What if… one would put a German reportage through its paces?
The heart, that would be roughly comparable with the content or perhaps the truth of statements made. The kidneys, as a vital organ, could reflect the entertainment value. Whereby one could then still test the liver, the stomach, the blood values, the brain on its Funktionsfähgikeit. The liver could be the tone of voice, the stomach the perspective taken, the blood values the story that is told during a game and the brain could stand for the logic in the statements heard?
That this investigation makes any sense at all or that there is a need for it may be the questionable part. After all: soccer is booming as perhaps never before and the German teams are as successful as ever and have been since 1954, why think about “disease”? It is said to have happened in the past that someone in the prime of life suddenly could not go on, and the “medical checks” have become a matter of course even for top athletes. Could there be a protracted problem somewhere, a previously undetected focus of disease? The heart in particular is a key organ for top physical performance and is therefore indispensable.
It may be useful for motivation the history and is as always as good as it goes with attached. Surprisingly, which statements one can pick up from neutral interviewees to it in all rule. And the reader may ask himself at this point: how does one feel about a commentary on a soccer match?
The reactions found go something like this: “Nah, you have to turn off the sound.” Or: “I don’t listen to what they’re saying.” The really and finally astonishing thing about it is that everybody says something like: “The people like it that way.” or also in the form: “The general public likes it that way.”
Here, the only question would always be who “these people” are supposed to be? Each individual is not it, he comforts himself with the fact that it will be the others already, only this other does not exist at all.
From the official side there was once this explanation to hear, when criticism germinated: “Opinion research institutes have shown that the Germans wish a more distanced reporting.” After all, this would suggest that it has even been recognized that a German spokesperson does not go along emotionally – and even attaches importance to this. Whereby the results of the opinion research institutes are doubted insofar as no one has ever looked into it. Soccer is big, soccer is alive, soccer is booming, stadiums are full, why get critical now? Even if Sky carries an English name and the once so proude Premiere could not hold on, despite the uniqueness of the live broadcasts of all Bundesliga games. The subscription figures are also a problem for Sky today, although they have probably realized that they need to focus on other concepts than relying on soccer as a drawing card.
By the way, a distinction should be made between these different categories of broadcasts:
1) Sky has had the conference as an option for years, in which you are informed live about all ongoing games at the same time. This applies to the first division, the second Bundesliga and the Champions League and European League.
2) A single match in the live broadcast. Still available from time to time on the public broadcasters – international matches, but also other selected matches – as well as on Sky as an alternative option to the conference.
3) Summaries. These can be seen almost everywhere, even partly in the daily news, although the report length is subject to restrictions there.
4) That would still be the good old radio report.
These are the superordinate categories, each of which creates certain requirements that have probably never been formulated anywhere. Instruction to the commentators something like this: “Have a chat like that. It’s football, everyone’s tuned in anyway and it doesn’t matter what you say.”
An important subdivision, which has also never been mentioned and which is completely ignored in the type of reporting, is: is there a clear positioning of the speaker in the game or is the game to be regarded as completely neutral. A little more about that.
But first let’s go back to points 1 to 3. If a package of requirements has never been put together, then this is gladly offered at this point. Should this (unknownly) exist, then this should be understood as an alternative concept. Because: congruence cannot be assumed, as later investigations should make clear.
In general, however, it should be surprising that you basically never hear anything about it. What makes a good report? To what extent was the report you found a successful one? Were there phone calls, complaints, praise? Are the viewers clearly satisfied? Maybe even a survey of the development of ratings to be able to take this into account? When do you tune in, when do people tune out? All of these are fascinating questions.
Actually, each of the assigned speakers should be able to easily fall back on how to comment, since they have somehow embarked on this career and should know and follow a few general guidelines?
The guidelines proposed here should be something like this: at the conference, the main task is of course to briefly inform the viewer who is only occasionally connected about what is happening – this can certainly take place momentarily in more general statements — but then to focus on the specifics again focus on gameplay. This would only be a permissible, but at the same time necessary, difference to a single game. The other guidelines would have to apply anyway, which will be proposed later.
In a one-on-one game, it should be self-evident to be “on the ball” practically all the time. When the ball rolls, there are no generalities or background information. The current scene with the rolling ball can only end in one intention: the attacking party is trying to score a goal. As unlikely as the success of this suggestion may be: the speaker would try to make it work with this action and thus make it exciting. All the additional information read before the game would have to be saved for moments when the ball is out of play. Also the general places should only be attached in exceptional cases.
A summary should only have these characteristics: to be kept exciting throughout, since only the highlights come anyway, i.e. scenes that are worth looking at. Any prior knowledge of the speaker, which goes back to the knowledge of the result, must urgently be left out. The attack can become a goal – so let’s see. Sure, a red card would have just as much room as a trainer’s outburst or a pack formation as a result of a critical decision, maybe even a bad injury that occurs outside of an exciting situation – in other words: an ugly scene, in the sense of the chronicler’s duty, but gladly also because the viewer is somewhere “sensational”.
So much for these “general guidelines” that might be mentioned. The special case of unambiguous positioning or neutrality is briefly mentioned here – and its consideration would be self-evident, but it doesn’t take place and apparently nobody has yet recognized a problem in it, so it doesn’t exist? But already. There are the games in which the German national team plays or a German representative plays in the European Cup. A clear positioning would have to be accepted here, perhaps as a matter of course – although even then a healthy degree of objectivity would not hurt. One should be able to recognize a kind of excitement, regret if a German attack failed, concern about the defensive performance in the event of an attack by the English. Whether critical or not irrelevant, as long as the noticeable going along is maintained. Whereby any form of criticism would basically be seen as a commonplace and insofar as a comment in this direction pulls the viewer out of the action and not the desirable opposite. “He has to play faster” would be such an example. Do you feel drawn into it, or rather pushed back into the chair? Do you feel tension or would you rather wave it off? “Oh, they won’t do it anyway.”
