Annoying Commentators – Part 1,478
// September 21st, 2008 // Uncategorized
Watching the Chelsea v Manchester United match this morning on Fox Soccer Channel, co-commentator Robbie Earle used one of those commentator cliches that really get my goat up. Approximately 9 minutes into the game, Joe Cole received the ball just inside the area and let loose with a rasping shot that just clipped the outside of the post and side netting. Indeed, many Chelsea fans celebrated in the mistaken belief that a goal had been scored. Earle added a zany religious element to the oft used cliche by exclaiming ‘it’s a cardinal sin not to hit the target from there’. Forgetting His thoughts on the issue, I’ve never understood why it’s better to hit the target and not score than to narrowly miss and not score. We all agree that the best outcome is a goal but I don’t understand why a weakly hit shot right at the keeper is any better than a powerfully hit shot that beats the keeper all ends up but narrowly misses.
posted by Cass
4 Responses to “Annoying Commentators – Part 1,478”
Leave a Reply
- Alain said: Lazar, agree with you that Big Mo is going to have...
- victor said: I believe that Real Madrid is missing a center for...
- john@York UK said: Well, Ronaldo will have plenty of time for normal ...
- admin said: ab, it is kind of uncanny about Nasri......
- Lazar said: Ramos was teeeewwwible today. I've never understoo...
- Mark said: Slightly off topic but, guess who is a clue/answer...
- Welcome to Manchester
- The Most Important World Cup Lineup of All
- 'Hand of Frog' - Understanding the Backlash
- Men Versus Boys
- Shame On You, On-ye-wu
I agree. Another awful trope that Robbie Earle uttered today was “that was exactly what this game needed,” just after United scored to go up 0-1. Of course, he was completely wrong. The game had been cracking up to that point, with chances for both sides. But, predictably, when the away side scored, they took their feet of the pedal and the game settled quite a bit as United decided it would be best to hang onto their lead. (Things did pick up a bit later on, in the second half, with the subsitutions.)
Announcers seem trained to say that a goal was just what the game needed. That’s often true if the home side or the heavy favorite scores first, so the other team can’t just go for the draw, but when Numancia scores early against Barcelona, it is DEFINITELY not what the game needs–see the boring 70 minutes of 11-men-behind-the-ball that constituted the rest of that game on August, 31, 2008 for a case in point.
it was such a breadth of fresh air having Andy Gray as commentator for the European Championships. At least Robbie Earle isn’t as bad as Tommy Smyth!
While I agree that the cliché is awful, I would say that the idea that a professional on a breakaway (as Cole was) somehow manages to blaze wide of the near post is more infuriating than hitting it right at the keeper. If you hit a shot at the keeper, at least I have an idea of what you were aiming at (the Goal). However, with Cole, I am forced think that he was aiming at some man U supporter stationed behind the goal giving him the finger, or something. 30 yards out and you pull a Gerrard that goes sailing into the upper tier, no big deal. On a breakaway, you must force the keeper to make a save, whatever the degree of difficulty the save requires.
I think the American commentators get confused and think they’re talking about American football rather than European football (where you actually and regularly touch the ball with your feet see my other comment in the “soccer” story).
I remember some former US footballer turned commentator (European football that is, you can’t say “soccerer”) making self-negating comments during the World Cup like “you can’t make a play like that in a game like this.” This caused millions of American viewers to enroll in philosophy courses to examine the ramifications of such claims.