If You Ask Me, Vol. 3: MLS Edition
Posted on
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
It's time again for another installment of "If You Ask Me," my semi-regular column in which I expound on a subject no one asked me about, but they really really should have. In today's edition, I talk about Major League Soccer, the US Soccer Federation's attempt at putting soccer (what the rest of the world knows as football) on the sports entertainment map in America. I've only been following football since the 2006 World Cup, having previously taken the pigheaded American notion that real football is played with shoulder pads. Don't get me wrong, I still love American football (GO PACK!) but I have also grown to love the sport everyone else in the world plays with a feverish passion. It's only this season I've begun paying attention to the MLS, because I believe that soccer in this country should be supported at every level possible, if only to provide a credible team to the World Cup every four years. But if you ask me, the MLS needs to tweak a few things if they really want to present the best product.
I'm not naive enough to think that the MLS could ever overtake the NFL, NBA or even Major League Baseball in the hearts and minds of American sports fans. At best, they could hope to be on a level playing field with the NHL, who seems dead set on shooting themselves in the foot every few years. They could even manage to achieve the level of NASCAR or the PGA's success, which while smaller than the above mentioned sports, still makes a decent profit for all participants. The fact that youth soccer has reached such a critical mass of popularity that the term "soccer mom" is part of the cultural lexicon means that a generation of kids has been raised to be interested in the game, maybe even passionate about it, instead of derisive and dismissive like my generation. MLS needs to bide its time, continue to support the youth leagues and colleges, and most importantly, work the kinks out of the current presentation of the on-field product. That's why If You Ask Me, the MLS needs to make a few changes.
If You Ask Me #1: ESPN's 30 at 30
The first piece of a successful major sport is the television contract. Getting weekly broadcasts on ESPN, even if it is ESPN2, is a huge win for the league. But, it's of vital importance that the broadcasts be top-notch. While Thursday night's games are good, there are a few problems with the broadcasts. The first problem is ESPN's insistence on the 30 at 30 update. These are interruptions in the game every 30 minutes, giving news from around the world of sports. And therein lies the problem. Of the games I've watched this season, I've seen interruptions with baseball scores, NASCAR, NBA news, but precious little about soccer. If I wanted to know about other sports besides soccer, I wouldn't be watching soccer. If I really must know the latest news, I can always flip over one channel to ESPNNews. You might as well just have a commercial break where these things show up, because the presentation is atrocious. Using a split screen effect, the game is shrunk to about 1/3 of the screen, while the rest of the real estate is taken up with the update, which mostly consists of a talking head sportscaster blathering on about things that are not soccer. It's distracting, making the game unwatchable for those 30 seconds. Perhaps this was a mandate of the contract, but I would hope the MLS would renegotiate that mandate when the renewal talks begin.
If You Ask Me #2: Onscreen Graphics
Screen real estate is a pet peeve of mine. I've bitched about it before. And yet broadcasters still feel the need to trash up my screen with things I don't give a fuck about. ESPN's MLS broadcasts are as guilty of this as Fox. The bottom tenth of the screen is full of flashing, changing, animated scoreboards, news tickers and other distractions. If I'm going to be subjected to a 30 at 30 Update, why the fuck do I need this eyesore at the bottom of the screen? At the top of the screen is the current game's scoreboard, taking up another tenth. Yes, the score needs to be displayed, but it takes up the entire width of the screen, half of which is just color bars with nothing on them. Shrink it. Look to the English broadcasts, which are generally minimalist, with only the score, clock and maybe a small network logo. No lens flares, no whooshes, just the bare minimum. Also, the rest of the world displays the home team's name and score first, then the visitors, but ESPN follows the American way which reverses that. It's fine for other sports, but not soccer. In this case, the rest of the world knows what it's doing.
If You Ask Me #3: Camera Positions
The ESPN broadcasts suffer from one other annoying trend, that of poor camera positioning. I'm not sure if the problem lies in the stadiums being visited, or in a lack of proper experience broadcasting soccer, but most of the angles used are ill-suited to the game. Again, I compare the EPSN broadcasts to the European ones, but the Euros have it right. Instead of trying to encapsulate the entire width of the pitch in every shot, the Euro broadcasts tend to focus on the ball, zooming in on the action so that only about half the width of the pitch is shown most of the time. While a 60" HDTV screen might make ESPN's focus on the action easy to follow, regular people on regular-sized TV's like myself have to squint to follow the flow of the game. Don't be afraid to zoom in on the ball, especially in the final third and on corners. ESPN's camera angles on corners are just awful. Lest it seem I'm completely negative about ESPN's broadcasts, I will pause to say that the collegial relationships of the three broadcasters in the booth is entertaining. Unlike ESPN's NFL broadcasts, there is no one in the booth whose teeth I feel the urge to kick in. There is no Kornhole to hate.