If the truth content were high…
If there is a purely German duel in the (first or second) Bundesliga, a different approach should be chosen. “More must come from Stuttgart” is completely misplaced, since “enough” would probably come from Gladbach or Leverkusen at the same time. You’re neutral, so the glass is always half full. Some good and not others bad. Of course, the general guidelines remain valid. Make it exciting, even if it’s not exciting. That would be one of them. 0% compliance. But also recognized?
The thorough testing is still pending. Whereby something rings through here and there. First of all, look at the central parts of any comment: truth content and entertainment value? Somewhere in between shouldn’t there be a report? To illuminate situations, to clarify, to recognize the player who has the ball and to call his name, to build up an arc of suspense, in the individual turn and/or over the entire game. Pulling the viewer into the action, forcing him to watch because it’s so exciting and he has to stay tuned in every second because otherwise he would miss something? The liver – the tone of voice – already plays a role here.
There would be any range of concretely captured comments, for a single game, but also over any football weekend in full operation, with this being made up of all categories. Live, conference, summary and as much as one would accept if the reader says at this point: “I haven’t heard anything about it, I’ll only watch without sound” then he should do it and please don’t deny that these Sayings not only keep repeating themselves and can be found everywhere, but that their design goes more and more in a certain direction, which is shown concretely and concretely in the example.
The only thing that could be considered as a doubt would be that it is confirmed that the presented comments are or were heard, and even often, that the contrary pronounced ones are simply concealed here. However, one can confidently assure: they do not exist. Especially since they wouldn’t fit together with the ones that are the other way around. Apart from that: whoever finds them can enjoy them – but that would still not change the fact that the ones presented here do not stand up to the test, insofar as they are out of place.
Finally into the examples: “… Stindl has to take him directly.” This happens in the ongoing action. However, Stindl put the ball down. The player’s shot went just wide of the post. The repetition produces the repetition of the comment: “He has to take it directly.”
veracity? That is of course a problem here. Because: less than no goal can not come out with an alternative execution. It’s all lightning fast. There are fractions of seconds in which this decision is made. The special class of actors, capable of anything a mere mortal would pull off, far eclipses all of one’s own helpless efforts in the game, including the ball-ball skills of the man at the mic. Any critical tone would be inappropriate one way or the other.
entertainment value? Small amount. Or even the opposite of “entertainment”. “bored”? Basically, a term has already been created for something like this. It’s called “smart shit”. If Stindl had taken the ball directly and it hadn’t been a goal, then you could easily have said: “He would have had to put it down again…” Although the little trick that the reporters have gotten used to today is that , to add their two cents during the campaign. But always in the form “that won’t work.” The little trick that they use intuitively is the following: you take advantage of the fact that there won’t be a goal like this – because experience teaches that none will fall anyway. So you give the wise advice simply in action. If you are right and, as is almost always the case, there is no goal, then you have collected “expert points” in the cheapest way. The viewer would have to nod in confirmation: “He knows his way around football. He immediately recognized that he had to take off there. Great boy.”
If, by chance, the discard leads to the very rare event of a hit, then he has to row back briefly, but that’s not a problem, apart from the fact that you would have already gotten the few points you’re about to lose in a hundred other places. The “rowing back” then sounded like this: “He could actually have sought the degree himself, but unselfishly took it again.” Or something along those lines.
The point of view would still have to be examined, but always to be understood as a “positive” or “negative” one. That’s pretty clear. It’s negative. Somehow you have to come to the conclusion that Stindl messed something up? Above all, he should have … if he had had the high level of a reporter …
Since this is a concrete comment – whereby the general validity should be undisputed — in this respect one can go into another comment, which sounded like this on the same day: “Maierhofer has to put it on again.” Stindl = Gladbach, Maierhofer = Mattersburg. But that hardly matters. Here Maierhofer (2.02 m) approached a long cross ball at the back post from an acute angle and tried to steer it over the goalkeeper to the other corner. The plan didn’t work out, but – as with Stindl – it was simply well done. Even the flank could be described as intentionally placed there, as Maierhofer can play to his size well.
The fatal thing is: the comment always suggests a continuation of the sentence: “Stindl must take directly” to be continued with “… then it would be a goal”. This marks smartass. It is not verifiable whether it would then be a goal. Of course it wouldn’t be one even then, that’s to be assumed. But someone should prove that to me! It is even questionable whether the alternative proposed option would have increased or reduced the chance of scoring. Apart from the fact that the idea might not even be possible to implement.
“The leadership of Gladbach is deserved, but it is narrow and carries a high risk.” Just to examine a comment of a completely different nature. It was towards the end of a game against Cologne when Gladbach was 1-0. What to do with this sentence? Should one have wished for higher management because it involves such a high level of risk? Could Gladbach have made a few more goals of their own free choice and should, just to be on the safe side?
There is little or no truth content, one could also say: irrelevant. Entertainment value is the opposite of high. There’s a certain factor here, though, unintentionally — that it’s just gotten a little exciting. Unintentionally recognizable by the suggestion being included, in the comment that they should have avoided it?! So you can see that it’s exciting, but only in a highly indirect way.
The other hurt part would be neutrality. You could perhaps say that if you were clearly pro Gladbach if the opponent were a foreign team. It wouldn’t be great even then, but it could just about get through because it shows the excitement. Put it something like this: “Man, they were so superior for a long time that it could have been 2-0 or even 3-0. Now you really have to fear that they even win the game.”
