CBC's Coverage

[TFC USA]

I touched on this yesterday, and I want to make this into its own thread and ESPECIALLY for John to read.

Anyone who knows my stance on the CBC will know that I absolutely love their sports coverage. I watched the U-20s on the CBC and was impressed with the coverage (but not Steve Armitage). This year though something about their Toronto FC coverage has just made me irk.


First, I can't stand Brenda Irving. I know Mitch Peacock is in Winnipeg for the local CBC but he has to be brought back. Irving is pleasant to look at but other than that she is poor. I'd rather not have a sideline reporter at all. Too many people for a broadcast. Enough. Stick to figure skating Brenda.


Next, the Footie Fan Poll. Not only is it probably the dumbest segment in the history of the CBC, but Gina Bucci is a useless chick. Again, good to look at but she's a stumbling wreck. Who cares about what the fans think about Carver in the 85th fecking minute of a close match. This crap is not meant to be shown during the broadcast or at all.


Finally, these fluff pieces involving the relative smallness of Chad Barrett's dong or what Jim Brennan's family life is like is irrelevant to the game.


What happened CBC? Leave that to ESPN. I respect your style of broadcasting and your actual form of journalism, but good lord what the hell happened to your TFC broadcasts?


Sorry about the rant but yesterday really pissed me off. I love Nigel (who had a better commentary), Scott, and can tolerate Jason, but these retarded segments featuring inebriated fans and clueless chicks is killing me. It's not needed.


Discuss please. :)

[LucaGol]

Anything during the run of play that has nothing to do with the player with the ball and what he's doing with it, must be eliminated.

No more side commentary, fan polls, overanalysis, stories etc etc. Please.

Watch a BBC or ITV broadcast of a soccer match and just emulate the hell out of it.


If you can't fill up 3:30 to 4:00 with talk of the actual game, then just junk it.

[mighty_torontofc_2008]

I touched on this yesterday, and I want to make this into its own thread and ESPECIALLY for John to read.

Anyone who knows my stance on the CBC will know that I absolutely love their sports coverage. I watched the U-20s on the CBC and was impressed with the coverage (but not Steve Armitage). This year though something about their Toronto FC coverage has just made me irk.


First, I can't stand Brenda Irving. I know Mitch Peacock is in Winnipeg for the local CBC but he has to be brought back. Irving is pleasant to look at but other than that she is poor. I'd rather not have a sideline reporter at all. Too many people for a broadcast. Enough. Stick to figure skating Brenda.


Next, the Footie Fan Poll. Not only is it probably the dumbest segment in the history of the CBC, but Gina Bucci is a useless chick. Again, good to look at but she's a stumbling wreck. Who cares about what the fans think about Carver in the 85th fecking minute of a close match. This crap is not meant to be shown during the broadcast or at all.


Finally, these fluff pieces involving the relative smallness of Chad Barrett's dong or what Jim Brennan's family life is like is irrelevant to the game.


What happened CBC? Leave that to ESPN. I respect your style of broadcasting and your actual form of journalism, but good lord what the hell happened to your TFC broadcasts?


Sorry about the rant but yesterday really pissed me off. I love Nigel (who had a better commentary), Scott, and can tolerate Jason, but these retarded segments featuring inebriated fans and clueless chicks is killing me. It's not needed.


Discuss please. :)

Brenda Irving is not my favorite either..she really has to go, shes bad.
Peacock would be terrific...ay least we wouldn't get lame stories on players private lifes...on Brenda Irving would dream up something that boring.
but this is the CBC....:(

[ginkster88]

What is this about Barrett's dong??? I completely missed that. Surely CBC has better sense than that... or perhaps not?

[Inswingingwingman]

The camera work bothered me more than the commentary. But they talk too much. ST*U.

And I would prefer just telling me who has the ball. I can see the rest.

\

[InTheCrowd]

Exactly. I don't watch the game to hear their opinion. If the camera shot is to high up we can't see who the players are, just tell me who it is. I didn't ask for what you had to say.

[seggs]

I touched on this yesterday, and I want to make this into its own thread and ESPECIALLY for John to read.

Anyone who knows my stance on the CBC will know that I absolutely love their sports coverage. I watched the U-20s on the CBC and was impressed with the coverage (but not Steve Armitage). This year though something about their Toronto FC coverage has just made me irk.


First, I can't stand Brenda Irving. I know Mitch Peacock is in Winnipeg for the local CBC but he has to be brought back. Irving is pleasant to look at but other than that she is poor. I'd rather not have a sideline reporter at all. Too many people for a broadcast. Enough. Stick to figure skating Brenda.


Next, the Footie Fan Poll. Not only is it probably the dumbest segment in the history of the CBC, but Gina Bucci is a useless chick. Again, good to look at but she's a stumbling wreck. Who cares about what the fans think about Carver in the 85th fecking minute of a close match. This crap is not meant to be shown during the broadcast or at all.


Finally, these fluff pieces involving the relative smallness of Chad Barrett's dong or what Jim Brennan's family life is like is irrelevant to the game.


What happened CBC? Leave that to ESPN. I respect your style of broadcasting and your actual form of journalism, but good lord what the hell happened to your TFC broadcasts?


Sorry about the rant but yesterday really pissed me off. I love Nigel (who had a better commentary), Scott, and can tolerate Jason, but these retarded segments featuring inebriated fans and clueless chicks is killing me. It's not needed.


Discuss please. :)
I agree 100% with u.

[TorCanSoc]

I agree with your comments....but uh... call me cheesy, I like some bits on the players outside of their game lives. But true, not during the game. Pre-game stuff, maybe even half time filler, why not?

Its all after the fact stuff anyway, I'm at the game. Then I watch the game when I get home.

[TFC USA]

Brenda Irving is not my favorite either..she really has to go, shes bad.
Peacock would be terrific...ay least we would get lame stories on players private lifes...on Brenda Irving would dream up something that boring.
but this is the CBC....:(

I don't understand your dislike for the CBC.

You want to know what ESPN pulled off in 2006 in the World Cup?

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=367408&page=2

91 pages worth. Read every one of those posts if you have to. You'll think CBC is like porn.

[red_polka_dots]

sorry if this has been asked before, but why aren't CBC games broadcast in HD?

[TFC USA]

sorry if this has been asked before, but why aren't CBC games broadcast in HD?


I thought they were?

[apetimberlake]

Gina Bucci is a useless chick

I don't agree with this.
The poll itself is terrible but she does know a alot about soccer.
She has co-hosted the Italian Soccer Fanatics for the past 5 years and has done a pretty good job.

[TFC USA]

Fact of the matter is apetimberlake we don't need 4 people to do 1 soccer game.

Nigel and Jason will do.

[LucaGol]

I don't agree with this.
The poll itself is terrible but she does know a alot about soccer.
She has co-hosted the Italian Soccer Fanatics for the past 5 years and has done a pretty good job.

Let's be real here.

I watch that show all the time. Well, used to before they actually tried to make it into a legit soccer show. She has some issues there. Let's just say she selected Palermo as her favourite team because of the pink jerseys. But she's into the sport at least, that much is clear.

The show was much better when it was just Sal and Mark yelling at each other over how terrible the ref was.


The role she's performing for CBC is actually her forte. But there is a time and place. Perhaps she should be working for TFC on TFC TV. I can see weekly segments becoming interesting to watch. But not during the game.

