Remove this Banner Ad

I've noticed something....

  • Thread starter Thread starter YelloMit
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Commentators ALWAYS talk up the underdog. They always talk about an impressive display by a bottom team against a top team. Human nature and the nature of sports broadcasting. Everyone loves a good underdog story. That's why so many people 'had a soft spot for Freo' because we've always been the hapless underdog. Now we're expected to be good, it is less so, and that is a good thing.
 
TheMcManusNose said:
Commentators ALWAYS talk up the underdog. They always talk about an impressive display by a bottom team against a top team. Human nature and the nature of sports broadcasting. Everyone loves a good underdog story. That's why so many people 'had a soft spot for Freo' because we've always been the hapless underdog. Now we're expected to be good, it is less so, and that is a good thing.
Click to expand...

There is talking up the underdog and then there is outright barracking. I didn't think it was as bad today but just look at the Bulldogs game for an example of barracking from the commentary box.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

gaskin said:
There is talking up the underdog and then there is outright barracking. I didn't think it was as bad today but just look at the Bulldogs game for an example of barracking from the commentary box.
Click to expand...

Eh, I don't think it's a bad thing. That Bulldogs game would have been an amazing story, if you were viewing it from a non-freo perspective. It was high pressure and fast running - exciting football - from the Bulldogs to claw themselves from, what, 40 points down and nearly win it. Who cares if the commentators hope it happens, any neutral watching that game would have been.
 
TheMcManusNose said:
Who cares if the commentators hope it happens, any neutral watching that game would have been.
Click to expand...

Commentators are supposed to be neutral observers. Add excitement when it is needed but don't over do it. Viewers can tell it's exciting and they don't need the commentators wetting themselves over what could happen. Sure, if a crazy goal is kicked or a cracking mark is taken and they get caught up in the moment then that's fine (we are all human), but don't go out of your way to barrack for one team over the other.
 
I think everyone is waiting for us to fall a part and collapse in a heap. There are some signs of it so everyone is up an about. Its up to the boys to turn it around over the bye.
 
Yello Mit said:
Also I noticed that commentators almost always seem to barrack for the underdogs against Freo, when just 2 years ago everyone loved Freo because they were "underdogs" for a lot of their matches. It is hard to catch a grasp on it, but I feel like that it is happening right now.
Click to expand...

Not sure if this is true - for the early-mid part of our history we were either ignored/disregarded as we were rarely ever a stable, prolonged threat to the competition. In 2013, our most serious tilt at the flag and also our most opposition-friendly year we still got a really raw ride by the Umps and were derided for playing unwatchable footy. The Vics scorned the shit out of us as well when we went up in arms surrounding Simmondsgate.

It was really only the last 2 weeks of the year that thousands jumped on the bandwagon; we were an exciting Grand Final prospect because, well, it was our first ever. Every Victorian-based commentator and analyst became our best mates and spewed forth their inherent knowledge regarding our intense pressure and defense after largely ignoring us for most of the year. The reaction would be the same for GWS or Gold Coast if they ever make a GF.

We're disliked so much now because the nostalgia of that Grand Final is over - to them we had our chance and we're just not that interesting to be the consistent threat we are now. We're an extremely annoying Hornet they'd like to swat - and hopefully, just hopefully one day they all try and miss, only to be stung in the side of the cheek 3 times (Freo premier, Fyfe Brownlow and Neale Norm-Smith).
 
Wonder what GilG has to say about this? What is the commentary like for professional sports in America?

Someone told me that they can be ex-players but in most cases go through an extremely rigorous training/education process to get to an extremely high-standard, and that ultimately objectivity is God?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

FreoGirl said:
that movie was worse than today's game and last week's game combined with Melbourne 2004 when we were up by 2-3 goals at 3/4 quarter and Melbourne massacred us in the last quarter when it bucketed down
Click to expand...
That movie was worse than kicking a goal. In a game. Against Adelaide.
 
StingBitten said:
Someone told me that they can be ex-players but in most cases go through an extremely rigorous training/education process to get to an extremely high-standard, and that ultimately objectivity is God?
Click to expand...

