jonovision Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 My favourite Canadian announcer of the beautiful game is the French guy who does the Impact play-by-play for the TV broadcasts on Radio-Canada. He probably should work on a more concise term to use for "zone de reparation", but otherwise I find he is pretty good. The rest are all various levels of annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macksam Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 I find this discussion a bit hard to swallow. Everyone I know who watches soccer is familiar with most of the terms used in England, even Serie A fans. There might be the odd word here or there that feels unusual ("boots" vs. "cleats"), however, I doubt that using English vocabulary either improves or diminishes the game. If we wanted to make it appeal to people who aren't familiar with the game, why not do things like the NASL and have the clock run down instead of up, have "penalty shootouts" instead of draws, and have a blue line for offsides? Oh wait... that didn't work. I've watch enough bad announcing by US announcers for MLS matches who are more familiar with baseball and NFL. Nigel Reid may not sound "Canadian," but he's 1000% better than most of them. Bob >>>>> Nigel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Bob >>>>> Nigel. Repeating yourself is so fun!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macksam Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Repeating yourself is so fun!! I didn't even realize I had until I looked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Repeating yourself is so fun!! Talk about language/grammar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 I don't recall hearing many people complain about the British accent/terminology used by the commentators on the World Cup feed broadcast by the CBC, most viewers seemed to have no difficulty understanding what was being said. Oh wait, maybe that's because the commentary quality was high and the majority of folks watching/listening know that football is the world's game. If people are really avoiding the TFC broadcasts with Nigel Reed doing the commentary because of Nigel's English, I suggest they have only a very passing interest in the game itself or are highly prejudiced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul-collins Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 ... or maybe it didn't hurt to have good intro to the games, including pre-game and mid-game analysis. (speaking to the audience, as it were.) Oh, and the games were good. Everyone seems to have their panties in a twist over the suggestion that the TFC commentary might be too English. Highly prejudiced, indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverthursday Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 I don't recall hearing many people complain about the British accent/terminology used by the commentators on the World Cup feed broadcast by the CBC, most viewers seemed to have no difficulty understanding what was being said. Oh wait, maybe that's because the commentary quality was high and the majority of folks watching/listening know that football is the world's game. If people are really avoiding the TFC broadcasts with Nigel Reed doing the commentary because of Nigel's English, I suggest they have only a very passing interest in the game itself or are highly prejudiced. I agree although I will admit that when I started watching soccer, it was the Toronto FC, and I assumed the best because I heard an English accent. I guess that is biased illogically as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 Some English games are crappy too don't forget ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 That has always been a pet peeve of mine. Broadcasters seem to think that a Brit accent and phrases are needed to legitimize the game. They are certainly knowledegable but the casual Canadian fan needs a Brit-Canadian dictionary to understand what's being said. The result was a draw? Who hell in Canada says that? The game ended in a tie maybe? Who says we wanted a result? Well you got one, you lost! What the hell is showing pace? When was the last time you heard that on street? He's got speed or quickness, or even he broke hard for the ball.. maybe. A table is something you eat your supper on and a fixture is either your sink or the old guy at the office that does nothing. Part of the furniture. They are broadcasting a Canadian team to English speaking Canadians not trying out for the BBC. Ok, but this sport is called soccer, not hockey . I do not want to see terms that are intrigal to the tactical element of soccer elimated in favour of hockey terms. besides what makes the hockey terms more appropriate to begin with? many hockey terms are americanized and terms unique to soccer add to the undertanding and education of the game such as : Marking, crosses, first touches, second touches, set pieces..etc and their relevance are not mistaken with their relevance in hockey. First things that would come to mind if were to hear an announcer refer to to cross as centering pass, would be the term "Hick". Language is the biggest part of what makes up a culture. And Culture has direct influence in how you play the game. If we were to confuse hockey with soccer and fall back to hockey as referenace point, before you know it, we'd be playing soccer like our national womens team use to play. Other terms that are periferal to the game, yes I agree. For example langauge terms that would be used in everyday language or even chants and songs. I could never bring myself around to the chant: " the referee is a wanker". Or, anything relating to the competetion structure (tables/standings, Fixtures/schedule, group stage/round robin... etc) there I agree that the unique north american term is approriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macksam Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 Talk about language/grammar! You disrespecting me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearcatSA Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 I agree that it is irritating that North American broadcasters seem to feel it is necessary to have British commentary for soccer games and it perpetuates the stereotype that North Americans don't know anything about soccer. On the other hand some people in this thread are complaining about words like draw that are absolutely used in Canadian english and other words that are simply part of soccer