If You Ask Me #4: Diversity of Matchups
While it is early in the season, I have to caution both ESPN and Fox Soccer Channel's teams. The scheduling of televised matches may be out of their control, but if they have any say in the decision, this is a vital task. Make damn sure that "big market" teams are not overly represented on the schedule. One of the biggest failings of the NHL's television contracts both before and after their disastrous strike was that certain teams were ALWAYS shown. Tuning into an NHL broadcast on ESPN or Versus or NBC will usually mean you have to watch Colorado, Detroit, the New York Rangers, Philadelphia Flyers or Boston Bruins. The MLS has not been quite as bad as that this season, but they must put more teams like Columbus, Kansas City or Real Salt Lake on the schedule early in the season. I've seen New England, Colorado, DC United, New York and Houston more than twice in the first month of the season, while the three teams above have only been televised once. Later in the season, when teams have been eliminated from the playoff races, the league should focus their attention on the best teams, but early on there needs to be TV dollars for all.
If You Ask Me #5: Formations
While this isn't really something to be handled at the league level, it is something which twists my nipples. There are 13 teams in the league, and at least 3 teams insist on playing that disastrous 3-5-2 formation, with 3 backs and two "defensive" midfielders, including my team, the Chicago Fire. I hate this formation. I've only seen one team play this formation for a full game and play it well, and that was Barcelona. They can pull it off because there aren't really many weak links in that entire starting 11, but even when they've played it, they've suffered for it. It's a formation which requires your defensive backs to be top-class, as well as your wingers to be great players on both sides of the ball. But the MLS, while a good league, does not yet have the caliber of defensive backs who can consistently defend in this formation. They just don't. I've seen good teams like New England and DC United get decimated by pacy wingers who just blow through and around their midfield, overwhelming their defensive backfields time and time again. It's the soccer version of the old run and shoot offense, relying on outscoring opponents rather than playing solid, fundamental football. Yes, the MLS needs an exciting offensive product, but this is not the way to do it.
With the arrival this summer of David Beckham, the MLS has a ready-made star to promote the league. They have decent television contracts providing good exposure. If you ask me, the league is poised for a good run, with just a few tweaks.
I'm not naive enough to think that the MLS could ever overtake the NFL, NBA or even Major League Baseball in the hearts and minds of American sports fans. At best, they could hope to be on a level playing field with the NHL, who seems dead set on shooting themselves in the foot every few years. They could even manage to achieve the level of NASCAR or the PGA's success, which while smaller than the above mentioned sports, still makes a decent profit for all participants. The fact that youth soccer has reached such a critical mass of popularity that the term "soccer mom" is part of the cultural lexicon means that a generation of kids has been raised to be interested in the game, maybe even passionate about it, instead of derisive and dismissive like my generation. MLS needs to bide its time, continue to support the youth leagues and colleges, and most importantly, work the kinks out of the current presentation of the on-field product. That's why If You Ask Me, the MLS needs to make a few changes.
The first piece of a successful major sport is the television contract. Getting weekly broadcasts on ESPN, even if it is ESPN2, is a huge win for the league. But, it's of vital importance that the broadcasts be top-notch. While Thursday night's games are good, there are a few problems with the broadcasts. The first problem is ESPN's insistence on the 30 at 30 update. These are interruptions in the game every 30 minutes, giving news from around the world of sports. And therein lies the problem. Of the games I've watched this season, I've seen interruptions with baseball scores, NASCAR, NBA news, but precious little about soccer. If I wanted to know about other sports besides soccer, I wouldn't be watching soccer. If I really must know the latest news, I can always flip over one channel to ESPNNews. You might as well just have a commercial break where these things show up, because the presentation is atrocious. Using a split screen effect, the game is shrunk to about 1/3 of the screen, while the rest of the real estate is taken up with the update, which mostly consists of a talking head sportscaster blathering on about things that are not soccer. It's distracting, making the game unwatchable for those 30 seconds. Perhaps this was a mandate of the contract, but I would hope the MLS would renegotiate that mandate when the renewal talks begin.
