The reporting in this country is consistently portrayed as extremely bad. Since positive approaches, ideas for improvement and not pure nagging should prevail, the question arises whether it could be done better and if so, how it could be done. This leads to the idea of taking a look around at how things are done elsewhere? Perhaps there is a model that sets a good example and is worthy of imitation? Or is it different everywhere else and, in that sense, perhaps worthy of imitation?
Now, no particular secret is made of this here, and it has already been inserted several times in the text with smaller examples, that the view does not have to stray too far in order to find this role model. The mother country of football, the most easily accessible, if only because of the language, since English is taught here as the first foreign language.
Certainly, there are always certain traditions associated with the country, with character traits that may be formed over hundreds of years and may well be country-specific. In addition, the sport under discussion here, football, has of course had its own development and you can’t just break with everything like that. Nor would one want to, since each country has long since proven its own right to exist and its international competitiveness – and not only in football – so that it is difficult to motivate the sense of drastic measures of change.
Nevertheless, there are a few obvious things, especially with regard to reporting, that should be worked out here and may even be based on a few rough estimates. For: first of all, it should be mentioned here that England is not as populous as Germany.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Here is a comparison of the figures for Sky England – Sky Germany, in relation to the population, plus a comparison of income.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
One may well think a little harder about these pure figures. Should one then refer to the simple “tradition” and “the English are just so crazy about football”, then one can safely regard this as eyewash. The more realistic claim is that there is a connection between the quality of reporting and the ratings achieved or to be achieved. This is obvious without further justification. What is the problem with checking the quality (more on this elsewhere, chapter ” … “)? Pure surveys could already give a hint: who listens at all, here in Germany? Who likes it the way it is? Are there points of criticism? What could be done better? These are a few questions directed at the football-interested population, and Sky would be happy to start by asking its subscribers in Germany. If the result is: “Well done, keep up the good work, we’ll keep watching and recommend you to others”, then we’ll keep quiet from the local side.
There are, however, a few clear distinguishing features in the relationship between Germany and England, usually subdivided into bad/good.
To show the sometimes serious differences, here are a few examples.
1) “This game could go either way”.
If you switch on a game with English commentary, you are likely to come across this sentence, for example, and quite soon: “This game could go either way”. Inevitably, one must think : “What, there are people who don’t care about being clever, but simply like to convey their perceived excitement to the viewer?” That seems unthinkable in this country. “This game can go either way.” The score even, good, no “state of emergency”, both can still win.
Here one would probably hear the following : for both teams rather a “perceived defeat” or ” that is simply too little”. Above all, one waits with a positioning – until another goal still brings victory for this or that team. Then they point out the inevitability of this, which the so toweringly superior speaker had of course already noticed in every scene beforehand. But even then the error (chain) analysis would not be omitted.
This game could go on in any direction, says the Englishman. It’s just exciting, let’s see what will happen. You’re actually bound to watch as a spectator. Both are trying something, a duel of equals, no talk of mistakes or of claims or expectations. “We are curious, we remain curious and even if we should know something, we would definitely not give it away.” Of course, it should not go unmentioned here that de facto no one can know, so it simply represents the truth.
2) The tone of voice
The tone of voice is inherently “pregnant with meaning” in English. Something is happening here, something is going to happen here, something great for which I have been given the exclusive right to convey. It resonates timmer in the voice, the speaker doesn’t just suggest he’s excited, no, he really is. He enjoys football and even if you could call it “his job”: it is one he has chosen willingly and gladly. He is grateful to be able to sit here and feels obliged to entertain the spectators and let them participate in a great event, a spectacle.
There is nothing prophetic or disparaging about it. It shows respect for the actors, but also gladly for destiny, which does not yet want to reveal anything about its future development and intentions. The outsider certainly also has his chance, which he is ready to seize as soon as it presents itself. He deserves exactly the same respect as the supposed favourite, who must also prove this favouritism with evidence of performance, i.e. on the pitch. However, the same applies to the underdog, whom one is prepared to concede to surpassing himself, who, without the favourite having to play weakly or make gross mistakes, is nevertheless conceded to winning, believes it possible and is happy to give the corresponding praise.
