World

North America

USA

USA Were Great, ESPN Were Awful

March 2nd, 2006 | By: Daryl | 47 Comments »

The 1-0 win over Poland was a World Cup warm up for more than just the players. Up in the commentary box, ESPN’s Dave O’Brien was also limbering up for the summer, and his performance was less than impressive.

O’Brien is a seasoned baseball and college basketball commentator, but a recent convert to soccer. America needs people to wake up to soccer, but we don’t need those who’ve only recently smelt the soccer coffee commentating on games.

O’Brien wisely avoided any form of analysis during USA v Poland, leaving that side of things to Marcelo Balboa (who needs a haircut but is otherwise very able). O’Brien basically calls the game, as in “Donovan passes to Twellman”, but he also feels the need to tell us about the players. In a video clip discussing his move into soccer commentary O’Brien says “The essence of what I do is I tell stories, and I try to bring the personalities to life … I think that’s the reason I was brought in.”

What this means is that instead of insightful analysis or punditry we get repeated references to the recent wacky story that Kasey Keller lives in a 1,000 year old German castle. With a real mote and everything. We also get told his wife’s name (I forget) and how many kids he has (I forget that too). It’s soccer commentary for people that don’t care about soccer.

O’Brien had little factoids like this for each player, and it’s very obvious they come from a ‘bio sheet’ in front of him, and that his knowledge doesn’t extend beyond the edges of said sheet. For the record there is no such phrase as “well defensed” and Poland’s Tomasz Frankowski does not play for an English club called “Wolverhampton Wolves”. His lack of knowledge forces him to scramble, hence the repetition of Keller’s domestic arrangements and his over-explaining the fact that it was snowing heavily in the second half. The game was on television, we could all see the snow. What we needed was some expert punditry on how this would affect the game, not the constant repetition of “it’s snowing here in Kaiserslauten!” and “we’re told the weather will be very different during this summer’s World Cup!”

Frustrating as all this is, it’s not all O’Brien’s fault. The poor man genuinely appreciates soccer, he just doesn’t know much about it. It’s ESPN’s decision to employ a professional commentator and get him to “bring the personalities to life” that rankles. With no pre game build-up, no half-time analysis and no post-game punditry (because that would cut into a Poker Championship Preview Show or something) the least the network could do is show some respect for those who already love the game and employ experts to provide commentary.

Tags: Television, USA

USA World Cup RSS Feed

del.icio.us:USA Were Great, ESPN Were Awful

newsvine:USA Were Great, ESPN Were Awful

stumbleupon:USA Were Great, ESPN Were Awful

Comments

Displaying the most recent 25 comments from a total of 47 comments.

Read the rest of the comments

By Sergio | March 15th, 2006 at 2:20 pm

We does everyone think of JP Dellacamera? I think he is very servicable and calls hockey games, which is probably the sport (in commentary) that is closet to soccer.

Posted from United States

By Chris | March 26th, 2006 at 2:58 pm

Hey guys. A few updates to the posts above. I haven’t heard O’Brien yet, so I dont know what to make of him, but as for Jack Edwards, he now works for NESN in BOS calling Boston Bruins away games, (Dale Arnold from WEEI 10-2pm midday show calls the home games).

What I am really hoping to do - assuming XM satellite radio’s English language radio rights are from hopefully some decent broadcaster like the BBC, is to listen to that as the audio & watch it on Hi-def on the Disney trio here in the US. I can’t wait to see what the hi def look like, watching regular games on my 42″ plasma from Gol Tv or Fox soccer channel, look awful in standard def.

By Steve | March 29th, 2006 at 7:04 pm

I agree with all of the comments. O’Brien is more than just a miserable soccer announcer he is a horrible announcer period. I have always made great use of the mute button during baseball games that he calls. His main problem is that he feels the need to talk for every second of the game, like a radio announcer. It also hurts that he is a major-league jerk. He is on my list of people, whom, if i ever meet, i will give a limp handshake and a firm expletive. Please give us Derek Rae.

Posted from United States

By joey "knuckles" | April 2nd, 2006 at 2:29 pm

The hi def soccer looks absolutely great on HD-NET on cable. I’d imagine it will not be nearly as nice on the big networks. They tend to use cheaper cameras, too much compression, etc, even at the NFL games. Too bad HD-NET only plays the MLS games.
If soccer is to catch on in the US it requires that there are good announcers that know what they are talking about that are also American.

