Comments on: USA Were Great, ESPN Were Awful

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 12:13:03 +0000

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.

By: Patrick L.

Patrick L. — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:33:39 +0000

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

By: Niall

Niall — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 20:15:21 +0000

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

By: Anita O'Riordan

Anita O'Riordan — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 04:23:32 +0000

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

By: Ronald Sisay

Ronald Sisay — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 23:12:00 +0000

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: YoungMC

YoungMC — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 08:30:50 +0000

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?

By: blustery

blustery — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 07:50:46 +0000

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???

By: YoungMC

YoungMC — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:01:14 +0000

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.

By: Martin

Martin — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 04:10:43 +0000

@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.

By: YoungMC

YoungMC — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:39:43 +0000

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.”