Showing posts with label announcers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label announcers. Show all posts
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Johnnie Mitchell
Seriously, if it were just mangling the English language, that'd be one thing, but not to know the name of former Eagles and new Broncos safety BRIAN Dawkins, and not to be able to remember it from the announcer JUST SAYING IT, well, that's an issue
Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Go Colts Go!
Catching up on the Sunday night game, my early early thoughts are:
The 5 coverage is so superior to the Sky coverage it isn't even funny. I found myself actually watching the analysis, which never ever happens when Sky is on - it's a mute or when Sky+'d a fast forward.
Pat McAfee doesn't just erase computer viruses, he punts like a siege cannon.
Prior the the game my major concern was the off tackle draw by Johnson - most teams do not have the speed at feature back to really gash the Colts, although the draw play remains the most effective way of attacking the upfield speed rush. The Titans on the other hand really worry me.
The 5 coverage is so superior to the Sky coverage it isn't even funny. I found myself actually watching the analysis, which never ever happens when Sky is on - it's a mute or when Sky+'d a fast forward.
Pat McAfee doesn't just erase computer viruses, he punts like a siege cannon.
Prior the the game my major concern was the off tackle draw by Johnson - most teams do not have the speed at feature back to really gash the Colts, although the draw play remains the most effective way of attacking the upfield speed rush. The Titans on the other hand really worry me.
Sunday, 13 September 2009
Dear Sky Sports
Please, for the sake of my sanity, change the announcing/presenting team for the NFL coverage immediately.
Every season we suffer, without respite, the idiocy and inanity of the sock puppet that is Nick Halling, the uninformed "analysis" and apparently drug induced diction of Kevin Cadle, and the even worse guest presenters. I appreciate that the NFL is a minority sport in your eyes, but in the name of all that is holy, is it too much to ask that you target competency at a bare minimum.
"The score ... in our ball game... is 10 nothing". We know Kevin, we can read. In fact, by the time you finish reading the score to us, we could probably have perused War and Peace as well. We only listen to see if you'll remember which of the 32 teams are actually playing in the telecast. "The score... in our ball game... is 10 ... nothing". We know this still Kevin, because we have what is referred to as an attention span.
Stop laughing that fake laugh Halling. I'm coming to you in a second.
First though, a word on the organisation of the announcing/presenting panel. In my humble opinion the show requires:
1 - a presenter.
2 - an analyst
3 - a colour guy
These roles should be distinct. This means that, although Sky have tried to adhere to this formula, you should try harder. My main complaints are as follows:
1 - the presenter should offer no analysis. Leading questions are acceptable, but the function of the presenter is to stitch the telecast together, to make the often patchy flow of the American programming and game seem more seamless. We accept that the presenter may not be an expert, in fact, we expect it, we've watched the rugby and soccer coverage on Sky. However, once this acceptance is given, we should not be subjected to uninformed opinion and waffling. We're managing that on our own at home.
2 - the analyst position for a British audience is a difficult role. The educated/experienced audience wants the analyst to use the extra time afforded him by the lesser commercial playing time in the UK television market to highlight hidden actions or plays and add to our appreciation of the tactics or physicality of the game. We also understand that the analyst needs to be explaining concisely more basic concepts to bring new audience members into the sport. Nick Halling is simply incapable of doing either. A case in point was in the Redskins vs Giants game this evening. Instead of showing why a Redskins drive starting on their 2 had faltered, leaving the Redskins in a giant tactical hole, Halling showed a scuffle which had already been rerun by the Fox announcers and was guaranteed to be shown again. This would have been an ideal opportunity to discuss play calling selection, blocking, the 4 downs concept, or any number of issues. Instead, I got to use my Sky+ functionality.
