EPL Talk - Latest Comments in ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

tampasoccer — Fri, 23 May 2008 11:56:41 -0000

Setanta got the coverage from the Sky Sports feed. Martin Tylor, Andy Gray were play-by-play, the pre-game, half-time and post-game were sensational: pure quality. There isn't really a better crew than Tylor-Gray: just superb.
That said, ESPN's coverage was OK: after all, this is America, not England...

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

Mookie — Fri, 23 May 2008 10:16:49 -0000

Smith is so-so, gets calls correct but sometimes speaks a little bit too much.

Derek Rae is fantastic, one problem with him. Stop saying "Rooney for United" or "Malouda for Chelsea".

GLORY GLORY MAN UNITED!!!

Oh yeah, and kudos to ESPN, great coverage, no annoying graphics at the top of the screen, I may be able to watch Euro 08 without desperately looking for an online feed.

Hey guys, it could be worse. We could be in England listening to David Pleat call Frank Lampard, Frank Redknapp.

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

patrick — Fri, 23 May 2008 09:03:48 -0000

They don't rebroadcast the superbowl, and if they did it would be cut to fit a time slot.

I understand not everyone can take time off work to watch live, but of all the issues with ESPN we should give them a free pass on the rebroadcast.

Anybody know what happened to Hemel's own Andy Houlihan on FSC? He just faded away from the network and is still listed on the site. any info would be great.

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

Johnathan Staring — Fri, 23 May 2008 08:37:59 -0000

Actually Lou, the ESPN2 replay from all I gathered on Wednesday was not scheduled but it was thrown together at the very last second (very similar to the replay for the Istanbul Final).

That aside, anyone who bitches about cutting time ON A REPLAY is only crying over spilled milk as far as I'm concerned. With TIVO, Slingboxes, and even a good old fashion VCRs (or hell the Setanta Sports replay), there were plenty of opportunities to watch this game live. If you didn't, sorry but that's your fault.

Call me a prick, call me an a-hole quite frankly I don't care. I've been called worst before and I'm sure I will in the future. It was YOUR stupidity you didn't catch the entire match, not ESPN's. Get over yourselves.

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

eplnfl — Fri, 23 May 2008 07:54:05 -0000

Dear Tim:

It was only one of the scheduled replays of the game. A game that was in the books and a known result. What is the normal audience in America for a replay. Try next to nothing. ESPN to their credit was trying to give something to the soccer fan by the first replay. They realized the game was a classic, had great interest and they were trying to promote the sport. A thanks would be in order.

This very discussion shows the progress the sport has made. 5 years ago we would have been lucky to see it live and replayed once. Some people will continue to knock the production unless it has the initials BBC attached to it. BTW, I heard the numbers for ESPN were great.

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

Matt — Thu, 22 May 2008 22:13:27 -0000

ESPN was terrible - downright awful - until the final. They cut from play for too long especially to close ups, frame traveling balls in the corners so you cannot see the action ahead, and those f'ing graphics that cover a third of the screen are absurd - especially when they are ads for future coverage.

I hate soccer on ESPN, but most of the problems above were magically not problems Wednesday.

Maybe it was my email to ESPN after the semis.

I can't stand Tommy - he rarely has a clue what he's talking about, and stands by his own poor commentary too often, but he wasn't nearly as disappointing for the final.

I worry for Euro2008.

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

m2fc — Thu, 22 May 2008 22:03:20 -0000

i watched the match 3 times. live, delayed (where they cut 30 minutes), and taped.
ESPN did cut a lot out. i did not like the coverage because they showed replays while the match was live, advertised Euro2008 which blocked out the screen while the match was live, and should have had multiple cameras. the last comment about multiple cameras may be due to the Russian policy.

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

Tim — Thu, 22 May 2008 20:59:48 -0000

"The people that took time out to knock ESPN for the replays, are the same sort that said the American owners of Man U. will run the team into the ground." Another dumb comment from someone who doesn't get it, cutting time out of the game kinda of takes away from the tension and made it obvious it was going to extra time.

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

eplnfl — Thu, 22 May 2008 20:05:02 -0000

I would hope the fine job that ESPN did will ally some of the frightful comments we see when it is suggested that ESPN may be doing EPL matches in the future. As everyone sees from yesterdays presentation ESPN can do a first class job. Sort of like the Glazer family!

I do not know what the audience numbers but the future of soccer on big time America sports TV will in part depend on how many people tuned in and joined in online. The people that took time out to knock ESPN for the replays, are the same sort that said the American owners of Man U. will run the team into the ground.

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

Utd fan — Thu, 22 May 2008 19:01:52 -0000

I'd say that ESPN did an admirable job. However, there are still things that they could improve on.

I like Rae a lot, but Smyth is awful - I've hated listening to him for years. He reminds me of that guy on GolTV...horrid.

Seedorf in the booth was nice, but you could tell he was uncomfortable. I wouldn't mind getting some other footballers into the booth, but don't keep them there for an extended period of time. 45 minutes was the max, in my opinion

The scoreboard in the top right should be pushed further into the corner - it's a tad intrusive (that said, it's MUCH better than the 'bar' that runs along the entire top 1/4 of the screen that they use in other games).

They'll never do it, but get rid of the ticker. It used to be a :18/:52 thing that would appear for a few minutes and then leave. Go back to that, at least.

The feed was excellent. I was watching it in SD and it looked fantastic. I watched the Setanta re-air later and it didn't even come close. It looked absolute shit compared to the ESPN feed.

