Sport on TV: Celebrity preoccupation puts BBC at fault

The men's final atWimbledon may have been a chance to see one of the greatest players of all time chase a record-equalling victory by taking on a home favourite with a winning record in head-to-head match ups, but it was also a chance for the BBC's coverage to do some unashamed crowd watching and celebrity spotting.

For as long as television cameras have had the range to capture faces in the crowd, broadcasters have picked out spectators at sporting events, both famous and not, with the non-famous used to illustrate the atmosphere inside the arena, and the famous used to add glamour. Sunday's final took it to a new level though, with the director cutting to the famous (and occasionally the not so famous) faces so quickly after each point, that we could see their live reactions, as opposed to a replay a few seconds later.

The responsibility of the broadcaster is to show the game first, and the BBC did not miss any of the action, but by cutting away so often and so quickly, viewers were often denied the chance to see how Roger Federer and Andy Murray reacted, what their body language was like after each point. Letting the picture dwell on the court for a moment or two allows the viewer to digest what they have just seen. By instantly cutting away to a reaction shot, the director is distracting and detracting from the experience.

That is not to say that viewers are not interested in seeing who is present, and not just for the gossip. Knowing who is in attendance helps to get a sense of the event, and showing the David Cameron, Boris Johnson and the Middletons is not unreasonable a couple of times per set.

However, it became so frequent during this final, that it began to feel voyeuristic and uncomfortable, as it did for the close-ups of the players' families and coaches. Again, there is some merit in seeing how they are reacting, but when almost every point is followed by Judy Murray or her son's girlfriend, it begins to feel less like a valid journalistic choice, and more like an invasion of privacy. Moreover, it quickly became apparent that none of these people were showing much reaction to the match. They were cheering and clapping, but nothing unusually demonstrative. The BBC was not showing anything that enhanced the public's understanding of the final or the atmosphere.

There is also something seedy in the way that crowd shots are selected. The coverage of Euro 2012, produced in-house by UEFA, became famous for its preoccupation with attractive female fans. Meanwhile how often did the BBC zoom in on the boyfriends and husbands of the top female players, compared to the wives and girlfriends of the male players?

The Euro 2012 coverage was also tarnished by the revelation that the producers had been pre-recording reaction shots to insert into the coverage and present them as live. When Mario Balotelli scored against Germany in the semi-final, one of the defining images was of a German fan in tears. Yet she had been recorded 45 minutes earlier, crying at the national anthem. This sets a dangerous precedent, a broadcaster such as UEFA, that is also the organiser of the event, has a vested interest in presenting a positive image of the tournament.

This entire preoccupation with showing how the crowd is reacting, stems from the need to convey the atmosphere of the live event to fans at home. However, broadcasters are ignoring the sounds of the fans, and that's what really conveys atmosphere. The odd shot of the fans is one thing, but when images of fans, celebrities and family members become so frequent that they are detracting from the coverage of the sport itself, then it is time to make a change.

Euro 2012: Spain prove not to be so boring after all

If Sunday's Euro 2012 final helped Spain cast of their unwarranted 'boring' tag, it also proved that responsibility for any dull matches earlier in the tournament lay with their opponents. Many bemoaned the level of entertainment on offer during Spain's quarter and semi-final wins over France and Portugal, yet as noted by Corinthian Spirit yesterday, it was those teams' decision to sit deep and play with men behind the ball that made it difficult for Spain to play the more direct game that many were hoping for. Once Portugal went on the attack in extra time of the semi-final, Spain found that the pitch had opened up for them and responded accordingly.

Instead of setting out to defend, as Italian sides of the past would have done, and as Spain's other opponents in this tournament have done, Italy attacked, trying to play the more open, creative game that served them so well against Germany. This created space for the Spanish to operate in, and they were able to create more scoring opportunities than in previous rounds, resulting in four goals.

That said, this new-found aggression was not entirely a response to Italian tactics. The champions set out to play more aggressively than in previous rounds, attempting more shots from long range, and making more forward runs from midfield and fullback. Despite the selection of Fabregas, the Barcelona midfielder effectively played as an out and out centre forward, staying high up the pitch and making runs into the box, unlike his earlier appearances in the tournament when he played as a false nine and dropped into midfield (for more tactical analysis, see the excellent Zonal Marking blog).