[greatwhitenorf]

Usually, I'm at the games and don't get to see the telecasts. But we recorded the home opener and have to say, Irving's halftime interview with Barrett was just about as pointless a piece of TV as I've ever seen.

Haven't seen Bucci's segments on TV, but if they're just dollops of froth and bumpf, drop them. Symptomatic of an era that presents us with too much information and not enough meaning. Saw her set up to broadcast near the souvenir booth at the south end Saturday. Frightening amount of makeup on the poor girl.

My dream telecasts are watching recordings of English games or World Cup matches from the 80s and 90s and listening to men like John Motson or Martin Tyler at their best working a game on their own without a colour commentator. They are timeless. Intimate, informative and eloquent, a triumph of 'Less is More'.

I'd love to watch a game with Nigel Reed doing his thing solo and then saving Jason De Vos for more brisk segments in the pre-game, half-time and post-game segments. I like Jason, respect his first-hand knowledge, analytical skills and genuine enthusiasm. Run those segments with a set-up host along the lines of a Gerry Dobson and you've got an ideal combo.

But I bet Nigel could have us all purring if we left the play-by-play delivery to him alone.

[LucaGol]

Usually, I'm at the games and don't get to see the telecasts. But we recorded the home opener and have to say, Irving's halftime interview with Barrett was just about as pointless a piece of TV as I've ever seen.

Haven't seen Bucci's segments, but if they're just dollops of froth and bumph, drop them. Symptomatic of an era that presents us with too much information and not enough meaning.

My dream telecasts are watching recordings of English games or World Cup matches from the 80s and 90s and listening to men like John Motson or Martin Tyler at their best working a game on their own without a colour commentator. They are timeless, equally informative and eloquent and a triumph of 'Less is More'.

Amen.

[FluSH]

Gina Bucci didn't seem comfortable out there... not sure if it's her lack of experience with TFC or what the editor had her doing...

Reading questions from her blackberry? when fans are pushing her and causing ruckus?

When I suggest she didn't feel comfortable it is because her questions seemed spoon fed... no real substance... the same Footy poll over and over again... like there was going to be a big CLIMAX when the poll was going to be revealed. I know CBC is trying to sell that poll... it will come with time, but don't shove it down people's throat. If Gina Bucci knows her Toronto FC then let her fly with some questions on the spot.

[apetimberlake]

Gina Bucci didn't seem comfortable out there... not sure if it's her lack of experience with TFC or what the editor had her doing...

Reading questions from her blackberry? when fans are pushing her and causing ruckus?

When I suggest she didn't feel comfortable it is because her questions seemed spoon fed... no real substance... the same Footy poll over and over again... like there was going to be a big CLIMAX when the poll was going to be revealed. I know CBC is trying to sell that poll... it will come with time, but don't shove it down people's throat. If Gina Bucci does knows her Toronto FC then let her fly with some questions on the spot.

Sounds good to me.
Maybe get some of the other fanatics on their.

[FluSH]

Sounds good to me.
Maybe get some of the other fanatics on their.

I agree... I mean she knows her footy... So she's not there just for eye candy. But CBC has given her the dumbest questions... I mean a Bud Girl could've handle those questions.... why CBC?

[ilikemusic]

That 'Footie Fan Poll' is the dumbest thing ive ever seen.

Seriously CBC, how friggin dumb do you think your audience is?

The 'sideline reporting' needs to go too. Absolute waste of time.

When Toronto is building on an offensive possession I do not need Brenda Irving chiming in to tell me that Shales Hyndeman thinks opening his season at home hurt the team.

You couldnt have told us that during the half hour pre-game show?

Its like CBC has a quota for useless people/features that they need to fill regardless of the circumstances.

[s2cazz]

Let's be real here.

I watch that show all the time. Well, used to before they actually tried to make it into a legit soccer show. She has some issues there. Let's just say she selected Palermo as her favourite team because of the pink jerseys. But she's into the sport at least, that much is clear.

The show was much better when it was just Sal and Mark yelling at each other over how terrible the ref was.


The role she's performing for CBC is actually her forte. But there is a time and place. Perhaps she should be working for TFC on TFC TV. I can see weekly segments becoming interesting to watch. But not during the game.
I've never really been a fan of the show and have never been able to get into it... However she does have some knowledge of the sport and the sideline reporting is nice when it's at halftime, before or after the match... It could really lead to some good stuff... but during the match is shit and it definately has to go
I have to say I agree with you on this one

[johnmolinaro]

Hey,

Sorry but I only saw this thread now. I'll try to answer and address all of your issues. If I don't get to all of them or there's another issue you want to bring up, I'll post another response.

OK, here we go....

Brenda Irving-Mitch Peacock - Mitch isn't coming back. He lives in Winnipeg and it costs a lot to fly him in for home game. In light of the global recession, tough economic times and the recent layoff and cutbacks at the CBC, we couldn't justify flying him in. Brenda doesn't know soccer as well as Mitch, but she is a very experienced broadcaster - even though she's not everyone's cup of tea, from what I gather.

Sideline reporters - To be honest, I'm not a big fan of the concept but it is the standard in North American sports broadcasting and we are trying to reach out to the general sports fan (not just soccer supporters) so we have to try and make it as palatable for the average sports fans as we can in order to grow the audience and ratings.

Footie Fan Poll - I like the concept because it's interactive and gives the viewers at home a sense of involvement. Give Gina some time and don't write her off just yet after two shows.

Puff Pieces - Again, not everyone's cup of tea but a lot of people do like the pieces like we did on Brennan and his family. Also, puff pieces isn't all we do. We had that serious piece on Dero on our first broadcast and De Vos talks about a lot of serious issues in the pre-game show.

BTW - do we not get props for adding a 30-minute pre-game show? That was a common complaint in past years, so we listened to you and added one.

No more side commentary, fan polls, overanalysis, stories etc etc. Please. Watch a BBC or ITV broadcast of a soccer match and just emulate the hell out of it. - Again, while catering to the hardcore soccer fan, we also have to reach out to the average sports fan who might not follow soccer, and the average sports fan is used to all those bells and whistles.

You have to understand that we're trying to grow the audience, ratings and exposure of the sport, so you have to make the broadcast palatable to the average sports fan and please hardcore fans such as yourselves.

It's a difficult balancing act, but I think CBC does a great job of broadcasting MLS games; far better than GOL TV and Sportnet - but I'm biased ;)

Anyway, hope that answers your questions and concerns. Ask me follow up questions or new questions if you'd like and I'll do my best to answer them all.

Cheers,
John

[Roogsy]

CBC is still my choice...but dude...they gotta tread the line of alienating their core base in an attempt to get less hardcore fans on board. Do a quality job of the basic product and they will...without the fluff.

I realize the effort Brenda is making, but seriously, hardcore or not, she is simply not for the soccer market. I know my Dad wouldn't want to watch that.

I do credit CBC for the pre-game show. THAT is the stuff that will help people understand and know the game better.

But fluff never does the job you hope it does. Talk to the power that be my friend.

[johnmolinaro]

CBC is still my choice...but dude...they gotta tread the line of alienating their core base in an attempt to get less hardcore fans on board. Do a quality job of the basic product and they will...without the fluff.

I'm not as convinced as you are.

Like I said, it's a difficult balancing act.

