ArticlesI once mentioned that I don’t like watching soccer on television.
This wasn’t an attack on the game of soccer. It was an attack on the medium of television.
Soccer, like many team field sports, has a very important tactical element. A team needs to ensure its players are in the optimal positions on the field. A player needs to pass to the best person to maximise their advantage.
What I find most intriguing about these types of games is the way that these global, emergent properties (optimal positions, best direction to pass) have to be solved by a group of co-operating individuals who are each severely constrained. Each player can only see part of the pitch (especially while they are dribbling or concerned about tackles.) Players have limited communication – a few short commands can be shouted. Finally, players have limited time; there is no opportunity to conduct a dialog to work out a new game plan immediately after a successful tackle.
Given my limited field of interest in soccer, I want to see it from a good vantage point, where I can see these emergent properties unfolding.
Yet, when I watch soccer on television, this doesn’t happen. The camera shots are, in my opinion, too tight.
I invite you to consider this next time you watch a soccer game on television. Each time a player passes the ball, note which other players are in shot. Count the number of times the intended recipient of the pass was originally in the shot at the time the ball was kicked, and compare it to the opposite – the number of times the player passed to a teammate who was out-of-shot.
How can you assess the skill of players in maximising the team advantage, if you can’t see what choices were open to them?
That’s why I don’t like to watch soccer on television.
Comment by Alastair on March 25, 2007
I remember having a revelation when seeing the Formula 1 GP cars racing for the first time. Coming down the straight they go from a dot in the distance to right up close in a startlingly short time. Having only ever seen the cars on TV previously, it was quite a spectacle.
On the television this sense of speed is totally destroyed by the fact that the camera zooms to keep the car occupying as much of the frame as possible. The result is an effectively stationary car with some blurry background whizzing by.
Of course this negative effect is offset by the innovation of the in-car camera which does convey the sense of speed very nicely.
Comment by ferryman on March 26, 2007
In the early ninenties, when Norway’s national footballteam was 2nd (believe it or not) on FIFA’s official ranking list, the head-coach of that team, Egil “Drillo” Olsen, introduced the term “best without ball”. Meaning that it’s as important, if not even MORE important, to be able to find a “tactically good” position AT ALL TIMES, than mastering the art of (exellent) ball-controll. Me, and most sport-loving people on the planet agree with you, Julian. Although the majority cares more about experiencing the game/race/fight etc. itself and the atmosphere around it up close, than the tactics. Alastair: that experience gives you a sense of pride as well, oddly enough, doesn’t it? By the way, the name of the game is football, not soccer. Foot-to-ball, see? 😉
Comment by Alastair on March 26, 2007
Just noticed that I missed out by one the honour (?) of posting the 2^15th comment on oddthinking. Oh well!
In order to illustrate the point about photographing very fast things, I will point to this amazing footage from Top Gear of the Bugatti Veyron at Volkswagen’s Ehra-Lessien test track. The camera barely zooms at all.
Ferryman: I’m not sure about the sense of pride. But I do agree with you on the terminology. I still laugh at Americans and their use of the word “football”.