I'm not talking about the whole game, just the highlights. I was glad that ESPN Sportscenter decided to show highlights of the Rapids-DC game last week. However, I think the highlights failed to capture the excitementof the game. To me the game is exciting because of its defensive intensity --- making every scoring oppurtunity more valuable --- and exciting. Showing only the goals in highlights, then misses all the additional excitement of the game. I think highlight shows would do best to also show the great saves and excellent clearances when there are otherwise great scoring oppurtunities and it can get the Sportscenter crowd to see for themselves why this game can be so exciting even when it is low scoring. Most people think that in order to attract the non-soccer fans to the sport you have to somehow, make it higher scoring; I think sports reporters in the US simply have to do a better job of selling the beauty of the defensive intensity of this sport.
I think MLS television's weakest attribute are the national announcers as a whole. If we had an english Pablo Ramírez-type in the booth doing PBP with someone like Eric Wynalda critiquing as usual, ratings would probably skyrocket. Ramirez cracks me up while instituting passion in the entire broadcast, and still has a trademark goal-call when someone scores (GOLAAAZO GOLAAAZO GOLAZO. AZZO AZZO AZZOOOOO!!!). You're entertained as you listen. We need announcers that have an NHL or even NFL-radio type style; not someone more suited for golf or baseball. In terms of the highlights part, I think that's the only part where ESPN seems to be doing an okay job. Show highlights from around MLS, European leagues, and other CONACAF all throughout halftime, plus the post-game, and they're doing that. The problem is the lack of PBP excitement, not the pre-halftime-postgame.
You said it there--except I don't want radio-style so much, because they have to be more descriptive of the action than tv people do. I saw an EPL game over the weekend, in which the commentators spoke very sparingly. Maybe every other pass they'd say who had the ball in possession, and that was pretty much it. They kept the commentary at a minimum, and only stepped it up when a scoring chance came about, as makes sense. I think American broadcasters should take the old advice that one can often accomplish more with less. I think American commentators are of the perpetual belief that soccer is inherently boring, and so the only way to get people interested in it, is to cram the whole thing with personal stories. Maybe they watch soccer like they watch other sports, like Pavlov's dog they are conditioned to sports with lots of stoppages of play, and they can't watch soccer without seeing it that way too. "Oh, the ball's in midfield, there's nothing happening here, how about we talk about so-and-so's childhood.." I used to think soccer was boring, but that's because I hadn't then yet learned to concentrate my attention uninterrupted for 45+ minutes at a time, and once I got in the habit of doing that, I finally "got it".
You are confusing the defensive intensity and "opportunities". Big saves and shots on goals are due to opportunities not defensive intensity. At the end of the day it's up to american people to decide how they appretiate the game. Don't forget that people around the world love soccer differently.
You guys crack me up with all this announcing stuff, The first time I watched a soccer game is wasn't the ANNOUNCING that brought me back to watch another game, as far as the i'm considered though if you're talking about O'Brien, I think that he's pretty damn good, he has alot of excitement in his voice on attacking plays and if you didn't understand soccer you could definitely tell that something big is about to or already did happen, Now the worst are those FSC guys (Christian and someone?) that try and pronounce every single spanish word to perfection, that is the worst, it's like John Miller doing baseball on ESPN, totaly a turn off
Speaking as an American soccer fan, WTF do you know about either soccer or Americans? Soccer fans appreciate the same things about soccer the world over. They just express their appreciation differently. An important distinction that you fail to grasp. Our (American) media don't "get" soccer yet, so they cannot have any meaningful expression of the sport. If you actually knew anything about soccer and sports media in America (ie, from personal experience, not from Internet trolling), you would know this - but you don't, do you? When the sports media in the USA gets a clue about what soccer is and how it works, then and only then can we American soccer fans (ie: not you) have a meaningful discussion about whether our media are presenting soccer correctly for an American audience, or not. Until that happens, b!tching about our situation is just about all we can do. But it's been well established on this forum that you don't have a clue about anything. Why are you still here, giving advice about topics which you have abolutely no knowledge of?
Excellent analysis, right to the point. You either "get it" - or you don't. Once you learn to concentrate on the game for 45 minutes at a time, your appreciation for the game truly begins. Until that moment of realization hits you, you simply don't have a clue. Most American sports media are still at the clueless stage. But they can learn. Anyone can learn, if they want to; if they appreciate soccer for what it is, and stop trying to turn soccer into what it is not - a point that certain clueless "krayzie" people simply don't understand.
Excellent Analysis! I just repped you for this. I was the same way. I used to think soccer was boring, and finally realized that it was because I couldn't/wouldn't truly concentrate on the game for 45+ minutes at a time. Something clicked in me sometime during the summer of 2005, I'm not sure what, but I've been a big fan ever since.