E-Paper
Football Faultlines
Football is best watched live. Tennis is better on television. And cricket is as much an opportunity to be seen as to see, but that?s a different story, writes Karan Thapar.
I wonder how many viewers of the World Cup finals tonight will realise that of the three big games shown on television — the other two being tennis and cricket and, by the way, today’s the Wimbledon men’s final too — football is the least suited to the screen? No doubt the broadcast captures the excitement and the atmosphere, the astounding roar in the stadium or the colourful Mexican waves, but it doesn’t do justice to the game. In fact, the very nature of television militates against a full appreciation of what’s happening on the field. Consequently television, which enhances tennis and adequately covers cricket, diminishes football.
Let me explain. As a medium, television is best suited to portraying the individual. The screen identifies with him or her and, in the process, transports the audience to the portrayed person. When done well you can feel yourself in the shoes of the individual. Yet by the same token, television is at its weakest handling a group or a crowd. No doubt it can show size, volume and density but there is no identification. The group remains an abstract. The individual, on the other hand, becomes a particular person. That’s why television documentaries about a Rasputin, a Kennedy or a Tendulkar are easy to follow unlike those about the problem of immigration, the birth of a nation or, even, the stars in the sky. Indeed this is why producers often ‘cheat’ and tell the story of a people or a group through vignettes of individuals within the collective.
Now, tennis is an individual game. It comprises two people playing against each other. The camera can focus on each of them, reveal their strength and style, their nerves or their superstitions. Hence the close-ups of service, of return, of volley or smash. And because the tennis court is not so big, when the rallies are prolonged the camera can pull out and cover the full court without distancing the action or miniaturising the players. At both levels tennis adapts well to television.
Cricket is different but can still meet the requirements of the small screen. This is because at the core of the game is a contest between a batsman and a bowler. As far as the viewer is concerned the two individuals compete against each other. And this is what television handles best. So as the bowler prepares to run-in or the batsman takes his stance, the camera can flick between the two, capturing and enhancing the build-up. The rest of the team only comes into play after a shot is hit. It is of secondary importance. Thus cricket can adjust to the limitations of television.
Not football. This is a team game where the individual, be he a Ronaldo or a Beckham, is secondary. Whilst the skilled footwork of each player is important, the game is about how the team comes together. It’s the strategy of play that counts not the expertise of any one player. What determines how well or badly a team is playing is often a question of who is being passed to — depending on where he is and the ease of access — and not a spectacular dash for the goal by a key player who could end up offside. In football the team takes precedence over the individual. Thus football requires the big picture. But the big picture is where television is at its weakest. Worse, because of the size of the field, the players shrink, they become distant and their individual actions, which might have been absorbing, get lost in the detail.
There’s an interesting corollary to this analysis. Football is best watched live. Tennis is far better on television. Cricket, of course, is as much an opportunity to be seen as to see, but that’s a different story.
Champagne and strawberries apart, even from the Royal Box at Wimbledon you only get a partial view. The other half of the court remains far away. And if you’re sitting on the sides you could end up with a crick as your neck spends the afternoon swivelling from left to right. Federer and Nadal are best enjoyed at home.
This is confirmed by the difference television has made to the popularity of tennis. An essentially upper class game is today top billing. Wimbledon is more popular than the Ashes and competes with the FA Cup. The rights are hot property. Football, on the other hand, is popular primarily because it’s played by everyone. Television adds little to its enchantment.
