Press Coverage: ESPN Shining Bright At World Cup

Last week, we discussed how important the World Cup is for ESPN if the company wants to change the term "Worldwide Leader in Sports" from a marketing catchphrase to actual fact. Less than four days into the 2010 tournament, ESPN has already begun to do just that. I can't speak to the coverage in other countries, but if you compare ESPN's World Cup coverage to other ESPN productions, it's not even close. The 2010 World Cup is shaping up to be, thus far, the best event ESPN has ever produced.

Now for an enormous qualification: ESPN isn't producing the video for the matches. That is coming from the FIFA world feed. So it's hard to call this the greatest production from ESPN when they aren't actually handling the video of the matches. That said, the fact that they aren't in control of the actual game telecast can make it harder on the broadcasters and directors. So far, the game action has been rather seamless.

Inside the Booth
We posited the question last week if America would want an English voice – albeit one as distinguished as Martin Tyler – calling the U.S-England match. After a lackluster broadcast against Australia with booth analyst John Harkes, the decision to pair the two together for the biggest match in U.S. soccer in nearly 20 years seemed questionable.

On Saturday, the two worked very well together. I have been tough on Harkes over the years, but Saturday's match was, to my recollection, the best match he's ever called. Credit has to go to Tyler for a lot of that, who did exactly what he wasn't able to do during the U.S. friendly against the Socceroos. Tyler lets the game breathe. He allows the crowd to tell much of the story. Americans will never get used to his style of goal call – just allowing the visual of the play to develop and rather calmly announcing the score – as over-the-top goal calls have been ingrained in our sports consciousness to a near Pavlovian level. Understated is not what we do, which is why some Americans tuned in to Univision for the match between Mexico and South Africa (more on that later). Univision's call, compared to Tyler's understated style, was a 90-minute party. That's just never going to be Tyler's style. That said, his end-to-end call of a match is spectacular.

Not to be outdone are the trio of Adrian Healey, Ian Darke and Derrick Rae, which has been stellar as well. In the past we have crushed ESPN for its decisions on World Cup match announcers – need we to revisit the Dave O'Brien era? Even this year many American fans were upset at the relegation of J.P. Dellacamera to radio. Sure, it's only been a few days – at the time of this story there have been just eight matches played – but ESPN was right. They hired fantastic play-by-play men.

The analysts haven't been as spectacular, but they've been solid nonetheless. It's hard, because part of the logic behind having former athletes in the booth is that their names are recognizable, helping to make them an authority. It's not that ESPN analysts work hasn't been good – for some matches it's been very good – it's that they're rather anonymous to the average American viewer. Efan Ekoku missed the call on the disallowed goal in the Mexico-South Africa match, stating that the player was onsides when he was not. For full disclosure, I missed it as well, completely not realizing how far forward the goalkeeper had pushed. Then again, I'm not in the booth, charged with analyzing the play to millions. But other than that gaffe, the analysts have been solid and have shown a good depth of knowledge of the game, without dumbing it down for the American audience.

Having said that, I do question ESPN and ABC's decision to have Ally McCoist call the Germany match on ABC on Sunday. Knowing ABC matches have the highest potential for ratings, and with the American audience still figuring out this whole "soccer thing," I would have gone with an analyst who, frankly, is easier to understand. It's not that you can make out McCoist's thick Scottish accent, but it is something you have to really listen for if not accustomed to hearing.

In Studio
This is really where ESPN has shined. Bob Ley, Mike Tirico and Chris Fowler have been hosting the studio coverage, which has been absolutely fantastic. As glowing as I just was for the work in the booth – something I have rarely done for ESPN – the work in studio has been that much better. It's the perfect balance. There's no schtick. There's no funny nicknames or sound effects or sides of the pillow and other SportsCenter catch phrases being yelled over highlights. The coverage from South Africa has been pure and straightforward, bordering on reverential to the sport of soccer. Look, the NFL fan may like seven guys at a desk laughing at their own jokes, but that wouldn't work for soccer (note: many people agree, that actually does not work for football, either). One host and two analysts. It works for soccer. It can work for other sports too. Less is more…this is proving it.

"Less is more" works when you have a personality like Alexi Lalas sitting on the desk. Lalas has an opinion about everything, and most times his opinion is pro-U.S., which on American television isn't exactly a bad thing. ESPN has smartly paired Lalas with the right analyst for the right situation – Jurgen Klinsmann for the match featuring Germany, for example – but no pairing is as entertaining as Lalas and former Dutch great Ruud Gullit. If you read Grant Wahl's book on David Beckham, you'll know that Lalas and Gullit have not gotten along, stemming from their time together with LA Galaxy. The interaction between the two has, at times, been priceless. That decision by ESPN, which has already created some great television moments, is the best decision they've made so far.

The studio show hasn't been without a few questionable decisions. First, the absence of Ley as the studio anchor for the U.S.-England match was curious. I was told by ESPN that Ley simply had the morning shift and the late shift goes to Fowler, who they feel does a very solid job. Fowler is, possibly, the best studio host at ESPN, so I would never question his credentials. But in that situation with that build-up, the schedule should have been amended to let Ley host the coverage on ABC. He deserved to be a part of that telecast.

In addition, Ley would never have made as many comparisons between how much the match meant to those of us in the States and those across the pond that Fowler, and to a lesser extent Tirico, did. Do more people care over there? Does a higher percentage of their population? Of course. But that doesn't mean that soccer fans in America care less than fans in England. In fact, a case can be made that soccer fans in America care more because a good showing in this World Cup could, in theory, make soccer a real legitimate sport in this country. There is a lot riding on the U.S. success at this World Cup and it just seemed like, at times in that pre-game show, Fowler sounded like he missed being home to cover the college football realignment story. Sure there are new fans watching soccer for the first time, but most of us who tuned in were the ones who care. We didn't need to be told that we didn't care as much as the other side.

