That's the case with the World Cup this year, especially because it's a comparatively slow summer month with my baseball team struggling to remain in contention before the All-Star break. Plus, my football teams remain months away from kickoff and the World Cup -- to be clear, the U.S. team -- has some good story lines. Better yet, the match times work for my personal viewing schedule.
So, add me to the bandwagon and count me among the masses who will watch Sunday (6 p.m., ESPN) when the United States plays Portugal in a match that could produce a record-setting TV audience here in the United States.
Still, my sense is the hard-core soccer folks, the long-time fans, the international (and national) athletic intellgencia, do not want me watching. Or, if casual fans like me do tune in, they'd prefer us to just sit there. Silently.
Part of me feels that's fair because every knowledgeable fan despises the loudmouth who knows nothing but never fails to offer an opinion while watching a sporting event. So, point taken.
Unfortunately, the soccer folks take it to another level. They also bring misguided arrogance and pomposity that come from wherever it is they're sitting for the conversation.
Even worse, parts of the sports media are diving that mindset because they fail to bring a balanced approach to their work. Apparently nobody's listening to or watching what's happening. Or, if they are, they're just so caught up in boosterism that they miss the point.
They're missing the type of breathless hype that would be frowned upon by broadcasters working any other major sporting event. They're missing the overuse of cliches and jargon that would get an analyst fired working any other major sport. (A drinking game in which "wounded animal" as reference to Portugal prompted a drink would empty a lot of alcohol bottles this week.)
Plus, some media critics and those who support soccer have morphed into social scientists as World Cup fever has hit, citing the "maturation" of many U.S. fans as the reason for an increased soccer affinity. C'mon, it's just as much (and probably more) demographic changes and convenient start times that account for the increased interest. It's not as if sports fans have to possess higher sensibilities to process the intricacies of soccer compared to another sport. It's the "beautiful game," not the "most complicated" game.
None of what's happening has been an ESPN problem. Even in a lame duck year, broadcasting its last World Cup before Fox Sports takes over in four years, ESPN has been strong with its coverage. All the games and all the news have been there. Good, professional work from Bob Ley and folks in the on-site studio to most on-air talent for matches.
Some individual analysts have been over the top, though, especially in regard to the U.S. team, and that's been accepted as A-OK for what would typically be critics of the sports media.
In addition, the irony of who has not been overly critical is rich. All-time U.S. soccer standout Landon Donovan, cut from the team roster in the weeks before the tournament in a move that surprised some, has been balanced and informative during his segments on ESPN. If anyone had reason to be bitter, it's him. But he has not come across that way on TV. Or, if anyone could've been perceived as too connected to the team and thereby overly supportive, it was also Donovan. But he's been down the middle and solid with his work.
Likewise (and its a certainty the soccer know-it-alls would disagree, otherwise he'd have a TV assignment), Tommy Smyth did a strong job on ESPN Radio during the first U.S. match.
If some others could just bring the same embracing form of expertise to their work, the World Cup and U.S. soccer in general would be even more successful this summer and beyond.
No comments:
Post a Comment