[s2cazz]

there is nothing wrong with a little bit of fluff... but the sideline reporting has to go... hardcore supporter or not it takes away from the match and this is not good... pregame show excellent however

[johnmolinaro]

there is nothing wrong with a little bit of fluff... but the sideline reporting has to go... hardcore supporter or not it takes away from the match and this is not good... pregame show excellent however

I admit I'm not a fan of sideline reporting (for any sport), but like I said it's the industry standard in North America so I don't think we're going to abandon it.

[SilverSamurai]

I've never really been a fan of the show and have never been able to get into it... However she does have some knowledge of the sport and the sideline reporting is nice when it's at halftime, before or after the match... It could really lead to some good stuff... but during the match is shit and it definately has to go
I have to say I agree with you on this one
I have to agree with ya.
The polls are ok, but please keep it to maybe the start of the game, half time and the end. It's 1 thing to have Nigel remind people about voting a few times throughout the game, but the chicky (forget her name) doing it during match was annoying.
Not a bad idea though, just needs some tweaking.

Hey,

Sorry but I only saw this thread now. I'll try to answer and address all of your issues. If I don't get to all of them or there's another issue you want to bring up, I'll post another response.

OK, here we go....

Brenda Irving-Mitch Peacock - Mitch isn't coming back. He lives in Winnipeg and it costs a lot to fly him in for home game. In light of the global recession, tough economic times and the recent layoff and cutbacks at the CBC, we couldn't justify flying him in. Brenda doesn't know soccer as well as Mitch, but she is a very experienced broadcaster - even though she's not everyone's cup of tea, from what I gather.

Sideline reporters - To be honest, I'm not a big fan of the concept but it is the standard in North American sports broadcasting and we are trying to reach out to the general sports fan (not just soccer supporters) so we have to try and make it as palatable for the average sports fans as we can in order to grow the audience and ratings.

Footie Fan Poll - I like the concept because it's interactive and gives the viewers at home a sense of involvement. Give Gina some time and don't write her off just yet after two shows.

Puff Pieces - Again, not everyone's cup of tea but a lot of people do like the pieces like we did on Brennan and his family. Also, puff pieces isn't all we do. We had that serious piece on Dero on our first broadcast and De Vos talks about a lot of serious issues in the pre-game show.

BTW - do we not get props for adding a 30-minute pre-game show? That was a common complaint in past years, so we listened to you and added one.

No more side commentary, fan polls, overanalysis, stories etc etc. Please. Watch a BBC or ITV broadcast of a soccer match and just emulate the hell out of it. - Again, while catering to the hardcore soccer fan, we also have to reach out to the average sports fan who might not follow soccer, and the average sports fan is used to all those bells and whistles.

You have to understand that we're trying to grow the audience, ratings and exposure of the sport, so you have to make the broadcast palatable to the average sports fan and please hardcore fans such as yourselves.

It's a difficult balancing act, but I think CBC does a great job of broadcasting MLS games; far better than GOL TV and Sportnet - but I'm biased ;)

Anyway, hope that answers your questions and concerns. Ask me follow up questions or new questions if you'd like and I'll do my best to answer them all.

Cheers,
John
Thanks for chiming in.
I think people forget that the "hardcore" footy is a by far a minority here. And as for the comparisons to BBC/England, guess what: WE'RE NOT IN ENGLAND!
Don't get me wrong, I love watching the World Cup w/ the BBC guys over the US ones..., but I like some of the wacky players stories. I didn't get to see the Barett so I can't comment.
Then again I watch it in Spanish when I can. (Well World Cup anyways, the Spanish guys butcher the names of our Canadian squad too much) lol

Anyways to bring back Mitch Peacock for the Canada Cup/Vs Cup matches? :):D

I liked the pre-game show! Is their anyways you guys could show the player intro's? Might help in getting the new casuals learning the players names'.:hump:

[johnmolinaro]

sorry if this has been asked before, but why aren't CBC games broadcast in HD?

I don't know for sure but if I were to hazard a guess I would say money - it costs a hell of a lot more money to broadcast a game in HD than standard def, and when your ratings aren't great to begin with, you can't afford extra expenses.

John

[SilverSamurai]

I admit I'm not a fan of sideline reporting (for any sport), but like I said it's the industry standard in North America so I don't think we're going to abandon it.

It works for other sports, because they stop and go every 2mins (throwball anyone?)
I think their has to be a balance... It's gotta exist!

And I'll say the pre-game show was good!

[marshall_law]

Gina Bucci didn't seem comfortable out there... not sure if it's her lack of experience with TFC or what the editor had her doing...

Reading questions from her blackberry? when fans are pushing her and causing ruckus?

i could barely believe that when i saw it. did nobody at the production meeting think "interrupting coverage to turn to a woman reporting on some useless poll in the middle of a bunch of drunken guys is a terrible idea"?

the footy poll segments looked totally bush league.

[s2cazz]

Thanks for chiming in.
I think people forget that the "hardcore" footy is a by far a minority here. And as for the comparisons to BBC/England, guess what: WE'RE NOT IN ENGLAND!
Don't get me wrong, I love watching the World Cup w/ the BBC guys over the US ones..., but I like some of the wacky players stories. I didn't get to see the Barett so I can't comment.
Then again I watch it in Spanish when I can. (Well World Cup anyways, the Spanish guys butcher the names of our Canadian squad too much) lol

I liked the pre-game show! Is their anyways you guys could show the player intro's? Might help in getting the new casuals learning the players names'.:hump:
I have to agree... we aren't in England or anywhere else in the world for that matter so we don't get to know as much about the players through the mainstream media like any other country would. That is definately a plus and I think it is definately needed for the exposure of the sport and the advancement of its popularity. However I strongly feel that doing it during match time is not the way to do it and is distracting.

CBC is definately the way to go though and this is great that we are even able to voice our opinions to you John and hopefully it will help to make the coverage better!

[s2cazz]

I don't know for sure but if I were to hazard a guess I would say money - it costs a hell of a lot more money to broadcast a game in HD than standard def, and when your ratings aren't great to begin with, you can't afford extra expenses.

John
yeah... but the video quality is pretty poor.... can something be done about this? if not Hi-Def than something to make it a little easier to watch?

[FluSH]

P.S. love the 30min pre-game show! and unlike others I did enjoy seeing the Jim Brennan piece...

[SilverSamurai]

I have to agree... we aren't in England or anywhere else in the world for that matter so we don't get to know as much about the players through the mainstream media like any other country would. That is definately a plus and I think it is definately needed for the exposure of the sport and the advancement of its popularity. However I strongly feel that doing it during match time is not the way to do it and is distracting.

CBC is definately the way to go though and this is great that we are even able to voice our opinions to you John and hopefully it will help to make the coverage better!
+1. during the match the sideline reporting should be kept to a minimum. It's 1 thing to say why "x" is hurt, its another to cut away (even in a small window) and ask people what they think of a poll. Keep it for before, after and half time.

[FluSH]

P.S.

This scares me:



Brenda Irving-Mitch Peacock - Mitch isn't coming back. He lives in Winnipeg and it costs a lot to fly him in for home game. In light of the global recession, tough economic times and the recent layoff and cutbacks at the CBC, we couldn't justify flying him in. Brenda doesn't know soccer as well as Mitch, but she is a very experienced broadcaster - even though she's not everyone's cup of tea, from what I gather.



You just can't fake it... the players will see though her... the viewers will see through her... isn't there anyone else who can step up?