3 - the colour guy. Ideally this person would either be triggering discussion with the analyst, highlighting player matchups where victory or defeat could be reached, discussing their experience. Instead, last season we had Shaun Gayle, who seemed amiable but confused. Having learnt from your mistake, you have selected former journeyman Johnnie Mitchell to fill the seat, a man whose grasp of the English language could be fairly described as cursory. I understand that Jeff Reinebold has returned to the coaching ranks, but there must be other former NFL Europe coaches, or indeed coaches working in the British ranks who are lucid, presentable and informed.
Finally, we love fantasy football. It helps you to track the accomplishments of players across the league (in fact, that's what it was designed for!). We don't need to hear about it every thirty seconds.
Five used to present a significantly better coverage of the NFL much later in the night with only two presenters. Colin Murray may be available to present, Mike Carlson may have space in his schedule to replace Halling, and a sock puppet voiced by an American could ably replace Mr Mitchell.
So, to repeat my plea - get rid of the presenters. They're killing me.
Every season we suffer, without respite, the idiocy and inanity of the sock puppet that is Nick Halling, the uninformed "analysis" and apparently drug induced diction of Kevin Cadle, and the even worse guest presenters. I appreciate that the NFL is a minority sport in your eyes, but in the name of all that is holy, is it too much to ask that you target competency at a bare minimum.
"The score ... in our ball game... is 10 nothing". We know Kevin, we can read. In fact, by the time you finish reading the score to us, we could probably have perused War and Peace as well. We only listen to see if you'll remember which of the 32 teams are actually playing in the telecast. "The score... in our ball game... is 10 ... nothing". We know this still Kevin, because we have what is referred to as an attention span.
Stop laughing that fake laugh Halling. I'm coming to you in a second.
First though, a word on the organisation of the announcing/presenting panel. In my humble opinion the show requires:
1 - a presenter.
2 - an analyst
3 - a colour guy
These roles should be distinct. This means that, although Sky have tried to adhere to this formula, you should try harder. My main complaints are as follows:
1 - the presenter should offer no analysis. Leading questions are acceptable, but the function of the presenter is to stitch the telecast together, to make the often patchy flow of the American programming and game seem more seamless. We accept that the presenter may not be an expert, in fact, we expect it, we've watched the rugby and soccer coverage on Sky. However, once this acceptance is given, we should not be subjected to uninformed opinion and waffling. We're managing that on our own at home.
2 - the analyst position for a British audience is a difficult role. The educated/experienced audience wants the analyst to use the extra time afforded him by the lesser commercial playing time in the UK television market to highlight hidden actions or plays and add to our appreciation of the tactics or physicality of the game. We also understand that the analyst needs to be explaining concisely more basic concepts to bring new audience members into the sport. Nick Halling is simply incapable of doing either. A case in point was in the Redskins vs Giants game this evening. Instead of showing why a Redskins drive starting on their 2 had faltered, leaving the Redskins in a giant tactical hole, Halling showed a scuffle which had already been rerun by the Fox announcers and was guaranteed to be shown again. This would have been an ideal opportunity to discuss play calling selection, blocking, the 4 downs concept, or any number of issues. Instead, I got to use my Sky+ functionality.
3 - the colour guy. Ideally this person would either be triggering discussion with the analyst, highlighting player matchups where victory or defeat could be reached, discussing their experience. Instead, last season we had Shaun Gayle, who seemed amiable but confused. Having learnt from your mistake, you have selected former journeyman Johnnie Mitchell to fill the seat, a man whose grasp of the English language could be fairly described as cursory. I understand that Jeff Reinebold has returned to the coaching ranks, but there must be other former NFL Europe coaches, or indeed coaches working in the British ranks who are lucid, presentable and informed.
Finally, we love fantasy football. It helps you to track the accomplishments of players across the league (in fact, that's what it was designed for!). We don't need to hear about it every thirty seconds.
Five used to present a significantly better coverage of the NFL much later in the night with only two presenters. Colin Murray may be available to present, Mike Carlson may have space in his schedule to replace Halling, and a sock puppet voiced by an American could ably replace Mr Mitchell.
