Those were the three players they were focusing a lot on all tournament so I think this is probably the right call.
Yes, but the point is to determine the best team, not the Golden Ball or Golden Boot individual award, so a team that isn't one of the best three shouldn't be called one of the best three just because of their best player. If Fox is referring to players rather than teams when they say "big three," they should say that are talking about players and not make fans guess what Fox means.
Given that neither France, Belgium, England and Croatia nor their individual players could be considered one of the "big 3" anything going into the tournament, it's accurate whether we're talking teams or players so I'm not sure what difference it makes who or what Stone was talking about.
My favorite is their "if result holds" ticker used during elimination rounds instead of just using "the winner plays". Belgium was going to play France "if result holds" when leading 2-1 against Brazil. I wonder what would have happened if Belgium scored the third goal. Maybe we would have a different matchup.
Lol. Everything is so incredibly dumbed-down. For e.g. the constant reminding us what happens if the score is tied after 90 minutes. Sure there might be 5 people watching who truly don’t know how a tie is dealt with, but they’ll watch and figure it out on their own. Its not rocket science. This idea that announcers have to teach a sport to its viewers.... Only happens in this country.
To be fair when I see them put up the Extra Time rules they usually do it with the new 4th substitution rule that has been implemented for the first time. Many soccer fans around here did not even know that the 4th sub could be used.. And it is not just soccer FOX does this for. Heck , in NFL American Footballl they constantly put up the OT rules as a graphic and I think it is good since rules do change
Fox Losing Money on World Cup Without U.S. Team Network cuts production budget, resets advertisers’ expectations to soften the blow from the high-price rights deal https://www.wsj.com/articles/fox-losing-money-on-world-cup-without-u-s-team-1531311913
And now they're probably going to lose a little more money, as instead of FRA-ENG it's going to be FRA-CRO. The true footy fans will still watch but not so many of the casual fans.
Yeah, doesn't have the natural, historical appeal of England-France. Don't think they'll get to 15 million (WC10) or 17 million (WC14) on English language tv. Though both should have the caveat of afternoon US ET kickoffs vs morning kickoff this Sunday. Overall though this WC could have been a ratings disaster and it held up pretty well. Showed it's very much a major event in America even without the US (and Mexico for the last two weeks).
True, it could've been worse. There were some cracking matches which probably helped. And there wasn't much if any Russian hooliganism which was feared (touch wood). I guess the Russian police-state has done what they needed it to do.
No doubt. The tournament has been an enormous success for Russia. Positive reviews from visiting fans all over the world. Not perfect, but far more positive than I would have imagined a couple years ago.
And it must be emphasized that the online/digital platform experience has been way better this year than in years past. And they are breaking records which will reap benefits.
How so? I enjoyed ESPN platform just as much, and they had actual good programming around the games unlike FOX. I ended up watching much more of the Telemundo coverage (Loved the South American slant, unlike Univision's mainly Mexican contingency).
It was better for me because it was much more accessible. I could watch on the Fox Sports Go App, The Fox Sports app, The Fox Now app.and various FOX Sports websites. Also, (as I said earlier in the thread) I liked the fact that I could click on a match and play the game from the beginning while it was in progress and not have to wait until the game was over to watch it onDemand in full. That simple option was way better than Watch ESPN 4 years ago.
Of course there will always be advancements in technology. Four years is a long time in the tech world, so I'm not blown-away with the "advancements" I experienced with the FOX platforms. At the end of the day the quality of the content is what matters most. I mean if its so bad that you can't bear to watch, the new feature of being able to watch on-going matches from the start doesn't help much. I made it about 10 minutes in to the third-place match before I had to switch over to Telemundo.
He asked me why I specifically think the digital platform experience is better and I gave my argument as to why. And yes you expect technological advancements to occur but they don't always happen. In fact just a year ago I expected it to take a step backwards and thought that we were going to have to view onDemand matches with a pay wall on Foxmatchpass or something stupid like that. FOX has to be given credit for making the World Cup accessible among many different applications and websites. And as I said I also love the fact I could watch a game in progress from start to finish without having to wait for it to be over. ESPN does not have that option. Nor do they have the many different app options or website options.
Different strokes for different folks. I enjoyed FOX's coverage and so did many other people. Yes, I know many people around here thought it was unbearable but I don't really care about those opinions much because nothing FOX would have done would have appeased everyone here.
Well, having commentators based in the stadium rather than a studio in L.A. is objectively better. Why is Lalas, DJ whats-his-name & company in Moscow but the commentators in L.A.? Ass-backwards! Within 5 minutes of switching to Telemundo, the colour-commentator was providing insight on what was happening off-the-ball. That's the kind of insight that is actually useful because we are busy following the guy on the ball as that is what the TV camera points to. The know-nothings on FOX barely understand the game and are watching on TV just like me. So providing any sort of insight to diehard fans is not on the agenda. Maybe casual followers like them. Maybe.
I watch the games not for the commentary. I watch it for the teams , the players, the dramatic moments, the special occasions and atmospheres and the competitive nature of the sport. Sure, sometimes commentators can make things better or worse depending on the circumstance but I rarely remember a moment of a commentator when it comes to the World Cup. It is what happens on the field I will always reminisce to think about and care about in the end.
Heck, I viewed some matches in Brazilian Portuguese and in French this year on Sling and on Dish. I could only understand about 40% of what the Brazilian dudes were saying and about 5% of what the French dudes were saying but it was still so much fun for me to hear their excitement and their styles. (Because what was happening on the field was the focus. And it was exciting)
I agree. But still think its important to be able to hear the atmosphere of the stadium to maximize the viewing experience. That's why I wish there was an option to mute the commentators only, but still be able to hear the refs' whistles and other stadium noise. Speaking of atmosphere, the fake drumming noise that FOX adds in the background needs to go.