[Roogsy]

Why not you John? I've seen you on TV...you're not bad to look at. (No homo) Wouldn't the network soccer columnist add some credibility to the coverage rather than getting any personality within the CBC ranks to pretend like they know about soccer? I admit...Brenda's "bubbliness" may work for figure skating, but when I go home to watch the coverage, I fast forward that part, seriously.

[FluSH]

For Example...

I believe it was Brenda Irving who first approached DeRo after the game... the first question off the bat was along the lines of:

'How do you feel about the goal? Your first for Toronto...and was it all you imagined it to be?'

DeRo responded like a true professional but you can clearly see in his eyes that he couldn't believe what she was asking... we just lost 3 points! a Tie... but it was a devastating Tie... and he commented on this after her question.

comeon...

[Roogsy]

Oh gawd...I remember that. Truly awful. I felt uncomfortable watching that. And reporting should never make the viewer feel uncomfortable!

[FluSH]

Oh gawd...I remember that. Truly awful. I felt uncomfortable watching that. And reporting should never make the viewer feel uncomfortable!

I'm not sure if it's Brenda's fault or the editor who directs the question... but that was indeed awful.

I dare CBC to look at that interview again... DeRo's facial expression does not lie.

another question asked was... "what do you think John Carver will say..." come on... pitting player vs coach? What do you expect DeRo to say? Why would you ask DeRo? Why not ask John Carver himself? that was a bad question... with an obvous politically correct response.

[Nazzer]

John

The comparison to other North American sports in regards to sideline reporting doesn't fly because in those other sports they don't break away from game coverage to do it.

Overall, the sideline reporting, the footie poll that leads nowhere, Brenda Irving trying to sound british when she refers to Brennan as 'skipper' rather than Captain. It all adds up to feeling like you are watching a FOX sports Hockey game circa glowing puck era. It seems to me that BMO Field is filled by focusing on the game, Olympic Stadium filled when the city of Montreal was given a meaningful game, Canada watches the World Cup in large numbers. When the focus is the game, the fans will come, continue to offer drivel and nonsense and you will chase them away.

I watched the Charleston at Vancouver game live on usllive Saturday and I preferred the cheap coverage of the Vancouver game. (mostly because both me and my girlfriend couldn't handle the TFC defense stratey of boot the ball up the field) but the Vancouver game did some things better. First of all I could see the action better, the camera is to zoomed out for the TFC games, I suspect the cameras at Swangard are forced to be more zoomed in because the smaller stadium puts the cameraman closer to the field, but at some point in the game I'd like to be able to see the number on the back of the players jersey. Most of all, the best thing was the only thing the camera showed was the game. The footy poll thing does a great job of showcasing the environment of the crowd, but as a tv viewer I don't care, I want to watch the game.

[Redpunkfiddle]

Call me newfangled, but i appreciate in-game analysis (done appropriately of course) in addition to hearing who has the ball.

Brenda Irving's style strikes me as better suited to something like the Olympics. She's a professional and a good sport (if I am remembering correctly she rode on my bus to Colombus last year), but isn't the cup of tea as John says for most around here.

Now, CBC might be attempting to make its broadcast accessible to a broader audience. But its an interesting question having seen TFC successfully break the MLS mold of appealing to the soccer mom and family by getting the young, mostly male demographic for its base- a broadcaster has a much larger audience to potentially capture.

Oh, and I can't get the archive of the Dallas game to work. Could you fix my computer? Cheers.

[FluSH]

Call me newfangled, but i appreciate in-game analysis (done appropriately of course) in addition to hearing who has the ball.

Brenda Irving's style strikes me as better suited to something like the Olympics. She's a professional and a good sport (if I am remembering correctly she rode on my bus to Colombus last year), but isn't the cup of tea as John says for most around here.

Now, CBC might be attempting to make its broadcast accessible to a broader audience. But its an interesting question having seen TFC successfully break the MLS mold of appealing to the soccer mom and family by getting the young, mostly male demographic for its base- a broadcaster has a much larger audience to potentially capture.

You're completely right here... she is perfect for the Olympics... she's got that aura I don't know... almost high pedigree (for lack of better words) to cover huge events like the Olympics.

[s2cazz]

Call me newfangled, but i appreciate in-game analysis (done appropriately of course) in addition to hearing who has the ball.

Brenda Irving's style strikes me as better suited to something like the Olympics. She's a professional and a good sport (if I am remembering correctly she rode on my bus to Colombus last year), but isn't the cup of tea as John says for most around here.

Now, CBC might be attempting to make its broadcast accessible to a broader audience. But its an interesting question having seen TFC successfully break the MLS mold of appealing to the soccer mom and family by getting the young, mostly male demographic for its base- a broadcaster has a much larger audience to potentially capture.

Oh, and I can't get the archive of the Dallas game to work. Could you fix my computer? Cheers.
+1 Fluff, Player bios and in game analysis is great.... The more you can learn the better especially for new fans and potential new fans who just happen to stop on CBC while channel surfing. BUT IT MUST BE DONE PROPERLY! THE MATCH MUST COME FIRST! all else second. and it must be done with the right people. Would you send Don Cherry to cover figure skating or curling?

[Roogsy]

You're completely right here... she is perfect for the Olympics... she's got that aura I don't know... almost high pedigree (for lack of better words) to cover huge events like the Olympics.



LOL!

Sounds like we need somebody more down and dirty?

I know what you are saying dude.

[ilikemusic]

I admit I'm not a fan of sideline reporting (for any sport), but like I said it's the industry standard in North America so I don't think we're going to abandon it.

There are lots of 'North American industry standards that TFC and MLS have broken away from in favour of a more football oriented approach.

I dont know why sideline reporting should be so sacred that it cant be touched.

TFC and MLS have transgressed many North American industry standards so far, all of them to great success.

1. Toronto FC. Not Toronto Kickers or Toronto Thunder or some other typical NA sports name.

2. Supporters groups. 100% foriegn to the typical NA sports culture, but undeniably a huge part of Toronto FC's sucesss.

Major League Soccer's failed 10-14 year attempt at North Americanizing the game should be evidence enough for anybody trying to promote or make money off of this league that 'because thats how we do it over here' isnt a very good way to plan your business strategy.

If you are so in love with sideline reporting that you just cant bear to do away with it, then how about trying to restrict sideline interactions to moments when there is actual downtime (say when Schellotto or Blanco is sitting on their ass wasting time) instead of forcing it in at whatever pre-planned minute that was decided upon prior to the match.

Far too often we are getting some 'sideline commentary' while there is an important play going on, and then when there is a player on his ass wasting time, theres just dead air because your touchline gumshoe just blew their informative wad while there was actual play going on.

The keeper holding onto the ball does not mean 'we've got 45 seconds to fill with inane chatter'.

[johnmolinaro]

Why not you John? I've seen you on TV...you're not bad to look at. (No homo) Wouldn't the network soccer columnist add some credibility to the coverage rather than getting any personality within the CBC ranks to pretend like they know about soccer? I admit...Brenda's "bubbliness" may work for figure skating, but when I go home to watch the coverage, I fast forward that part, seriously.

Me as the sideline reporter instead of Brenda?

that's not going to happen if for no other reason than I would turn it down if they asked me - I enjoy being in the press box (where I get to blog about the game and write stories) way too much to give it up to be on TV.

I'm a print reporter and that's my first love. A lot of people in my position (a web reporter) are using their current position as a stepping stone to a broadcast career and higher visibility.

