ESPN- Butchers Of The WC

[Jedi Mind Trick]

here are my thoughts:

1. i'm happy that espn/abc are showing the matches because a) i get to see it on tv and b) i prefer espn's coverage to fox soccer

2. after just coming back from england and watching the germany/costa rica and england/paraguay matches there on bbc, i really miss bbc's coverage. it just feels genuine, and i really do wish espn's coverage would include the squads lining up for the anthems and the captains shaking hands. which leads me to...

3. espn's commentators tend to irk me for some reason, but like i said in #1, i'm thankful to be able to watch every match. and they're better than that max guy on fsc.

but after watching bbc's coverage, there is a vast difference in the knowledge, commentary, and insight. heck, even the british accents make it more fun to watch and listen to.

4. overall though, i'm thankful that espn and abc are covering it. and i think it's great that a major network like espn is showcasing the tournament to the masses here in the us. you may think it's corny or not as great, but there has been a lot of support and coverage, and thumbs up for that.

do they have no business covering the tournament? well, that's up to you. personally, i'm glad they are. it's not the best, but it's better than nothing.

 

[$teauA]

They also showed the national anthems before the Germany vs. Costa Rica game (for both teams) and also today at the start of the Brazil vs. Croatia game (also for both nations).

 

[SlayerDeuS]

Agree with the coverage being fantastic so far. My only complaint was showing that stupid U2 video at the beginning instead of the national anthems to really get you hyped up, but it looks like they have learned (perhaps from mad complaints) and are now showing the national anthems. Also if you have seen ESPN2 they always show the ticker, if you're distracted by the words and not concentrating on the game then that's your problem.

 

[FFC2004]

The atmosphere is also lost a lot in the ESPN coverage.

But it's better than last world cup.

 

[hs232]

Isn't the first tiebreaker (after total points) goal differential for all group matches? The commentators keep saying its head to head, but from all the sites I looked it, it says goal diff.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

According to my EA Sports World Cup 2006 game, it's head to head.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

To be honest, commentators are rarely interesting in any sport. Football, baseball, basketball, Olympics etc...Most of the time I wish they would just shut the hell up. I really doubt it's better anywhere else in the world. Sure there is the rare announcer that you enjoy (like Harry Carey drunk in the booth) but for the most part they are all just boring windbags. I have been watching Univision and I don't miss the commentary at all.

I disagree. Since I don't have cable and have had to stream the games online the only commentary I get is in Mandarin. It sucks, I'd rather have Tommy Smyth.

 

[hs232]

According to my EA Sports World Cup 2006 game, it's head to head.

courtsey of bbc.com:

Group qualification explained

If two or more teams are level on points, positions will be determined as follows:

1. Greatest number of points obtained in all group matches.
2. Goal difference in all group matches.
3. Greatest number of goals scored in all matches.
4. If two or more teams are equal on the basis of the above three criteria, their rankings will be determined as follows: Greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned .
5. Goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned .
6. Greater number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned .
7. Drawing of lots by the organising committee for the Fifa World Cup.

courtesy of foxsoccerchannel.com:

World Cup Standings Tiebreakers

When teams are tied on points in the group standings the following tiebreakers will apply:

1. Highest goal difference
2. Most goals for
3. Result of group match between the teams
4. Drawing of lots

courtesy of wikipedia.com:

Point system

The system of play will be the league system, each team playing one match against each of the other teams in the same group, with three points for a win, one point for a draw and none for a defeat. The top two teams in each group advance.

Interestingly, in the case of a tie in total points at the end of the round, head to head result is ignored in favor of total net goals (total goals scored in all three games minus total goals against in all three games) as the first tiebreaker.

 

[Callum]

I heard it was head to head.

 

[hs232]

I heard it was head to head.

Where?

Also I don't know if anyone noticed but during the Czech-US game they showed the US's group table from 1990. On there was Australia instead of Austria. This is Australia's first World Cup in 32 years.

 

[King]

I watch Telefutura (owned by univison), Gol gol gol gol gol gol gol gol!!!

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Isn't it always Goal Difference to decide a tie breaker? Head to head is usually ignored, but I thought they changed it for this WC, so head to head is the first considered.

 

[Callum]

the commentators have mentioned it quite a few times.

