sports sports sports sports

[mountmccabe]

Though I'd love to be shown that I am wrong.

[YojimboMonkey]

watch more hockey, the more I watch hockey the more I like watching it, it might be the most fun sport to watch.

[mountmccabe]

Also my personal problem with soccer is that I am spoiled by the World Cup.  You see a fantastic level of play and amazingly enthusiastic fans and world attention and - the key here - well shot sport and... and... that just doesn't happen anyhow else.

At least certainly not with MLS.  I think it was after the 2002 World Cup that I promised myself that I was going to watch me some soccer.  So i tried watch MLS and it seems like the camera operators/producers or whoever are used to basketball or something, with the small court and close ups.  That isn't how (I want them) to shoot soccer.  What I loved about seeing the World Cup was that you could see the entire field, you saw what people were doing.  When somebody passed you could tell why they did so.  You couldn't see his stubbly face or his flowing locks and deep, determined eyes but you could understand the fucking game; it wasn't just a seemingly random series of closeups.

The English Premier League and various other matches I managed to catch when I moved somewhere with a cable package that included a sports tier were much better but I never got to watch enough to really latch on.  Plus most of the games were on at noon or 2 pm.  So when I think of seeing live EPL matches I think of being home sick.


To be fair I have since realized that they shoot football badly as well, far too close in to understand what is going on but with all the stopages they have time to show us a broader camera angle and/or a specific zoomed in one or ones that show us important happenings.  So, yeah, I'd rather them show me more of the field but I've also been watching football on TV for over 26 years - I remember watching the Redskins-Raiders Super Bowl off on my own on the 2nd, small TV because other family members were watching something else - and I've played (pickup games) and seen who knows how many college and pro games in person, so I am better at picking out what's going on.

[mountmccabe]

watch more hockey, the more I watch hockey the more I like watching it, it might be the most fun sport to watch.

My real issue with hockey is the fighting.  I get that it is a necessary evil - you need to allow the players some relief valve given how fast and physical of a game it is - but I've never gotten to the point where I want to see it, where I need that release.

And I don't think that I could give myself to hockey enough to feel it that deeply that I'd be cheering when the players fought.

[Andrew_TSKS]

Dude, ixnay on the alktay of the edskinsRay-aidersRay uperbowlSay. That shit sucked.

[davy]

watch more hockey

I've been telling myself to do just this, but the planets haven't aligned yet. I always enjoy watching it, but it doesn't get a whole lot of coverage down south.

[donblood]

watch more hockey, the more I watch hockey the more I like watching it, it might be the most fun sport to watch.

It is by far the most graceful punch-you sport.  Watching hockey rules.  It's like watching tooth-dancing.

[Good Intentions]

I remember watching rugby and Australian Rules Football ten or fifteen years ago when I had a voracious sports appetite and sometimes that was all ESPN or FSN had on.  I could never quite figure out the rules but it was fun to watch. 

I never saw any cricket, though

ESPN recently made huge increases in their coverage of cricket, btw. They bought the website which is the be-all and end-all source of info on the game (Cricinfo), and they've actually started showing cricket on the channel (what I saw of the Champions League T20 I saw on ESPN). I imagine they've got different schedules for inside and outside the US, but they also have only 1 or 2 international channels, not the eleventy-odd in the US, and I'd be shocked if they bought the rights to these various cricket tournaments just to broadcast to their rather insignificant (in the big scheme of things) international audience.

It's one of the indications of the surge in interest in cricket in the US.

[YojimboMonkey]

watch more hockey, the more I watch hockey the more I like watching it, it might be the most fun sport to watch.

It is by far the most graceful punch-you sport.  Watching hockey rules.  It's like watching tooth-dancing.

?

[Thermofusion]

I remember watching rugby and Australian Rules Football ten or fifteen years ago when I had a voracious sports appetite and sometimes that was all ESPN or FSN had on.  I could never quite figure out the rules but it was fun to watch. 

