Conference trucks::football;1

    In Ireland we get all the games, there is a panel of
    experts who analyse games and the critical moves and
    decisions. On the panel are several well-known ex-pros,
    including John Giles (ex Ireland manager), Joe Kinnear
    (Wimbledon manager), Frank Stapleton (ex Ireland captain)
    and Paddy Crerand (ex Man Utd and Scotland star).
    
    After each game there's a "World Cup Forum", where members
    of an invited audience (including ex-referees, rock stars,
    journalists and Gaelic Games players) air their views and
    debate issues with the panel. 
    
    Jim.
    
    
    
    
    

    Funny enough I watched the Ireland/Mexico game from an Irish pub and
    therefore got an Irish sat channel with the same panel

    I remember John giles opening statement when summing up Mexicos
    potential `before the match' ..."Well, Mexico aren't a top notch
    team", a bad omen I thought at the time!~~

m
    

    Couldn't agree more... once the panel starts getting optimistic
    about things Ireland starts to lose goals... 
    
    It even happened to me on Friday. After 43 minutes I said
    "I can't see these Mexican's scoring against us" and 
    then 30 seconds later they did.
    
    So I suppose you could say it was my fault too!
    
    Jim.

    Over here in Holland we get every match entirely.
    Comments by famous people from the past as wel  as the present.
    About the commentators: usually pro-opponent when Holland is playing,
    but there's nothing new about that. They can always find something to
    complain about, even if Holland *does* play well, like in their last
    game (that they lost :( ).
    
    RE.0
    Germans faking? Never!  :)
    Why do you think the J�rgen-award is started?
    You people fake everytime!!
    You even started the hype about asking for cards!
    Even the Irish did it (Houghton)! Stop that, guys.
    Everybody asking for a card should get it himself!
    
    Marcel

    re .4

    we have a similar award here, it's for teams that always loose a big
    match... when it really counts, Holland usually do quite well at it. :)

    
    m
    

    Well, *we* got the trophy (EK '88) in *your* country, right?  :)
    We have an award called 'De Naaimachine' , where players that try to
    'screw' with other players are shown. 9 out of 10 times, there were 3
    germans at 1,2 and 3.
    You people are called 'matennaaiers' over here, for an obvious reason.
    
    Marcel

    Well, I sure hope our teams will meet.
    Can't wait. We might not be playing the '88 football, but you sure
    aren't playing any better.
    
    Marcel

    Marcel,
    
    I always enjoyed reading your notes, as I found your view on WC 94
    mostly fair and independend. A few minutes ago I had to change my mind,
    when I did read your last note. I carry a Dutch name, although I'm
    German, which gives me sometimes a hard time. Unfair comments like
    yours destroy all my efforts, to convince people around me, to open 
    their eyes and to see, that Dutch team plays attractive football.
    
    Saturday's game against Belgium was the best game in this years WC for
    me too. It should have ended in a draw.
    
    Frank 

    
    
    Marcel,
    
    >You people are called 'matennaaiers' over here, for an obvious reason
    
    What is a matennaaier?
    
    Al.

    To answer a question a few back re coverage in the U.S., it has 
    been very good and commercial free.  At the beginning of each game 
    they announce the sponsors and the clock and score show in the top 
    left of the screen with the sponsors name.  No interruptions.

    We get games on both ESPN channels (that's the Sports channels) 
    and also on ABC.  Commentators vary much in quality.  They have 
    found trouble finding US people who can speak intelligently on the 
    games though one of the ESPN people Bob Ley isn't bad.  However 
    they have imported some English and Irish.  One in particular Ian 
    Darke whose voice sounds familiar (anyone in the UK heard of him?) 
    is very good.

    Overall it is very pleasant to watch 45 mins of adless TV!

    Gerry

    do american spectators appreciate the lack of commercials ? or is that
    how baseball, football  etc. are covered ?

    
    Re- Ian Darke
    
    He's a SKY Sports football commentator in the UK....along with Martin
    Tyler
    
    Dave...

>>    do american spectators appreciate the lack of commercials ? or is that
>>    how baseball, football  etc. are covered ?

    I can't speak for the rest of the country by I sure as heck 
    appreciate it! And it's not the way other sports are covered.  At 
    every possible opportunity in the other sports, ads are shown. If 
    there haven't been enough 'natural' breaks for the TV companies' 
    liking, they have 'TV timeouts' so that they can show more ads. 
    However since in major events like the Superbowl, a 30 second spot 
    sells for $500K or more, you can understand why they want as many 
    of them as they can get.

    Gerry

    John Motson excelled himself in the Arg v Nigeria game. After a
    Nigerian player got booked he said:
    
    "And they're really drinking in the last chance saloon these Nigerians
    with the red cards"
    
    Last Chance Saloon?!?!?!
    
    Other good one, after John Fashanu (possibly an even MORE boring
    commentator than Jonathan Palmer on G Prixs) said that Maradonna still
    lookled good after coke, booze and women, and that maybe we should all
    try it, Motty came up with "I'llthink I'll stick to my lifestyler thank
    you." Mr Boring or what!
    
