Fans, football and TV

click photo to enlarge

So far my football World Cup viewing of 2010 has matched that of 2006 - I haven't seen a single game. That's not because I don't like the sport: I have inherited a passing interest from my father, and still feel the need to know enough to keep up my end of the conversation with family and friends. But I've never found that the World Cup, and the TV coverage that relays it, presents soccer in a form that I want to consume and digest.

The over-the-top coverage is the first turn-off. I do not want to know about the lives of the players, their wives, the new stadia, the machinations of FIFA, the statistical analyses and the rest: it's all padding. Then there's the quality of the football on display which only occasionally reaches the peaks that we should expect from the best players in the world. The fear of losing seems to drive down the entertainment value. In many respects I'd rather watch a game from one of the lower tiers of the Football League.

However, one of the biggest irritants of the TV coverage is the large number of interviews with players. Nowadays these seem mandatory. I imagine they are contractual. We hear their views pre-selection, during training, before the match, after the match. The answers they give to the interviewers' questions are frequently inarticulate and usually repetitious and mind-numbingly boring: in fact much the same as the ex-footballers who present the programmes and sit on the sofas commenting on the games. Quite why TV companies insist on using people who are good at the sport but have poor communication skills I don't know: far better to choose a person who is articulate with a wide understanding and love of the game, someone who can give the viewer genuine insights into what is happening. A newspaper commentator who is far crueller than I am likened interviewing footballers to soliciting the views of the canine competitors at Crufts.

Which brings me to today's photograph of three England fans that I took when I was out shopping the other day. They were accompanying an elderly lady on her electric mobility scooter. Three things struck me about the dogs. Firstly they showed great forbearance. Secondly, they had very placid temperaments. And thirdly, the rather gormless looking bulldog reminded me an England player. However, I am much too kind to suggest whether current or past, or to suggest a name!

photograph and text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Lumix LX3
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 10.2mm (48mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f3.2Shutter Speed: 1/400
ISO: 80
Exposure Compensation: -0.66 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Reflecting on the Olympics

click photo to enlarge

The other day someone asked me if I'd been watching the Olympics. I hadn't. I still haven't. I don't devote a lot of time to watching sport on television, but when I do it tends to be team games that interest me. The Olympics include these, but it also has many "sports" that were never intended to be watched by a large audience. And many are so technical it isn't apparent to the lay-person who won or why they won! Even athletic events like the 100m aren't, in my opinion, spectator sports. The camera and commentators spend far more time on the periods before and after that race than they do on it, action replays notwithstanding, and all to see someone complete a course a fraction of a second faster than someone else. It's lost on me!

I watch football (soccer) reasonably regularly on TV, and I often enjoy what I see. It occurred to me the other day that soccer gets the appellation, "the beautiful game", for good reasons. Firstly it is a game of almost continuous action, with few pauses, and those usually quite brief. Secondly, you can deduce most of the rules of the game simply by watching it. And thirdly, at the end of the game it's very obvious which is the winning team, or if it's a drawn match. These seem to me quite important attributes for any spectator sport. The Olympics consists of too many "sports" where these three qualities are absent.

The two variations of the French game, boules, namely petanque and boule lyonnaise, are not on the Olympic menu, though in 1900 it was, apparently, a demonstration sport. However, I think that if ice dance, BMX, handball, synchronized swimming and weight lifting qualify as Olympic sports, boules can claim a place. It is a game of simple rules, is easy to watch, easy to play, requires no specialist playing surface, and uses inexpensive equipment. An uninformed bystander can easily see who has won a game. And, it is a game that can be played by people of all ages, even the elderly. So let's start a campaign to include boules in the 2012 London Olympics. Vive la France and the entente cordiale!

Today's photograph is one of my reflected self-portraits. A new set of boules seemed the perfect opportunity for another in the ongoing series.

photograph & text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 35mm macro (70mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f6.3
Shutter Speed: 1/80
ISO: 200
Exposure Compensation: 0 EV
Image Stabilisation: On