Posted from United States

By Peter van Leeuwen | April 4th, 2006 at 4:55 pm

I am watching AC Milan against Olympique Lyon right now. Tommy Smith is shouting again. This man loves himself and you just can’t hear the crowd anymore. He tells you what you can see by yourself. He takes away the whole atmosphere and really analyzes without any point or knowledge of the game. I’ve heard him many times and it’s hard to believe people can appreciate his stupid loud nonsense.

Posted from Netherlands

By daryl | April 18th, 2006 at 3:42 pm

Go here for a new post about US announcers.

Posted from United States

By ABC/ESPN Announce World Cup Roster - FIFA World Cup 2006 - USA World Cup Team Blog | May 15th, 2006 at 6:49 pm

[...] It’s top pairing will be the Dave O’Brien/Marcelo Balboa combo that so delighted us during the Poland friendly, they’ll take all the US games. This makes them the Brian McBride/Landon Donovan of ESPN. [...]

Posted from United States

By david rades | May 25th, 2006 at 3:26 am

why cant we get real commentators besides old men who have no pasion to the game leanr from the south americans
geees

By Robert Misson | June 9th, 2006 at 8:24 pm

O’Brien/Balboa just did the commentary of Germany’s win over barely competent Costa Rica. O’Brien, whoever he is, clearly knows nothing about football. He did manage to tell us that CR is in Central America…..he is nothing more than a motor mouth. Soccer will never catch on until there is knowledgeable and literate commentary available.

Balboa was OK. But what chance had he?

Posted from United States

By Kieran Tuckley | June 11th, 2006 at 8:57 pm

I couldn’t agree more. I have lived in the US for a year now, and this coverage of the world cup is terrible. I have moved from the UK, so of course I am longing for John Motson, Gary Linekar and build up and analysis. These commentators are just so standard it is unbelievable, ESPN could have just paid the BBC to get their commentary feed rather than employ these lousy commentators with no actual knowledge of football. I could possibly live with the lack of decent commentray if the whole package was somewhat decent, but the lack of build up, analysis and punditry is very disappointing. Lalas talking ass to 5 year olds really doesn’t cut the mustard. Oh, and how I long for an extended highlights show in the evening to catch up on any games I miss. It seems like ESPN & ABC are talking the world cup up, but not delivering the product. Screw them, glad I will be living back in England for future World Cups.

Posted from United States

By Ace | June 11th, 2006 at 10:00 pm

I’m glad to see I wasn’t alone in wanting to turn off the sound (which I did ) due to O Brien. He was bloody awful - unlike baseball, which is a set of discrete actions, and you have time to tell stories, football/soccer is simultaneous - perhaps someone should let O Brien know. He gets excited at the wrong parts, talks about the shot that happened 2 min ago, and is generally miserable. I know JP and Tommy aren’t particularly good, but the ESPN2 commentary (like the Angola-Portugal game) is light years better than anything on ABC. What kills me is that the second round and later games are probably going to be on ABC

Posted from United States

By AG | June 12th, 2006 at 4:33 am

I am very happy to see that many people here have noticed the same lack of knowledge and professionalism from some of the ESPN soccer reporting team during the 2006 World Cup. A bit of a shortcomming in my view for the so called “Worldwide Leader in Sports”. In particular I feel were the O’Brien/Balboa team. The level of commentary in general has been quite partial in my view with only facts about popular teams constantly repeated, such as during the England vs Paraguay match. All one heard was little facts about the England team (who performed somewhat poorly in my view, given the calibre of players they have) with virtually nothing for poor Paraguay for listeners to broaden their knowledge on. The commentary in general appears in line with that which we get for the Olympic Games that concentrate more on “heart warming”, romantic stories rather than sporting achievements! Today’s commentary of the Iran vs Mexico game was also attrocious. At one point, we heard that only after the 1998 WC did soccer take a “foothold” in Iran. Perhaps our commentators should do a little background homework and find that Iran has featured relatively prominently in Asia since the early sixties and have appeared in at least 3 World Cups. The unfortunate part was that Balboa, whom I’d expect to be far more knowledgeable about such little bits of history made little comments about any of these facts. Also, neither commentators exhuded a feeling of neutrality, constantly mentioning that the game should not be politicized and yet, as in the Paraguay situation, hardly commented on the Europoean club performances for many of the Iranian players. They are footballers just like everyone else in the tournament, let us not forget! I have seen many a games in past WC’s and European Cup matches where BBC commentators such as Martin Tyler maintain such neutrality and professionalism even if England or an english team was on the pitch that you couldn’t help but have the utmost respect for the game, the coverage, and the depth of the man’s knowledge of the game! I cannot help but agree with a previous comment that the magic of this game will only become apparent in the US and for people here when such things as the coverage and how it is presented to the population at large is drastically improved (at the partial expense of the Poker Championship perhaps!)