I never saw any cricket, though

ESPN recently made huge increases in their coverage of cricket, btw. They bought the website which is the be-all and end-all source of info on the game (Cricinfo), and they've actually started showing cricket on the channel (what I saw of the Champions League T20 I saw on ESPN). I imagine they've got different schedules for inside and outside the US, but they also have only 1 or 2 international channels, not the eleventy-odd in the US, and I'd be shocked if they bought the rights to these various cricket tournaments just to broadcast to their rather insignificant (in the big scheme of things) international audience.

It's one of the indications of the surge in interest in cricket in the US.

I think that's more likely a move by ESPN to bolster their international programming for the benefit of audiences in other countries, where they offer completely different schedules and formats than what they do here. And while they do have a shit-ton of channels here (I think I receive five of them on my cable box), I've never seen cricket on any of them. I've never seen a cricket match on US television. I've seen cricket highlights occasionally, oddly enough, on Fox Soccer Channel, but that's only because they rebroadcast Sky Sports News every evening. International sporting events in general aren't really on ESPN's radar unless it's something like the World Cup. ESPN's only recently started broadcasting Premier League games over here, and that's only on Saturday mornings when there's pretty literally nothing else going on.

Of course it'd be nice if they showed some cricket over here, as I'm curious about the sport, but I think ESPN's domestic programming choices are pretty conservatively tied to American interests. More conservatively tied than they were ten years ago, too; I also remember, as McCabe was saying, when they used to randomly show Aussie rules football at odd hours. I don't think they even do that anymore.

[Andrew_TSKS]

No, they do, I was watching some a couple weeks ago. It was on ESPN2, but still.

[Thermofusion]

wait, cricket or aussie footy?

[Andrew_TSKS]

Aussie footy. Which blew my mind a little bit. I was trying to understand it and suddenly was like, "Oh wait, it's like soccer, rugby, and SKEE BALL!" Then I was like, "No one will ever understand that comparison."

[Thermofusion]

hahaha that's actually vaguely applicable

[davy]

Ho-lee shit.

If you're at all familiar with the history and traditions of SEC football, I won't need to tell you how absolutely stunning it is that the University of Tennessee just hired Derek Dooley (son of St. Vince) to be their new head coach.

[Andrew_TSKS]

But I'm not, so you do. What is the significance of Derek, or for that matter Vince, Dooley?

[davy]

Vince Dooley is one of the true Hall of Fame coaches in SEC history--led Georgia to their last national championship in 1980, and went 201-77-10 overall. He's up there with the Bear Bryants, the General Neylands. He coached from '64 to '88, then was the athletic director at UGA until '04. In Athens, he is a Christ-like figure, one of this town's greatest heroes.

And now his son, his own flesh and blood, is coaching for a hated rival school.

[Andrew_TSKS]

Oh, crazy. That sounds interesting. One wonders if the talent will carry over.

[Nick Ink]

Also my personal problem with soccer is that I am spoiled by the World Cup.  You see a fantastic level of play and amazingly enthusiastic fans and world attention and - the key here - well shot sport and... and... that just doesn't happen anyhow else.

At least certainly not with MLS.  I think it was after the 2002 World Cup that I promised myself that I was going to watch me some soccer.  So i tried watch MLS and it seems like the camera operators/producers or whoever are used to basketball or something, with the small court and close ups.  That isn't how (I want them) to shoot soccer.  What I loved about seeing the World Cup was that you could see the entire field, you saw what people were doing.  When somebody passed you could tell why they did so.  You couldn't see his stubbly face or his flowing locks and deep, determined eyes but you could understand the fucking game; it wasn't just a seemingly random series of closeups.

The English Premier League and various other matches I managed to catch when I moved somewhere with a cable package that included a sports tier were much better but I never got to watch enough to really latch on.  Plus most of the games were on at noon or 2 pm.  So when I think of seeing live EPL matches I think of being home sick.

I've been thinking a lot this last few months that watching football gives me a lot of frustrationa nd anger. It's 15 months since i had a cigarette now, and if I could take patches to stop my interest in football (or a particular football team, to be precise) i reckon I might, even after 30 years of it.