Kudos to ESPN for staying through the trophy presentation. Even Setanta f-ed that type of thing earlier this year when they didn't show the Munich ceremony before the United-City matchup.

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

Moose — Thu, 22 May 2008 18:25:11 -0000

Guys, although ESPN may be bringing more free HD matches in the future, the play by play is not up to speed in my opinion. I do not know all of their names, but based on the above posts, Rae does the play by play. He is not bad to listen to. The little Irish or Scott, Smith I think, is pure rubbish.

It might be that I am used to watching EPL games on FSC and Setanta, and the top announcers are the one's I got used to first. I cannot even watch the weekly preview, and worse the review on Friday mornings due to the obnoxious Smith character. Rae and Shamus do a nice job, but the little leprechaun thinks he is the Jim Rome of soccer. Argues every point, yelling at the others constantly, making very little sense. Sad to say, but I cannot watch the review show due to him.

Setanta had the replay on last night. Although I watched in live on ESPN2, I tivo'ed Setanta's replay so I could watch it again with real announcers.

Just my opinion.

Mark

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

UKian — Thu, 22 May 2008 17:00:08 -0000

I was really impressed with the direction and general presentation of the match. People may be surprised to learn that although the match was played in Moscow, UEFA brought in Sky from the UK to do the broadcast. In the past they have used directors and cameramen from Sky or ITV for CL Final coverage but this time Sky actually took all their own equipment out across Europe in huge lorries, as well as providing 40+ members of staff, I think. It seemed to go without a hitch and the coverage after the whistle and for the trophy was especially good, so all in all it was well done to Sky's broadcast crew. They were ultimately responsible for the HD success.

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

kat kid — Thu, 22 May 2008 16:44:09 -0000

the HD was brilliant. Smyth was annoying. Seedorf was nice. the game was fantastic (drama, drama, drama) and the pitch was AWFUL. If you watched in HD you saw how poor the pitch was and I can't believe that it didn't take more blame for Terry's miss.

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

brent — Thu, 22 May 2008 16:33:05 -0000

Well, watch it the first time then? :P

Everyone edits replays. If you don't like it, get a tivo.

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

Ian Cahir — Thu, 22 May 2008 16:08:52 -0000

The other thing about them being on-site is that's the only time you have a chance for it to be in HD. They were there (ESPN announced that they were going to be). And they'll be in Austria-Switzerland for at least PART of Euro 2008. Derek Rae said they would be in the commentators box for the opening match.

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

Mike — Thu, 22 May 2008 14:33:47 -0000

Kudos indeed to ESPN for its coverage. Seedorf aside, I thought it was a quality broadcast. The pre-game and halftime spots were quality and Rae is a solid play-by-play guy. He's not smarmy, nor condescending--and yes, they were on-site.
http://startingeleven.blogspot.com

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

Tim — Thu, 22 May 2008 14:15:18 -0000

"It seems to me like you guys can’t think of anything else to complain about and now are just nitpicking for the sake of complaining. Get over it." You're an asshole, missing 30 mins of the second half is hardly nitpicking.

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

Michael — Thu, 22 May 2008 13:39:31 -0000

Because it showed them inside the stadium before the game when they were previewing the match, and they've been on ESPN.com with Clarence Seedorf doing little video interviews all week.

SamSpur is spot on, they were there in Moscow at the stadium for this one. They call all the games from Bristol up until the semifinals, when they go on-site.

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

Dan — Thu, 22 May 2008 12:36:04 -0000

How do you know when they are there or not?

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

SamSpur — Thu, 22 May 2008 12:27:01 -0000

patrick, you are wrong on this one...they were at the game, not in studio, as they were for the semifinal round as well.

normally they are in studio though.

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

patrick — Thu, 22 May 2008 12:06:45 -0000

The thing that always annoys me is they pretend to be at the actual ground. They are in a studio in Bristol with a green screen, not Russia, not pitch side.

The worst was last World Cup where Smyth would comment on the pitch and be totally off, like yesterday, and the rain. They only mentioned it after they saw a close up.

Am I wrong on this one? I do know that most matches they are in studio, and was getting annoyed when they would go pitch side and there was no picture of said reporter anywhere.

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

Johnathan Starling — Thu, 22 May 2008 11:55:24 -0000

You guys have to be kidding me.

Their live broadcast was perfectly acceptable. ESPN DID NOT have to replay the game on ESPN2 as they did, all they had to do is replay the game on ESPN Classic as is their custom.

It seems to me like you guys can't think of anything else to complain about and now are just nitpicking for the sake of complaining. Get over it.

Hell ESPN didn't even have to replay the game on ESPN Classic. You spoiled lot.

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

Simon Burke — Thu, 22 May 2008 10:39:23 -0000

Just heard the same thing from a mate who watched the replay - thats unforgivable - I take back my nice comment above. I dont want them doing anything with th Premier League unless they leave the current stack of commentators in place and just broadcast that.

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

Tim — Thu, 22 May 2008 10:07:00 -0000

I watched the replay at 7pm EST and could not understand why thy didn't edit out the pre-game and half time stuff instead of 30 mins of the second half, ruined watching the game for me.

Re: ESPN Deserves Praise For Excellent Champions League Coverage

Steel — Thu, 22 May 2008 08:37:58 -0000

In spite of ESPN's largely solid performance, the replay (7-9 p.m. EST, on ESPN2) cut 30 minutes out at the beginning of the second half. Unforgivable!