Case In Point
Just so nobody thinks I just dream these things up, the Pittsburgh-Cincinnati game is a perfect example as to why the emotional aspect of sports doesn't belong in analysis. The Steelers, fresh off an embarassing loss to the Colts, come back to their home field against a division rival with playoff implications. The Steelers, being behind in the standings and having a record that is much like every other team on the outside looking in to the AFC playoff picture, should have "more to play for." As far as professional analysis goes, a comment by Sean Salisbury earlier in the day suggested that the Steelers were an "ornery" team and that they were possibly running the table the rest of the year.
And then they gave up 38 points. At home in front of their raucous fans. And they lost. So much for that insight.
Analysis, in general, should point out things that we the home viewer can't see, or may not have realized. How much analysis centers around, "This team needs to stop (kickass running back)
I think the real problem is, most analysts don't have to do anything special to keep their job. All they've got to do is say the simple things everyone knows, it's as if we are being reassured every time that our commonly-held opinions are backed up each week.
posted by Chris @ 12/05/2005 08:10:00 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
I still largely disagree that emotions matter little. I don't see how you possibly keep emotions out of football, and out of football analysis. Football is an incredibly emotional game. The Steelers came out with a great deal of emotion, but so did the Bengals, ready to steal the right to be their division's big dog. And they did. Both teams had a lot to play for.
I don't have much respect for the opinions of talking heads, though. The primary requirement for an analyst is to look good and have a decent voice. You're opinion doesn't matter much as long as you're saying something that's even remotely on topic. Do you know anyone who thinks we have decent duos calling NFL games? And that with it being one of the top gigs in media.
Both teams came out with a lot of emotion, therefore it cancels each other out. Tell me how it doesn't.
If you told the Steelers that they lost because they didn't come out with enough emotion, you would be killed.
Here's what gets lost in these proceedings:
1. A team clearly has to play with emotion in this sport. Tell me where in all of these posts did I ever say, "You don't need it." I think people who disagree with me generally believe that's the statement I'm making. And it's clearly not.
2. Since both teams need emotion to play this sport, we can agree that in a situation where two teams are basically even that if one team has it, and the other doesn't, the team with it will likely win (probably, in a landslide, most of the time)
3. Which brings up this point: Just because you have it, doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to win.
4. Which brings me to my formed opinion that you cannot possibly judge who has it, who doesn't, and then proceed to tell me that it is the reason why a team won or lost. In the end, talent and brains (given that you have emotion to play the game) win most of the time.
I asked a former football player at work, "When you won games, do you think it's because you were more fired up than the other team, or had a better game plan?"
He said, "You know, I think it's because we were more fired up."
I said, "Really?"
He said, "Yeah, because you can be really good at plays you've rehearsed in practice, but you need to have some fire in a game to carry them out."
I said, "OK, so you're saying that the other team didn't get fired up, too? I mean, I see you on the other side all fired up, wouldn't that mean I get fired up as well? Don't I get pissed off and want to make you cry like a baby on the next play? Don't I want to succeed as much as you do?"
There was no answer for this. This is why I get upset at people saying, "This team has a fire in their belly," because by singling out that team, you seem to ignore the other team. This goes for the "more to play for" comments and the "this team has momentum" stuff, too. It all has to do with emotions, and are easily swung if the team that supposedly doesn't have them makes a big play.
The ultimate reason my opinion has gotten formed is by hearing years and years of comments during games where commentators have made a point about emotions and were completely wrong. Appearances of whatever emotion you think a team is experiencing don't mean anything in the outcome at all.
Post a Comment
<< Home