I know most of you enjoy live matches more than televised ones, so I won't post a poll, but I'm beginning to wonder if I still do. I went to an arena gridiron game last year at Philips Arena, and I kept getting the feeling that I was at a tractor pull or a horse race at the county fair. It just wasn't serious enough. I didn't care about who won, and that may have affected my assessment, but it made me think: Do I want to be standing next to someone whose understanding of the World Cup's significance isn't the same as mine? I was impressed with the Korean fans' level of respect for the institution, but I've been to other matches where people sat around eating popcorn and hot dogs and talking about non-issues while watching. It made me wonder if they knew where they were. For me, television's production techniques help to weed out that "entertainment" feeling and return gravity to the Game. Watching this past W/C on TV was like a church service in a way, for the religious among you. Or a war documentary. I watched most of the matches at home, to avoid the unconcerned and the victors, should Brasil have lost (I almost always watch Brasil's matches alone and sober), and somehow, I don't think I missed out on anything. Thoughts?
American football is completely different on tv versus live. I find it pretty bland on tv, because I just don't have the attention span to sit through all the replays. But at least you're getting to see something happening for much of the time on tv. Live, it's incredibly slow. Nothing at all happens for long stretches of time. Then, you get a burst of 5 seconds of play. Frequently, that brief burst of action takes place so far away that you can't really tell what's going on. Only close-up and replay to make it watchable. Clock a football game on tv sometime, and you'll see that the typical sequence goes something like this. -Play (5-6 seconds) -Close up of coach or player facial reaction (2-3 seconds) -Replay (3-4 seconds) -Players running on/off field (2-3 seconds) -Replay from another angle (3-4 seconds) -Close-up of critical moment (2-3 seconds) -Huddle (3-4 seconds) -Walk to line-up (3-4 seconds) -Repeat Sequence For the live audience, the only relief to 5 seconds of distant action is the occasional excitement of referee hand signals and, of course, the "chain-of-poles" ceremony. I'm willing to admit it's better on tv, but anyone who says american football is interesting live is kidding themselves.
I *LOVE* going to American football games. If you don't like going, stay at home. Does this really belong in the B&M forum?
I think so. Well, the media part, anyway. It's supposed to be a discussion on the merits of televised soccer v. live soccer. Move it if you want.
To me live always wins. If I'm in a city anywhere and there's a sports event on I'll go - I've even carefully scheduled trips abroad to take in as many games as possible. But I'd barely be interested in watching games on TV. It's just not the same. There's no atmosphere on TV and you have to watch the game through the small letterbox of the field that the TV director chooses - meaning you completely miss the build-up play. I've no idea what arena gridiron is, but perhaps the reason it felt more like an entertainment rather than a sport was simply that it was an entertainment rather than a sport. Nothing to do with watching it live or not. Mind you, I've also seen baseball at a packed wrigley field, and the crowd there seemed barely interested.
Re: Re: Televised matches v. live matches As a St. Louis Cardinal fan, this brightens my day a bit. Anyway, this is a fairly recent phenomenon, I think. When I was a kid, 20 years ago, you could go to Wrigley Field and be fairly assured of sitting next to a knowledgable fan. Now, you're more likely not to. Baseball itself is partly responsible for this, as they've spent so much time trying to attract non-fans to the sport with between-inning gimmicks, that the game is, in some stadiums, becoming an event secondary in the minds of most paying customers (as opposed to fans) to things like electronic horse races and singing "YMCA." Not to mention drinking over-priced and watery beer, and eating food of questionable quality. Anyway, on the Southside of Chicago, the WHite Sox are likely to have half as many people at most of their games, but most of them would be able to tell you the score of the game the next day, unlike the average Wrigley Field consumer. And it always struck me that the 15,000 or so watching the Fire were REALLY watching the Fire, and likely to be there at the end of the game, as opposed to Cubs and even Bears fans. But back to the original point: I prefer soccer (and baseball) live, but soccer on TV is better than none at all.
The reason that football is incredibly slow is because of TV. Too many commercials that last too long. And, as a player, it can be a ballbuster too. A big turnover occurs, adrenaline is flowing, momentum turns your way, crowd gets excited, etc. Then you spend the next two-three minutes standing there waiting on the commercial to be over to call the next play. Go to a high school or small college game. The refs still control the clock. There might be short breaks for a radio commercial, but not like an NFL or D1 college game on TV. And, if you think football is boring, you must either be kidding yourself, or you don't know anything about football.
Re: Re: Re: Televised matches v. live matches It wasn't so much that - it did seem pretty gimmick-free (unlike a game at Seattle that I went to the previous year, where the sustained cheering for a cartoon speedboat race on the scoreboard made me wonder if I'd come in on a game day set aside for "special schools" around the state), but the crowd seemed very sedate. I went to see Chicago Fire v New England they previous day (1-1, 18 months ago) and the odd thing there was that people, rather like at the baseball, were quite happy to be turning up 1/2 an hour into the game. Now that I did find odd. I also noticed that 'ends' are not a big tradition in the US, as I watched in splendid isolation from my personal block of seats behind the south goal.
Living in a soccer A-league town, in which the A-league team tries to schedule as many Saturday home dates as possible, there is always the conflict of going to a game or watching a weekly MLS game on ESPN. Lots of time TV won out, and we didn't need much of an excuse (it's raining, it's too hot, we don't have that much money, etc.). It think this is where the A-league has made some big mistakes. Instead of trying to compete with televised MLS games, they should try to play their games on a different. Friday nights and Sunday late afternoons would seem to be ideal. There are only so many soccer fans, and forcing them to choose between two games doesn't make much sense to me.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Televised matches v. live matches These are Cubs fans. They actually were sedated. The whole live vs. TV thing depends on the sport and my mood. I prefer soccer live, but football on TV. Baseball depends on who I go with. I have wrestled my whole life, but hate watching it on TV (I can get some matches on cable) while I will really get into a match live. I think this one really boils down to personal preference.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Televised matches v. live matches You did not just dis the hydro race did you? The Mariners Diamond Vision Hydro Race is a tradition maybe more important at M's games than singing "Take me Out to the Ballgame" during the 7th inning stretch. Trust me, during the 70's and 80's when the Mariners were really, really bad you used to long for the hydro race just to root for something that had a chance at winning that night. Of course, I actualy went to games in the Harold Reynolds/Alvin Davis/Jim Presley years, unlike most of the fans at SAFECO Field these days...