Having said that, Fowler has been very good at directing traffic – and keeping up with the soccer talk – thus far. As has Tirico, who admitted before the tournament that, outside of watching his kids play, he is not all that well versed in the game. As for Ley, well, this coverage is made for him, and he's been delivering.

Death To The Vuvuzelas…On Radio?
While the television announcers have been on location for every match, the radio announcers are still calling games for ESPN from a booth in America until the quarterfinals, when they'll travel to South Africa to call the games live.

So, if the radio call is coming from a booth in America, the sounds of the game are being pumped in. Oftentimes the natural sound of a game is picked up from a field microphone that's part of the broadcast. Other times the crowd is loud enough to be picked up by the microphones in the booth. But here, that's not the case. ESPN is pumping in the live crowd noise to give the feel that the announcers are at the match.

But why? People hate the vuvuzelas, and there's still talk from some of the players about wanting to ban them, so why pump that noise in when you don't have to? I asked ESPN that question:

"We do mix the audio for World Cup matches, just like we do for other events we cover," ESPN spokesman Bill Hofheimer told me. "Our goal is to find the right balance of natural sound with the calls of our commentators. We do put a premium on the natural sound because it helps tell the story of the event for viewers at home."

I, for one, agree with the decision to pump in the natural crowd noise. I've also been able to filter out much of the annoying, bee-swarm sound at this point, so it's no longer as bothersome as to some. Still, it would have been hilarious – disingenuous, but hilarious nonetheless – for ESPN to pump in generic crowd noise instead. Would they take flack, or get applause?

Univision Is The New Gus Johnson
During Friday's opening match between Mexico and South Africa, Chris Littmann asked me if I was going to talk about Univision's coverage of the match. So, I swapped back and forth between that telecast and the ESPN telecast. It was incredibly fun and exciting and great for the average fan who won't know the players if they hear the names in English or in Spanish. But I couldn't understand a word – other than the sing-songy Tshabalala, or other names of players.

Yet Univision has become the trendy thing to watch. It's the World Cup version of Gus Johnson. Don't believe me? Maybe you'll believe these completely skewed statistics by a TV reporter who says that more people are watching on Univision because the coverage has been more exciting.

What might look dull on one network is exciting no matter what is happening on the field, just from the way they roll their Rs, or increase the speed of their patter with the footspeed of the players. And if anyone scores? Well, that's it.

Gol! Gol! Gol! GOAAAAAAAAAL!

If you saw the U.S. goal dribble in Saturday on Univision, you felt the achievement in an entirely different way, the GOAAAAAL! Stretched out as long as the celebration lasted. Fantastico.

Turns out I'm not the only one who feels this way. Univision has been beating ESPN and its sister station ABC by a margin of 2-1. The opening match Friday of Mexico vs. South Africa drew 5.4 million viewers compared to ESPN's 2.6 million. It was Univision most watched opening day match ever, doubling the World Cup opening day audience of 2006.

That's from Roger Catlin of the Hartford Courant, just a stone's throw from Bristol. What he neglected to explain, which is contextually necessary, was that Univision got such a huge number for Mexico's match and it stands to reason that Mexico would draw a better number on Univision than on ESPN, or a better number than four years ago.

Those numbers mean very little when comparing average viewership – much like the huge U.S. numbers on ABC of 13 million viewers means little – and means even less when discussing the quality of the telecast. For those who are bilingual, sure, it's more fun to watch Univision. But if you don't understand Spanish, the excitement offered by its telecast can't trump actually understanding the call. Anyone saying otherwise is just hating on ESPN, or being trendy for trend's sake.

World Cup on Armed Forces Network
A friend in the military sent me this with the line (giving him full credit): Another cool victory for sports over politics.

The U.S. Armed Forces stationed outside the United States and aboard Navy ships at sea will have access to AFN-BC’s schedule of live and tape-delayed coverage of the entire calendar of 64 matches from June 11-July 11, 2010. Through the combined broadcast feeds of ABC and ESPN, AFN’s well-deserving audience will have the opportunity to follow all the action down on the pitch, from group play to the knockout rounds, from the semifinals to the Championship match.

"Having the most-watched sports event on the planet play out on AFN is a real feather in our cap," noted Jeff White, Executive Director of AFN-BC, "but more importantly, we’ll be able to deliver the entire compliment of matches to the side that means the most -- our brave men and women in uniform serving their country overseas and in harm’s way. It doesn’t get any better than this."

AFN-BC only has permission to play the matches on closed circuit transmission for those in the military. This clearance process, provided by FIFA on a "gratis basis" took more than two and a half years and included the participation of 34 different licensing groups in 28 territories who had to waive their territorial exclusivity.

This included Iraq and Afghanistan, by the way. Strike one for sports over politics, indeed.

Bill Handelman, RIP
One non-soccer note this week, and it comes of the melancholy variety. Veteran sportswriter Bill Handelman of the Asbury Park Press passed away last week after a fight with kidney cancer. He was 62 years old. For those who knew Handelman, he was not only one of the most learned sportswriters around, he was also one of the most patient and friendly you'd ever meet. Shannon Mullen has a wonderful look at Handelman's career in the APP.

This post originally appeared on the Sporting Blog. For more, see The Sporting Blog Archives.