QuestionWhat do you think of American soccer telecasts? What can be done to improve them?
Ridge Mahoney: Overall, I’d say they’re pretty poor.
Duncan Irving: And that’s being charitable.
Poul Swain: They certainly don’t compare with European and South American telecasts.
DI: Poor placement of cameras, crews that lack familiarity with the sport, and the incessant, inane babblings of the announcing crews all contribute to a pretty dismal end product.
Dean Caparaz: More soccer-knowledgeable broadcasters are needed, along with more knowledgeable cameramen, producers and directors.
PS: Yes. And American cameramen, as well as the truck people, also need to work on staying with the action. (Perhaps they should hire someone who has played the game.)
DC: Many of the broadcasts I’ve seen show replays over game action.
PS: Don’t show a replay when a team is pushing into the opponent’s defensive third.
RM: All of the local broadcasts are produced by API Soccer, and so at least have a consistent look, but the quality of announcing and directing varies greatly.
Pete Bailey: What about ESPN?
RM: ESPN needs to revamp its whole operation, and its halftime segments are especially weak. This isn’t surprising since the production company it uses, Winner Communications, has no live sports packages except the horse-racing shows it produces for ESPN. But Winner was the lowest bidder, and often it seems that’s all ESPN cares about when it comes to soccer.
DI: I think one of the chief problems facing soccer in this country is its presentation. Football and baseball, for instance, work within a format that allows commentary teams to extemporize (often over replays) between downs or innings, whereas action on a soccer field is pretty much constant. I think telecasts in the U.S. are trying and failing with traditional methods — I remember the Germany-Argentina clash in `93 in Miami, where Ty Keough tried to use the telestrator and it ended up looking like a road accident on screen.
Mike Woitalla: American TV commentators forget that we can see the game. They act like they’re doing radio and describe every action in detail. And then the color commentator describes it once more.
PS: Although I understand “solo poquito” Spanish, the Univision commentators always make a point of trying to let you know who has the ball. And during the European Championship I was privileged to watch Portuguese telecasts, and although I understand almost no Portuguese I was delighted in how conscientious they were in telling you who had the ball.
MW: Soccer speaks for itself. Don’t say, “Balboa passes the ball with his left foot down the right flank.” Just say, “Balboa.” We can see the rest.
PS: Also, the time has come to stop trying to teach soccer during broadcasts. It insults the viewers.
DI: U.S. telecasters have made far too patronizing attempts to describe the game for the novice fan. TV producers should not underestimate the sophistication level of their audience.
PS: Not only that, the majority of American announcers tend to go off on tangents, talking about trivial things and totally digressing from the action on the field. The reason for this may be because other American sports have so much dead time that announcers have to fill the emptiness with verbiage, but this isn’t the case with soccer.
DI: And often the timing is off, too. Do we really need to hear, say, a lengthy anecdote about a player’s hometown, blood group, hobbies, etc. during a goalmouth incident? Tell us about the game. And oh, less is more, chaps — you’re not being paid by the syllable. Or are you?
PS: In my opinion, a play-by-play announcer should tell you who has the ball, following the action on the field.
MW: And the color guy should only speak when the ball is out of bounds. When the game is underway, spare me the history of the center forward’s brother-in-law’s cousin.
PS: There are plenty of short stoppages for fouls, injuries, corners, throw-ins, etc. These should provide enough time to let us know, for instance, that Tony Meola’s dad is a barber. (No offense intended Mr. Meola, but who cares anyway?)
PB: I get annoyed when they tell the same anecdote several times in one game, and another thing, do we really need to know what number Carlos Valderrama is wearing every time his name is mentioned?
DI: Another problem is context. U.S. soccer has had no pro league to draw upon, but repeatedly referring to goals players scored three or more years ago in a national team jersey has worn very thin indeed. I had hoped the advent of MLS would have changed that but this hasn’t been the case. Oh, and one more thing: sideline guys are irrelevant — get rid of `em.
PB: Agreed. How about your thoughts on who the best and worst announcers.
PS: I personally thought Clive Charles did a good job of color commentary for ESPN during the World Cup.
DI: I liked Charles’ work as well, but he’s probably too busy with his day jobs to reenter the cool medium.
RM: I’d say Charles, Seamus Malin (ABC and ESPN), Dave Johnson (D.C. United and Prime), Derek Rae (New England and Los Angeles), Anson Dorrance (ESPN and Prime), and Andres Cantor (Univision).
DI: Dorrance can be quite astute if he’s on one of his good days. The tendency to use “we” for the U.S. bothers some, but if you listened to some of the English commentators at Euro `96, he sounds positively neutral in comparison.
PS: In terms of play-by-play, Randy Hahn (Kansas City), perhaps because of his hockey background, does pretty well.
RM: Most of the commentators on the MLS local broadcasts are atrocious; but Gordon Bradley (HTS-Washington), Hahn, and a few others do pretty well.
PS: I also commend Dave Johnson for trying to put a little emotion into his commentating.
PB: It’s in the net! Seriously, though, I enjoy Home Team Sports’ broadcasts the most of any MLS team — Johnson and Gordon Bradley have a pretty good rapport. Cantor and Norberto Longo, on Univision, are the best, though — they rarely let their comments interfere with the action. In addition, Univision broadcasts give you a real sense of the atmosphere at the game — I particularly remember the L.A.-Metros game when there were 50,000 people at Giants Stadium, and the “fiesta” came through even on my TV.
DI: I think Andres Cantor is in danger of lapsing into self-parody —
after seeing his soft-drink ad-spot, he already has — and Dave Johnson’s Cantorisms sound contrived.
PB: How about the ESPN team?
DI: The word “leaden” springs most readily to mind.
PB: Well, there’s certainly a great deal of room for improvement, but I give them decent marks for enthusiasm and love of the sport.
RM: Ty Keough and Phil Schoen fall somewhere in the middle, closer to the bottom than the top, but they’re better than Bill McDermott (also ESPN), Desmond Armstrong (ABC), Tommy Smyth (ESPN and MetroStars), Joe Tolleson (MetroStars), and Hal Ramey (San Jose).
DC: The worst broadcaster I’ve witnessed — and I haven’t seen them all — has got to be Tommy Smyth.
DI: He’s another one who has me reaching for the mute button with his dreadful hodge-podge of cliches, anachronisms and colloquialisms.
PB: Okay, we’ve done plenty of announcer-bashing, but, seriously, what are some things they can do to improve?
DI: How can they all improve? If it’s a crap game, say so. MLS isn’t the greatest thing since sliced bread, but don’t make out that it is, just to keep the sponsors happy.
PS: Tell it like it is.
DI: Researching games would be helpful, too. Martin Tyler and John Motson may be two of the least interesting people on earth but one advantage they do have is that they do their homework. How many times have we watched a game to be told ad nauseam about who isn’t there? How about talking about the guys who are playing and what they’re doing on the field. That, of course, requires extra effort. What I’d like to see is a commentator who’s urbane, witty, succinct, and knowledgeable.
RM: They need guidance, criticism, and direction, and lots of practical experience, which takes time. We’ll just have to be patient and see if they can improve.