I sometimes wish I understood spanish!!

Posted from United States

By Tana | June 13th, 2006 at 7:35 am

If O’Brien is worse than Tommy then ESPN should give up broadcasting soccer. Tommy Smith is crap. After listening to the BBC & Sky Sports in the UK, ESPN is painful. Maybe ESPN could take on Kermit the Frog. I’ve heard he’s looking for some work & a stuffed puppet can’t be any worse than Tommy & O’Brien.

Posted from United States

By da Silva | June 13th, 2006 at 5:44 pm

Forget about the analysis or commentary on the game or players…. as soon as I saw the uniforms, I knew the USA Team was in trouble…. where is the Red, White and Blue, whomever choose the colors of the USA Team needs to be sent home or taken off all future considerations.

You would think that as a leader in the fashion industry, the USA team could at least look like winners.

Posted from United States

By Martin | June 13th, 2006 at 8:50 pm

This is the one down side of the World Cup. I’m glad every game is shown on tv but the commentary is absolutely awful. Add to that, the graphics they show on the screen are often incorrect, as with most of the information they tell us. And the info they do tell us (repeatedly) is for those who know nothing or very little about soccer.

Why didn’t Fox Soccer Channel get the rights to the World Cup. Then we would have some great British commentary, Martin Tyler, Peter Brackley, Motto (though I do think Tyler is the best - we have him broudcast most Aussie games and previous World Cup).

Also, it’s a shame that most of the coverage do not have a pre-game and show the national anthems etc. This is part of the build-up which they show for regular season NBA, NFL games. For the Aussie v Japan game, I tuned into the Spanish station to watch the pre-game and it gave me shivers to watch the Aussie National anthem, then switch back to ESPN to hear the bloody ordinary commentary. If my Spanish was better, I would’ve watched the whole game on GOLTV.

Posted from United States

By YoungMC | June 14th, 2006 at 7:39 pm

Just turn the sound down and watch the game in silence if you’re such a purist. Or watch on Univision and work on your Spanish skills. But good grief, please stop all the incessant blog posts about the American announcers.

I guess soccer fans really don’t follow other sports, because complaining about bad sports commentary is a little passe these days. Maybe you could at least consider that the proliferation of global sports television has thinned out the
talent pool?

Be thankful that ALL 64 games are LIVE and not shown at 3am on some stupid delay.

Lastly, in response to all this backlash, I think it’s only fair to share what Dave O’Brien thinks about many of you, from USA Today, Wed. June 14, page 2C (Michael Hiestand’s Sports on TV column):

“There’s a kind of petulant little clique of soccer fans. There’s not many of them, but they’re mean-spirited….And they’re not really the audience we want to reach anyway.”

Posted from United States

By Martin | June 14th, 2006 at 11:10 pm

@YoungMC

We have a right to whine about the announcers. This is the World Cup. It only happens every 4 years and when it does come around you want a quality product. That means announcers who know what they are talking about. Would you want say the World Series baseball, the NBA Finals or the Superbowl to be announced by guys who had no idea what they were talking about? No you wouldn’t.

I am happy all 64 games are being shown live on tv but maybe I am spoilt. Back home in Oz we have all 64 games shown live and they are all commented on by announcers who know the game. The station who has the rights to the WC spends money on the best commentators for soccer. Now that is the quality ESPN/ABC should be striving for. If not, then let another station have the rights for the WC.

