UCLA v. USC

I watched the second half of the game on Fox, and was unimpressed by UCLA (or USC for that matter).

It did not appear to me that UCLA would be able to keep up with UP's offense, or that their attack could beat our defense.

Is it just me? Or does TV coverage fail to capture the offensive flow that one perceives when watching the game in person?

Alum

I think it depends on the quality of the production. IMO too many times the coverage is too close up and you lose the ability to see the whole field and the running off the ball and other elements of the game.

If you look at European games (like English Prem League) and compare with ciollege games in the US, I think you'll find that the producers in Europe understand the game better (that's my assumption based on watching games) and therefore understand that the game si not about close ups but more about the whole field. Not just the player on the ball but the others too.

'78 Alum wrote:I watched the second half of the game on Fox, and was unimpressed by UCLA (or USC for that matter).

It did not appear to me that UCLA would be able to keep up with UP's offense, or that their attack could beat our defense.

I also watched the match. The play was actually better in the second half than in the first. Neither team was able to sustain any significant ball control. Lots of errant or aimless passes, poor first touches, etc. The first-half goal was a blooping bouncer that somehow the USC goalkeeper missed. Even with good camera angle it wasn't clear if it was tipped, but the rushing attacker might have screened the keeper's view.

UCLA is very young in the midfield but has Cheney and Leroux up front. If we play UCLA, the central defense will need to be at its very, very best or we could end up yielding one or two goals on counterattacks.

Harry Redknapp wrote:Alum

I think it depends on the quality of the production. IMO too many times the coverage is too close up and you lose the ability to see the whole field and the running off the ball and other elements of the game.

If you look at European games (like English Prem League) and compare with ciollege games in the US, I think you'll find that the producers in Europe understand the game better (that's my assumption based on watching games) and therefore understand that the game si not about close ups but more about the whole field. Not just the player on the ball but the others too.

Good point. On the second UCLA goal I wondered how close it was to offside, but there was no way to see the play.

Too often the soccer shown on TV is too far away (long distance shots of players too small to be identified) or close-ups of faces while the ball and the rest of the game is progressing elsewhere. Most college TV productions seem to lack the multiple cameras and larger crew needed to capture the game from the best angles. Camera behind the goals, for instance, can really show what an attack or a defense is doing. Europe definitely leads the race in televised soccer.

So that's why the players look so much better when I watch the Premier League?