What if broadcasters are the source of the AFL's image problem?

[Bomberboyokay]

Ugly football: Could broadcasters be the source of AFL's image problem?

Watch AFL on television and you could see a completely different game to the one you'd see live. Russell Jackson analyses whether it could be what's broadcast that changes our view.

abc.net.au

This good read articulates much of what I've suspected about why most fans have no idea what's going on strategically in football.

Scarcely acknowledged in these discussions is the widening gap of understanding that has opened up between those intimately involved in the game at club level — the coaches, assistants and analysts who have access to every available piece of footage filmed on game day — and the average fan and even journalists, who, if they're not sitting in the stands, are entirely reliant on what's shown by the Seven Network and Fox Sports.

This week, under the condition of anonymity, I asked AFL coaches and team analysts a simple question: would they be able to understand a game of modern AFL football from the television broadcast alone?

Their blunt answers of "no" gave way to detailed observations that painted a picture of AFL broadcasting as something closer to a coaching fraternity in-joke.

The outline of grievances is simple enough:

• The tactical battle can now only be truly understood with vision from behind the goals, an angle from which the home viewer rarely sees anything other than replays of goals or reportable incidents
• How a team sets up at a stoppage is crucial to the outcome of the contest but a total mystery on TV
• There are too many lingering close-ups that serve no purpose other than to familiarise viewers with players' haircuts and tattoos, and obscure what is really happening in the game
• When the game slows down and the ball carrier is launching a transition of play, home viewers rarely, if ever, see the options available to him
• Some of these gaps in knowledge could be overcome if commentators explained tactical scenarios or anticipated the decision-making of players, but they rarely offer anything other than a description of what has already occurred.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Ugly football: Could broadcasters be the source of AFL's image problem?

Watch AFL on television and you could see a completely different game to the one you'd see live. Russell Jackson analyses whether it could be what's broadcast that changes our view.

abc.net.au

This good read articulates much of what I've suspected about why most fans have no idea what's going on strategically in football.

One of the best articles on the current game I’ve read in a long time

 

[Teen Wolf]

I didn't realise the AFL had an image problem in the eyes of the average football fan. Are we just assuming that whingers on here speak for the broader audience now? I know I personally want changes made to the way the game is broadcast in order to better see certain tactics unfold. I consider myself a die-hard fan though, and I'm going to tune in even if it means putting up with Mudflap and co.

TV networks are actually really good at delivering what people want. Sad to say, considering the never-ending stream of crap that gets churned out, but we all know it's true. The average viewer is satisfied with "love the way he goes about it" commentary, and so that's what we get.

 

[BigPond101]

Whats the solution ? Zoom out so we are watching a bunch of ants run around? Too many "tactical battles" are the problem imo game needs to be simplified back to what made it exciting in the 90s

 

[La Dispute]

Can’t get A-grade content with D-grade analysts. Channel 7’s appalling cast, who do nothing more than spend 2 hours stating the obvious is a huge reason the game appears to be suffering.

In reality the average fan won’t get much insight into important aspects of the game such as structures and stoppage setups. I know they analyse this a bit more on FoxFooty, and even though it’s reasonably flawed it does provide a good snapshot of the game, and those play by plays are at absolute worst visually interesting. They showed one piece of play at half time in the Saints/Tigers game where they rolled some slowed down footage of a stoppage setup which St Kilda won and broke it down virtually frame by frame to show Richmond far too bunched up and St Kilda meticulously planted to allow a quick exit once they’d won the ball. Is it too much to ask to have that kind of access on Seven?

 

[offtherails9]

It's a good article. How many times last night did we see a Hawks player stagnate and stop because there was nothing on, but to us the viewer we just see a player look clueless with only a close up tight angle being used.

 

[Billy ray]

What a fantastic article


Danger Danger Danger Danger Danger

spot on darce

 

[La Dispute]

It's a good article. How many times last night did we see a Hawks player stagnate and stop because there was nothing on, but to us the viewer we just see a player look clueless with only a close up tight angle being used.

It’s an important point. Instead we get left with “...not a good kick” but these things obviously don’t happen in isolation. So rather than focus on the good work of the team that’s caused the turnover, there’s a subtle insinuation the player who’s made the error has done so because they’re poorly skilled.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I wouldn't have thought this was particularly new. Australian Football has largely been regarded as a better game at the ground for largely that reason.
The issue with showing what's happening 60 metres away to give context is that everything will appear tiny on screen.

