What is the point of TV commentators at football?
Football is both a very simple, and a very complex game. You take 11 men, one ball, and force it into the opposition net. Simple. The variety of ways to complete the job is often far more complex, too complex say some, to score the vital goal. We can avoid the cheating, fouling, greetin faced losers at this point.
When football began to be followed on the wireless back in the 1930s the commentator, with a posh English middle class voice, relayed the fortunes of the teams in front of him to the masses. This was acceptable as it was all that was available. However, once the transistor radio became popular in the 1960s we soon realised that commentary at the game you were watching was behind the game, and often covering a game different from the one on front of you.
So when TV caught up and games were watched by the millions everything changed.
In the early days only international and cup final matches were on TV, with a handful of occasional special matches. Commentators in England, usually Kenneth Wolstenhome with a very English name, did not consider they required to shout from start to finish at the match. Words flowed, but intending to enlighten the viewer. The viewers' opinion was not asked for by the way.
Today all this has changed.
The fact that so many games at league and national level are available has been a great benefit, usually. However, with the increase of national games, the European Championship and World Cup for instance, and the need for friendly matches before each round of qualifiers, has led to many more games being televised. These are typically televised at great cost to the viewer. It has also brought us commentators with limited vocabulary, knowledge of the game, and a desperate desire to be heard.
Is it not time for a change?
Early commentators on TV football used words sparingly, not counting the highlights programmes on Scotsports or Sportscene of course. There they were only concerned for Rangers and Celtic, as indeed the still are. Today the mouth must be constantly offering a none stop noise spewing out needless statistics, cliché, cliché, cliché, statistic, fabulous atmosphere, statistics, cliché, cliché, cliché, never resting to find a new word to replace the cliché words used so often before.
Now the game is on TV, I realise half the time the director is watching someone in the stand, a player at the other end of the field from the ball, and a child drinking his lunch, rather than allowing us to actually see what is happening. Then we realise the commentator, reading the programme for information rather than knowing the two teams involved, is blethering rubbish.
Add to this the manufactured excitement at each goal, the screaming when a shot goes in, the fake joy and happiness at a victory. Total fake, all off it. Only when their team is involved can it be real, and that usually means internationals. England commentators constantly mention 1966, the year the ball did not cross the line, and the crowd invaded the pitch to steal the game. They also ensure every player with the slightest connection to an England side is mentioned, even if they were 'At Manchester United when 16,' and are now 34! They forget, or ignore if they played at Scots, Welsh or Irish sides.
Is it not time for change?
Let's remove the commentator. Let us just watch the match for ourselves. We do not require a dribbling idiot to spout his rubbish over a game, we do not require one at a game, why have one on TV? A sensible, articulate ex-footballer who has played at the relevant level can be good. Why not use two of them, of ex-player from each team to offer their opinions as the game progresses? Their experience, their knowledge, and their time on the field in such games could be relevant. The blethering commentator is not.
And as for the women put there because the TV companies are afraid of the harridans, show them where the local shopping centre is found, and remove them from the screen.
What think you Brian?
No comments:
Post a Comment