This tone never changes. Of course, if the score is 3-0 with 10 minutes to go, you may hear the realisation: “The game is virtually over as a contest.” The game is over as far as a contest is concerned, or something. You really shouldn’t expect a turnaround now. Nevertheless, one reserves — “…over as a contest” — that there is still some pure football on offer, which may also be worth watching. Why not? Just because it is clear that “nothing more is at stake” does not mean that the goal nets will be taken down. The game takes on the character of a friendly match – which can be entertaining, exciting and interesting. Even nicer: you might get to see a goal, one more than usual, precisely because it has been decided.
In Germany, the swan song would have started long ago, the conclusion would have been drawn long ago, with a condescending tone for the losing side, with the happy side effect that there were no listeners for this, as they had long since allocated their free time to something more meaningful.
3) Two commentators
Two commentators are a tradition in England, you can’t do without them. In Germany it is an exception and if there is a second one, he is not a trained or experienced co-commentator. In any case, listening to a relaxed dialogue between two absolute experts is inherently far more exciting – apart from the fact that it is far more objective – than being spoon-fed wisdom by a single person.
Every questionable scene – and there are plenty of them in every football match, since every duel “fought on a knife’s edge” can already provide material for discussion and inconsistency by the very term – will already almost certainly produce a good, objective, correct result through the discussion of two people with outstanding skills and experience – if one had the intention of committing oneself at all. Why shouldn’t the spectator simply disagree? In England this is a matter of course – it would be even without the second commentator, who can nevertheless make a meaningful contribution with his view — in Germany it is virtually an impossibility. “Yeah, this may have been a foul. I’m not sure.” It’s not only more sympathetic but also much closer to the truth. In Germany it would be: “Yes, clear foul play there, we’ll see it again in a moment, in the replay. Yes, you can see it there: he’s holding him by the jersey.” It’s certainly not what you see, but if it is, it’s not the only thing you see, apart from the fact that you wouldn’t want to be permanently patronised at all, even if God – who this gentleman claims to be (perhaps not just for this moment) — were talking to us.
If one were to establish the two commentators here, one would soon get a positive reaction – since the tone of voice would almost inevitably have to adapt due to the listener sitting next to one – in the sense of increased viewing figures. Probably standing in the way, however, is the fact that none of these outstanding individual talents would let anyone sit aside. The famous vanity. Well, it doesn’t have to be the current “established” ones?!
4) “You’re live on Sky”.
A great idea, a programme that has established itself in England. “You’re live on Sky” is done once a week. “You’re live on Sky.” Viewers are allowed to call in and bring up whatever is on their mind. The conversation is broadcast live. What’s wrong with recording the viewers’ reaction? Everything is so anonymous here. The viewer has no say or opinion, let alone make himself heard. What would come out if the programme was broadcast just once and the first caller raised concerns about the quality of the reporting? The lines would probably collapse very soon, probably the telephone networks all over Germany. And you really shouldn’t risk that….
5) Post-reporting does not mean post-commenting for a long time.
When the morning post-reporting of Saturday takes place in England on holy Sunday, a bunch of actual experts have already got together again. They chat in a relaxed atmosphere about the previous day’s games. Critical issues are raised, but they are usually cleared up by the experts in a very pleasant manner.
This is just a side note, because in this country there is at most rehashed stuff from the day before – well, wrong, it’s not even rehashed, it’s just a bit more bland than the day before. Logically, of course, stupid thought: what money should be used to pay the experts again? No, that’s really not possible.
But the fact is that all the scenes that are to be rehashed from the previous day are played with the original commentary. This is remarkable insofar as it actually — as soon as one hears this tone of voice — inevitably looks again. Here in Germany, post-reporting is unbearable in itself because of the far more instructive tone compared to live coverage. Probably above all because one does not know the good role model at all?
In any case, it would be impossible to play a scene with the original commentary. Because it was already so bad that you really don’t want to hear it again…. Since the post-commentary is not much better (let’s say: a sauce), you hear neither this nor that, no first time and no second time.
How about trying it live with a good commentary in Germany instead?