    Paul

	re American coverage

	As I remarked in another notes file, after seeing ABC mess up the
	screen with the "sponsor's logo" clock all the time _and_ inset pictures 
	of players whilst they splice recorded interviews into the commentary,
	I've taken to watching the WC on our local Univision (Spanish language)
	station. The animated advertising slogans that periodically appear at
	the bottom of the screen are a bit less irritating. And, of course, you
	get the benefit of the commentator who shouts "Goooooooooooooooooool".

	re Iranian coverage

	I read that because of the presence in the WC crowds of women who are
	not dressed to Islamic principles, Iranian TV is using substituting
	pre-recorded audience shots for the real crowd. The crowd recordings
	were made during the winter, with the crowds in overcoats.
	Mark you, after seeing the "cleavage" shot in the coverage of Saturday's
	Argentina game, I can see that religious fundamentalists might get a
	bit agitated.

	Tony 

>    do american spectators appreciate the lack of commercials ? or is that
>    how baseball, football  etc. are covered ?

I like it, but it is a bit of an adjustment.  Americans are used to using the 
commercial breaks for grabbing a beer or a snack or taking a bio break (there 
is either a fact or popular myth that water pressure takes a noticable drop 
during commercial and halftime breaks of the American football Super Bowl 
due to the number of toilets flushing).

While it's nice to see it commercial-free, I don't like the constant display 
of the logo on the screen but that's a small price to pay.  Also, I've 
watched the Spanish language channel a lot.  The announcer goes absolutely 
nuts when a goal is scored, and it's a much fun to listen to him as it is to 
see the goal.  On the Spanish language channel, there are commercials, but 
they appear on the screen as a sort of overwrite while the televising of the 
game continues.

No it's not the way that U.S. sports are covered.  Baseball lends itself to 
commercial interruptions, since there are so many long breaks in the action, 
as does American football, to a somewhat lesser extent.  Other sports, such 
as hockey and basketball are actually modified to suit TV; there are extra 
and long timeouts during the game.  It's particularly irritating in hockey, 
because when you're watching live, the players just skate aimlessly around 
the ice.

Clay  

re > commercial breaks for grabbing a beer or a snack or taking a bio break (there 
   > is either a fact or popular myth that water pressure takes a noticable drop 
   > during commercial and halftime breaks of the American football Super Bowl 
   > due to the number of toilets flushing).
    
    In England there is a similar myth/fact regarding the common kettle. It
    seems that at half time the national grid has to handle a massive surge
    of power, required to supply households turning on a kettle, for their
    cup of tea during half time (or a pause in a major film).
    
    m
    
    
    

>    Other good one, after John Fashanu (possibly an even MORE boring
>    commentator than Jonathan Palmer on G Prixs) said that Maradonna still
>    lookled good after coke, booze and women, and that maybe we should all
>    try it...
    
    In the US, such a free statement would gain the commentator a ticket
    to the unemployment line, alas.  Instead, we get the likes of the
    bland, generally uninformed Roger Twibell...
    
    Yes, the commercial-free telecasts are greatly appreciated (although in
    baseball the inning breaks are a natural part of the game and are not
    so disruptive-- they're just about a minute too long, in the interests 
    of commerce).  Forty-five minutes is not too long to sit and watch the
    action; just about perfect, in fact.
    
    What was this infamous "cleavage shot" in Argentina-Nigeria? ;-) I found 
    a ticket and was sitting with the "African Supporters Club" (who were 
    certainly outnumbered, but not outspirited).  An upset looked like a
    good possibility for a while, but it was not to be.  Great fun, though!
    
    glenn
    

    I've watched a good few games on US TV. The ABC coverage is dreadful.
    They had a camera in the box that had the players parents in it for the
    USA match yesterday, so they could watch their reactions. I thought
    Tony Meola's father was going to put his fist through the camera after
    the goal went in. Then during the play we have to listen to "personal
    interest" crap about the players, whilst there ugly mugs cover up 1/4
    of the screen. There commentors keep talking about the strategy's being
    employed by the teams, as the game carries on uncommentated. Pathetic.
    
    ESPN is much better. Iain Darke is pretty good, even if they do tend to
    call the games result with 10 minutes to go. The advertising thing is a
    pretty good compromise. 
    
    Finally, no station in the US is showing the Ireland/Norway Match live.
    They are all showing Italy/Mexico. Ireland/Norway won't be shown until
    12.25 AM ! on Tueday night (Wednesday Morning). I'm devastated! I'll
    have to go into Boston and watch it on "The Irish Channel". The
    commentary is in Gaelic, as ESPN/ABC have the exclusive rights for the
    English commentary in the USA (This was to accomadate UniVision's
    Spainish Commentary). By the way ESPN/ABC are doing pretty nicely for
    themselves considering they only paid $11M for the TV rights.
    
    Joe. 

I have been watching many of the matches here in the U.S. on TV.  I think 
that ABC and ESPN are NOT doing a very good job.  For one, I find the 
advertisements and clock in the upper left hand corner of the screen to be 
annoying.  The American commentators in general know little about the game, 
particularly the strategic aspects.  I rarely hear them inform the viewers 
of halftime adjustments, etc. that teams have made, for example.