LOL No. At least for hockey. You get horrific barracking, far worse than here, because the broadcast into a region is usually done by that region's local network. The nationally televised games are done extremely well by the large broadcasters but that's no different to the PFs/GFs here.
 
The broadcasters are mostly humans. They get bored with their allotted games. Yay - we got the top versus bottom on the ladder game, better dig out the Dad jokes and puns in case it get's boring. When they get an actual contest they can't help themselves and ride it for all it's worth.
 
FreoGirl said:
that movie was worse than today's game and last week's game combined with Melbourne 2004 when we were up by 2-3 goals at 3/4 quarter and Melbourne massacred us in the last quarter when it bucketed down
Click to expand...

I think you mean Rd 7 2008. Still raw.
 
Mr Peabody said:
o_O
Click to expand...

Not Freo supporters of course. We have a long history of underachieving and I think a lot of opposition supporters and media people think we dont have what it takes to win the whole thing. I feel Freo falling away is as good a narrative for the AFL media as a Freo succeeding one, its sort of win win. Either they get to say 'See we told you so' or 'Finally theyve won one, in other news Essendon/Sydney, Watson blah Goodes blah Buddy blah blah....'
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

StingBitten said:
Wonder what GilG has to say about this? What is the commentary like for professional sports in America? Someone told me that they can be ex-players but in most cases go through an extremely rigorous training/education process to get to an extremely high-standard, and that ultimately objectivity is God?
Click to expand...

Hey StingBitten! Like all things American, it's complicated — and simultaneously, simple. ;)

Having been trained in U.S., and still practicing and teaching journalism as an objective art, yes, the concept of "objectivity" is treated by journalistic purists as a commandment and a sacred trust with the public. However, that "commandment" is given far much more weight reporting and commenting on news, rather than sports.

First, a note on ex-players: Key difference between Aussie and American TV sports commentators — unlike in Australia, it's extremely rare here to have an announcing crew in any sport, of only ex-players. Regardless of the sport, here, on TV and radio, there's ALWAYS an Anthony Hudson-type — one who hasn't played professional sports and whose defined role is handling the "play-by-play" description — while an ex-player partner (or two) does the in-game analysis. There has been a long held (if misguided) belief here in the TV sports industry that ex-players can't good play-by-play people, because they didn't major in broadcast journalism in college and work their way up through the ranks at TV networks. That's why it's extremely rare here for there to be an all ex-player commentating crew for TV or radio.

As for "objectivity," in ex-player commentary in America, it seems to mostly boil down to who's writing that commentator's checks. If a commentator is working for a news outlet not affiliated with a club in any sport, the more leeway he or she has — and the more it's expected by the outlet and viewers/listeners for that commentator to be impartial. If a commentator is being paid by the club on its local and regional TV and radio broadcasts (some MLB teams, such as the Mets and Yankees own the TV channels they broadcast their games on), many fans expect commentators to be "homers" (a not-so-complimentary name given by the public to commentators who appear to openly barrack for their former club), but some fans value the commentators to pull the club's "leash" and be completely frank.

Simply put, if Kobe Bryant one day is hired by a national TV network, such as ESPN or TNT and covers the NBA, he'd be expected to check his Lakers bias at the door. But if he were to work for the regional cable TV or local radio network that covers Lakers' games, it's likely he'd be openly one-eyed.
 
To be fair, I've found the constant new Fyfe article almost every single day (think back to about three weeks ago with his website and other stuff) a little over the top. It seems to have settled down just a touch in the last couple of weeks.
 
Pusswah said:
To be fair, I've found the constant new Fyfe article almost every single day (think back to about three weeks ago with his website and other stuff) a little over the top. It seems to have settled down just a touch in the last couple of weeks.
Click to expand...
I guess that was in the lead up to his 100th game. He is the best player in the league at then moment and so having a new number one player that's not Ablett is flavour of the month. Unlike Nic Nat who has still only taken like two marks or something (I'm exaggerating I know) but is featured in the newspaper every single day about what he's having for lunch tomorrow.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom