What do I expect from a football match?

What do I expect from a football match, what do I get?

Using the example of the DFB Cup first round match between SV Sandhausen and Borussia Mönchengladbach, 9.8.2019.

This match took place on the evening of 9.8.2019 and was broadcast by Sky, in the single option. I selected this and watched the game and listened very attentively to the commentator. Now I have been doing this exactly the same way for decades, which suggests that I do it for sheer enjoyment and enthusiasm. But exactly this conclusion is fundamentally wrong. I do it because I still carry the hope within me that one day it could be done well. On the other hand, however, you realise every day that there is only one direction: downhill, it goes downhill, it gets worse and worse, it is almost unbearable. More on that later.

If you like, it is a kind of self-mortification to do this to yourself over and over again, but on the other hand, the idea outweighs the hope that by thinking about it, observing and listening carefully, writing it down, the daily agony of doing this, there is nevertheless the possibility of making it clear – the more you listen, the better you think, the more precisely you put it down on paper, the greater the chance of getting through with it and being convincing – and pointing the way to a better future. Maybe one day it will be fun again, with initiated, triggered by it?

When it says “what do I expect” then this can be replaced in a well-considered way by the more general “one”. “What would one have to expect, what could one expect, what would one get back? Because it’s not about the author here, it’s about the general viewer, whom it would be necessary to reach and who would ultimately have to ensure the financing through his approval and his tuning in and who is therefore absolutely necessary in order to grant professional football a good, pleasing, long-term future. It is the intention to speak for this general viewer and to depict his wishes and disappointments, in the interplay, or possibly the predominance of one or the other?

Just this much in advance: the broadcaster Sky has secured the broadcasting rights for years to come. The channel is not doing particularly well, here in Germany it is on the drip of Sky in England. And the concept works in England, but not here. This is largely due to the quality of the coverage and not to the level of football enthusiasm. If it were because of that, it would only be because in England they succeed in igniting this enthusiasm with appropriate, entertaining, exciting reports. The potential is there to the same extent in Germany, but the reporting must make a start, in all facets.

One more thought beforehand: should the Sky broadcaster hope to guarantee financing solely from the fans of this or that team, then this would be an extremely fragile structure. The thinking goes: when Sandhausen plays against Mönchengladbach, ONLY fans or at least supporters of one of the two teams watch. They have taken out the subscription because they have a club and because they want to see their club. The rest can go to hell, they don’t watch them?
So this preliminary consideration should go in the direction of: the general and neutral viewer is meant, who should basically be far in the majority, just as a little tip to Sky. If – including the commentary – the aim is that only these or those fans sit in front of the screen, then the broadcaster should immediately think about wiser investments than purchasing the football package. There MUST be more profitable business ideas. The commentary must be oriented towards the neutral viewer. If you had lost them: Sky, go home and stay there. It works in England, not here, not like that.

One last preliminary remark: the game was chosen completely at random. As an author, one would gladly undertake the experiment of using a pre-selected game and using it as an example. One could promise this: the text would only be different in a few tiny nuances. In other words: it is a game like the other. Poorly entertaining. The game itself as well as the commentary.

But now finally inside:
What does a spectator now expect, what could he hope for, what could give him the pleasure of doing it, of doing it again, of looking forward to it, of feeling well entertained before, after and above all during it? In what way could you convince a newcomer to watch the game for 90 (or 120?) minutes and perhaps take out a Sky subscription the next day because he was carried away by the game and the commentator, by excitement and entertainment, by emotion and passion?

Let me mention the points one by one, in very short sentences. There is a firm conviction that practically everyone would agree with each of these sentences, and they are chosen precisely. In the next step, the individual points are discussed in more detail, the expectation or hope is specified more precisely, the short sentence is looked at a little more closely in detail as to how it could be meant, however briefly and accurately it may already sound. The last step is to examine point by point to what extent the hope or expectation was fulfilled in the game.