I think if the U.S. broadcasters could find a way to insert commercials 
during live action, they would do it.  Even without commercials they find a 
way to screw the viewer out of live action.  During yesterday's U.S.- 
Romania match, ABC at one point had on the screen a picture of a football 
shoe, YES, a SHOE!  At the time the U.S. side was nearly scoring a goal!  
Incredible. For some reason, these broadcasters think they are obligated to 
"improve" the product by inserting interviews, shots of family members, etc. 
I wish they would just show the match and be done with it.

I much prefer to watch the games on Univision (the Spanish network).  It has 
experience in broadcasting WC games, knows which matches have interest to 
the aficionado (generally), and of course there is no call in the world like 
Cantos cry of GOOOOOOOOOOLLL!  It helps to understand Spanish though.  I 
don't know if I would watch them as much if I couldn't understand them.
But since I'm not completely fluent in Spanish, sometimes I switch back to 
ESPN or ABC to get an English language explanation of an unusual event, only 
to be disappointed by the clueless announcers.  

And finally, I much prefer the Univision method of having the animated 
advertisements at the bottom of the screen, because they are only shown 
during corner, goal, or free kick setups and during injury delays, which 
doesn't interrupt live action.

	Doug in SoCal

    Re. 22
    
    	Hear, hear...
    	I think even ESPN is lousy. When you have 1 lone striker in the
    opponents half and they have 2 defenders, that doesn't mean they're
    "double-teaming". Football just isn't played that way !!! There is very
    little analysis of attacking moves except for Ian Darke.
    	Also, why does this thing about time bother people so much. Yes,
    only the referee knows when to end the match. But will this people
    understand that football began loooonnnngggg before television. And I
    hate thes things that come up on the screen telling you about the next
    match. That really blocks about 1/3 of the screen. Can't they make
    these things transparent ? 
    	Also, the cameramen have no idea what is important on the field of
    play. I don't want to see the family of the American team. I don't want
    to see the thermometer. 
    	The thing I hate most however is the commentators speaking the
    commercials. Dumbest idea ! I hope somebody scores a goal when they're
    doing that. Look more dumbe then.
    
    Kumar

    Coverage in the US :
    
    Public TV does not cover the entire tournement, though you can see some
    matches on ABC.  The spanish chanel covers nearly all of the matches
    but is not available everywhere (air transmission) and in some places 
    the broadcasting is bad (like at my place when it rains :).
    
    Some poeple can't get the cable or the spanish channels cannot follow
    the world cup at all ...

    Coverage in Hongkong:
    
    Matches are covered live which means waking up at 3:00 AM (watching it
    later on VCR does not seem to be half as good as live).  The matches
    are carried on FOUR (!) channels simultaneously (2 with Chinese
    commentaries and 2 in English).  There are two major TV operators and
    they each carry an English and Chinese channel.  If there are
    simultaneous matches, then one match is carried on the English channel
    and the other on the Chinese channel (which also has English commentary
    if you have a TV with NICAM. i.e., stereo reception).  But if there is
    only one match going on, then it is carried on all 4 channels
    simultaneously, with no commercial breaks and with very good
    commentators.  

    We get all the games in France, at 6:30 PM, 10 PM and either midnight
    or 1:25 AM.
    
    The 3 major networks share the games and we get famous and infamous
    pairs of commentators. The novelty here is Didier Roustan and Eric
    Cantona who speak the language of the street and crack the odd joke or
    pun ("Kop...acabana").
    
    �JF?

AP report

U.S.-Romania Game Might Be Most Watched Match Ever in America

NEW YORK (AP) - Sunday's World Cup game between the United States and Romania
received a 7.8 overnight rating in 29 major markets, putting it on track to
be the most-watched soccer game ever in the United States.

The Americans' 1-0 loss, televised by the ABC network, appears likely to
eclipse the record 6.6 rating for the 1982 World Cup final between Italy and
West Germany, also televised by ABC.

The national rating for Sunday's game will be released on Thursday by Nielsen
Media Research. The numbers did not include those watching on the
Spanish-language Universion network.

Sunday's game drew a 20 percent share of the audience in the 29 major
markets, about triple the ratings of Wimbledon on NBC and double the Greater
Hartford Open on CBS.

Wimbledon got a 2.3 rating on Saturday and a 2.2 on Sunday, while the golf
got a 3.3 on Saturday and 3.9 on Sunday.

Also, ABC said Monday it will televise the United States' second-round game,
either on Saturday in Chicago or on Monday at Stanford Stadium. If the
Americans play at Stanford, ABC will not televise the second-round game
earlier that day at Orlando, Fla.

ABC's telecast of Belgium's 1-0 victory over the Netherlands on Saturday got
a 4.2 rating and its telecast of Argentina's victory over Nigeria got a 4.7
rating.

The rating is the percentage of television households in the United States,
and the share is the percentage tuned in among those televisions that are on
at the time. Each point represents 942,000 households.

    Does anyone know what sort of rating a regular US football/Baseball
    match would get ?
    

>    Does anyone know what sort of rating a regular US football/Baseball
>    match would get ?
    