Posted from United States

By YoungMC | June 15th, 2006 at 6:01 am

The fact that the WC only happens every four years, like the Olympics, certainly contributes to the lack of perceived expert commentary.
It might be different if there was a dedicated soccer audience in the U.S., but the ratings for MLS are insignificant, just like the NHL. At least ESPN and ABC still air soccer, they gave up on hockey altogether after the locked out non-season. All you have to do is type OLN in a search on any hockey blog and you’ll know how much people accused them of fumbling their coverage spectacularly.

Anyway, the U.S. soccer TV ratings are so low that Disney doesn’t really have any remaining incentives to improve the product. Would hiring a commentator away from, say, the BBC, all of a sudden make the soccer ratings comparable to even poker or college baseball?

Disney knows the diehard fans will tune in because their networks are the only place to watch the tournament. And if they turn on casual fans despite their not-so-excellent announce teams, so be it.

I bring this stuff up more or less to present the other side of the story, and what the TV people are thinking. I don’t necessarily agree with them at all, nor do I think the WC commentators on ABC/ESPN are really good.

Take the Olympics for example. They happen every four years, they include tons of sports that no one really gives a hoot about for 202 out of every 204 weeks, and the diehard fans of each of those sports usually get irate over the inexperience in the commentary. See Bob Papa and bobsledding. Every sled that came down the hill was in the “clubhouse lead,” a golf term no less. But what good does it do to have the greatest bobsled announcer in the world? I don’t think it’s drawing any more or less fans to the Olympic telecast.

And that’s the point that O’Brien and ESPN will use to refute criticism of their coverage. Again, they know the passionate soccer fans will tune in regardless of which announcers they hire, because they just have to see the game. And they would further state that in order to develop the casual audience they always refer to, they need a guy to talk about players’ wives, Keller’s castle residence and other non-football issues.

Posted from United States

By blustery | June 16th, 2006 at 2:50 am

i don’t get it. why don’t espn use the same commentary from espn international or wherever it is that i watch my games?

is there a need to have a different one???

Posted from Singapore

By YoungMC | June 16th, 2006 at 3:30 am

Great question blustery. I’d love to know the correct answer, too.

From a production standpoint, they’d save a lot. But there could be other factors. One thing I know is that ESPN licenses their brand name to some overseas sports networks. So they could have separate productions because of that. My best guess.

And this also reminds me of the “world feeds” that are used for the Olympics, Formula One and also major golf tournaments like the Open Championship and U.S. Open. Is there a world feed of the WC, with English commentary?

Posted from United States

By Ronald Sisay | June 27th, 2006 at 6:12 pm

Dave o’(nothing)Brien needs to shut his mouth and stick to baseball, he has know concept of how soccer is played and his commentary is based on things he likes to hear himself say.
Iam watching the Ghanian game right now and he discuss me so much that i Have to switch univision, and Iam not spanish.
Thanks o’nothing

By Anita O'Riordan | July 1st, 2006 at 11:23 pm

Hopefully by the next World Cup we will not only have an enthusiastic, energetic US team but also commentators who really know what they are talking about. For the most part they lack enthusiasm and energy ,as did the US TEam ,but are also prone to continually restating the obvious and indulging in inane trivial chatter more suited to Entertainment tonight than a serious international athletic contest

Posted from United States

By Niall | September 26th, 2006 at 3:15 pm

This may be hyperbole, but Tommy Smith is possibly the worst thing to happen to Soccer in America. I’m from Ireland and used to English and Irish commentators… None of the Irish commentators ever have sounded like this fool. I’m trying to watch a CL match at the moment, and if he says “Bulges the old Onion Bag” once more, I’ll watch it in slience. ESPN have enough cash to draw a real commentator from the BBC or Sky. It’ll make the matches a lot more watchable for people over here. Just look at a Premiership match on Fox Soccer Channel if you want to hear commentary as it’s supposed to be

Posted from United States

By Patrick L. | October 24th, 2006 at 5:33 am

Tommy Smith SUCKS!!! Worst commentary i have ever heard

Posted from Switzerland

By Nick | December 6th, 2006 at 7:13 am

Tommy Smyth is the Tim McCarver of football commentators. Tommy is great at pointing out the obvious, mispronouncing player names, and he has very very limited knowledge of the history of this game. I’d rather listen to a chainsaw for 90 minutes than that guy. Hell, a guy that has never watched a game in his life would call it on an even level.

Posted from Canada