So, to repeat my plea - get rid of the presenters. They're killing me.
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
Sports coverage
I get kind of annoyed when camera men and directors clown up sporting events. However, two things this week have highlighted that it can be a bit tricky as a job.
1 - Andy "I like pies" Goode sliced a kick in a Top 14 game. The ball came off the studs of his boot, it was that far round the side of his foot. He was in his 22, so the camera guy panned to the halfway line. No ball. Then he shook about a bit, before realising that the fat guy had smashed it into the opposing 22 even with the slice.
2 - Oklahoma State v Georgia, the back takes an inside dive/off tackle hand off, gets hit by a linebacker at about the line of scrimmage, then slides off. The camera guy is so unimpressed by the tackle he assumes the backer was shedding the guy and starts to desperately scoop back to the QB, figuring it was just a really lush play action. Then the back puts the ball in the other hand and scoots off up field.
However, this doesn't excuse the gratuitous crowd shots during the on field action which I am cursed with. And if you have to shoot the crowd, at least pick filthy hotties with their chests out. Not fat guys with funny hats. Uninterested.
1 - Andy "I like pies" Goode sliced a kick in a Top 14 game. The ball came off the studs of his boot, it was that far round the side of his foot. He was in his 22, so the camera guy panned to the halfway line. No ball. Then he shook about a bit, before realising that the fat guy had smashed it into the opposing 22 even with the slice.
2 - Oklahoma State v Georgia, the back takes an inside dive/off tackle hand off, gets hit by a linebacker at about the line of scrimmage, then slides off. The camera guy is so unimpressed by the tackle he assumes the backer was shedding the guy and starts to desperately scoop back to the QB, figuring it was just a really lush play action. Then the back puts the ball in the other hand and scoots off up field.
However, this doesn't excuse the gratuitous crowd shots during the on field action which I am cursed with. And if you have to shoot the crowd, at least pick filthy hotties with their chests out. Not fat guys with funny hats. Uninterested.
Friday, 4 September 2009
Football season!
I'm lucky enough to have ESPN America. The first game I'm watching this year is Oregon and Boise State on the smurf turf, and I'm super excited.
I guess this is a kind of live blog thing. But I have no readers.
I could be more excited during the game, to be fair. Boise have decided fumbling is an effective offensive play, and Oregon aren't exactly getting a decent return out of their enormous combination of QB and RB (Masoli is a giant of a man, and Blount is a freak beast senior, who will go high in the draft this year if he can put together some decent productivity and stay healthy). First quarter and some punts isn't what I was after.
In fact, so far the most impressive play has been a fourth down conversion from Boise when they went super heavy on the line and ploughed up for the yard they needed and then some. I say this was the best play because it was designed for success, coming off a quick count, rather than the odd completion which seems to be a bit flukey.
I'm quite liking the lefty quarterback for Boise. It's odd watching pass plays develop back to front. You'd think with that kind of advantage Leinart would be handy for the Buzzsaw, but there you go.
The coverage of this game is absolute garbage - let's have some crows shots and then "how about this formation... maybe the Ducks didn't have this on their reel of trick plays". No shit, jerk off, probably because you've elected not to show the actual formation. "It's as funky a formation as you are going to see"- then show it you fuckwits.
Five minutes later we finally get it.
The Ducks are in some serious trouble here. A safety gets scored when the defense just flat out inhales the spread read. I actually agree with the commentator a little here - the East/West running style of the spread option read offense does make you vulnerable in the tight areas.
Second half - a change of starting/featured backs seems to have made Boise even more menacing. Avery didn't seem to be hitting the hole as quickly as the new back (Harper) in the first half, and he promptly breaks off a long run, showing good patience to wait for the blocks on the right hand side to come back downhill.
Oregon come back out on offense, show a lovely zone read play, but only get a yard or two. The edge defender wasn't interested in the (to me very convincing) play fake and gobbles up the QB. The subsequent play goes for a loss. I'm wondering where the inside zone play is. A little underneath screen sees Blount take a horrific shot in the back. Boise are happy to cough up a yard for that kind of impact.