    A regular-season, nationally-televised exclusive NFL game might get 
    as high as a 15 or a 20.  Baseball has no such national network games 
    (or very few) until their playoffs, and generally low national ratings
    for those few games.  [The NFL Super Bowl regularly lands in the 40s,
    and is annually the single most-watched sporting event in the US, by
    far.]
    
    Nonetheless, the WC ratings are very impressive, especially considering
    the number of uncounted Univision viewers (reasonably high, I would
    guess, as attested to by the responses from devotees in this note). They 
    have greatly exceeded expectations.  I think that the 4.* numbers for 
    the Saturday games, not involving the US, are the most impressive so 
    far.  Brazil-USA on the 4th of July should exceed 10.0 and again break 
    the US ratings record...
    
    glenn
    

  >  Does anyone know what sort of rating a regular US football/Baseball
  >  match would get ?

That's a tough question to answer if you want an "apples to apples"
comparison.  The U.S.- Romania match was probably the only soccer 
match most Americans wanted to watch on Sunday, but by comparison there
would be upwards of a dozen American football games on any
given Sunday during the season (one or two shown nationally).

A good comparison would be Monday Night football (American) which is
shown live nationally.  That game normally gets between a 14 and 18
rating, which is considerably more than U.S.- Romania this past Sunday.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

During baseball playoffs, where the games are shown nationally, I 
think a 7.8 rating would be quite disappointing to the broadcasters.

The Super Bowl of American football usually gets ratings in the 40s,
if I'm not mistaken.

	Doug

>NEW YORK (AP) - Sunday's World Cup game between the United States and 
>Romania received a 7.8 overnight rating in 29 major markets, putting it on 
>track to be the most-watched soccer game ever in the United States.

Too bad, also.  This was imo, a boring game once Romania got the lead.

Clay

	Does anyone know what Nielsen rating the O.J. Simpson car chase got?

	Tony

    Something like a .357 ?
     Sean
    

Here in the Scotland the coverage consists of some English commentators 
and their never ending stories of 1966. I wish Scotland had qualified then we
wouldn't have to listen to the English, we'd only have the awful Scotland 
performances to complain about. Best idea is just to turn the sound off on the
TV and get some beers!

    Sounds like the North American thing to do.
     Sean.....Then again what would you expect with all the ancestors
    over here.
    

    
    Ok, we have to listen to the English..talking about their past glory.
    And they think its all over....IT IS NOW. 
    The tv coverage has been pretty poor ( unless you have astra )
    especially this week. We are surely suffering because England did not
    qualify. I suspect we would have had blanket coverage if they had
    managed to get there. Still, better with no football on tv rather than
    the English playing in the WC and expecting to win it 8^)))

    >>Ok, we have to listen to the English..talking about their past glory.
    >>And they think its all over....IT IS NOW. 
    >>The tv coverage has been pretty poor ( unless you have astra )
    >>especially this week. We are surely suffering because England did not
    >>qualify. I suspect we would have had blanket coverage if they had
    >>managed to get there. Still, better with no football on tv rather than
    >>the English playing in the WC and expecting to win it 8^)))
                      
    Even with the simley, this is a load of paranoid crap!  Here in sunny
    London town I've watched about 10 games on the Beeb and ITV and not
    heard a single reference to 1966 or England not being in the USofA.
    And as for blanket coverage - most days it's been possible to watch 3
    live games.  What do you call that?  Particularly with Wimbledon, a
    test match and Prince Charles making a pratt of himself going on at the 
    same time
    
    Mike M
    
    P.S.  Queue the terminally (sic) boring; "We might be shite, but at
    least we know...."

    re: -1
    
    Mike, you've gotta hand it to the Scots: they NEVER talk about their
    past glories. If there's one thing the Scots don't do, it's talk about
    their past glories.
    
    To this day, I've yet to meet a Scotsman who talks about the Scots' past
    glories.
    
    Dom

    
    
    re .39
    
     What games have you been watching? This is not paranoid crap or
    anything, but in nearly every game I've watched so far there has been
    some mention of England. It's almost at the stage where I watch it
    with the sound turned down.
    
     A few examples - comment on the indoor stadium, "did  you know that
    the grass was 80% something and 20% something, invented by an
    Englishman" - USA beat Rumania, "some English success here, South 
    African born, Coventry based striker Roy Wegerle", more English
    success "Swiss manager, Englands Roy Hodgson", "Russian goalkeeper
    Dmitri Kharin deals with corner kicks like that every week in the 
    premier league with Chelsea". The list is endless!!!!!
    
     Watching the highlights of one game recently, smoothie Des Lynam
    commented that a particular striker scored a typical Gary Lineker
    goal, and no prizes for guessing who was in the studio with him, yep
    our Gary. The problem was, the guy had scored from about 20 yards which
    was something that Lineker never did.
    
     Danny.
    
    
     ps Did you know that Germany were the first defending champions since
        Engerland to win their opening game? I didn't, but the BBC informed
        me of that fact during the opening game with Bolivia.

    
    
     re .40
    
      And you lot and the cronies at the EBC are still living in 1966.
     Chaps, it IS ALL OVER NOW, get a grip!!!!!
    
      Danny.

    
    Is there some sort of rule that states that English commentators, 
    commentating to a mostly English audiance are not allowed to mention 
    England, just incase it offends a few people. 
    
    Can you believe that some people sit there counting how many times
    England get mentioned....???????
    
    You need to get a grip. 
    
    Dave... 
    

Well IMHO the American announcer we have for the WC
s*ck especially Roger Twibell. During the first 20
minutes or so of the Holland-Belgium match he had
Michel Prud'homme playing for Holland and Ed de Goey
playing for Belgium...nice going Roger. I find that
the American announcers feel that they must always be
saying something, usually dribble in the case of soccer.
Must be because of their baseball/football(American)/
basketball upbringing. The European announcers that 
I've heard have a much better grip and understanding
of the game and know how to present it to the TV 
audience. Just my opinion.

Jerry

    
    Well chaps.....the BBC has nothing on ARD...never heard so munch
    nationalistic crap in my life...though Fassbender is the usual culprit.
    ZDF has a 'relatively' more balanced viewpoint....
    
    Dezzz. 

    
    
     Dave, the BBC supplies coverage of the WC to England, Wales, Scotland
    and Northern Ireland. Now, neither of these countries qualified for
    the WC finals. Why then do we continually get constant references to
    Engerland and English football when they did not even qualify? Whats
    the point in referring to Engerland? Surely it would seem natural to
    discuss the 2 teams taking part in the game, not how Engerland would
    have played, how so and so from the premier would have done etc etc.
    
     The constant drivel from the commentators really pisses most
    non-Engerlish viewers off. It's not sour grapes or anything, it's just
    so bloody pointless.
    
      Danny.
    
    ps No doubt one of the Scottish universities will have monitored every
       game for mention of the dreaded Engerlish, I'll post the findings
       for you when they are produced.
    
    pps Tourist bosses at Culloden, near Inverness, have instructed dog
       owners that they can only use the "Field of the English" for their
       dogs to drop their poo-poos. This is where the English dead were
       buried after the battle 250 years ago. Seems like a great idea to 
       me. :-) :-)

    Re -1
    
>>        The constant drivel from the commentators really pisses most
>>    non-Engerlish viewers off. It's not sour grapes or anything, it's just
>>    so bloody pointless.
    
>>      Danny.
    
    
    ...it pisses off most *normal* English football fans off as well, I
    might add. 
    
    Rob
    
    [Stand back and wait for contradictions from some of those Bulldogs who
    note in here]

    Come to think of it, if the only Scotsmen I know here in Italy are
    anything to go by, then my take on how the Scots' view the World Cup
    is...
    
    
    
    An opportunity for Scotsmen all over the world to get together in front
    of a TV set with a few beers and talk about David Narey's extraordinary
    super-duper wacko shot that gave Scotland a temporary 1-0 lead over
    Brazil in 1982. Alan Rough/Jim Leighton/Tommy Lawrence/George Wood/Andy
    Goram (delete as appropriate) then stole the limelight and Brazil won
    4-1.
    
    Those brave, brave boys...now THAT'S what I call glory!
    

    
    
    re .48

    re .43
    
    I think you have to be non-English to appreciate the pro-english bais
    of the english commentators.
    
     

    >I think you have to be non-English to appreciate the pro-english bais
    >of the english commentators.
    
    I disagree. I'm English and I appreciate it. :^)
    
    Where football is concerned I love subjectivety.
    Al.

    
    But Al I though you were a Yorkshireman not an Englishman !!!
    
    Dezzz.

	A simple solution to biased BBC commentary and here it is:

	(1) at the next general election simply vote for SNP/Plaid Cymru 
	(2) sucede from the United Kingdom
	(3) start own national broadcasting company
	(4) stop moaning 
	
	I'm all for it. However, there may have to be some ethnic cleansing
	from our end of things(English). Watch out McDonalds.

	Ian.

    
    
    I have got to reply....
    
    
    I guess we cannot be watching the same games on tv. Even the opening
    ceremony was filled with English clips,memories and talk. I suppose 
    Scots just pick it up a little better.
    
    On tv coverage.
    
    I agree that the opening week was good. I didn't say it wasn't. This
    week has been crap.
    
    Andrew

   >>       <<< Note 410.41 by YELBUS::DSMITH "It's over the line..." >>>
                         -< Pass the sick bag please. >-
   >>   re .39
    
   >>  What games have you been watching? This is not paranoid crap or
   >> anything, but in nearly every game I've watched so far there has been
   >> some mention of England. It's almost at the stage where I watch it
   >> with the sound turned down.
    
   >>  A few examples - comment on the indoor stadium, "did  you know that
   >> the grass was 80% something and 20% something, invented by an
   >> Englishman" - USA beat Rumania, "some English success here, South 
   >> African born, Coventry based striker Roy Wegerle", more English
   >> success "Swiss manager, Englands Roy Hodgson", "Russian goalkeeper
   >> Dmitri Kharin deals with corner kicks like that every week in the 
   >> premier league with Chelsea". The list is endless!!!!!
    
   >>  Watching the highlights of one game recently, smoothie Des Lynam
   >> commented that a particular striker scored a typical Gary Lineker
   >> goal, and no prizes for guessing who was in the studio with him, yep
   >> our Gary. The problem was, the guy had scored from about 20 yards which
   >> was something that Lineker never did.
    