vocabulary. Every sport has its own terms and suggesting that we come up with North American terms for things that non-soccer fans may not be familiar with is frankly ridiculous. All that being said, the accent of the commentary or the vocabulary used probably has a very minimal effect on viewership numbers. What is effecting TFC viewership numbers negatively are a number of factors such as time of broadcast, age of the team and lack of market coverage. Most of their CBC broadcasts are on Saturday afternoons in the summer which is a pretty poor time for viewers and I think most of the games that have been listed with better viewership numbers also had a better tv time slot. Even more important, TFC is a regional team whose popularity doesn't extend much further than the greater Toronto area. TFC is neither loved nor hated by the average Canadian sports fan outside of Toronto. This has to do with both the team not existing for a long time (not marketed for decades like the Jays) and the league not having other teams in Canada. The CFL games listed for example all involve two Canadian markets thus doubling the regional interest in the game. Additionally, every CFL game effects the standings of the other teams so the game becomes interesting to fans of those teams. Fans of other teams are also just more inclined to watch games not involving their team because they are fans of the sport and the league. This will change when Vancouver and particularly Montreal (which will add a fierce rivalry that every Canadian will understand even if they are not soccer fans) enter MLS. Plus with other cities like Edmonton, Ottawa and Hamilton getting Div 2 teams, even the Voyageurs Cup rivalries should build interest in watching the Canadian MLS teams. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul-collins Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 Ok, but this sport is called soccer, not hockey . I do not want to see terms that are intrigal to the tactical element of soccer elimated in favour of hockey terms. besides what makes the hockey terms more appropriate to begin with? many hockey terms are americanized and terms unique to soccer add to the undertanding and education of the game such as : Marking, crosses, first touches, second touches, set pieces..etc and their relevance are not mistaken with their relevance in hockey. First things that would come to mind if were to hear an announcer refer to to cross as centering pass, would be the term "Hick". Again with the looking down the nose. It's the hicks that aren't watching now! CBC needs hicks! Seriously, I dislike Don Cherry immensely, but he speaks to the hard core sporting audience in Canada. I wouldn't want to see things turned to that level of, er, I think someone called it pandering on this thread, but a little clarity wouldn't hurt. I agree that crosses are different from centering passes and you can't interchange them. Nor can you substitute "check" for either "challenge" or "tackle" as I think the word "check" covers too much ground. The only one I could see making a case for is "mark" turning into "cover" - this is not a hockey term, it is a general North American sports term. (and it's one of the English-isms I actively like in the commentary, go figure) But some judicious explanation of terminology is required, along with better break-time analysis. Actually, it's not the terminology that needs to be explained, it's the game action itself, using the appropriate terminology. Show, don't tell. I thought CBC did a tremendous job of this during WC although John Collins' accent was near impenetrable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argh1 Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 Again with the looking down the nose. It's the hicks that aren't watching now! CBC needs hicks! Seriously, I dislike Don Cherry immensely, but he speaks to the hard core sporting audience in Canada. I wouldn't want to see things turned to that level of, er, I think someone called it pandering on this thread, but a little clarity wouldn't hurt. I agree that crosses are different from centering passes and you can't interchange them. Nor can you substitute "check" for either "challenge" or "tackle" as I think the word "check" covers too much ground. The only one I could see making a case for is "mark" turning into "cover" - this is not a hockey term, it is a general North American sports term. (and it's one of the English-isms I actively like in the commentary, go figure) But some judicious explanation of terminology is required, along with better break-time analysis. Actually, it's not the terminology that needs to be explained, it's the game action itself, using the appropriate terminology. Show, don't tell. I thought CBC did a tremendous job of this during WC although John Collins' accent was near impenetrable... I mean no disrespect to Nigel as he knows the game well. But he ain't no Jim Hughson or Chris Cuthbert in how they tell a story about a game in our everyday language. Look at how TSN does curling, simple, explain the game in common language. We watch and learn curling terms quickly. Funny though when watching International soccer the Brit speech doesn't get to me......but domestic soccer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 I thought CBC did a tremendous job of this during WC although John Collins' accent was near impenetrable... John Collins' analysis was also pretty poor, highlighting the tendency to hire British accents regardless of the quality of the analysis or commentary. If the CBC were to hire the top analysist from the BBC or any other high level broadcaster I wouldn't really care much about a British or foreign accent. What bothers me is the broadcasters attitude that if the accent fits into the right stereotype for a soccer broadcast the analysis/commentary must be good as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul-collins Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 British? The guy sounded Gaelic to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 And Gaelic is not British? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianFootballer Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 It looks amateur, thats why it's ratings are struggling. It could be easily fixed by adding a couple more cameras at different angles, and by panning out to give a wider view of the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul-collins Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 And Gaelic is not British? Not if you're Irish it's not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 If people are really avoiding the TFC broadcasts with Nigel Reed doing the commentary because of Nigel's English, I suggest they have only a very passing interest in the game itself.................... I would agree with this. I have noted that the people for which this is an issue (ie.: Language used to describe the game) are exactly those types of people, those who have a passing interest in the game and are those who, not coincidentally, have to use hockey as a constant reference point. Would anyone complian about the language and terms used when reading, lets say, the fifa.com site? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverthursday Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 I would agree with this. I have noted that the people for which this is an issue (ie.: Language used to describe the game) are exactly those types of people, those who have a passing interest in the game and are those who, not coincidentally, have to use hockey as a constant reference point. Would anyone complian about the language and terms used when reading, lets say, the fifa.com site? May I interject there. You may find it annoying but swallow that. You WANT soccer to grow in Canada. We all do, but everyone starts somewhere, and if the only reference points they have are sports native to their culture and the environment they grew up in, then nurture that. I still haven't been able to figure out why footballers trade jerseys and I have been afraid to ask because how elitist you guys can be. You might be annoyed that hockey fans don't know much about soccer, well I already noticed many of you know very little about hockey. Relax a bit and let the hockey language with a hockey fan start a conversation in which you can teach that person a few things about soccer and maybe your enthusiam will wear off a bit. Or keep your nose in the air and soccer can limp along for another decade or so in North America. The balls in your court. Oops that was a basketball reference, don't crucify me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 John Collins' analysis was also pretty poor, highlighting the tendency to hire British accents regardless of the quality of the analysis or commentary. If the CBC were to hire the top analysist from the BBC or any other high level broadcaster I wouldn't really care much about a British or foreign accent. What bothers me is the broadcasters attitude that if the accent fits into the right stereotype for a soccer broadcast the analysis/commentary must be good as well. Fair enough, if your saying that a foreign accent is being mistakenly used to convey authority on the subject, then I agree with you. But the flip side of that is what we are constantly seeing on many broadcasts in french (eg.: Radio Canada). Namely, the constant references and comparisons to hockey. Aside from the colour commentary, it seems that i never see a single broadcast of any kind where someone doesn't make a hockey analogy or reference. You never see that with other sports. Problem with that is that if you always fall back to hockey as a point of comparison, you inevitably compare on terms and reference points that have greater relevance to hockey. You cant sell the game that way because the sports are different, one involves greater aggression, pursuit, direct play, and speed. The other, is more a game of leisurely pace, patience, individual skill, creativity and vision. Therefore new viewers are likely to find soccer boring rather than opening minds about the sport. You see where this could ultimately lead? You could spawn a belief or culture that emphasizes direct play, athleticism and lack of creativity. Just as rest of the world has totally abandoned those philosophies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverthursday Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 Yes but soccer isn't big in Canada yet. I say that because out of the three main sports broadcastors for average viewers (CBC, TSN, Rogers Sportsnet) only Rogers airs foriegn games and those are seven a.m. on Saturdays, and CBC plays a few TFC games. using a common language is a good idea, until the casual viewers become a little more nerdy for soccer and start grasping the intricacies of it. Besides that, we aren't watching the Impact play AC Milan on a European station, we are watching them play an American team on a CBC station. It is up to you to teach the finer details to the casual fans until the day we have soccer night in Canada. I have been on here for a month about and honestly most of what I know about this sport has been learned from reading topics and replies that fly right over my head. Funny this reminds me of hockey. It is hard to get into triple a unless you played in triple a previously. Confused? It means unless you know all of this early it is very hard to break into. Maybe the CBC could make a soccer equivilant to Peter the Puck, but that would throw most of you into absolute hysterics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 May I interject there. You may find it annoying but swallow that. You WANT soccer to grow in Canada. We all do, but everyone starts somewhere, and if the only reference points they have are sports native to their culture and the environment they grew up in, then nurture that. I still haven't been able to figure out why footballers trade jerseys and I have been afraid to ask because how elitist you guys can be. You might be annoyed that hockey fans don't know much about soccer, well I already noticed many of you know very little about hockey. Relax a bit and let the hockey language with a hockey fan start a conversation in which you can teach that person a few things about soccer and maybe your enthusiam will wear off a bit. Or keep your nose in the air and soccer can limp along for another decade or so in North America. The balls in your court. Oops that was a basketball reference, don't crucify me. See my post above this one.....#47 my response and explanation and response to you points are contained within. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverthursday Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 See my post above this one.....#47 my response and explanation and response to you points are contained within. One step ahead of you, as I already responded to it. I had one skate against the goal post before you started your wrap-around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.