If You Ask Me #2: Onscreen Graphics
Screen real estate is a pet peeve of mine. I've bitched about it before. And yet broadcasters still feel the need to trash up my screen with things I don't give a fuck about. ESPN's MLS broadcasts are as guilty of this as Fox. The bottom tenth of the screen is full of flashing, changing, animated scoreboards, news tickers and other distractions. If I'm going to be subjected to a 30 at 30 Update, why the fuck do I need this eyesore at the bottom of the screen? At the top of the screen is the current game's scoreboard, taking up another tenth. Yes, the score needs to be displayed, but it takes up the entire width of the screen, half of which is just color bars with nothing on them. Shrink it. Look to the English broadcasts, which are generally minimalist, with only the score, clock and maybe a small network logo. No lens flares, no whooshes, just the bare minimum. Also, the rest of the world displays the home team's name and score first, then the visitors, but ESPN follows the American way which reverses that. It's fine for other sports, but not soccer. In this case, the rest of the world knows what it's doing.
The ESPN broadcasts suffer from one other annoying trend, that of poor camera positioning. I'm not sure if the problem lies in the stadiums being visited, or in a lack of proper experience broadcasting soccer, but most of the angles used are ill-suited to the game. Again, I compare the EPSN broadcasts to the European ones, but the Euros have it right. Instead of trying to encapsulate the entire width of the pitch in every shot, the Euro broadcasts tend to focus on the ball, zooming in on the action so that only about half the width of the pitch is shown most of the time. While a 60" HDTV screen might make ESPN's focus on the action easy to follow, regular people on regular-sized TV's like myself have to squint to follow the flow of the game. Don't be afraid to zoom in on the ball, especially in the final third and on corners. ESPN's camera angles on corners are just awful. Lest it seem I'm completely negative about ESPN's broadcasts, I will pause to say that the collegial relationships of the three broadcasters in the booth is entertaining. Unlike ESPN's NFL broadcasts, there is no one in the booth whose teeth I feel the urge to kick in. There is no Kornhole to hate.
If You Ask Me #4: Diversity of Matchups
While it is early in the season, I have to caution both ESPN and Fox Soccer Channel's teams. The scheduling of televised matches may be out of their control, but if they have any say in the decision, this is a vital task. Make damn sure that "big market" teams are not overly represented on the schedule. One of the biggest failings of the NHL's television contracts both before and after their disastrous strike was that certain teams were ALWAYS shown. Tuning into an NHL broadcast on ESPN or Versus or NBC will usually mean you have to watch Colorado, Detroit, the New York Rangers, Philadelphia Flyers or Boston Bruins. The MLS has not been quite as bad as that this season, but they must put more teams like Columbus, Kansas City or Real Salt Lake on the schedule early in the season. I've seen New England, Colorado, DC United, New York and Houston more than twice in the first month of the season, while the three teams above have only been televised once. Later in the season, when teams have been eliminated from the playoff races, the league should focus their attention on the best teams, but early on there needs to be TV dollars for all.
If You Ask Me #5: Formations
While this isn't really something to be handled at the league level, it is something which twists my nipples. There are 13 teams in the league, and at least 3 teams insist on playing that disastrous 3-5-2 formation, with 3 backs and two "defensive" midfielders, including my team, the Chicago Fire. I hate this formation. I've only seen one team play this formation for a full game and play it well, and that was Barcelona. They can pull it off because there aren't really many weak links in that entire starting 11, but even when they've played it, they've suffered for it. It's a formation which requires your defensive backs to be top-class, as well as your wingers to be great players on both sides of the ball. But the MLS, while a good league, does not yet have the caliber of defensive backs who can consistently defend in this formation. They just don't. I've seen good teams like New England and DC United get decimated by pacy wingers who just blow through and around their midfield, overwhelming their defensive backfields time and time again. It's the soccer version of the old run and shoot offense, relying on outscoring opponents rather than playing solid, fundamental football. Yes, the MLS needs an exciting offensive product, but this is not the way to do it.
With the arrival this summer of David Beckham, the MLS has a ready-made star to promote the league. They have decent television contracts providing good exposure. If you ask me, the league is poised for a good run, with just a few tweaks.
Labels: If You Ask Me, MLS, Soccer, Sports
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 9:47 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
| 
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home