Wait until next year

September 25, 2009

Why we watch sport (or Winning isn’t everything)

Last Sunday Larry at Wezen Ball posted a wonderful report on his last opportunity to watch the Milwaukee Brewers this season. He ended with this:

“There’s still nothing better than seeing Major League Baseball games in person – even if those games are of a sub-.500 team with failed postseason expectations. Baseball really is that good, and we’re lucky to have such a fun, talented and likable squad so close and so affordable. It’s worth remembering every now and then, and this weekend did a great job of reminding me of it.”

Unfortunately, living in England, I can’t actually get to see any Major League Baseball. And being a busy bee, I can’t get to as much live sport as I’d like, or have managed in the past.

Still, there is something very special about going to a game, in any sport, at any level. I enjoy a day out watching non-league football just as much as a day at Wembley, just for different reasons. I went to the cricket this summer for a County Championship game and had a wonderful time, and could probably find just as much to enjoy from a simple village green game as I would a Test Match.

So, sport is fun to watch, even if your team isn’t a massive success. Nobody wants to see their team lose, of course. Even so, the experience, and for some the ritual, of going to the game, is almost enough.

For most of us, the main emotion we experience as a follower of sport is disappointment. Our team can’t win every challenge, every tackle, every point, every game or every championship. But still we return, time and again, year on year.

We accept that we can’t win all the time. And there is a particular dignity in those fans that see less wins than most. It’s not that they don’t care about winning. Far, far from it. It’s just that their support is ultimately unconditional. No glory hunting here. They may scream for change (of tactics, playing staff, coaching staff, owners), but the team will always be their team. And hope springs eternal, just wait until next year…

There is more than the result to keep a supporter hooked. There’s the socialising, the community, the peripheral elements to the main event. I live near Charlton Athletic, and can see the supporters gathering in the cafés before the game, the pubs after. The sense of community, lost in so many other walks of life, is palpable.

Plenty of people seem to go to the cricket for a doze, a read of the paper and a chat. Good on them.

When I caught the baseball, on a trip to New York, the pretzels and beer (and unexpected high-fives from fans nearby) was as much fun as the game itself.

Even armchair supporters enjoy more than just the game itself. It might be that well-earned can of beer or slice of pizza accompanying it. Or the friend who pops round to watch too. The chance for some ‘time out’ from the real world. If the fan is really tech-savvy, they might enjoy the chance to connect with others via twitter, blogging or whatever else.

There’ll be times when they will swear and throw something at the television because the game isn’t going their way. But there will also be the times when they’ll catch a game, just because it’s on, and be more than happy.

While the recent sporting scandals in rugby union, Formula 1 and elsewhere suggest that sportsmen and women are increasingly looking to win at all costs, that isn’t the case for supporters. There is more to the enjoyment of sport than just the contest, or the result of that contest, itself. There’s meaning in sport beyond the score.

Maybe while those directly involved (the players, coaches, owners etc) see sport as a business first and foremost, it’s still a game for the fans.

September 22, 2009

Injury time – time for reform?

I don’t know why anyone was surprised when Manchester united scored a last-gasp winner, in last Sunday’s derby against Manchester City. Just as Alex Ferguson will look at his watch and complain about a lack of stoppage time when things aren’t going his way, time and again his side will score at the death, with the clock run out and the referee musing over when to blow his whistle.

Still, there continues to be something irksome about this.

Twohundredpercent does make a valid point about the semantics of stoppage time – four minutes means at least four minutes, not ‘no more than four minutes’. This is fair enough. The referee can add as much time as he sees fit.

But the Guardian’s analysis of Opta’s injury time stats puts events in a whole new light.

Over the past three years, referees have played more injury time when Manchester United have been behind than when they are leading. Here, finally, is the evidence of what many of us have suspected for many years.

Sure, Manchester United may be deadly in the last moment of a match. Maybe teams waste more time when they are beating Manchester United, to protect their slender lead, hence that added time. But these numbers do suggest more than this. Referees give them more time when they need it – fact. That crowd and that manager, pointing at his watch, are intimidating referees.

What is to be done? Referees need to be stronger. If that is too simple, all managers should be disciplined for making any gestures or comments about time-keeping. Really, any intimidation should be looked at very, very seriously.

If all of this doesn’t work, then have an external timekeeper, or a set formula for stoppage time.

While leaving the amount of stoppage time to the discretion of the referee is lovely in theory, in practice it leaves too much ambiguity. If players and managers knew there would be say, 30 seconds for each substitution, they could take that into account. If a player wastes time, book him, and add 30 seconds (or however long is necessary) to the clock, or at least inform the captains. Then there can be no dark conspiracy theories or nasty surprises.

If referees are more open to explaining their processes, and less susceptible to influence, perhaps we can cut down the ugly scenes of Sunday. And maybe the game will be just a little bit fairer for all.

19 Comments

September 19, 2009

Sports stuff I’ve enjoyed this week

This week I put an inadvertent curse on two sides by making them my surrogate baseball teams and looked at twitter, telly and the future of watching sport, which were fun to write for me, if not fun for you dear reader. By enough about me, what did I enjoy looking at this week?

