1. What is the evidence that casual viewers can be involved in the sport (or the viewership of the sport) by the announcer making a conscious effort to develop human interest threads during the match? It seems to me that the last olympics was ruined by so much attention being diverted form the athletics to the human interest stories. I can't imagine anyone choosing to watch a game, because the announcer describes a touching incident from a players childhood. Then again, I can't imagine anyone watching Survivor. 2. WRT Stone, I think there may be a regional/cultural bias. I sense that many of his supporters on this thread are young, from the left coast, or both. It may be that he is unable to reach outside of his demographic, which is not his fault, but a professional hazard.
Can you rephrase the question? There have been human interest stories that have gotten me to watch particular events in the first place. For example, I've followed the Tour de France on an occasional basis ever since high school. However, it wasn't until after Lance Armstrong's comeback after cancer treatment that I started sitting at the computer listening to internet streaming, and then going home to watch the highlights on television.
The argument was made by Stone (and defended by his supporters) that part of Stone's job was to engage the less than hard-core soccer fan. I imagine this means keeping soccer jargon to a minimum, assuming the viewer is not picking up on subtleties in the game, and highlighting points of human interest rather than soccer technicalities. My point was that for the committed fan, these attempts to engage the casual fan were a turn-off. I questioned whether the attempt to reach the casual fan even worked. I would argue that the Lance Armstrong story is unique, and not applicable to soccer broadcasting.
I like Rob Stone...but one thing bugs me... Verse. The word "versus" is a preposition. "Verse" is a noun with an unrelated origin and meaning. So, one cannot use the word "verse" in place of "versus." It really, really bugs me. Ted.
I think Stoney is OK, I always liked J.P Dellacamara and Tommy Smyth, and they might be the duo that a poster was referring to as doing most of the World Cup Round of 32 games shown in the U.S., because Edwards and Keough only did the U.S. games if I"m remember right, while J.P. and Tommy did alot of the other ones. I do think Wylanda is a great analyst though. He's not afraid to state his opinion, which whether right or wrong, is always a bold one. The announcing crew might not be the best at describing and analyzing the action, but it is TV, so we can see what's going on. However, I personally am a fan of calling the game as it is. I'm a sophomore in college, and I announce my school's games over the radio/webcast, and I really like doing radio because it is necessary to describe everything that is going on. Though again, the style depends on who your audience is. When I announce, the listeners are mostly the parents of the players and former players, and they know the game, so they just listen to a game announced straight up and enjoy it. Though I think as an announcer it is very important to get excited. It's soccer, and as a poster said, there are maybe 2 or 3 goals in a 90 minutes, so those are special, exciting moments and should be described that way. I love watching broadcasts of Mexican League games on the Spanish channels, because you can tell what is happen on the game just by hearing the tone and pace of the announcing. They speed up and get more excited as the game does. I think its the way to announce soccer, and I try to emulate that (its harder in English I determined, the language just doesn't flow as well) during my broadcasts. Would a non-soccer playing teenager just flipping through the channels be attracted to a soccer game if it was announced BBC-style? Probably not. But then again, he probably wouldn't be attracted if it was Al Michaels doing commentary. What will attract young viewers is the game, not the announcers. Sure, some amount of selling the game needs to be done, but I think that the selling needs to be done to get people to watch the broadcast, and that people won't even watch the game if they aren't sold on it already, if that makes any sense. The way to get people to watch soccer is by giving it exposure elsewhere, such as on Sportscenter. People watch sports for a couple of reasons. 1. Because they're a fan of the team. But also, they watch it because 2. They know what it takes to make awesome plays, and watching them is exciting (for example, they know that it's hard to convert an alley-oop, and also that they don't happen often, so if one does happen, its exciting). If young people grow up seeing soccer on sportscenter, they'll be able to differentiate a golazo from a goal, and thus they'll watch soccer because of the possibility that they'll see a great goal. (Among other reasons). Ultimately, I don't think that the quality of the announcers is that important towards the advancement of soccer in this country. What is is more media exposure in all facets of media.