Not me. I'm all about the written word and have no aspirations to be on TV. Every once in a while I agree to be on TV when they ask, but fulltime? Never.

[johnmolinaro]

I've seen you on TV...you're not bad to look at.

If that's true, how come I'm single?!?!?

[Roogsy]

Because you need to be on TV during TFC games showing your brilliant personality and not online at 3am with an insomniac! :lol:

[s2cazz]

Because you need to be on TV during TFC games showing your brilliant personality and not online at 3am with an insomniac! :lol:
Well said!

[johnmolinaro]

Because you need to be on TV during TFC games showing your brilliant personality and not online at 3am with an insomniac! :lol:

brilliant personality? Now that's funny!

[Redpunkfiddle]

Good times these 3am things.

But am I the only one who can't get the Dallas game archive video to work? I am trying to inform my opinion on this discussion, and need to see some of the broadcast....

[TFC USA]

Umm......guys, the Barrett having a small dong thing was a joke.

Unless John is informing us of that feature story against the Crew. :D

[fetajr]

the Non-HD on the HD channel is what really pissed me off on saturday

[Mark in Ottawa]

I admit I'm not a fan of sideline reporting (for any sport), but like I said it's the industry standard in North America so I don't think we're going to abandon it.

If we have to have the sideline reporters fine... lets hear em but not "cut" to them visually during play. At the half we can cut to them and get that "fluffy stuff" out of the way. Keep there "reporting" during the run of play to short clips, like a color commentator would do, and let the play by play commentator mute them out if play warrants. They can always go back to the sidelines later.

Setanta does a nice job of canning segments about teams, players and current footy events (I like their "magic numbers" segments) and then presenting them before, at the half and after games.

Give the footy poll results up until the half and then remind us all of the new footy poll at games end.

[Mark in Ottawa]

It may just be my old eyes but I had a real issue with the west side shadow that crept over the field. When play went into the shadows it was very dark and hard to follow the play. Was this just me?

I rarely seen to have this problem when watching games on GolTV, Setanta or TheScore. Oddly enough on other channels the field seems to be a lighter green shade while on CBC the field seems a darker shade.

Weird.

[johnmolinaro]

If we have to have the sideline reporters fine... lets hear em but not "cut" to them visually during play. At the half we can cut to them and get that "fluffy stuff" out of the way. Keep there "reporting" during the run of play to short clips, like a color commentator would do, and let the play by play commentator mute them out if play warrants .

I don't think we visually cut to Brenda during play, did we?

I thought the sideline stuff was short and I can recall on one occassion in the Dallas game when Nigel cut off Brenda because there was a potential scoring chance.

[Mark in Ottawa]

I don't think we visually cut to them during play, did we?

I thought the sideline stuff was short and I can recall on one occassion in the Dallas game when Nigel cut off Brenda because there was a potential scoring chance.

My bad. I could have sworn we cut away at one point but maybe it was a replay that had us return to the ball being in the other end of the field.

Right-o about Nigel & Brenda. I remember that but it just seemed kind of clumsy in an "Alphonse/Gaston" kind of way... after you... o no after you!

In any event I don't really need to know about what discussions Brenda had with players and managers broadcast during the run of play. Before or at the half will suit me fine.

[MEU]

John,

As a compromise, would it not be a good idea to have a picture-in-picture type of set-up for sideline commentaries. I know a few TV broadcasters in europe that have PIP during the game to show commentaries/commercials. I am personally not a big fan of this set-up, but it might be a solution (i.e. if it happens every 5 minutes, it is just annoying and I'd rather not watch the game at all). Keep the game in a large picture and the commentaries in a small picture. At least this way, Footy can still be watched.

[FluSH]

John,

As a compromise, would it not be a good idea to have a picture-in-picture type of set-up for sideline commentaries. I know a few TV broadcasters in europe that have PIP during the game to show commentaries/commercials. I am personally not a big fan of this set-up, but it might be a solution (i.e. if it happens every 5 minutes, it is just annoying and I'd rather not watch the game at all). Keep the game in a large picture and the commentaries in a small picture. At least this way, Footy can still be watched.

I'm pretty sure they did for a brief moment there.

[johnmolinaro]

There seems to be some confusion on visually cutting away to the sideline reporter

We never ever go to a sideline interview in play, nor did we Saturday.

We showed Gina in a small box to finish the footie poll, but you could still watch the game.

[mighty_torontofc_2008]

The pre game show is great..got to give CBC credit for that...but when the games are on gol you get a pre & post game coverage.. CBC has kept Nigel on another good move on their part...but myself i would still rather all TFC games be on GOL...football on a football channel....not just football on a multi subject network...would it kill cbc to run a post game show instead of cutting to the news...Im mean the news!! like
there is not enough channels covering news..>>

[Danbwoy]

I don't understand how anyone can complain about CBC's coverage - they are committing a shitload of resources and some of their top personalities - Scott Russell, Brenda Irving - to the coverage.

CBC is aiming to make soccer their number two sport in terms of coverage behind hockey in preparation for the 2010 World Cup and the level of commitment they have shown TFC is amazing. I'm really impressed.

[johnmolinaro]

The pre game show is great..got to give CBC credit for that...but when the games are on gol you get a pre & post game coverage.. CBC has kept Nigel on another good move on their part...but myself i would still rather all TFC games be on GOL...football on a football channel....not just football on a multi subject network...would it kill cbc to run a post game show instead of cutting to the news...Im mean the news!! like
there is not enough channels covering news..>>

after every game, you can watch a post-game report by Nigel and Jason, and Carver's press conference streamed live on cbcsports.ca

it's not on the main network, but it is something.

[jloome]

I don't understand how anyone can complain about CBC's coverage - they are committing a shitload of resources and some of their top personalities - Scott Russell, Brenda Irving - to the coverage.

CBC is aiming to make soccer their number two sport in terms of coverage behind hockey in preparation for the 2010 World Cup and the level of commitment they have shown TFC is amazing. I'm really impressed.

If CBC gets a full mandate review, ala the BBC, in the next two or three years, I doubt we'll see too much sports on it anymore.

[FluSH]

I don't understand how anyone can complain about CBC's coverage - they are committing a shitload of resources and some of their top personalities - Scott Russell, Brenda Irving - to the coverage.

CBC is aiming to make soccer their number two sport in terms of coverage behind hockey in preparation for the 2010 World Cup and the level of commitment they have shown TFC is amazing. I'm really impressed.

constructive criticism... at least from my part. How else can you move forward if you don't get feedback?

[johnmolinaro]

constructive criticism... at least from my part. How else can you move forward if you don't get feedback?

Fair point.

Viewer expectations must also be reasonable, though.

[mr k]

another roll the eyes Brenda Irving question (and/or bad research by CBC) - during the pre-match show:

Irving to Cooper: So how come you do so well against TFC with 4 goals?

Cooper: smiles at Irving and says 2 of those were penalty kicks

[FluSH]

another roll the eyes Brenda Irving question (and/or bad research by CBC) - during the pre-match show:

Irving to Cooper: So how come you do so well against TFC with 4 goals?

Cooper: smiles at Irving and says 2 of those were penalty kicks

Yeah, I remember that one... it was a big flop... again Brenda is great, don't get me wrong. But it is clear she doesn't know her Soccer/TFC/MLS as much as she should.