For all the talk about the TZR/Taser position, this is not a new innovation Oregon. You're using itty bitty backs as waterbug receivers to run jet sweeps and bubble screens. For more details of how this works, see Percy Harvin last year, and basically every other team who use the zone read.
Oregon get on the board with the inside zone. I'd take credit and kudos, except two plays back Blount bashed into the line for a yard on the other half of the inside zone, so I shan't.
Now they're showing Masoli bulldozing a safety from last year. I'm more impressed that the O Lineman is in the mix with the three other DBs, chasing like a man half his size.
Boise get a gorgeous downfield pass off. The left tackle cut down the pass rush like he was chopping with an axe and the pass came out over the middle like an absolute rocket.
Boise put the game to bed after having a decent try at giving it away with fumbles - Oregon could have won this with a bit of composure, but their O just didn't get started.
And the game ends in scandal. Excellent news. That's just what we want
Bored of writing now
I guess this is a kind of live blog thing. But I have no readers.
I could be more excited during the game, to be fair. Boise have decided fumbling is an effective offensive play, and Oregon aren't exactly getting a decent return out of their enormous combination of QB and RB (Masoli is a giant of a man, and Blount is a freak beast senior, who will go high in the draft this year if he can put together some decent productivity and stay healthy). First quarter and some punts isn't what I was after.
In fact, so far the most impressive play has been a fourth down conversion from Boise when they went super heavy on the line and ploughed up for the yard they needed and then some. I say this was the best play because it was designed for success, coming off a quick count, rather than the odd completion which seems to be a bit flukey.
I'm quite liking the lefty quarterback for Boise. It's odd watching pass plays develop back to front. You'd think with that kind of advantage Leinart would be handy for the Buzzsaw, but there you go.
The coverage of this game is absolute garbage - let's have some crows shots and then "how about this formation... maybe the Ducks didn't have this on their reel of trick plays". No shit, jerk off, probably because you've elected not to show the actual formation. "It's as funky a formation as you are going to see"- then show it you fuckwits.
Five minutes later we finally get it.
The Ducks are in some serious trouble here. A safety gets scored when the defense just flat out inhales the spread read. I actually agree with the commentator a little here - the East/West running style of the spread option read offense does make you vulnerable in the tight areas.
Second half - a change of starting/featured backs seems to have made Boise even more menacing. Avery didn't seem to be hitting the hole as quickly as the new back (Harper) in the first half, and he promptly breaks off a long run, showing good patience to wait for the blocks on the right hand side to come back downhill.
Oregon come back out on offense, show a lovely zone read play, but only get a yard or two. The edge defender wasn't interested in the (to me very convincing) play fake and gobbles up the QB. The subsequent play goes for a loss. I'm wondering where the inside zone play is. A little underneath screen sees Blount take a horrific shot in the back. Boise are happy to cough up a yard for that kind of impact.
For all the talk about the TZR/Taser position, this is not a new innovation Oregon. You're using itty bitty backs as waterbug receivers to run jet sweeps and bubble screens. For more details of how this works, see Percy Harvin last year, and basically every other team who use the zone read.
Oregon get on the board with the inside zone. I'd take credit and kudos, except two plays back Blount bashed into the line for a yard on the other half of the inside zone, so I shan't.
Now they're showing Masoli bulldozing a safety from last year. I'm more impressed that the O Lineman is in the mix with the three other DBs, chasing like a man half his size.
Boise get a gorgeous downfield pass off. The left tackle cut down the pass rush like he was chopping with an axe and the pass came out over the middle like an absolute rocket.
Boise put the game to bed after having a decent try at giving it away with fumbles - Oregon could have won this with a bit of composure, but their O just didn't get started.
And the game ends in scandal. Excellent news. That's just what we want
Bored of writing now
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)