Re: Rob Stone Fires back (R - Crew - DCU) I kinda got tired of the Robbie bashing on here...but one of Rob's habits got to me... Well...maybe it's not Rob. It just seems there are some teams that get sunshine blown up their butts by the soccer media, and others that are just also rans. For example, tonight Rob said that the Rev-Crew game last week was a lot closer than the scoreline (3-0) would indicate. Um...maybe Rob didn't see the game. I've talked to Crew fans who were embarassed by their performance, and only Jon Busch prevented a more lopsided scoreline. Tonight, the Crew barely squeaked by a 1-0 victory in a rather sorry match for both teams. Rob calls it a "big win." Rob? What the heck is up with that? At least he didn't say "verse" again. Ted.
frankly stone and wynalda suck. i watch a fox sports broadcast and finally all I get is play by play. it's beautiful. stone and wynalda compare every sport to soccer.. "uhh.. now kids a goal is like a touchdown in football." "he kicked that like a field goal." "the kc wizards finacial position and fan backing is similar to the minnesota twins." wtf.. these are all true quotes. they talk about the same ******** over and over again. I'm sorry but nothing they do is going to attract more fans. I think play by play attracts more people cause you can just watch the game without listening to some gay ********. it's not going to bring over anyone.. and please if you are listening lord do not interview THE F-ING COACHES DURING THE GAME.. DID ANYONE ASK HIM ABOUT THAT. that is the most useless second of television. even brandy chastian sucks.. like dude everyone knows that the ball is going to move faster on new york's astro turf. i'm still waiting for a goal during side by side.. lol. frankly espn is a big joke.. stone and wynalda should do us all a favor and go in a hole.. all their doing for the game is setting it back with their goofy commentary. The repeating.. Adu and Szelta shared a room together at soccer camp is etched into my brain.. why should i give a ********. if your going to say it say it once.. if your going to bash wizards fans say it once. if your going to say that campos is a mexican for deportes and he is rooting for them say it once.. mexicans really support both teams.. just a bunch of irrevalent crap.. and i think you guys need to stop sucking some stone dick frankly espn had higher ratings for champions league.. tommy smith would attract alot of people.. it would be great.. somebody that maybe people would actually want to listen to. and stone can use the argument that they are trying to attract new people while they alienate any true fans they have had.. mls has lost as much fans as they have gained. It would just be nice to see espn sit down and actually think before they put together a ************ broadcast every week. its not like he checks this forum out.. he is too busy perming his hair.. so you guys can stop signing your name.. ryan kozlowski (not scared of rob stone and eric wynalda and their gay commentary)
The fan zone on FSW is so ridiculous it's great. That would be cool with MLS, but not on ESPN, it would have to be FSC. I like Bretos and Hopkins, I think they're the best announcing duo in the US.
Multiple Reps, Cash, Women....whatever this poster wants. I don't even want players to go to the NCAA, and I sure don't want time filled with that garbage.
I sense that you are arrogant, ignorant or both. But hey, you know us dumb unsophisticated 20-somethings in LA! We just don't get it! It's unfair for me to single you out though Jon. It seems like a few people on here have never watched any sporting event on televison, ever. Everyone complaining about learning player backgrounds, schools and favorite foods, please tell me what you would like to hear. Tell the sports broadcasters in football, soccer, lacrosse and badminton why they don't understand their jobs and have been doing it wrong since the beginnings. (sarcasm) These guys pretty much do what sports comentators do on television. They highlight interesting facts, talk about the game and take a few tangents. What do you want? I mean John Madden spends half the game making up words like "cankle" and "Turducken". ryankozlowski: I'm not sure they do THAT much comparing to other sports. And they do still say "pitch" and "nil". There WAS a goal during side-by-side but it was during a Chivas game...so, that's to be expected. You also implied that Wynalda is mean to Wizards fans...which I think he is. I love that he was so sure of himself about them moving to San Antonio.