With much larger televisions these days, there may be some scope for changing the way the game is broadcast. Except, so many people are watching on devices other than televisions. A down the ground view of the leading options, etc, is not going to give much more than a few coloured dots on a tablet and may be barely visible at all on a phone.

The in-tight view does seem overused though, just pulling out a little around contests as they form could give some appreciation of the broader situation.

 

[JayJ20]

Broadcasting needs a lot of work, but I don't believe it's the reason why the AFL is dour to watch at the moment.

For the invested football fans on football forums, the constant zoom ins are annoying to watch. The average football fan however doesn't really care for tactical battles 80m away from the ball. They care about watching an entertaining brand of attacking football with plenty of goals.

When a team (Hawthorn) chip the ball sideways instead of attacking, then there isn't a lot to see. I doubt broadcasters can make a 3-goal game entertaining.

 

[Cleavy]

if they give it a total overhaul with new angles, your average fan will kick up a stink about the changes, so broadcasters can't win either way.

 

[wagstaff]

Certainly the level of innovation at FTA level seems to have stopped once Ch 7 got back the rights. They're just totally lazy and stagnant in their coverage style.

In contrast, whatever their flaws 9 & 10 were trying new things with their coverage. I remember in one of the first matches Ch 9 broadcast in 2002 seeing a set shot being shown from the opposite wing so we could get a better view of it. It was a positive addition to the coverage.

What fresh ideas have 7 brought to TV footy match coverage since they got the rights back in 2007? None that I can think of.

 

[wagstaff]

if they give it a total overhaul with new angles, your average fan will kick up a stink about the changes, so broadcasters can't win either way.

Agree with this. The real solution is giving viewers the choice to choose a range of TV angles.

Fox Footy should be perfect for this innovation. Indeed they had it with one match a week during the 2000s where you could watch matches without commentary or entirely from a shot showing the entire ground. It was great, just baffles me that's been dropped for over a decade.

 

[SterlingArcher]

I sort of agree, I sort of disagree.

I think yes, we need to acknowledge for example that Collingwood closed up options for Hawthorn last night. That made it difficult for them to launch relatively pressure free effective inside 50s.

That however does not excuse the fact that Hawthorn were exceptionally slow and labored, and got completely sucked in to having their deepest forward be in the back half and just kicking repeatedly to Darcy Moore. It's not actually a tactic that's ever worked offensively, to have your most forward player be in the back half. Or kicking it slowly to allow the opposition best defender to get to the contest over and over. So do we blame it on the broadcast not showing Collingwood set up or do we say Hawthorn also just got shown up for having little creativity and being sucked into a trick that hasn't worked for 20 odd years? Surprisingly hard to kick goals when your forward isn't near the goals.

Also to an extent the tactics aren't that exciting or revolutionary. I haven't been an AFL coach, no. So maybe I don't know. Maybe AFL clubs truly do keep their stoppage IP closely guarded and under strict confidence. But I also have spent enough time to know that leadership is often down to the most yelling guy who can also play, and that coaching is often down to motivating via yelling and simple messages. So it wouldn't surprise me if this "in joke" from coaches is that they actually think far too much of themselves and there isn't really that much to see on a regular basis.

 

[Cleavy]

Agree with this. The real solution is giving viewers the choice to choose a range of TV angles.

Fox Footy should be perfect for this innovation. Indeed they had it with one match a week during the 2000s where you could watch matches without commentary or entirely from a shot showing the entire ground. It was great, just baffles me that's been dropped for over a decade.

unfortunately in these times of cost cutting, we won't get experiments in innovation any time soon. NRL does (or used to do?) different camera angles but that's only for 2nd screen experience.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Love seeing this stuff questioned.

Unfort the AFL show little interest in it. Sell to the highest bidder and forget about it for five years.

some of the terrible s**t Channel 7 have rolled out over the years is testament to that.

 

[Boxhead_31]

I didn't realise the AFL had an image problem in the eyes of the average football fan. Are we just assuming that whingers on here speak for the broader audience now? I know I personally want changes made to the way the game is broadcast in order to better see certain tactics unfold. I consider myself a die-hard fan though, and I'm going to tune in even if it means putting up with Mudflap and co.

TV networks are actually really good at delivering what people want. Sad to say, considering the never-ending stream of crap that gets churned out, but we all know it's true. The average viewer is satisfied with "love the way he goes about it" commentary, and so that's what we get.

Did you read the article at all or just commented on the post title?

 

[Boxhead_31]

I sort of agree, I sort of disagree.

I think yes, we need to acknowledge for example that Collingwood closed up options for Hawthorn last night. That made it difficult for them to launch relatively pressure free effective inside 50s.

