MON, 4PM ET
QPR
AST
TUES, 3:45PM ET
SHR
CHE
TUES, 4PM ET
LIV
SWA
WED, 3:45PM ET
MCFC
NUFC
WED, 4PM ET
TOT
BRI
THURS, 3:45PM ET
VER
LAZ

Euro 2008: How Seeing A Football Match On TV Can Be Better Than Seeing It In Person

holland italy Euro 2008: How Seeing A Football Match On TV Can Be Better Than Seeing It In Person

Before the Holland vs Italy match at Euro 2008, the last professional football match I attended was in November 2006 when I saw Manchester United draw Chelsea 1-1 at Old Trafford. The reason why I haven’t seen any games in person since 2006 is because the nearest professional team to me is exactly 1,000 miles away from my home in Florida.

You could say I’ve watched a lot of football on TV in between that match and this past Monday’s Euro 2008 battle between the Dutch and Italians. As a rough estimate, I’ve probably watched more than 400 matches on TV during that time period.

So being at a professional match was a chance to view the occasion from a different perspective: TV versus reality.

The two different experiences are completely different. While sitting at my seat in the stadium, I was able to experience both TV and reality at the same time. If I wanted to see how the match looked live on TV, all I had to do was to look up at the giant TV screen above the goal. It was a little of a surreal experience being able to choose between both TV and reality.

When the match first kicked off, I spent the first 20 minutes or so watching the game unfold and ignored the giant TV screen. The game started with Holland having a lot of ball possession knocking the ball around their defense, to midfield and back around to their defenders again as they looked for a gap that was opened up by their wingers or Ruud van Nistelrooy up front.

After the excitement of being at the match subsided, I noticed that there were some major differences of watching a game in person:

  1. The game seemed to be played at a slower pace.
  2. The crowd seemed quieter.
  3. It was difficult to see how much space there was between players who were in the opposite half of the field from where I was sitting, and
  4. It was almost impossible to see what was happening in front of the other goal because of the defenders and other players blocking my view, especially in goalmouth scrambles.

In contrast, watching the game on TV (or in my case, the giant TV screen), the match seemed to be played at a faster pace, more like a video game, especially with the perspective of where the TV cameras were perched in the stadium as well as the overhead shots that are reminiscent of video games.

In person, the crowd sounded quieter than on TV and there were quiet spells during the game where both sets of fans didn’t sing and all you could hear was the buzz of the crowd chatting or making sounds. With the latest technology in speakers and sound equipment, the sound of football fans can be made to sound louder than what they actually are. The in person experience was disappointing and definitely not loud enough.

We’ve all been used to sitting or standing at a game and having a difficult time seeing what’s happening at the opposite end of the field. Up close, we can see the spaces between players and can better judge whether a pass can make it to a player on the same side. But when those type of passes and runs happen far away from our seats, our perspective is gone. It becomes very difficult to see really what is going on because it’s very difficult to judge how much space is really between players and the ball. Sitting higher up in the stadium will help with those sight lines, but then you’ll feel further away from the action on the field.

In the second half when Holland continued to attack the Italy half and tried to get a third goal to seal the victory, there were a few times where the ball was in the penalty area but I couldn’t see what was happening due to several players converging around that area blocking my view.

While there are many advantages of being at a football match in person, such as the being part of the experience, sharing it with thousands of other fans, taking part in the carnival atmosphere and being able to express yourself more completely, there are still many serious disadvantages.

I found myself watching more of the second half on the giant TV screen. When Holland attacked Italy, I was more easily able to see the distance between players and could better comprehend whether an attack had any chance of turning into a goal opportunity. The TV screens also had the advantage of showing close-ups of players as well as action replays.

In this particular match, with the controversial first goal by van Nistelrooy, it was more important than ever to see a TV replay to determine whether the goal should have been allowed or not. In the stadium, we were handicapped by only being able to see the replay once or twice and even then, it was difficult to see what really happened without the aid of a TV commentator pointing out what was happening. Imagine how the experience must have been for the referee and assistant referee who don’t see any TV replays at all during games!

While the experience of being at a professional match is definitely something one-of-a-kind, I find that its overrated especially when you realize the technological advances that the networks have made in producing live matches for television. Part of the appeal of being at a live match is one of bragging rights by fans. “I was there mate.” But seeing a match in person also appeals to our celebrity culture, where we can say that we saw players like Del Piero, Buffon, Matterazi and others in person. It’s almost like the Hollywood culture where people get more of a kick from seeing Paris Hilton in person than on screen. However, the movie watching experience is far greater than seeing the movie shot in person. Just as movies are able to add special effects and make the actors appear much larger in size, TV is able to heighten and capture the excitement of a football match and make it an even better experience than being at a match.

Share your thoughts on this topic by clicking the comments link below.