   >> Danny.
    
   >> ps Did you know that Germany were the first defending champions since
   >> Engerland to win their opening game? I didn't, but the BBC informed
   >> me of that fact during the opening game with Bolivia.
    
    I repeat in the games I've watched (the Irish, the Swedes, Brazil v
    Russia, USA v Swiss and Romania, Germany v S. Korea, Norway v Italy, 
    etc.) I've heard no references to 1966 or England not being in the 
    States, the main thrust of .39.  I DID NOT say that there were no English 
    references.
    
    And I'm sorry but what you are saying is paranoid crap!  I could accept
    your point if in each World Cup programme there was a ten minute 
    discussion about how England would have gotten on playing Italy,
    Brazil, Germany, etc., or the like but there isn't.  There is the 
    occassional comment (admittedly, stupid and boring; but by now what else 
    do you expect from John Motson et al?) which references something English.  
    And by your own admission there are some games where this doesn't happen 
    at all, "in nearly every game I've watched so far there has been some 
    mention of England".  So what are we talking about in time?  A couple
    of sentences which in total probably take only 30 seconds or less to
    utter?  If that's the case you're complaining about 30 seconds in a 
    2 hour programme, which is 0.41%.  In my opinion that's hardly
    excessive particularly when probably >75% of people who are watching
    are English.
    
    And as for being upset/annoyed/<insert own word> because Desmond Lynam
    had the temerity to say that someone scored a goal like Gary Lineker.
    Dear oh dear that is very sad.  Had Denis Law been on the panel or Liam
    Brady or Andy Gray.... and the same comment been made I suppose that
    would have been OK?
    
    Mike M    

    
    	Don't bother getting wound up by it all, Mike...
    
    	You'll only hear Scotch and Irish noters complaining. That's
    	because they've never tasted any real success ;-)
    
    	The Scots failed dismally in several attempts - anyone remember
    	Ally's Tartan Army <snigger>? They were goin' te win the Worrrrrld
    	Cup!!  Makes me laugh every time I see a map with Peru on it...
    
    	The Irish have only qualified twice and their winning record is
    	equal to Bulgaria - 1 win. I admit they've still a chance of doing 
    	well in this competition, though, and I wish them luck.
    
    	The anglophiles are out in force, and the World Cup Finals bring
    	back so many painful memories of 1966. If they can't deal with it,
    	let 'em suffer. I thought Motson/Brian O'Moore/Barry Davies were
    	utterly useless w*n*e*s...maybe I was wrong! 8-)
    
    	Andy.

    
    Scotch is a drink.

    Scots    ....    is a drunk 8^))
    
    tipsy.

    re-1
    
    ..and only a scotchman would come out with that.....
    
    Dave....
    
    

    
    The thing I don't like about the TV coverage is that the finest
    examples of technical skill are never replayed, but replays are shown
    about irrelevant details....Is this because the US camerapeople are
    unfamiliar with the game ?
    
    In one of the matches this week, again there was a replay of such a
    moment with the cameras nearly missing a goal on the other side....
    
    Gerrit

	re .60

>    examples of technical skill are never replayed, but replays are shown
>    about irrelevant details....Is this because the US camerapeople are
>    unfamiliar with the game ?

	Let's be accurate when hurling abuse. The decisions when to show
	replays and what replays to show are made by the director, not by
	the poor b'staads pointing the cameras.

	Tony

    Re .55, .41 -> Des Lynam.
    
    and to top it all Des Lynam is Irish, born and bred in County Clare,
    although I do suppose he knows at this point where his bread is
    buttered.
    
    Joe.

    Re .60:
    
    >>
    Is this because the US camerapeople are unfamiliar with the game ?
    <<
    
    Yes and No. The US camerapeople are unfamiliar the the game. The german
    broadcasting companies ARD and ZDF have own cameras and an own
    director, who mixes the original US picture with scenes from the own
    cameras.
    Unfortunatelly this has no effect on the commentators :-(, which are
    not very good.
    

    re: .54
    Andrew,
    
    Leaving aside the flames for some reasonable debate, have you sampled
    the TV coverage in any other country? 
    
    I've heard complaints from "foreigners" in umpteen countries. Try
    finding a foreigner in Italy who likes the Italian coverage, or who
    wants Italy to do well! The commentators here unashamedly refer to the
    Italian team as "our lads": "Corner kick to our lads!" is a very
    popular expression. Everything's in the 1st personal plural and the
    opposition are invariably "minnows who, on their day, might just be
    able to upset the extraordinary azurri!" (viz. Ireland).
    
    To quaote a popular Italian expression: "The world's a village."
    
    Dom
    
    P.S. By the way, I love your personal name ;-)
    
    

    
    Satellite coverage (EUROSPORT) outshines both the BBC and ITV.
    The picture seems much clearer and Archie McPherson has spent
    the last 2 weeks slagging Ray Clemence.
    
     

    

     Not only does he slag RC But he also seems to pronouns players names
    in a weird n wonderful way.


    SCott

    Re: last few replies on EBC tv.
    
