I don't think it's the telling of a human interest story as much as it is that we don't need to hear it during an obvious build-up in the attacking third or while an attacker is beating the defender in the box for a shot on goal.
the examples of key plays going on while the pbp is talking about one of their opinions about something completely irrelevent or irreverent are endless. Fine, put a story in there, yes. But sounding exited about a brilliant pass, trap, feed, cross, bangou, shot, etc. is much more important to the over all "emotion" of the on-field play. I argue that the drippy side-stories make the uneducated audience less atuned to a game that they want to figure out, because,"it's fun to play, but boring to watch." The non fan looks at MLS like a oatmeal and guys like Rob Stone put on cream of wheat?!! Come on! I will never be on the ESPN bandwagon until I get a little sugar.
Sorry. That wasn't directed at you specifically. Just generally at their rambling at the expense of the game.
You're right. It even happens in other leagues, however, I have to agree that the US broadcasts tend to suck royally. It's not totally the announcers fault, it's the dismal attendances and the lack of attention from all the little brats who got free tickets. Still, I have to wonder why I like most British announcers a hundred times more than US ones. Is it because the play they're commenting on so much more exciting and the passes are actually connecting on a consistent basis? Is it because they have grown up with the sport and have a deeper understanding of it from more than a hundred years of history? I don't know. But, I thought the British commentator for the Canadian broadcast was so much better than almost all of the US teams. And, that was MLS. So, my contention is that it IS about how they announce. Or, maybe it's the accent.
Then announcer for the U-20 matches was exemplary. He is an excellent model--provided context, analysis, and balanced commentary. Nice work, that I would like to hear replicated. (and Rob Stone is a tit, by the way)
I like Rob Stone, but his broadcasts go over the top too often for my tastes. If he cut his chatter by about 15-20%, he'd be a legendary soccer broadcaster for the ages. His energy is fun to hear, and his knowledge of the game is awesome. But I prefer a more minimal approach to broadcasting, and as much as I like Stoner, he still talks over the action. I'm watching the game to see the game, not to hear the stories. Again, if he cut his chatter 20%, he'd be a legend. Rob Stone (and every other broadcaster) may believe his stories bring in new fans, but at what cost? I've heard this argument before from over-talkative broadcasters, but I believe fans are born out of sweet backheels, amazing goals and a fine cross...not off-the-field soccer stories. This storytelling nonsense is an excuse to talk and talk and talk. Rob Stone, as great as he is, doesn't understand the perspective of quiet, non-talkative, peaceful soccer fans who just want to watch the game without all that chatter. I agree with an earlier poster who commended the Arena/OBrien/Wynalda broacasts. Even with 3 voices, it's less chatty and more informative than Rob Stone and his color guy. Wynalda can be fun, but he's still a dorky ex-player who says outrageous stuff because he's not thinking clearly...we need real announcers, not ex-players. I must say, however, that I love the addition of Tommy Smyth to the Thursday night crew...finally!
Every broadcast of a soccer game has an announcer. Of course you don't NEED one--I've watched plenty of games with the sound off so I could listen to music, and I've watched plenty of games broadcast in a language other than English. What's your point?
well i was just trying to lighten up the mood in here with a "bad" joke..but damn you guys are on edge
I've listened to Tommy Smyth's commentary enough times on Champions League broadcasts to find his commentary far too harsh and negative when players make mistakes to be constructive or be considered good commentary IMO. My ideal is a commentator who describes the play in neutral way with minimalist terms and ony interjects banter when the play is stopped - rarely if ever talking over the live action. Unfortunately for North American announcers - who have expereince with other sports (Baseball and American Football come to mind) that have large breaks between the action that need to be filled with stories and banter - their habits are transferred to soccer from these sports with disastrous results.
Deffensive much? He could have toned it down a bit. I agree with Alex. ....It's just not soccer apropriate becuase of the style of play. I will bitch untill they do it right by respecting the players on the pitch and not cutting away to talk about Beckham or do a ************ interview..This is disrespectful to the soccer fan and player.
Me too.. fine, stone, good on you for standing up for yourself, getting defensive, blowing off steam, whatever, all that, yadayada. Does this make him right, and more importantly does this make him a better broadcaster. IMO, he's emberassing. He just doesnt shut up and let the picture on the screen tell its own story, half the time what he's saying is actually distracting from the game. Some people like that, fine. I don't.
Excellent post. Stone's puffing his chest out doesn't make him a better broadcaster, it just further shows what a twerp he is that he cannot accept some constructive criticism with the simple message that "less is more" for the knowledgable American soccer fan. In my opinion, Stone's following the ESPN company line -- incessant babbling about nothing very important, and when something happens that warrants commentary then you hype the hell out of it. It's an insult to the viewer. He and Dave O'Brien can be grouped into the same futile category that gave us . . . wait for it . . . Jack Edwards.
One announcer I really like is Derek Rae from ESPN's Champion's League coverage. I don't know if it's taboo to have a foreigner doing commentary, but I wish ESPN would give him a go on MLS broadcasts.