 

[SlayerDeuS]

The first tie-breaker should be head-to-head, and then goal difference, etc.

 

[JJSFC]

As I have not heard the american commentators on ESPN I cannot judge with great accuracy, however on BBC, John Motsons commentating does my head in (he likes to state the obvious), so I can expect to be even more annoyed by the US commentators...

 

[Jedi Mind Trick]

As I have not heard the american commentators on ESPN I cannot judge with great accuracy, however on BBC, John Motsons commentating does my head in (he likes to state the obvious), so I can expect to be even more annoyed by the US commentators...

let me put it this way, i prefer him and bcc to espn (especially when jp is on). i'm wishing i could hear motson and watch bbc.

 

[Brondbyfan]

Here is my list of greivances with ESPN/ABC:

1. Talking down to the audience. I could understand doing this if they are planning on using this World Cup to build up an audience, then capitalize on that by showing EPL games, or La Liga games, or more Champions League games next season. But they aren't; come July 10th they're going to act like soccer doesn't exist for another four years. So why not play to the die-hard fans who don't need to be told every single time that offside is based on when the ball is played etc. etc.

2. The play-by-play men. While lots of the announcers have come in for criticism, I think the color guys have largely done a good job, and I enjoy the insights of Balboa, Wynalda, Foudy, and Lalas. Even Tommy Smyth isn't that bad as far as I'm concerned. But the guys doing the play-by-play are too used to boring American sports like baseball or American football where there is so little action and so much dead time that they have to keep talking about whatever pops into their minds: irrelevant stats, discussing other games, come on guys, sometimes you can just shut up and watch.

3. Glenn Davis/Shep Messing. These boneheads are a disgrace. Their commentary is limited to shouting "WOW!!!!" and "ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?!" They don't know any of the players, they don't understand the plays and so have nothing valuable to say. I think anyone on this board would do a better job. Somebody at ESPN must have just thought this would appeal in a "slowing down for a car accident" fashion. It's like listening to Dick Vitale on percocet.

4. The Olympics-style "human interest" stories. This has become a major problem in American sports. I have the greatest sympathy for Oswaldo Sanchez and his loss but really, let the man play. Similarly, if I have to hear one more time how the Iranian president can't come to Germany because of his record of holocaust denial I will put the TV on mute. Let's talk about Sanchez as a player, not about his father's passing. Let's talk about the Iranian team, not the fact that their president is a lunatic.

5. Failing to communicate the majesty, history, tradition, and spectacle of the World Cup. As someone said, at least now they are showing more national anthems, more teams coming out on the pitch, and more captains exchanging banners. But still, I don't think we're hearing enough about why these acts are traditional and significant. We're not hearing about past cups or seeing footage of Pele or Maradona in their prime.

This is the biggest sporting event in the world ESPN. Act like it.

 

[Pontiakos]

This weekend's game of England Equador was a classic example...

1)"Beckam is over rated" :X

2)"Beckam should be taken off" :X

3)"Beckam has had a poor showing every time he has played" :X


Beckam scores


4)"Beckam shows his class"

5)"Beckam shows why he is a great player"

6)"Beckam should come to the MLS"

..SFU :-puke:

 

[Thelonious]

apparently in the Australia Italy game they came up this classic ,
"And what a fantastic World Cup it's been - probably the best in a few years."
from football 365

 

[pezzo518]

Espn Commentators Suck

Commentary of the Brazil/Ghana game included the following:

Marcelo Balboa: “Ghana was the better team today” while Brazil was dominating the match up two to nil.

Marcelo Balboa: “It was a good play” speaking about the Ghanaian player who mistakenly shot on his own goal.

Marcelo Balboa: “You have to give a lot of respect to Ghana” after Brazil scored their third goal by beating the offside trap and then embarrassing the keeper by chipping the ball over him, running past him, and tapping the ball in the goal softly.

Marcelo Balboa: “You’ve got to give all the respect in the World to Ghana” and “I am not impressed at all with Brazil” after the game ended with Brazil winning three to nil.

Neither Balboa nor O’Brien mentioned in the second half that Ronaldo earned his place as the World Cup's greatest ever goal scorer, breaking Gerd Mueller's record 14 goals.
I felt that Balboa’s commentary was absolutely absurd. I also feel that, while not as disturbing as Marcelo Balboa, most American ESPN commentators are generally inept.