What makes for great sporting coverage?
Columnist
By Adrian Musolino, 6 Jul 2009 Adrian Musolino is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Australian sport, SBS, Sport
We are really spoilt for choice at this time of the year with Wimbledon, the Tour de France, the Ashes, AFL, NRL, rugby tests and plenty more gracing our screens. Sports coverage has never been so widespread. But what makes great sporting coverage?
Often it’s the simple things that matter most.
The advancements in technology and the commercialisation of sport may have opened up new and exciting developments in how sports are covered, but have they really made the watching of sport that much more enjoyable?
For many, certain aspects of Australian sports coverage that has now become the norm for many codes are diminishing the spectacle they showcase.
Anyone who has had to put up with the abysmal cross promotions within the coverage and the blatantly obvious ‘beat-ups’ to oversell the product will know how such features have increased in regularity and are so very grating.
While it’s easy to label such features as necessities in such a commercialised sporting world, in some cases networks and codes have only themselves to blame by not truly understanding why it is we tune in to watch the sports.
This explains the inexplicable way in which some networks promote specific codes and contests, promotions that don’t resonate with the fans.
The St. Kilda V Geelong match up didn’t require the fake and so awkward face-off between the two coaches in the build up to the big game.
It was tacky and just plain weird.
A game of that scale, making AFL history as it did, didn’t need such a corny context.
Simplicity often rules.
Take for example the coverage of the Tour de France.
There haven’t been great advancements over the years in Le Tour’s coverage.
Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen have been the cornerstone of the coverage and their knowledge and enthusiasm for the race and sport oozes through their familiar voices.
The graphics look as they did when Miguel Indurain was rattling off Tour victories and we have been treated to the same style of coverage, the panoramic shots, the close ups, etc, for years now.
But it works so damn well.
The coverage suits the sport and so it allows the actual sporting contest, the environment and the competitors to tell their own stories directly to the viewers, without the need to sugar coat it.
This helps draw in fans to hours of viewing and partly explains why the race has grown in popularity in Australia with SBS rewarded for their commitment.
The passion of those who bring us the coverage shines through so clearly, not clouded by overt commercialism.
Simplicity is best.
Coverage needs to supplement the sporting contest, not try to manufacture it.
We don’t want comedians as commentators. We want passion and knowledge.
We don’t want cross promotions within the coverage. That’s what the ads are for.
We want the focus on the actual sporting contest and not on irrelevant subjects.
This is what makes great sporting coverage, basic elements that are so often forgotten.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
The Crowd Says (4) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Other Sports articles
- Victoria Azarenka vs Maria Sharapova: Australian Open women’s final live scores, blog (89)
- The sporting fallacy of the Olympic ‘Games’ (46)
- Sonny Bill needs to start boxing full time (46)
- Djokovic vs Nadal was great, but do we need six-hour finals? (36)
- Sonny Bill looking sharp for his first real test (29)
- Sonny Bill wins title in first round (25)
- Nadal vs Djokovic: The match for the ages (20)
- London’s Olympic Games have a long way to come (9)
- New champ Williams looking to next fight (5)
- Aust and GB aim to convert 4ths to bronze
- Young pitcher signs big deal with Red Sox (7)
- World Cup Darts heartbreak in Hamburg (3)
- Mayweather and Pacquiao have shamed boxing (12)
- Will Tom Brady’s legacy be affected by one drop? (20)
- London’s Olympic Games have a long way to come (9)
- World Cup Darts heartbreak in Hamburg (3)
- Mayweather and Pacquiao have shamed boxing (12)
- Will Tom Brady’s legacy be affected by one drop? (20)
- Sonny Bill needs to start boxing full time (46)
- Lachlan Murdoch squashing FTA sport for Fox’s benefit (4)
- Sonny Bill Williams vs Clarence Tillman III: Live updates, blog [video] (182)
- Explore:
- Australian sport, SBS, Sport
megatron said | July 6th 2009 @ 6:37am | Report comment
It’s simple – Channel 7 and 9 are horrible, SBS and Fox are the benchmark and Ten/ One does a decent job.
Redb said | July 6th 2009 @ 9:37am | Report comment
One aspect of better/worse TV coverage is the venue itself.
A big crowd at the MCG is a vast panorama making for a great sporting spectacle on TV, however the camera angles are inherently different due to the size of the ground.
Etihad (Docklands) in Melbourne does not create that same panorama but it sure provides better camera angles, including shots from the roof,etc. TV coverage of AFL is better at Etihad than even the mighty MCG.
Redb
Gaff said | July 6th 2009 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
Channel One has lost my faith in providing good coverage of sport.
I was watching the NBA final game 5 replay (unfortunately they didn’t show it live on One) and I had managed to keep my eyes off the media and keep away from my basketball mad mates. I was outraged when during a break they had an ad for Sports Tonight with footage of the Lakers disembarking their plane with the trophy, spoiling the remainder of their coverage. A simple look away if you don’t want to know the result may have saved them spoiling the game.
Surely not advertising the result of the game part way through would make for good coverage?
Brett McKay said | July 6th 2009 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
Adrian, it’s sometimes hard to know what it is we like or what we want from our sports coverage when we don’t have a lot of alternative. For eg, cricket, and the footballs have all been covered in essentially the same manner since coverage started. Sure, graphics and resolution has improved, and it’s also now in colour, but essentially, we watch sports the same way we always have, in terms of camera angles, ad breaks etc.
So the point of difference comes with commentary and “gadgets” (such as Hotspot, roof and end-on cams, Racecam, etc). Some gadgets are now irreplaceable, and Hotspot is the standout there, but others like Hawkeye or Ch7′s Freezecam are still a little bit fake for my liking.
And you’re never going to please everyone with commentary, or indeed commentators. I happen to enjoy Ray Warren and Phil Gould arguing about rules, but I can understand it’s not for everyone. I’m sure someone out there still thinks Tony Greig is knowledgeable and well-balanced. And no, I can’t do a better job, so I just have to cop the duds.
Likewise, it was interesting the first time Gordon Bray mentioned that like Nick Farr-Jones, Luke Burgess also didn’t make his school’s 1st XV, but come one Gordon, not every Test. And Phil Kearns could ease off on “I could watch scrum resets all day..” a bit too.
As for the shameless cross-promos, sponsor inserts, and memorabilia flogging, well again this an area where I’ve gone a bit grey. Again, for eg, I don’t mind mentions of betting market shifts in the middle of a game, it shows the public’s reaction to the game. I could even make a point FOR certain memorabilia spots, such as the Hayden prints during his final Tests. In these cases though, there has to be context. Flogging a Hayden print is pointless when he’s not batting, and likewise, you can never tell me that it’s sutable for Bruce McAvaney to tell me I can’t miss Dancing With The Stars this week when there’s less than a goal the difference. I can Bruce, and damn it, I will if you don’t get back to the footy.
I think context is the key, and broadcasters need to be aware that viewers can’t be taken for granted. It’s not just ratings that might be affected when someone changes channels, it could also be the value of the next broadcasting contract.