That however does not excuse the fact that Hawthorn were exceptionally slow and labored, and got completely sucked in to having their deepest forward be in the back half and just kicking repeatedly to Darcy Moore. It's not actually a tactic that's ever worked offensively, to have your most forward player be in the back half. Or kicking it slowly to allow the opposition best defender to get to the contest over and over. So do we blame it on the broadcast not showing Collingwood set up or do we say Hawthorn also just got shown up for having little creativity and being sucked into a trick that hasn't worked for 20 odd years? Surprisingly hard to kick goals when your forward isn't near the goals.

Also to an extent the tactics aren't that exciting or revolutionary. I haven't been an AFL coach, no. So maybe I don't know. Maybe AFL clubs truly do keep their stoppage IP closely guarded and under strict confidence. But I also have spent enough time to know that leadership is often down to the most yelling guy who can also play, and that coaching is often down to motivating via yelling and simple messages. So it wouldn't surprise me if this "in joke" from coaches is that they actually think far too much of themselves and there isn't really that much to see on a regular basis.

Every club has access to the behind the goal and wide boundary vision so they can’t really hide their stoppage IP

 

[kranky al]

Ugly football: Could broadcasters be the source of AFL's image problem?

Watch AFL on television and you could see a completely different game to the one you'd see live. Russell Jackson analyses whether it could be what's broadcast that changes our view.

abc.net.au

This good read articulates much of what I've suspected about why most fans have no idea what's going on strategically in football.

When kayo was launched i got really excited as they were floating the idea of having a dual broadcst with close and wide aspects

i was going to set up two tvs in my lounge so i could pause, rewind and get a real take on how tactics played out.

then i heard nothing more of it.

i was disappoint.

 

[Cuzz09]

I cant stand listening to the commentary.

If there was no commentary then Id watch more.

Plus less ads ch7

On SM-G925I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Ugly football: Could broadcasters be the source of AFL's image problem?

Watch AFL on television and you could see a completely different game to the one you'd see live. Russell Jackson analyses whether it could be what's broadcast that changes our view.

abc.net.au

This good read articulates much of what I've suspected about why most fans have no idea what's going on strategically in football.

Couldn't agree more.

There should be two broadcasts.

One for the 'theatre goer' that wants to see close ups of dudes' arses and listen to the mind numbing narratives that Ch7 and Fox ram down our throats every week - and one for those that actually want to see the game itself.

 

[kranky al]

It doesnt help as well, our stone age broadcasting.

if you have a 4k tv with excellent upscaling ability - wide shots can both cover tactics as well as give resolution good enough that you can see specifics.

where we are held back is the lowest common denominator.

the best upscaling engines cant do a lot with 720p and cant do a goddamned thing with 576.

so if fox broadcasts pan out enough to get the best of both worlds, the country viewers and vast watchers will be looking at small blurry blobs on their screen.

The next rights deal would need to mandate 1080p as the minimum broadcast standard - with no compression on fta - which will make the fta stations s**t bricks as the reason they compress their “hd” channels is so they can fit s**t shopping channels into their allocated bandwidth.


1080p on free to air is a straight up lie.

 

[Father Jack]

In this brave new world of widescreen high def TVs, I've often wondered whether the telecast should be shown nearly always from the zoomed out camera on the wing, with the other cameras mainly used for replays and set shots.

But it's very interesting that coaches rely on the down-the-ground vision, which we rarely if ever see

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Also to an extent the tactics aren't that exciting or revolutionary.

At the very least the audience should know what the tactics are.

 

[Back One Out]

Ugly football: Could broadcasters be the source of AFL's image problem?

Watch AFL on television and you could see a completely different game to the one you'd see live. Russell Jackson analyses whether it could be what's broadcast that changes our view.

abc.net.au

This good read articulates much of what I've suspected about why most fans have no idea what's going on strategically in football.

Channel 7's close up and in tight camera work actually makes many dull games seem more exciting than they really are (especially with BT and Brucey panting breathlessly)

I've been to loads of boring games where you could see the one team had zero chance of a scoring a goal for the quarter. Even if they managed to win the contested ball and get the clearance, the opposition had 4 extra guys back in defence waiting to pick off any long kick inside fifty. But when I got home and caught some of the replay, I noticed how Channel 7 would completely mislead viewers into thinking they were watching an enthralling contest

I'm certain Channel 7 could televise the game in a more illuminating way with better camera angles, but most viewers would quickly realise they were watching a boring game and they would switch off or change channels

Gotta maintain the hype and keep TV viewers on the hook.