What expectations, hopes, wishes would I have for a football match that I watch for 90 minutes?

1) I hope for a good game.
2) I hope for a good game.
3) I hope for a fair game.
4) I hope for a few goals.
5) I hope for as many exciting moments as possible.
6) I hope for an entertaining match
7) I hope for a fair game
a. As far as the outcome of the match is concerned
b. As far as the commentary is concerned
c. Concerning the referee’s decisions
8) I expect the underdog to keep the game open.
9) I expect a commentary that keeps me glued to the action.
10) I expect a commentator who is prepared to convey tension
11) I expect a commentator who is prepared to be surprised.
12) I expect a commentator who is consistently on the ball
13) I expect a commentator who is well informed
14) I expect a commentator who conveys the emotions, preferably by feeling or sensing them himself – and not holding them back
15) I want a game that keeps me on the edge of my seat.
16) When it’s over, I’m satisfied and not upset.
17) When it is over, I look forward to the next game

Here is a brief explanation of each point, if it were still necessary:

1) I hope for a good game.
“good” is the game when the players can show their skills, the ball rolls, the offensives do not outweigh the football prevention
2) I hope for a nice game.
Beautiful is not the same as good. Football is still beautiful when the ball is rolling and there are goal scenes, and at the same time when the players, spectators, managers and coaches treat each other fairly. A football match today is usually the opposite of beautiful: it is ugly. The whole of football has become ugly and it is hard to imagine anyone feeling otherwise. If they did, the most they would hear is “that’s just the way it is, but that’s part of it”. This view is not true, but in order to be convinced of it, one would first have to implement the opposite.
3) I hope for a fair game.
“Fair” is when there are not constant foul plays and interruptions. This can also include delays in the game or play-acting, which I don’t want to see.
4) I hope for a few goals.
Goals? There is hardly an upper limit. Scoring a goal is the ultimate goal of the game.
5) I hope to see as many exciting moments as possible.
The exciting scenes can also happen completely independently of the score. So even if the game is decided, there can be such moments.
6) I hope for an entertaining game.
Basically, it is “entertaining” if the other points are fulfilled well. One is almost inevitably entertained when there are goal scenes and goals, even if they are one-sided.
7) I hope that it will be fair.
a. As far as the outcome of the game is concerned
“May the better man win” is always valid. It is hard to imagine a neutral spectator wishing for the worse team to win. But that does not mean that one would not put up with it. It happens and one accepts it, might even enjoy it if it were recognised as a lucky victory. Both by the commentator and in interviews with players, coaches, managers. Everyone knows it: it’s part of the sport and part of the fascination and excitement. It would be silly and by no means better if the better player ALWAYS won. Here, however, a distinction would still have to be made as to whether it is the fundamentally better team or the team that is better in that particular match.
b. As for the commentary
The commentator is under an urgent obligation to comment appropriately, i.e. “fairly”. Flying the flag according to the wind is absolutely undesirable. It is also undesirable to declare a team the deserved winner because it scored more goals. Indeed, this would be precisely the recognisable principle for an undeserved victory. They scored more goals – anyone can count and the result stands — but if they were ahead exclusively in this category, then it is simply undeserved. Of course, justice also applies to refereeing decisions and the assessment of them. At the very least, allowing different possible points of view is desirable or actually indispensable.
c. As far as refereeing decisions are concerned
Refereeing decisions are almost a crucial weak point. In most games there are a fair number of “critical” decisions and as a spectator you basically have the feeling of being at the mercy of arbitrariness. One wishes for justice especially there – otherwise the fun goes down the drain — but especially here one does NOT get it.

8) I hope that the underdog can make the game open.
Basically, one wishes that the underdog, who is almost always represented, has a chance in the selected or currently (only) running game. You do this because you can obviously maintain the tension better this way – if the outsider had the chance — but also because the outsider is the one with the higher identification potential. Almost everyone feels like an outsider in some way or is just not the best at the sport they play. If the underdog gets his chance or even takes it, you feel a bit closer to the seemingly overpowering favourite. Even the aspect of “see, it’s possible, David beat Goliath, so I can do it too” plays a roleI expect a commentary that ties me to the action
9) I expect a commentator who is prepared to convey tension.
Either he is tense or tense and shows it – or he just does as a good actor would do who has the same obligation to entertain the viewer
10) I expect a commentator who allows himself to be surprised.
An unloved and unpleasant trait of commentators is to wait for events to happen, only to claim afterwards that they had foreseen exactly this and that it was in the offing. Conversely, it is desirable to give the viewer the impression that something surprises the commentator every now and then, an action, a dribble, a goal shot, a pass, a save, whereby he would automatically transfer this feeling to the viewer to his delight. “I knew it all beforehand and it was obvious that it would happen this way” elicits one of three possible reactions from the spectator: Yawn, fall asleep or change the programme at the last minute.
11) I expect a commentator who is consistently on the ball.
” on ball level” means that he always stays with the action as long as the ball is rolling. It is inappropriate to interject previously learned information during the development of a goal situation. Basically, the impression should always be that a ball in play is heading for goal. So a comment like “I can tell you all that because nothing is happening on the pitch” is out of place – nonetheless often heard.
12) I expect a commentator who is well informed
Being well-informed does not mean that you have to include every piece of information you have read, nor does it mean that you have to sell it as your own knowledge, told from memory. Even if things are true or interesting: as a spectator, one should be allowed to experience that it is acquired before the game, or even just read out during the game. Unfortunately, the one happens too often (“attaching knowledge”), the other (revealing the reason for the “knowledge”) too rarely to never.
13) I expect a commentator who conveys the emotions, preferably by sensing or feeling them himself – and not holding them back.
Already mentioned in 9. the commentator should simply spray tension permanently. That is automatically infectious. To get an idea: just watch and listen to a game with English commentary. You’ll see how it’s done.
14) I want a game that keeps me in suspense.
All this put together and complied with would guarantee this. It remains a wish
15) When it’s over, I’m satisfied and not upset
When the final whistle blows I can sleep well and reassured and content. It was fun, it was fair, the players shook hands on the pitch, the spectators in the stadium are happy too, even if their team lost. They had a fair chance, they weren’t lucky today or they weren’t good enough. None of that is a problem. The main thing is that it wasn’t unfair or annoying, the foul plays, the decisions, the delays in the game, the discussions downstairs, the provocations, all the things that you just don’t want to see or, on this evening, might have experienced again. It remains a pipe dream…
16) When it’s over, I look forward to the next game.
That would be the ultimate wish: every game is so that it is fun. I watch the next one because the fun is guaranteed. Only I have to be careful with my time management. Otherwise I’ll soon be watching day and night? Sky will have to be careful about that… Too many subscriptions, responsible for the economy going bust because everyone is glued to their TV sets?
It’s a considerably long way to get there and at the moment you’re on the opposite lane. The distance is getting longer and longer…

Finally, the significant part: what do you get back?

On the evening of 9.8.2019 and the cup match between Sandhausen and Mönchengladbach, it was this:

1) I hope for a good game.
Roughly speaking: not fulfilled. It was not good. Whereby this is not due to the quality of the players. There were far too many interruptions, there were too many injuries, you too rarely get to see what these players can do WITH the ball. The game AGAINST the ball is given preference, predominates.
2) I hope for a beautiful game.
The game was ugly. This applies both to the way the players treated each other and to the many fouls and injury stoppages. This game, as in all other respects, is no exception. Modern football IS ugly
3) I hope for a fair game.
Also NOT met. There was a lot of ugly foul play, a resulting multitude of injury stoppages, some very long. In the first half these were still obvious and actual injuries, towards the end of the game it was just Gladbach players rolling around on the ground, feigning injury (because: everyone kept playing as an indication).
4) I hope for a few goals.
There was only one goal, the 1:0 for Gladbach in half 1. Also NOT fulfilled, the wish, the hope
5) I hope for as many exciting moments as possible.
Here you could say: fulfilled to a good extent. Sandhausen came so often and again to and into the Gladbach penalty area that you just had to be tense – unless you are a commentator. But more on that later
6) I’m hoping for an entertaining game.
It was not a really “entertaining” game. The permanent disappointments were too great for that. The injuries rather arouse concern, even if one is inclined to watch — out of pure sensationalism?! The vocabulary “entertaining” would clearly be too positive for what one had to feel — not captured by the speaker either way, in any direction and at any moment
7) I hope it will be fair.
Justly:
a. The outcome of the game was NOT fair. The better team lost. Whereby this “better” only refers to this one game. Sandhausen has already started the second league season, the first league only starts next week. That already makes a mighty difference today. Maybe that’s why the first main round was also brought forward a bit within the season, so that the outsiders can assert themselves a bit more often?
In any case, Sandhausen was the better team in this game, as the original underdog. Since they lost the game, you just had to have a bad feeling at the final whistle. One could already accept it as described, only the other points of justice would have had to be fulfilled. The better team did NOT win and it was not fair in any other way.
b. This commentator and fair and just? Anything but that. And that doesn’t do justice to the other commentators either. Because: it sounds like another commentator would have done better? Not true. On Sky, one is like the other. Whereas other German commentators, on other channels, are not better either.
So: at first he realised that the nil for Gladbach was lucky, but as the game went on and Sandhausen couldn’t take advantage of even more and sometimes very good chances, he changed his mind at some point. Probably also with the intention of being able to talk about a “deserved victory” in the end? In any case, the most painful, emotionless, unfair and bad comment was this one, about eight minutes before the end of the 90 minutes (which were followed by a ridiculous four minutes of injury time): “If it stays that way, let’s agree that the victory is deserved.

First of all, I personally would probably never agree with him on anything. This may be the special role I take out for myself, but the comment is presumptuous in other ways too. “We agree on this.” No we don’t. Why would you want to impose such an opinion on the viewer, which on top of that doesn’t do a bit of justice to what’s going on down there, in any sense of the word? It would be more of a reason to jump up and smash the TV than to agree with it.
But what is even worse about it is that “we” should “agree” on it, provided they get it over time, as he says. This is ill-considered nonsense in every sense of the word. “If it turns out like that, I say that was deserved, if it turns out differently, of course that was deserved.” “If they get it over time” is a kind of intrusive, unpleasant oratory to boot. From this point on, at the latest, one must have the impression that HE definitely does not want the score to change. So that his “prognosis” also works out. They get it over time, sure, and then I explain to the spectator that this had been foreseeable for some time, because I had already said it in the 82nd minute?! Embarrassing, stupid, bad.

If the spectator would have wished for something from now on, it would have been exactly this ultimate drama, which often comes up towards the end of the game. Exactly those scenes could have been anticipated, that Sandhausen would open up even more, that the defence would be completely exposed, and that either the goal would be scored, which they absolutely deserved, or that Gladbach would use the available space for a decisive counter-attack. The oracle is bad, the tendency wrong, the basic tone unpleasant and even annoying. The addition “if it stays that way” is really strikingly unpleasant, because it implies that he would squirm like an eel if it didn’t stay that way. If at least the equaliser is achieved or even – something like this is said to have happened – the game is completely turned around, then the loophole remains open that in that case, of course, the victory for Sandhausen would also be deserved, whereby one can be absolutely sure that the Gladbachers would be accused of the endless chains of errors and naivety and stupidity to let the victory be taken out of their hands like that. Just to make it clear that the prediction “Gladbach will win” was based on the fact that they would NOT have acted so exceedingly stupidly and given the Sandhaus two easy goals against.

He is right in any case, no matter how the game ends. He’s hedging his bets in all directions. Something along the lines of “if they win, I’ll sell it as deserved and predicted by me, if the others do, I’ll do exactly the same.” The only thing you could achieve as a speaker with such a ridiculous prediction is that the viewer tunes out and not that new ones tune in.

c. In this game, too, it appeared to be pure arbitrariness. Sandhausen had appealed for penalties twice late in the game and at least once the ball was clearly in the defender’s hand. The fact that this is now to be assessed as “non-penalisable handball” is incomprehensible either way. If there had been the good intention to ensure a fair outcome of the game, one could have simply pointed to the spot and would have had all the justifications on one’s side. Plus the neutral spectator, who would have liked the suspense, perhaps with extra time, but also just had to keep his fingers crossed for Sandhausen and that crossing of fingers would have paid off.
The second protest may have been an act of desperation, but it is understandable that the players at least tried and that there would certainly have been a reason for the referee to shed his guilty conscience at least here. Goalkeeper Sommer had let the ball slip out of his hands after a cross. When a striker turned towards the ball, Sommer first pushed this player away and only then took care of the ball. In some way the goalkeeper continues to be given special rights which should have been abolished by rule. So a feeling of “justice” could not arise either way. In this respect: point 6) from a to c unfulfilled, on the contrary.

8) I hope that the underdog will be able to keep the game open.
The underdog had a huge chance. There were so many opportunities, so many real chances to score, so many penalty area scenes where a little bit of chance could also have helped Sandhausen to score. The chance was in Sandhausen’s favour, both in the game itself and through the possible refereeing decisions, that you couldn’t just wish for it, as a surprise coup, but that it would simply have suited the circumstances. Sandhausen was better. You walk out of here with a certain disappointment. Rarely does an underdog come so close, and 0:1 in the end one of the most frustrating final results possible. Even a 1:2 would have made you feel better temporarily. Sandhausen without a goal: that just makes every follower of the game of football sad. Why no goal, you ask? Of course, you could just say “too bad, was fun anyway, I’ll watch again, then maybe it’ll work out, with another underdog?” but somehow it was hard for that sentiment to set in.

9) I expect a commentary that keeps me glued to the action.
Because the commentator almost always creates a deliberate distance from the action, it becomes extremely difficult for me (the viewer, anyone else) to immerse myself in what is happening. You have to forcibly push yourself against the soporific commentary, which is not oriented towards the action of the game, in order to feel your way in, in order to get closer, in order to be able to immerse yourself, in order to have the football experience you could wish for. The commentator has done the opposite of what he should have done and what should have driven an actual journalist in his career choice: you want to deliver THE story to the viewer. Even if it can’t be the big show every time: at least the attempt should be made to squeeze one out. It didn’t succeed, the complete opposite is the case. The viewers are being chased away in droves.

10) I expect a commentator who is prepared to convey tension.
He is not tense and not tense and he does everything to ever be. The tone of voice is deliberately lowered so as not to be suspected of losing his composure somehow or other. He desperately wants to keep his distance and he doesn’t want to get out of his chair. It is precisely this behaviour that he transmits to the audience. One is bored to soporific.
To make it clear with just one example: Sandhausen actually managed to get into the Gladbach penalty area once again in the four minutes of added time that were shown but were only extended by one and a half minutes by Gladbach players permanently rolling on the ground – simulating foul play – and even managed to score a goal! Here, at the latest, one would have to firstly praise, secondly an enthusiastic, sympathetic “Shot…. and…” followed by a “held by Sommer” and a concluding “too bad”. In its place came a “harmless”. It is really, really painful to let such a commentator loose on an intended clientele. And: the clientele has already decided. And that is against the subscription.

11) I expect a commentator who lets himself be surprised.
What would be required is not met. No ball level. Almost never in the action. Only when the cross sails into the penalty area or the shot on goal is imminent does he briefly go into it: “too inaccurate” or “he must make more of it”. From time to time he also raises his voice, thus signalling an emerging opportunity for a goal, but the content remains the blah-blah of the story he started before. So, as an example, he tells the following story: “Player X moved from Leverkusen to Gladbach last season, then suffered a knee injury and had to spend almost six weeks…” and in doing so he raises the words “knee injury” and “suffered” because that is where one of the goal situations mentioned takes place. The exciting part, however, is not the knee injury but what happens on the pitch. Since he did not capture this at all but instead bored the spectator with such a story (which should only fill a gap in case the ball was resting), he inevitably concludes, so to speak, as a justification, that it was nothing at all that was happening down there on the turf. So he sends the “too inaccurate” after it. Because it wouldn’t have been worth interrupting his story for such a helpless action. If, by the way, the ball should actually end up in the goal in that situation, it goes without saying that the entire defence gets the blame, which should have been able to avoid such a ridiculous attack at any time. So even if he had scored, he wouldn’t have been wrong to tell the story. It was nothing and should never have been anything.

12) I expect a commentator who is on the ball throughout.
If you actually do it to watch a game like this for 90 minutes WITH the commentary on (you will find very, very few who have done it or who will do it in the next game), then you might find that about 85% of the speaking time is filled with fringe stuff and NOT match action. However, if a speaker temporarily devotes himself to the game action, then it is usually in the form described above: pejoratively. Because: he has already missed the situation anyway – since he is busy with other narratives — , now he is on a course of justification, which, however, is not the least bit difficult for him. It WAS justified, because only the whole weak defence down there made the scene possible in the first place. So devaluing is part of the plan, so to speak, or the only logical consequence.

13) I expect a commentator to be well informed.
It is an acquired knowledge which he is determined to bring “among the people”, no matter what is happening on the pitch. Being well informed would mean telling a single selected story exactly when it fits. This would exude competence and one would certainly be amazed as a spectator. If just like that, in a bored tone, a few fringe stories are read off one after the other, it loses entertainment value altogether. So this point is also NOT fulfilled game after game and so also here.

14) I expect a commentator who conveys the emotions, preferably by feeling or sensing them himself – and not holding them back.
No matter what happens: he does not seem to feel anything about it. If this is indeed the case, then he would be a miscast anyway or would rather have opened his eyes wide when choosing a profession. Should he feel something and withhold it, it would be identical and he would be a miscast, only he would be one with potential. “Feel something! The way you tell it, one doesn’t get the impression that you do.” “Yes, I do. I feel it.” “Then show it too, let the viewer/listener feel that you do. Don’t be afraid to even be biased if you feel so. The audience does too. Let your emotions run wild, the viewer will thank you for it!”
The third possibility would be that he actually feels nothing, but manages to make the spectator believe he does. Then he would be a good cast either way. Whereas it would probably be easy and shouldn’t be a problem to find someone who actually feels AND can convey it?

15) I want a game that keeps me in suspense.
This would even be fulfilled to some extent in this game. You basically had to be carried away by the thought of wishing and begrudging Sandhausen a goal and hoping for it, because of justice and because of being the underdog. The commentator did everything to make you come down from the dream cloud again.

16) When it’s over, I’m satisfied and not upset.
The whole opposite was fulfilled. It was also reflected on the pitch that everyone was unhappy all around. Of course Gladbach had the victory in their hands and to that extent – also because of results demanded exclusively by the media as the only thing that counted — but they too were in permanent discussions, some of which they had instigated in order to inhibit the flow of the game. It was annoying all round and this game was not an isolated case.

17) When it’s over, I look forward to the next game
As much as you’d like to look forward, you can hardly. What awaits you is usually another game that makes you angry. About the referee’s decisions, the commentary, the lack of excitement and the lack of goals. So: if you asked a random spectator who describes himself as a football fan whether he would watch this game as a promotional measure and then whether he was looking forward to the next game, which he would be allowed to watch again for free, he would gratefully decline. “Not my world. Find some other stupid people who are willing to finance your channel. I’m out.”