[TFC/ARSENAL]

"Next, the Footie Fan Poll. Not only is it probably the dumbest segment in the history of the CBC, but Gina Bucci is a useless chick. Again, good to look at but she's a stumbling wreck. Who cares about what the fans think about Carver in the 85th fecking minute of a close match. This crap is not meant to be shown during the broadcast or at all."

I second the motion. Gina Bucci comes off as a bimbo. If she has any self-respect she should refuse to do anymore of this crap.

As for Brenda Irving, she does not know the game.

If you want a good broadcast, just watch John Helm of the BBC. It is just him, the mike and the cameras. That is all you need. CBC should stop trying to reinvent the wheel and leave the show to Nigel and Jason.

[Hitcho]

John - re your point on catering to the mainstream tv sports market in N. America: "sawker" is something of an alien sport in the US (and Canada to a lesser extent) but adding sideline commentary is unlikely of itself to increase the ratings. If someone is that disinterested in the sport then they'll just switch off, and adding a sideline snippet is not going to alter that - if anything it smacks of a foreign sport dressed up in US trappings and will just irritate the typical US viewer as "some goddamned foreign sport trying to be american". Surely a better approach is to offer American viewers something different and interesting which can stand on its own merits by keeping the coverage and commentary high tempo and interesting, so that US viewers might watch a bit and think it's worth staying tuned in to, no?

[johnmolinaro]

John - re your point on catering to the mainstream tv sports market in N. America: "sawker" is something of an alien sport in the US (and Canada to a lesser extent) but adding sideline commentary is unlikely of itself to increase the ratings. If someone is that disinterested in the sport then they'll just switch off, and adding a sideline snippet is not going to alter that - if anything it smacks of a foreign sport dressed up in US trappings and will just irritate the typical US viewer as "some goddamned foreign sport trying to be american". Surely a better approach is to offer American viewers something different and interesting which can stand on its own merits by keeping the coverage and commentary high tempo and interesting, so that US viewers might watch a bit and think it's worth staying tuned in to, no?

I'm not sure I agree with you.

I think, to a certain extent, you have to make the broadcast as palatable for the average sports fan as you possibly can. It's been my experience that sports fans are creatures of habit when it comes to TV viewing and they expect certain things (sideline reports being one of them) when it comes to a game broadcast - and if you don't give it to them, they'll view your product as second-rate or bush-league and might be less likely to tune it again.

I completely understand that some of you don't like the sideline stuff because it's not traditional when it comes to broadcasting soccer.

But I think you have to look at the big picture and understand that on top of catering to hardcore soccer fans as yourselves, we're also trying to reach out to the average sports fan in order to grow the TV audience.

I admit that I'm not a big fan of sideline reporting when it comes to TV (with any sport) but I wouldn't let it ruin my overall enjoyment of a broadcast.

John

[Hitcho]

^ John

I'm not in the "sideline reporting ruins my viewing experience" bracket, although I'd prefer not to see it. I was just hypothesising that following the well trodden path in terms of US sports broadcasting might not be the most successful idea for soccer coverage. It's the safest path to tread for sure, but soccer has an uphill battle to fight to gain ground in the mainstream US sports market. So instead of just dishing up a hybrid product which pretends to be something it isn't and pleases no-one, why nto try breaking the mould a little bit and see if you can win viewers through innovative and fresh ideas? I'm not suggesting you have to clone Motson et al on the BBC, but a curious mix of a non-US sport drenched in typical US coverage just doesn't seem like a very good idea to me, because you run the risk of alienating the purists and failing to convince the target market.

[johnmolinaro]

^ John

I'm not in the "sideline reporting ruins my viewing experience" bracket, although I'd prefer not to see it. I was just hypothesising that following the well trodden path in terms of US sports broadcasting might not be the most successful idea for soccer coverage. It's the safest path to tread for sure, but soccer has an uphill battle to fight to gain ground in the mainstream US sports market. So instead of just dishing up a hybrid product which pretends to be something it isn't and pleases no-one, why nto try breaking the mould a little bit and see if you can win viewers through innovative and fresh ideas? I'm not suggesting you have to clone Motson et al on the BBC, but a curious mix of a non-US sport drenched in typical US coverage just doesn't seem like a very good idea to me, because you run the risk of alienating the purists and failing to convince the target market.

You raise an interesting point. I'm just not sure I agree with it.

[Hitcho]

Fair enough. You obviously know the industry better than me, but from a layman's point of view it just seemed to make sense to me.

Put it this way - I'm from England and when American football (as we call it) first started airing over there a while back, Channel 4 came up with a really good broadcasting package to try and crack the hardcore football, cricket and rugby fans in Britain and it was pretty successful. They steered away from the traditional English approach because that was always going to look stupid with a sport as non-British as American football, but they also avoided the trap of just replicating US coverage to avoid alienating fans who might be interested in the sport but found themselves irritated by the presentation. And it worked. Really well in fact.

EDIT - While I've got your attention, I'd just like to add that as a TFC fan I'm really pleased with the amount of support shown to the coverage of TFC games by the CBC and others, online as well as on tv. It's important that TFC gets a national free to air mainstream broadcaster on side, so whatever bashing the format of presentation might take on here, please be assured that there are an awful lot of people who are really pleased to have the kind of coverage we're now getting. Thanks and keep it up, and keep striving for improvement - for what it's worth I firmly believe that with the amount of kids playing soccer in Canada and the US now that in the future it's going to become a major sport in N. America, but it needs the grass roots tv coverage to continue to grow.

[bee dubya]

I don't understand how anyone can complain about CBC's coverage - they are committing a shitload of resources and some of their top personalities - Scott Russell, Brenda Irving - to the coverage.

CBC is aiming to make soccer their number two sport in terms of coverage behind hockey in preparation for the 2010 World Cup and the level of commitment they have shown TFC is amazing. I'm really impressed.

I agree that CBC are committing a large amount of resources to their TFC coverage but just because they're trying doesn't mean that they're succeeding. I enjoy watching the games on CBC (usually when I get back from the home matches) but there are some things I'd like to see them improve. I'd prefer that the pre-game show dealt more with the MLS than trying to promote the World Cup - something that needs no promotion and also something CBC shouldn't be spending money taxpayer money on when private broadcasters can show all the games on basic cable packages...but I digress - or doing fluff pieces. I'd rather see in depth analysis on other teams in MLS, important plays from the previous week, that sort of thing.

The sideline reporting thing isn't going to go away any time soon and I understand that. I'm sure the MLS is actually in favour of this type of thing. I'm glad that CBC recognizes that if they do have sideline reporting during matches, they shouldn't cut to that reporter while game is being played.

Overall CBC does a fair job but with a couple tweaks, I think the coverage could be very good.

[Hitcho]

I agree that CBC are committing a large amount of resources to their TFC coverage but just because they're trying doesn't mean that they're succeeding. I enjoy watching the games on CBC (usually when I get back from the home matches) but there are some things I'd like to see them improve. I'd prefer that the pre-game show dealt more with the MLS than trying to promote the World Cup - something that needs no promotion and also something CBC shouldn't be spending money taxpayer money on when private broadcasters can show all the games on basic cable packages...but I digress - or doing fluff pieces. I'd rather see in depth analysis on other teams in MLS, important plays from the previous week, that sort of thing.

The sideline reporting thing isn't going to go away any time soon and I understand that. I'm sure the MLS is actually in favour of this type of thing. I'm glad that CBC recognizes that if they do have sideline reporting during matches, they shouldn't cut to that reporter while game is being played.