This entry was posted in General, Leagues: EPL and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

About Christopher Harris

Founder and publisher of World Soccer Talk, Christopher Harris is the managing editor of the site. He has been interviewed by The New York Times, The Guardian and several other publications. Plus he has made appearances on NPR, BBC World, CBC, BBC Five Live, talkSPORT and beIN SPORT. Harris, who has lived in Florida since 1984, has supported Swansea City since 1979. He's also an expert on soccer in South Florida, and got engaged during half-time of a MLS game. Harris launched EPL Talk in 2005, which was rebranded as World Soccer Talk in 2013.
View all posts by Christopher Harris →

8 Responses to Euro 2008: How Seeing A Football Match On TV Can Be Better Than Seeing It In Person

  1. betsy's bolton bum baster says:

    ever heard of Miami FC? you must embrace the local game gaffer!

  2. Hudsonland says:

    To me the whole point of attending a game live was exposure to and participation in the atmosphere. It’s a sad indictment of the corporate packaging of modern football that maybe a couple of thousand people in Swindon’s Town End on a Wednesday night could produce a better atmosphere twenty years ago than a Holland-Italy game in 2008.

  3. The Gaffer says:

    Miami FC? You’ve got to be joking.

    Cheers,
    The Gaffer

  4. eplnfl says:

    Different sports translate better or worse on TV. for instance, the NFL was made by TV, and after attending a NFL game I go home and watch the tape of the game to see what I missed. MLB on TV is forced to focus on the batter and pitcher and you have guess what the other eight players are doing. A great summer day at Wrigley Field can not be beat. The NBA for what they charge watch it on TV, and get a better of how made the refs are from the replay. NHL, be there feel the ice and the crowd. Hockey doesn’t work on TV.

    Soccer works well enough on TV but being there is a bonus. A good soccer crowd is something you must feel and touch. TV can show alot of the action, but not all. In Chicago both major stadiums have excellent site lines for soccer. So in my opinion it changes from sport to sport.

  5. No one goes to see a live match for comfort. Staying at home on a cushy sofa, with a perfect view of the play and tons of video replay and commentary telling you what’s going on the screen is definitely the most comfortable experience.

    However there’s something that a TV match just can’t give you, and that is atmosphere. It’s the “I was there” feeling you’re talking about Chris, the cheers of the crowd, the moment where every person around goes completely berserk when your team scores a goal, seeing your football heroes with the naked eye. Those are emotions that are incomparable to watching the game at home (or even in a sports bar).

    I haven’t been to many live football matches in my life, but the few include some of the 2007 U21 Youth World Cup games in Canada, some 2003 Confederations Cup games in France (Brazil 0-1 Cameroon and France 3-2 Turkey), the 2003 Coppa Italia final return leg at San Siro (Milan 2-2 Roma) and above all, the 2003 UEFA Champions League semi-final in Turin (Juventus 3-1 Real Madrid).

    The latter game was, by far, my most exciting soccer-related experience ever. I was sitting almost exactly in front of the corner-kick flag (although many stairs up), so I got a pretty good panoramic view of the entire field. I wasn’t too lucky in the sense that most of the action took place on the other end (Trezeguet, Del Piero, and Zidane’s goals, and Buffon’s PK save on Figo), but when Pavel Nedved scored on my end it was an experience I can’t even begin to describe. It was simply… fantastic! 20,000 Bianconeri fans screaming at the top of their lungs, Juventus crushing the great Real Madrid. Just absolutely priceless, and to be there living those moments inside the stadium, where all the action took place, was just incredible!

    I have a question for you Chris though. From your report it seems as you were sitting directly behind the net on one end, am I correct? If you were that close to the field, it’d be really hard to see what’s going on on the opposite end. My personal taste is that if you go to see a live match, you should at least sit somewhere where you can tell what’s going on on the field. The entire field that is. :)

  6. The Gaffer says:

    Marco,

    The section where I was sitting in the stadium was definitely more quiet and timid than other sections, but I had no choice where my seats were. They were free tickets courtesy of EPL Talk’s sponsors, Castrol Oil.

    In fact, the atmosphere in the pub where I watched the Spain vs Sweden game yesterday was probably wilder than the 20 people who sat around me. At least in the pub there was singing, people getting out of their seats, etc. My section at the ground was very quiet.

    Even the crazy sections behind each goal didn’t go berserk, though, when goals went in.

    Cheers,
    The Gaffer

  7. Oldham Fan says:

    What a thought provoking article! For supporters of lower league teams there is little oppertunity to watch on live TV. However, that said, for those with an analytical preference over an emotional one explains why certain big clubs attract “fans” from all over the world (e.g. Man Utd) and they can feel justified in their support as they feel no emotional attachment to their local team.

  8. Pingback: Hate Man Utd » Blog Archive » Analysis of Armchair Fans

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>