadaver
Put it this way, if Vin Scully were calling a baseball game to be broadcast in the U.K., don't youy think he would do it a little different than he does here?

Well live baseball is shown over here at the 'prime time' slot of 1-4am. People might be a bit confused over what RBI etc stands for at first, but I'm sure the get used to it. When the NFL was first shown over here they did have a lot of British commentators explaining things, but the technicalities of the rules are a bit more complex in that sport.
Again, it's probably more about what you are used to. American commentators are probably very skilled at filling dead time in any sport, due to the amount of it in American sports, so it's natural that they'll carry on that approach into soccer. It'd actually be quite hard not to. Eurosport has the worst commentators in the world. The fact that Angus "statto" Loughran is one of the more charismatic ones (OK, that'll mean nothing to US readers) says all you need to know.

[usscouse]

I'm definately out of touch here. I have NEVER heard of either Vin Scully or Angus "statto" Loughran.
But I do agree with both of your comments on commentaries and commentators..:)

[FairWeatherFan]

I've actually noticed that US commentators have trouble filling a lot of the "dead air time" during soccer matches. American spectators are used to constant scoring and high scoring games. It seems like no matter how exciting a soccer match is, commentators are going to have some trouble conveying that excitement and intensity to a public that looks to the scoreboard first before judging how good a match was.
I've also heard the theory that soccer doesn't catch on with as many American fans because it does not have the large amount of statistics that other sports have (example: baseball has batting average, hits, strike outs, slugging percentage, walks, etc.). Kids in the US grow up looking at individual stats, and soccer really doesn't have an over-abundance of those individual markings.

[usscouse]

Originally posted by FairWeatherFan
I've actually noticed that US commentators have trouble filling a lot of the "dead air time" during soccer matches. American spectators are used to constant scoring and high scoring games. It seems like no matter how exciting a soccer match is, commentators are going to have some trouble conveying that excitement and intensity to a public that looks to the scoreboard first before judging how good a match was.
I've also heard the theory that soccer doesn't catch on with as many American fans because it does not have the large amount of statistics that other sports have (example: baseball has batting average, hits, strike outs, slugging percentage, walks, etc.). Kids in the US grow up looking at individual stats, and soccer really doesn't have an over-abundance of those individual markings. Welcome to BS FWF.
This argument has been used before but it doesn’t really work.

There really isn't "Dead air time in soccer" The game speaks for itself.

Take baseball (I don’t want it:)) A lot of people seem to get excited when nothing happens, a no hitter is considered a big deal. So you eat hotdogs and drink fizzy stuff called beer and listen to someone tell what a great game you just slept through. What high score?

And football, this is a great sport, lots of action in a good game. But high scores…not if you divide by 7.

Soccer is a constant flowing game and really hard for a traditional US sports comm. Who is usually drafted in from baseball or golf and thinks people need the reassurance of his voice.. constantly.

As someone earlier mentioned, a couple of former US players are making themselves a name doing comms. This will make a huge difference. They understand the game and know what interests the fans.

And as for kids in the US looking at or needing stats, you need to go to some kids spring soccer tournaments. The kids come out in their thousands to the big ones here. I coach a kids team and they don’t care about stats.
It’s more “Did you see that play or that pass” than I got 2 touches and 1 pass off. The US game on TV is changing it’s just that the TV dinosaurs are slow to see it.

[sinner78]

I notice that yank TV coverage seems to be designed for idiots..

- loads of big on-screen graphics
- Constant commercial breaks and timeouts
- They usually have some irritating women reporter on the sidelines..(like the hugely irritating michelle tafoya in NBA games)