Not only was Italy's defence overwhelmed, but thanks to Vicente del Bosque denied Andrea Pirlo the space to operate that Germany and England had given him, thanks to the tactical master stroke of using Iniesta and Silva to squeeze the midfield when defending, allowing Xavi to push up and press the Italian playmaker. Cesare Prandelli's team was left unable to create clear cut chances, and Spain's domination was secured.

Before the final was even over, the plaudits for the Spanish performance were flooding in, but many were coupled with the question as to why they could not produce this performance earlier in the competition. Their performance justified a little of the criticism, as they showed what they're capable of when they press forward, but even Spain can only do what the opposition allow them to do, and previously in this tournament, they have not been given space to work in, resulting in long periods of playing for possession and the accusations of being boring. But if yesterday's final illustrates anything, it is that whilst, they could have been more aggressive earlier in the tournament, they were working with what they had, and that their opponents had two choices: defend deep and be boring, or attack and be exciting, but either way, the result is the same.

Euro 2012: Are Spain Boring or Unappreciated?

Spain are the reigning world and European champions, the best international team so far this century, and possibly the best for twenty years, have spent the run-up to Sunday's final, their third in three tournaments, defending their style of play from the charge of being boring.

Regardless of whether or not they are, the backlash was inevitable. Spain have been the best side in the world for four years, and there is always a reaction against success, especially in Britain where the underdog is king, but this is not just a debate that is taking place in the British press. Two years ago, tiki-taka football was envied and admired, now it is seen in some quarters as stifling and negative.

The charges are not completely without merit, Spain have had 68 percent possession during Euro 2012, but the fewest attempts on goal of any of the four semi-finalists. Their style of play creates few chances, instead of going for a killer blow, they often overlook opportunities to play a final ball into the box, preferring to pass backwards or sideways and maintain possession, waiting for a clear-cut chance to come along. Football watchers tend to value ambition as highly as any other quality, and this apparent lack of it has contributed to their alienation.

What the accusation also shows, are the short memories of many fans and journalists who watch football. The Spanish are far removed from the long ball teams that featured heavily in English football in the 80s and early 90s, teams coached by George Graham, Howard Wilkinson and Graham Taylor, or even the route one tactics employed by England in the second half of their quarter-final match with Italy seven days ago. In that match, England's most frequent pass combination was Hart to Carroll, and as a result, England's attack was not only highly ineffective, but also incredibly dull. The excitement in that match for English fans was that England were involved, not that it was a good game. The Spanish game involves some of the most skilful footballers in the world playing a technically demanding brand of passing football, whilst winning consistently. The only thing that's boring there is their success. Contrast that with the teams coached by Sam Allardyce, where long ball tactics, men behind the ball and a reliance on set pieces are the foundations of his game plan. Describing Spain as dull, whilst teams like these are in recent living memory seems forgetful at best, and the football world is in for a shock when Allardyce's West Ham return to the Premiership next season.

A similar accusation is often levelled at Jose Mourinho's teams, but his teams still score plenty of goals, and are playing skilful football with the ball on the floor, whilst his former charges at Chelsea are alleged to have parked the bus in the Champions' League last season, but they outscored Barcelona 3-2 over two legs in the semi-final. Those who watch the game have been spoiled by 20 years of Champions' League football, worldwide coverage of the top domestic leagues, and for English fans, a diet of end-to-end, high scoring football, that has perhaps diluted appreciation for some of the game's finer arts.

It is true that Spain have not played in any classic matches so far in Euro 2012, but that does not mean that they are not a classic team. Pete Sampras was one of the greatest tennis players of all time, but he was sometimes labelled as boring because of the relentless and one-sided nature of many of the big matches he played in, whereas other, less successful stars, who could not destroy opponents like he could, played in what are regarded as great finals, because their imperfections allowed for a closer, more unpredictable result, such as the 2001 Ivanisevic-Rafter Wimbledon final.

Spain's opponents should be apportioned with at least half of the blame for any dull matches, not just because of their inability to challenge the world champions, but because of their refusal to try. If the quarter and semi-finals were unexciting, blame the Portuguese and the French for playing with men behind the ball. Look at what happened when Portugal began to attack the Spanish in extra time, the game opened up, and Spain started to play at a greater tempo and with more direct intent than before.

The argument over the level of excitement that one can get from watching Spain play, comes down to what the viewer wants to get from them. Appreciation for the fine arts of the game, outplaying and dominating an opponent, or playing in an incident packed and close fixture, filled with imperfections and mistakes. Both have their merits, but do we really want a football culture where a team is criticised for playing a passing game that keep the ball on the floor and relies on skill and technique?