Overall CBC does a fair job but with a couple tweaks, I think the coverage could be very good.

QFT

On the sideline reporter thing, if it's just a case of hearing a different voice for a few seconds while they impart useful info, then that's no big deal, it happens in England now too for things like injury updates in real time etc. plus the main commentator can always just cut back in if something important starts to happen in the game.

[Roogsy]

Overall CBC does a fair job but with a couple tweaks, I think the coverage could be very good.

I agree!

This dialogue isn't people desiring another network cover TFC but rather that the one that is currently doing it (and the one that most of believe is doing a good job of supporting football in this country) could use some improvements to make their broadcast even better. Is that a bad thing?

[johnmolinaro]

I agree!

This dialogue isn't people desiring another network cover TFC but rather that the one that is currently doing it (and the one that most of believe is doing a good job of supporting football in this country) could use some improvements to make their broadcast even better. Is that a bad thing?

Nope, not at all. Constructive criticism is never bad and for the most part, I think that's been the norm in this thread.

[VPjr]

I'm not as convinced as you are.

Like I said, it's a difficult balancing act.


John, its really not that difficult. It just requires not being lazy and not co-opting other broadcasters bad ideas that seem like good ideas (BTW, I'm not calling you lazy...)

Less is more...it always has been. The best TV calls of soccer are the One man calls. Get a high quality play by play man and let him do both jobs. If an analyst is needed, fine, but leave it at that. There is simply no need for a cut away to a sideline report unless there is an injury.

Who really likes those sideline interviews, when the sweaty player comes off the pitch and talks about how the team gave 110%? :noidea: I think they are all, generally, poorly done and provide little to no information. I hate them in all sports. They truly are stupid. The athlete doesn't want to give the interview and the questions are almost always poor.

When Halftime comes, cut to the studio. Do analysis, show highlites, possibly analyze other games going on in MLS or other matches involving Canadian pro teams. Heck, talk about soccer in Canada in general (PDL, CSL, PCSL, W-League, etc...). Those would be interesting stories and you would be fulfilling the mandate of being Canada's national broadcaster trying to shine the light on the sport from coast to coast.

Just because other broadcasters use these silly gimmicks that clearly few if any viewers like (the same complaints are being posted on The Voyageurs and U-Sector), why do we have to do the same?

In light of the global recession, if you get rid of some of these silly features that people don't generally like anyway you save even more money. I almost never watch those silly human interest stories that broadcasters seem to be so enamoured with as a way to fill time at half time or pre-game but which are wildly boring and obviously cost money because you need a host and a camera crew to do them. What people want is analysis, highlites, the occasional contest, etc... when they are not watching the live play by play.

Furthermore, most attempts at live interactivity between viewers and the broadcast goes poorly. The only thing that ever works, even slightly, are the occasional emails submitted by listeneres/viewers to the broadcast crew, of the variety that I hear on the Premier League radio broadcasts on Fan590. Those are done well. Your live blogging feature has some potential, assuming the quality of the questions you get are of a quality worthy of being read on the air at halftime or pre-game.

The KISS philosophy is always the best one.

Have you guys ever test marketed your broadcasts with a mixed group of hardcore soccer fans, serious sports fans (but not necessarily soccer fans) and casual viewers? I'd be shocked if the majority opinion would differ greatly from mine.

[Stencils]

... To be honest, I'm not a big fan of the concept but it is the standard in North American sports broadcasting and we are trying to reach out to the general sports fan (not just soccer supporters) so we have to try and make it as palatable for the average sports fans as we can in order to grow the audience and ratings. ...

Just a thought that popped into my head and has me wondering.

Not all sporting events are the same. You're not going to cover the Raptors in the same way you'd cover Championship Snooker. Saying that, I'll never buy the argument that because one method works or is the de facto standard for one sport you should use it for all sports.

Leading on from that, you've got hundreds of soccer broadcast models to emulate from countries where the sport is exceedingly popular, a fact which suggests that those countries have perfected or at least refined their coverage to cater to as broad a range of fans as possible. Not everyone in England or Italy is automatically a footy crazed nut and I think it's a little naive to assume that the broadcasters in those areas aren't attempting to present balanced and accessible programming to try and bring in more viewers while at the same time providing the more 'hardcore' fans with something that they're happy with.

There seems to be a great fear in North American broadcasters of providing 'dead time' where nothing is happening or nothing new is being disseminated. The thing is, whereas in baseball and hockey and football (the NA kind) you've got lots of times where nothing IS happening (when the ball has been fouled off out of play, or there's a penalty or icing called, or the players are huddled deciding on the play or a flag has been thrown on the previous play or a video review is going on), in soccer you don't have these things (or at least a lot LESS of this type of thing). Even if a player isn't doing something spectacular, there's movement away from the ball, positioning, etc. There's a lot less dead time and consequently a lot less time for the sorts of things that are 'standard' for North American broadcasts.

All this amounts to the wrong type of broadcasting for the sport based on ideas of what a 'typical' North American audience wants to see. I would argue that the typical sports fan wants first and foremost to see the sport that they tuned in to watch. Someone flipping through the channels and passing over CBC while a big splash graphic of Stefan Frei's college stats isn't going to suddenly stop and be interested.

Don't worry about educating the viewing audience. Worry about producing the best damn soccer coverage on the planet. Because ultimately if the broadcast is worth watching people will educate themselves on their own time.

And THAT won't cost the CBC a dime.

[Tezza]

Fair point.

Viewer expectations must also be reasonable, though.


I could tolerate all of the broadcast if the camera work was better. I hate to say I would even do without HD if it meant a few more camera angles being filmed by people with better experience with footy.

You can fool around with the formula for the broadcast all you want but the fact of the matter is...your presentation of the actual game is bush-league.

I'm not privy to all of the reasons why that cannot be done...but that would be where I would put my efforts, rather than worrying about which hot chick should be reading the blog, or standing on the sidelines.

[mr k]

ditto - CBC doesn't need to re-invent the wheel - just need to follow what is being done in Europe. They don't have sideline reporters, footie polls or any other stuff during the match. If they have this stuff, it's either before, after or during half time.

And I don't agree that you need to tart it up for the unwashed Canadian masses. The World Cup broadcasts use British announcers (often times only 1 per match). And whenever TSN has used ESPN announcers, howls of protest have forced them to go back to English guys.

Plus, CBC doesn't know enough about footy broadcasting anyway - so why try to over complicate things? Follow the global leaders.

TFC is a success in the stands because it didn't try to overly North Americanize things. MLS has also finally learning this fact. When will CBC & more especially Sportsnet figure this out also?

[Vindaloo]

Here's how I think the show should be done.

-During the match, cameras always stay on the action(including fan reaction to goals, etc). If CBC must, then the only thing acceptable to cut away for, is a quick 'audio' interview connected to player injury. A good example is what ITV and BBC did/do for F1 coverage when a driver retires from the race.

-Halftime should involve Nigel and Jason's analysis of the match and whatever else they want to discuss. League results, insight, fan polls, etc., should be shown at this halftime.

-If there must be interviews than it should 'only' be after the match. Preferably never. Post game analysis with Nigel, League results, and future contests, finalise the tv coverage.

Pretty straight forward and it would hardly be alienating the most average sport fan to tweak the CBC coverage to this simple format. In fact, the CBC could save time and resources by doing it this way.

[TFC John]

I generally enjoy the CBC coverage and I applaud John for sticking with this thread and responding to people's feedback.