At the moment however, it's all snowed off, and I'm all about the snooker - update: it's the semi-finals of the British Masters (one of the 3 very big tournaments, second only to the Worlds, but an invitation event, not an open - the creme de la creme) - order of play looks like this:

Mark Williams (Wal) V Ronnie O Sullivan (Eng)
Mark Selby (Eng) V Stephen Maguire (Sco)

O Sullivan is of course the temperemental genius who on his day is simply the finest snooker talent of all-time and is strong favourite to take his match. I like Ronnie, but I'd love to see mark Williams win another tournament. 10 years ago, he himself was world number 1 and held 4 majors at the same time. After 4 or 5 years in the wilderness, nearly dropping out of the top 32 at one point, Williams is now back and looking dangerous. Renowned for his long-potting, he has nothing to lose against O Sullivan.

In the other match, it's a match-up of the young pretenders. Maguire, ranked number 2 in the world, has never quite been consistent enough in the big events and has ongoing problems with a match fixing scandal at the back of his mind. He hasn't been playing well in this tournament and was very lucky to come up against an opponent in even worse form in the quarters. Mark, on the other hand, loves this event and this venue, and in the three years he's been here has lost only one match, taking the title twice. Known as 'The Hoover' for his ability to vacuum up the balls with rapidity, he's threatening here to kick-start his season.

Prediction - O Sullivan v Selby in the final - Selby's determination to take a narrow victory.

[Thermofusion]

Watching Chelsea-Sunderland on FSC this morning. Man do I feel bad for these poor Sunderland fellas, all they've done is play defense. Badly.

[Nick Ink]

O'Sullivan vs. Williams

What a match! Williams went 2 up, then O'Sullivan fought back to lead 3-2. Nip and tuck after that to take it to 4-3 O'Sullivan. Williams took the next 2 to make it 5-4, then O'Sullivan levelled it for a deciding frame, which, after tense exchanges, he clinched. Williams' average shot time was a speedy 15 seconds and there were 8 breaks over 70. Great match.

[Thermofusion]

Everton v. Man City

did I just hear a stadium full o' Brits chant U-S-A?

go Landon!

[Good Intentions]

Hey, Nick, the snooker final was something else, wasn't it?

Anyway, here's a quick indication about the condition of cricket in the US and the world over. As I'm sure all of you are aware, it's currently the under-19 world championship, and as I write this the US and Ireland are battling it out. Here's the team sheet for the Americans:

SR Taylor, A Mohammed, GR Sewdial, Saqib Saleem, RG Corns, S Vashishat, Asad Ghous, SM Siddiqui, Naseer Jamali, SR Ahmad, RG Burton

Of whom only four were born in the US, and only one is white (born in South Africa). Whatever else that might be, it's not indicative of the US's demographics.

Here's the Irish team sheet:
A Balbirnie, SR Thompson, PR Stirling, BJ Ackland, LT Nelson, GF McDonnell, SW Poynter, A D'Arcy, G Dockrell, J Coghlan, CA Young.

All but one were born on the Irish isle (the exception being born in England). Ireland, btw, are by no means a traditional cricketing nation, but they've made huge strides in the game and are likely to be the next team who are going to break into the big league. The US, like we all know and can see here, are not going to do so any time soon.

Something else I learnt: judging by the profile photos of the players in question, the kids are wearing their hair in some pretty hilariously ill-conceived styles these days (as compared to my age's super-sensible feathered undercut parted down the middle, of course)

[Nick Ink]

Hey, Nick, the snooker final was something else, wasn't it?

Brilliant! I stayed up on my own and watched the whole thing - what a comeback! Ronnie looked mightily pissed off at the end. He's been dissing Selby in the papers too. It's good to have a few bitter rivalries in the game though. Takes me back to when Hurricane Higgins threatened to have Dennis Taylor shot by the IRA - ah, the good, old days.

[Nick Ink]

Something else I learnt: judging by the profile photos of the players in question, the kids are wearing their hair in some pretty hilariously ill-conceived styles these days (as compared to my age's super-sensible feathered undercut parted down the middle, of course)

Where I live, every 14-19 year-old, male or female, has the sweep-over-the-eye thing going on...a bity like this:



I quite like it - better than crew cuts and whatnot.