i don't mind Rob Stone as a commentator, but i'm not at all enamored with the guy, either. i don't mind the mentioning of the hometowns etc. because i'm often curious as to such items. to be honest, my biggest gripe with him is that he is too persistent in his calling of the play-by-play. it's not a simulcast is it?!?!?! my favorite non-English soccer emcee (please don't take me for a Queensman due to my broadcasting preferences, EPL's definitely not my favorite league) is probably Cristian Bozzo, JP and Ty close on his trail, followed by Cristian Miles and Max Bretos in a tie for third with Waldo close behind that pairing. Stone's best work by far was an interview with Lebron James during the festivities that took place prior to the McDonalds All-American Game. i think all of these announcers would be better served by a position as the sole man on the mic during their respective broadcasts, as it is only the times when both commentators focus on a subplot that i feel sometimes they have the potential to get bogged down. to be truthful, i think it's great that our matchcalling talent is developing along with the quality of our league.
I remember when Max Bretos was on Best Damn Sports Show Period right before the 2002 World Cup. Michael Irvin flat came out and said soccer was boring; this was during a conversation about why the game wasn't big in the U.S. Michael wasn't the only one that thought like that, even though he was the only one that spoke. But I thought Max did a good job supporting the National team, even with what he had to deal with. And he got them to chant "USA" at the end of the segment. You're talking about somebody that got put under pressure and it was like it didn't even bother him.....for that alone Bretos gets my total and undying respect. I thought he was a cool guy before that, though.
Interesting thread resurrection. Nice peek into the history of BS eating its broadcaster young, a tradition going back far beyond 2004.
I've become an agnostic evangelist on this. When I was about nine I was on a road trip with my old man (good times) and there was a story on the news about inflation (this was in the mid to late 70s), and my Dad explained what inflation was and why it was bad. I came up with all sorts of nine-year-old boy explanations ("They should just print more money and give it to everyone", etc.), and my dad got real quiet for a little while and said, "Son, a whole lotta people who are a whole lot smarter than me and you haven't figure this one out, so it might be best to just try to do the best we can in our family and let the smart people work on solving this problem." That's where I am with the whole on-air talent thing: A whole lotta people who are a whole lot smarter than me are working on the problem. I'm going to sit on the couch and complain to my kids some, but basically I'm just going to try to enjoy the game, even if I think Balboa/Stone/DOB/Wynalda suck. Anyone care to join me.
I understand the theory being put forth by Rob Stone. I just don't buy it completely. I do think you throw in a few human interest stories here and there, but not at the expense of the broadcast quality. Perhaps a happy medium could be reached?
I know this was from a couple years ago, but I'd like to volunteer to be the one to kick Rob Stone in the throat, please. If it helps my bid any, I can wear steel toes...
Yeah, no kidding. I didn't realize it was an old thread, read through it and came to my own post and was thinking "this jackass doesn't know WTF he's talking about. Oh wait... that's me!"
I can't believe anybody is supporting Stone on this. Sure it is his "style," but honestly how many new fans have those two Mimbos won over with their pedantic, and frankly, inane commentary. It's not an issue about sounding like English commentators (which is the retort that their supporters resort to in last defense), but rather like they know what they are talking about. If the story is somehow relevant to the match, say it, but don't give me a story about Troy Dayak's alfalfa farm (yes, he mentioned it twice in a broadcast once, and went on a massive tangent...F-that). Stoner would be great on the sideline, and Eric would be fine for a half-time show, where his opinions can be quick and intense, and we don't have to see them being proven consistently wrong as we are watching the match. My favorite line by Eric is: "this is going to get good." What the hell does that mean? NOTHING. Put Hudson in there. IF Stone really cares about soccer,a nd attracting more fans nothing would be better than bringing in Ray Hudson. Not only does he know the sport, but he he is entertaining...much more entertaining than Stones myopic "storylines" and whatever bullshit he was taught where ever he supposedly worked on his craft.
It's not an issue of style (or did you not watch this WC?). That's what the TV honchos want. As much as I wish they wouldn't discriminate against guys who have spent a lifetime in the game just because they're funny-accented, and that we wouldn't force them to say irrelevant stuff, that's the world we live in.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Put Hudson in the booth and I stop watching. If I want to hear a drunken asshole who doesn't know what the ******** he's talking about, I'll mute the TV and listen to myself talk.