I half-heartedly agree that CBC needs to appeal to a North American audience but I am only luke warm on the sideline reporter issue. If you reaaly want to go with a winning formula, why not emulate the best 10 minutes of CBC sports coverage? That is HNIC's Coach's Corner. Like him or hate him, it's hard to take your eyes off of Don Cherry.

If you could find a credible "expert" who could analyse a game in the same way that Cherry does, I think it would be very successful. Don't just tell us that TFC needs help at the back; show us the movement off the ball and explain how it should be different. Throw in the odd "Kids, when you're playing the game you should do it like this..." statement the way Cherry does. And most of all, get someone with the enthusiasm for the game that Grapes shows (this may mean he's not a stuffy old Englishman). Find someone who knows the sport in this country and can talk about the up and coming player he saw last week in some lower league game.

I know that this is a tall order and that Don Cherry's don't just grow on trees :). But if you can find his equivelent, it would do wonders for boosting your ratings.

[TFC USA]

I generally enjoy the CBC coverage and I applaud John for sticking with this thread and responding to people's feedback.

I half-heartedly agree that CBC needs to appeal to a North American audience but I am only luke warm on the sideline reporter issue. If you reaaly want to go with a winning formula, why not emulate the best 10 minutes of CBC sports coverage? That is HNIC's Coach's Corner. Like him or hate him, it's hard to take your eyes off of Don Cherry.

If you could find a credible "expert" who could analyse a game in the same way that Cherry does, I think it would be very successful. Don't just tell us that TFC needs help at the back; show us the movement off the ball and explain how it should be different. Throw in the odd "Kids, when you're playing the game you should do it like this..." statement the way Cherry does. And most of all, get someone with the enthusiasm for the game that Grapes shows (this may mean he's not a stuffy old Englishman). Find someone who knows the sport in this country and can talk about the up and coming player he saw last week in some lower league game.

I know that this is a tall order and that Don Cherry's don't just grow on trees :). But if you can find his equivelent, it would do wonders for boosting your ratings.


Of course I can't take my eyes off of him because his attire is so god damn blinding. :p

[mighty_torontofc_2008]

Is CBC going to try and get the Whitcaps games (home) in 2011? And would that effect their coverage of TFC? What would be perfect is if
CBC could do an afternoon TFC game on a Saturday and have a night
time Whitecaps game as part of a MLS doubleheader!! might be wishful
thinking:canada:

[Redpunkfiddle]

Is CBC going to try and get the Whitcaps games (home) in 2011? And would that effect their coverage of TFC? What would be perfect is if
CBC could do an afternoon TFC game on a Saturday and have a night
time Whitecaps game as part of a MLS doubleheader!! might be wishful
thinking:canada:

Nice problem to have.

[mighty_torontofc_2008]

Nice problem to have.


Im sure a TFC-Caps league match would be well viewed:D

[GuelphStorm2007]

"Next, the Footie Fan Poll. Not only is it probably the dumbest segment in the history of the CBC, but Gina Bucci is a useless chick. Again, good to look at but she's a stumbling wreck. Who cares about what the fans think about Carver in the 85th fecking minute of a close match. This crap is not meant to be shown during the broadcast or at all."

I second the motion. Gina Bucci comes off as a bimbo. If she has any self-respect she should refuse to do anymore of this crap.

As for Brenda Irving, she does not know the game.

If you want a good broadcast, just watch John Helm of the BBC. It is just him, the mike and the cameras. That is all you need. CBC should stop trying to reinvent the wheel and leave the show to Nigel and Jason.

You cannot compare BBC footy coverage to the CBC. John Helm is the best in the business. The CBC is learning.

[GuelphStorm2007]

I generally enjoy the CBC coverage and I applaud John for sticking with this thread and responding to people's feedback.

I half-heartedly agree that CBC needs to appeal to a North American audience but I am only luke warm on the sideline reporter issue. If you reaaly want to go with a winning formula, why not emulate the best 10 minutes of CBC sports coverage? That is HNIC's Coach's Corner. Like him or hate him, it's hard to take your eyes off of Don Cherry.

If you could find a credible "expert" who could analyse a game in the same way that Cherry does, I think it would be very successful. Don't just tell us that TFC needs help at the back; show us the movement off the ball and explain how it should be different. Throw in the odd "Kids, when you're playing the game you should do it like this..." statement the way Cherry does. And most of all, get someone with the enthusiasm for the game that Grapes shows (this may mean he's not a stuffy old Englishman). Find someone who knows the sport in this country and can talk about the up and coming player he saw last week in some lower league game.

I know that this is a tall order and that Don Cherry's don't just grow on trees :). But if you can find his equivelent, it would do wonders for boosting your ratings.

If he was still alive I think Brian Budd would have been perfect for that Soccer version of Don Cherry.

[GuelphStorm2007]

I am not fussy on the Fan poll either. No watter who is hosting it . IT is not my thing. I would rather see more of pre game kind of show similiar to NFL live with Chris Berman on ESPN.

[johnmolinaro]

Is CBC going to try and get the Whitcaps games (home) in 2011? And would that effect their coverage of TFC? What would be perfect is if
CBC could do an afternoon TFC game on a Saturday and have a night
time Whitecaps game as part of a MLS doubleheader!! might be wishful
thinking:canada:

We're looking into it.
John

[SilverSamurai]

If he was still alive I think Brian Budd would have been perfect for that Soccer version of Don Cherry.
We got glimpses of it during the games on the score. Too bad because he looked promising. :(

As for the sideline reporting. oh n/m... lol I already said I was ok with it... as long as it's audio only.

[Nazzer]

Is CBC going to try and get the Whitcaps games (home) in 2011? And would that effect their coverage of TFC? What would be perfect is if
CBC could do an afternoon TFC game on a Saturday and have a night
time Whitecaps game as part of a MLS doubleheader!! might be wishful
thinking:canada:

THey'd have to have the TFC games start before 4 pm eastern time so they could fit in the vancouver game before hockey night in canada starts.

[TFC USA]

Well that could mean the return of Steve Armitage in the booth.

You'll hear "set-piece" about 500 times and not know if a player got sent off.

Or maybe John will not only provide the play-by-play on CBC but live blog the game at the same time while doing Brenda's sideline reporting job! Gotta make him earn his money (and a raise). :D :D:D

[johnmolinaro]

Or maybe John will not only provide the play-by-play on CBC but live blog the game at the same time while doing Brenda's sideline reporting job! :D :D:D

yeah, like I already don't have enough to do :)

[nfitz]

sorry if this has been asked before, but why aren't CBC games broadcast in HD?I thought they were?Neither game CBC has broadcast has been in HD. The first one was at least in widescreen - but the picture quality - at least for the cameras used during the game, was not HD. The second game they couldn't even be bothered to use widescreen. Very disappointing.

[Mark in Ottawa]

If you reaaly want to go with a winning formula, why not emulate the best 10 minutes of CBC sports coverage? That is HNIC's Coach's Corner. Like him or hate him, it's hard to take your eyes off of Don Cherry.

O Gawd... please no!
The last thing we need is a "semi successful has-been" telling us how great the game used to be and promoting his style of player and game.
Cherry has been losing his audience of knowledgeable fans and gaining those who want to watch the circus for years.

Football has many different styles and all can and have worked at one time or another. We need an "evangelist" with a broad knowledge of the beautiful game as it exists all over the world.