    I am Scottish and a sports fan also but must disagree with my
    colleagues this side of 'Ole Hadrian. I for the first time have
    thoroughly enjoyed the commentary on the WC from the EBC. I must
    point out however that I am a lucky individual as I forecast for
    the event, saved my monies and went private health for an operation 
    in order to enjoy the english commentators. What did I get done ?
    
    
    A git transplant.  
    		     Davie.
    
    
    p.s. I suppose i'd better put one of these in.......  :-)

During the Argentina game (in which Maradona did not play) it took
just 3 minutes and 40 seconds for the commentator to remark on
the Hand of God incident. Remarkable restraint really considering
neither England nor Maradona were playing at the time.

    And Nigeria's second goal took me back to David Narey's thunderbolt
    against Brazil in 1982. Can it really be 12 years ago?
    
    Yours with ;-)
      Hamish Forsyth

    
    
    I think it was more like Maradona's goal against the English at last
    world cup.
    
    
    Ireland.....all...the...way...!!
    

    
    Hamish,
    
    Time flies....It was a real beuty though.....
    
    
    I think from now on I will mention this goal every time I commentate
    on an Internation game..

    Andrew, 
    
    Join the club! While we're at it, am I the only one who thought
    that the Saudi Arabia goal v. Belgium looked like a carbon copy of
    wee Archie's 1978 effort against Holland? 
    
    This World Cup's bringing tears to my eyes...
    
    Angus Jardine

    
    ....too true, and have you noticed that Romario looks incredibly like
    Joey Jordan (in his younger days when 'e was a foot shorter & still 'ad
    all 'is teeth!) 8-)
    
    JBG 

    >....too true, and have you noticed that Romario looks incredibly like
    >Joey Jordan (in his younger days when 'e was a foot shorter & still 'ad
    >all 'is teeth!) 8-)
    
    Well, I had him down as a dead ringer for Jim Baxter, but right you
    are!

    I think Martin Dahlin is a good OJ Simpson lookalike :-)
    
    (honestly. same eyes)
    
    
    Heiko

    
>>    I think Martin Dahlin is a good OJ Simpson lookalike :-)
    
    yes, .......but which one's Scottish???? 8-)
    
    JBG

Tommy Coyne and Ray Houghton definite scots however they decided to play for a
better team.

Ireland to make the quarter finals. Ireland 2 - 1 Holland
it all depends on whether or not they can control Bergkamp

I can't see them beating Brazil however.

GS in Dublin

    Re: -1
    
�   I can't see them beating Brazil however.
    
    
    Why not !  Even if RTE aren't showing the match, you'll be able to see 
    it on Eurosport !
    
    Jerry.
    
    
    Or did I take you up wrong ? ;-))))))

The TV-Radio critic in the Los Angeles Times (Larry Stewart) dedicated
most of this morning's column to the (poor) TV coverage in the U.S.

Referring to the biggest game in U.S. history this coming Monday, 
he wrote:

"ABC's announcing team for Monday's game will be play-by-play man 
Roger Twibell, former U.S. national team captain Rick Davis, and Seamus
Malin, generally considered America's best soccer commentator.  Of course,
being the best soccer commentator in the United States is sort of like
being the best mountain climber in the Sahara."

Twibell??  Puleeeez!  I guess I'll be watching Univision again.


	Doug

    
    
    Did I mention how great Archie Gemmils goal against Holland in 1978 
    was ?
    
    Great goal.Great Guy.Great Scot... or should that read great Scotch !!
    
    ...,.. 

    
    Heard it all now...
    
    Terry Veneballs after last night's matches said that England would have
    nothing to fear from any of the European teams in the World Cup.
    
    I'd phone him about that statement but I don't know the STD code for
    Cloud Cuckoo land.
    
    Archie
    
    

    Archie,
    
    I think what Terry was actually trying to say was :
    
    "Come the European Championships, England have nothing to fear from the 
    NON-European teams in this WC."
    
    Either that, or he's been at the studio drinks cabinet again ;-)))
    
    
    Jerry.

I should have said I don't think that Ireland can win against Brazil.


If they do however then they would play the winners of the game between Sweden
and Romania.


GS in Dublin

    
    Ah...ha...RAI before the matches start is probably the sexiest show.
    Even if you don't watch the football...this show is sure to raise the
    temperature....
    
    Dezzz.
    

  I can't imagine What would la Parietti and la Marini do tomorrow night
  to try to cheer up the italian after the defeat against Nigeria. 

Did anyone tape the games played on July 4th?  (US vs. Brazil and Netherlands
vs. Ireland)    I was unable to watch them or tape them at the time.

I live in Eastern Massachusetts in the US.  Please send mail to USOPS::CAIRNS
if you can help me.  Thanks.
					dave
    

    
    Isn't ITV's coverage awful. Especially when you Lorenzo, Butch Wilkins
    and Don Howe in the Studio. Same thing every match...
    
