Yes, it is the first post on my blog so in the spirit of firsts, I could talk about the first World Cup on African soil. Because you clearly haven’t been reminded of the fact by ESPN, Sky Sports and the rest of the world’s broadcasters. Please don’t interpret this as cynicism, I am beaming with pride that it is in South Africa, I just grow tired of commentators filling up time by saying it over and over again.
What is a first is ESPN’s complete coverage of the tournament. Credit where credit is due; ESPN has broadcasted all the matches live and the commentary has been excellent. Granted some concessions have been made with the content. Most American sports are filled with relevant statistics which, when applied to football, lack the same effect.
My only concern right now with the team is their analysis, or lack thereof, from the studio team. Maybe I’m just being old fashioned, but during the pre-match, half time and post-match analyses, you should be analysing the game in question, and not a game that was played earlier. I am also of the belief that match highlights should include chances and not just goals.
So you can imagine my frustration, when watching the condensed, half time show laden with commericials during the Italy/New Zealand game when they cut back to show highlights of the so-called foul by Maurice Edu in the USA Slovakia game, a game which was occurred 2 days ago.
Now I fully agree with the sane football watching public that it was a terrible decision and the goal should have stood. The officiating was atrocious that day and in that game in particular. When I come to power, such officials may be round up and shot. Not dead mind you.
However, constantly hearing ESPN analyst Alexi Lalas ranting (in this clip right after the game) about how there wasn’t a foul doesn’t change the fact that the game has passed and that people should move on, especially during a half time show for another game. We all know FIFA will not do anything about the result, but the referee in question may not have escaped Blatter’s wrath just yet. And no, Andy Roddick’s opinion on the decision is not helpful either.
It is a shame that they couldn’t get a more qualified anchor either. Bob Ley, who has been a sports caster with ESPN for 30 years now, almost fooled us with his winning smile. But the man knows as much about football as Paul Scholes does about tackling. Who can blame him; it’s still a sport lagging behind American football and basketball. It is a sport that is “too simplistic” according to Marc Fisher of the Washington Post.
Fisher has a very close minded view though and I won’t be drawn into the debate as to why Americans don’t like football because there are not enough pages in this blog to have a fair argument. Yes we don’t like their brand of the sport so they don’t have to like ours. Hate it or love it it's here to stay. I have nothing more to say on the matter for now.
But if they are going to broadcast, they should do it the way the rest of the world does. The quality of the show is terrible. How can ESPN allow a novice to host a football analysis show? You cannot make that stuff up; you have to know what you’re talking about so that your conversations with the analysts don’t fall flat. It is not and should never be scripted.
The analysts are allowed to be partial, that’s why they’re there. They aren’t allowed to be useless. At this point may I just say that I’m not singling out the US analysts, but Alexi Lalas has left a lot to be desired. The gulf in quality between him and Shaun Bartlett, Ruud Gullit and Steve McManaman is all too noticeable. Don’t get me wrong; I think that there should be another American analyst present. Americans do understand football contrary to what the rest of the world thinks, as shown by their national team. However, when you are a former professional player and cannot dig deeper into the reason why the Algerian keeper made a complete hash of save other than to say, “He should save that, c’mon!” you should consider a different profession.
As an aside this isn’t to say that the problem is limited to ESPN. BBC made the slightly curious decision of choosing Togolese superstar Emmanuel Adebayor, known for his goals scoring ability and his lack of command of the English language, to analyse the some of the matches aired in the UK. Even they make mistakes.
A good friend of mine pointed out to me that it may be due to the football's low appeal in the States and the need to market it to a wider viewing public. I fully agree but I think that this may only serve to push people away. People may not understand the sport that well (or at all for that matter) , but they are not brain-dead. Yes, explain the offside rule, explain the concept of injury time. But watering down analysis to a such levels seen helps no one and is tremendously boring . The ESPN axis segment is good,but the rest of it is like watching grass grow for 15 minutes, in ground starved of hydration and fertilizer. And if the public isn't watching, AT&T, Hyundai and all those summer blockbusters wont pay ESPN a dime for ad space. Cameron Diaz and co. wont stick around if there's no money in it.
So, please ESPN, we know that it is hard to change your ways, but some sports just need to be broadcast and analysed in a certain way. We want more than comparisons of New Zealand to their rugby team, discussion about Argentina's chances and not about Maradona's sideline antics, and more about why England may, in the words of Phil McNulty , "be back home with more than one British tennis player still involved at Wimbledon" than Alexi's complete, thorough, 2 second analysis in which he stated " they're just not that good ".
The worldwide leader in sports should learn from the world that it serves. Let me put it this way: I wouldn’t want Tommy Smythe (with a y) calling the NBA playoffs, not because he’s Scottish, but because he would call technicals 'yellow cards', patiently wait for injury time and not realise you can make more than three substitutions.