Pitch Invasion looked at where women’s soccer is king, the story of the success of the University of Portland women’s soccer team, and how soccer has become one of the most popular sports (and selling points) of this particular American college. If you read one thing this week, read this.
Meanwhile, I enjoyed seeing the ever-dapper Roger Federer pulling off perhaps the greatest shot ever.
The Mets’ Jeff Francoeur seems to divide opinion somewhat, but the Real Dirty Mets Blog thinks that he has earned his spot for next season.
BaseballGB has been following Great Britain’s efforts at the Baseball World Cup.
And The Cricket Blog looks at the incredibly poor state of the England one-day side.

What have you enjoyed this week?

September 18, 2009

Watching sport on television – no longer a passive activity?

I recently read an article in the International Herald Tribune about how sports coverage on television in the States is evolving. Cable companies have started to integrate twitter feeds into their service, so viewers can not only watch the feed while they watch a game, but also tweet themselves through their remote control.

mlb.tv, meanwhile, has integrated twitter into its media player, so you can tweet (with hash tags handily added for the game in question) and read the feed as the game progresses. I’ve tried this myself and it really is a fun addition. I imagine it works well with sports like baseball and (American) football as there are so many intervals in play. As the match is made of a series of discrete moments there are plenty of opportunities to tweet, and read other people’s tweets. Would this work so well in a faster-paced sport like basketball, ice hockey or football? I’m not sure.

As the article suggests, this sort of interaction makes watching sport at home a lot more like watching sport in a bar or with friends. Rather than just letting the game wash over you, you can state your opinion and find out what other people think, in real time from the comfort of your very own comfy chair.

‘Interactivity’ isn’t necessarily new in sporting coverage on television. Here in England, the BBC has experimented with ‘red button’ technology, where the viewer can choose which match to watch at Wimbledon, or which audio stream to listen to when watching the football – the TV commentary, radio commentary, or no commentary at all. Sky has offered similar options, plus offering a number of camera options for games. But did anyone ever watch the player cam, focusing on one man all game?

What’s interesting about the twitter developments are that the ‘interactivity’ is all about creating dialogues, between viewers and also between the viewer and the television company. Previous technology has concentrated on providing a series of viewing options. The experience remained a passive one. Now the viewer isn’t restricted to shouting impotently at the TV. Now s/he can share those views. And have them saved for posterity on his/her twitter feed.

Will this revolutionise television? Probably not in the short-term. There will always be plenty of people who aren’t interested in articulating their views, and certainly not interested in reading the views of others. There is also the quality control issue. If the feed is full of drivel, it won’t catch on.

However, if it can be built upon and refined, interactive sporting coverage on television could work. It certainly seems the best ‘genre’ for it. It’s on regularly, has a dedicated and opinionated audience, and its integral unpredictability should, most of the time, bring up plenty to comment on. A twitter feed alone may not be the answer, but something more sophisticated might be just around the corner, that will put a stop to television being a purely passive pastime for the majority of viewers.

September 15, 2009

How I picked a surrogate team when mine got eliminated (or confessions of a Mets fan)

metsfan

My name is Steve. And I’m a Mets fan.

I feel this confessional tone is kind of appropriate. A while back I told an American friend that I followed the Mets, to which she shot me a look of pity and said, “Once you’re a Mets fan, you’re always a Mets fan.” She gave the impression that supporting the New York Mets is a little like herpes. It’s a little embarrassing, a little unpleasant, and never really goes away.

This week, after a horrible, injury-ravaged season, the Mets were finally put out of their misery. They cannot now qualify for the post-season play-offs and a shot at the World Series. It’s just no longer mathematically possible. In the wild card standings there is even a nice little E for eliminated next to their name, just to confirm this.

Now, I’m not for one second suggesting that I’m forsaking the Mets. I wouldn’t, even if I could. However, I would like to follow the play-offs in more than a purely neutral way. Sport is just more fun that way.

I could quite easily do this by identifying who I don’t want to win and supporting whoever they are playing against. That might work on a game-by-game basis, but isn’t that satisfying.

So, I’m going to narrow things down and work out who (in the absence of the Mets) I’d personally like to win the World Series.

Immediately, I can throw out the traditional rivals of the Mets. Goodbye Yankees, Cardinals, Phillies and Marlins. The Dodgers and Giants can be thrown out too, for abandoning New York in the fifties. The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim is such an unwieldy name that I don’t want to follow them (sorry, this isn’t going to be an article full of rational criteria). Boston are too much of a big side, it wouldn’t feel right at all rooting for them.

By my reckoning that leaves the Detroit Tigers, Texas Rangers and Colorado Rockies. Here I suppose I’d better get more positive with my selection process.

I’ve been to Texas. I have a Texas Rangers baseball cap. They are, perhaps, my American League team, when I think about it. If a Mets game isn’t on, I’ll watch Texas. OK. Easy.

Or is it? Texas are by no means a certainty for the play-offs. Maybe I’m hedging my bets, but I want some cover in case Texas don’t make it. They can be my American League surrogate team, sure. But Colorado are my National League surrogate team. I put a sneaky small stakes bet on them to win the World Series a couple of months ago at 100-1. It is certainly in my financial interests for Colorado to win. Sorry Detroit, you miss out.

There you have it. The Rangers and Rockies are who I’m rooting for. Until next year, then I’m returning to wishing and hoping on the Mets.

Have I been a horrible mercenary with this exercise? Should I just remain neutral in a Mets-free post-season? How do you act when your team falls out of the reckoning – in baseball, or any other sport for that matter?

Photo by Michael Mase. That’s not me in the picture, by the way. I just thought it was an apt image.

2 Comments