Does anyone else notice how in-game analysts on TV tend to critique plays based solely on the results instead of the actual decision/strategy process?
Examples:
A snap goes over the QB’s head. He rushes back ten yards to pick it up with 3 defensive players hot on his tail. He bobbles, eventually picks up the ball, scrambles and the end result is positive yardage.
The NFL expert will say “What a great play. He has the intensity and fire to go after the ball and turn a potential disaster into a first down.” Expert 2: “I agree, he really showed us why he is a top QB”.
Same situation, the QB is unable to pick up the ball on the run and as a result, the bobbled loose ball is pounced on by the defensive linemen and there’s a turnover near the QB’s own goal line.
NFL expert: “What a bad play by the QB. He made a bad situation worse by not recovering the ball. Classic example of trying to do too much” Expert 2: “I agree, players are taught in those situations to just fall on the ball and take the loss of yards. By trying to pick it up, it resulted in a turnover. The coach won’t be happy about this one”.
There are numerous examples found in many games ranging from a ball thrown tightly between defenders for a catch, if it’s caught the QB is praised for throwing a “perfect pass”. But the exact same scenario (defenders in same proximity and all other elements constant) but the ball is either dropped or intercepted, the QB is scrutinized for attempting such a risky pass to a receiver who was obviously covered. I’m sure you could think of countless more examples.
It also applies to baseball. A pitcher throws a high fastball down the middle and the batter whiffs and strikes out. The announcers will praise the pitch selection/location and skill of the pitcher. But the exact same pitch to the same hitter in the same location, and the ball is launched for a homerun, well all of a sudden “he left one up in the zone, he’s gonna wish he had that one back”.
In my humble opinion, the sports announcers and analysts are hypocrtics and monday morning quarterbacks. They are no more knowledgble than we are. Any thoughts?
Yep. Happens to coaches all the time too. They call for a screen pass on 3rd and 15 and convert, “WHAT a BRILLIANT PLAYCALL by the coach on this one! They knew they were coming and were going to over-pursue. He used their aggressiveness against them.” They don’t convert, “Someone needs to let this coach know they need 15 yards for the first down! What was he thinking throwing a dumpoff to the running back?!?!?”
And just about everything else. QB makes a “fantastic” throw into triple coverage if it’s complete, an “ill advised” pass if it’s picked off. If a return man retreats 15 yards trying to find a seam he “needs to run north and south” if he’s tackled and “an electrifying play maker” if he breaks one.
I was thinking of pitting this idiot next to me at a game on Saturday that didn’t seem to understand this.
I don’t get why people watch this shit- weekly three hour pregames on five different networks, each with 5-10 assholes braying about this and that- ‘Jones has to have a great game or the Pixies have no chance’, then the Pixies win by 50 and Jones doens’t even play. Yeah its all bullshit, but people watch it, so there you go.
Touche, but do we really need so many of them- CBS now has five guys on the crew, and ESPN has like 11 spread out in different parts of the studio- what ever happened to the good old days of just Brent Irv and Jimmy, with Phyllis reporting from the field?
I think analysts are taught to give their observations in extremes. If a risky play goes good the player is brilliant, genius, great. If it goes bad they are deemed careless, reckless, poor decision makers.
I see this with Brett Favre all the time. If he threads the needle and makes the pass they praise him with the “That’s what make him so great, only he can make passes like that, he makes something out of nothing.”
When he attempts the same thing and get intercepted they exclaim “There he goes being careless again, he should have just thrown it away, he really needs to calm down.”
What’s amazing to me is that they’re so superficial and general. The sports world has so much history, statistics, obscure trivia, and other arcana, you’d think these guys could talk for days and never say the same thing twice. Yet when I actually watch, it’s just “Jones has really been making great plays lately.”–“Yeah, he needs to make some plays out there today if the Pixies want to win.”–“You gotta score points to win the game, and that’s what Jones does.”–“Yup, he’s a play maker all right.”-- ad nauseum.
Judging by the relative sizes of the band members, I’d wager Frank is more likely to be doing the snapping. That guy’s body screams “lineman!” OK, make that “ex-lineman.”
This is why it’s always better to listen to a game on the radio while watching it on the television. Radio announcers actually describe what’s going on. There’ll be some blather on radio, but the essentials are covered. TV announcers only blather.
Plus, TV commercials are hilarious when appropriately mismatched with radio ads.
My dad will sit and watch ESPN all damn day. It’s the same 4 topics talked about on every show the network has: 1)what’s the deal with Vick, 2) who’s the best NFL team, 3) who could beat the best team 4) the fish blow. (Or whatever the hot topic is this week.)
Sportscenter, PTI, Rome is Burning, 1st and 10, Around the Horn…every show will talk about the same few things. Basically, 90% of ESPN programming is superfluous. Show us the games and a few insider details, then shut the fuck up.
English soccer seems to get this right, on Fox Soccer channel at least- coverage starts at 2, kickoff at 2:02, and you never once see the commentators- do we really need to see John Madden’s bloated corpse five times a night?