    Mat Lorenzo: Well Don, How would you stop Romario?
    Don Howe: I would do everything I have always done..dour defensive
    draw at all costs. I would play three goalkeepers, eight centrehalves
    and hoof the ball upfield..
    Mat L: Yes. Ray, what are your thoughts?
    Ray Wilkins: Yes Matthew, very much so.
    Don H.:...and then I would build a brick wall round the goal and
    barbwire the whole box..
    Mat L: Ray, Are you bald as a coot or what?
    Ray W: Yes Matthew, very much so.
    Don H:..and then I would build a moat round the half-way line...
    Mat L: I'll have to stop you there. Come in Tony Cascarino from the
    US. Tony, I think Don Howe has a few words for you.
    Don H.: Tony...its Don...Don Howe.....you remember me the sad old
    failed football manager...come on now...get yourself fit....we need you
    ..anyway..bye now..
    Tony Cascarino: You the hell is that
    Matt L: Any last thoughts Ray.
    Ray W: Yes Matthew, very much so.
    
    
    Andy

    
    	No. Stop it. My sides ache 8-) 8-) 8-)

    re: .87
    Brilliant - inspiration for a Monty Python sketch there!
    
    Dom

re:86

Don't make me laugh! I can't take it!

That would indeed make a good sketch!

Si

    
    Call me picky Simon, but I thought .87 was funnier.
    
    Tony
    
    

Your're right Tony,


.87 just clinches it!

Si

	Archie was on form again last night.

	"Sweden are 2-1 down with only 10 men, but apart from that 
everything's going OK"

    RE the RAIUNO coverage - do the two glamerous beauties who introduce
    this show know anything about footer - or are they just there to
    make up the numbers (as it were) ??   Did you see them do their
    song'n'dance routine the other night ??   Could you imagine Jimmy
    Hill giving us a quick song before introducing Sportsnight ??
    Also, did you spot the bit where the camera focused on one of
    the girl's shoes and then panned all they way up, veerrryyyy
    sllooowwwlllyyy to her .. head ?!?   I don't know who all the
    distinguished gentlemen are that they are interviewing, but they
    certainly get pretty warm under the collar ..
    
    All done in the best possible taste of course ..
    
    Ray

I was 'lucky' enough to be able to listen to Eric Cantona on French TV on 
Saturday. Now my French is pretty poor, but I can usually pick out what 
commentators are talking about. Except for Eric. Does he speak a particular 
dialect? Do the French find him easy to understand?! Is he really Belgian?!!!

grahame

    Yes apparently he does have a very strong dialect, fortunately his
    body-language doesn't and following the Spain-Italy game he appeared
    extremely hacked-off that the Italians had won. 
    
    Steve.
    

    Apparently, he's a man from the street. So I would guess it would be a
    bit like strong London accent.

    Cantona was born in Marseille and speaks with a very strong accent. He
    does not use different words, it's just the accent. 
    Stuff like: "Ce gardien" becomes "C'te gardiengggg".
    
    Conggg!
    
    �JF?

    
    As JF stated in the previous reply's title, Cantona also uses many 
    (French) slang words with a style not exactly similar as the one used 
    by Victor Hugo.
    
    PYV 

Good news for British viewers - Barrie Davies is doing the BBC1 commentary on 
the Final. Motty'll be in tears . . .

g

AP Report

Record TV Rating for Soccer in United States

PASADENA, Calif. (AP) - The United States' 1-0 loss to Brazil in the second
round of the World Cup drew a record U.S. television audience for soccer with
a 9.3 rating, Nielsen Media Research said Thursday.

The July 4 game was watched by 8,761,000 households, Nielsen said. That
topped the 6.8 rating and 6,406,000 households for the Americans' final
first-round game, a 1-0 loss to Romania.

Before this World Cup, the record U.S. rating for soccer was a 6.6 for
Italy's 3-1 victory over West Germany in the 1982 World Cup final.

ABC televison network is averaging a 4.7 rating for 10 telecasts thus far,
slightly above the 4.0-4.5 range that U.S. organizer Alan Rothenberg said the
network projected. ABC's only remaining telecast is Sunday's final between
Brazil and Italy.

Italy's 2-1 victory over Bulgaria got a 2.9 cable rating on ESPN and was
watched by 1,833,000 households, Nielsen said. In addition, Univision got a
14.1 rating among its Spanish-speaking universe, which is an additional
919,000 households. The game also was broadcast with Italian commentary on
the United States feed of RAI, the Italian network that is available in
several American cities.

Brazil's 1-0 victory over Sweden got a 3.9 cable rating on ESPN, a total of
2,465,000 households.

Univision said Brazil's victory got a 21.0 rating in its Spanish-speaking
universe, which is 1,369,000 households. The network said Nielsen estimated
an additional 250,000-to-350,000 English-speaking homes watched Univision's
coverage.

ESPN is averaging a 1.8 cable rating (1,138,000 homes) for its 40 games and a
2.2 cable rating (1.39 million homes) for its live games. The network's final
broadcast of this World Cup is Saturday's third-place game between Sweden and
Bulgaria.

Univision is averaging a 12.0 rating (782,000 homes) in its Spanish-speaking
universe, including an 18.8 rating (1,226,000 homes) for lives games.

The rating is the percentage of televisions in the nation, and each point
represents 942,000 households for the major networks. Because all homes
aren't wired for cable, a ratings point is 632,000 homes for ESPN. A ratings
point is 65,200 Spanish-speaking homes for Univision.