does anyone really think having a stationary camera or two filming two players playing pool is going to be appealing to anyone? This is not how they film any other game or sport, so why do it with pool production?
I'm not an expert about pool, but I have an opinion about this from the perspective of a newcomer to the game. I've caught "the pool bug" this past year and can't seem to get enough of it...online, reading about it (the literature is very slender, which is too bad since I'm a big reader), going to pool rooms, playing it, takings lessons, etc.
I *love* to watch the matches online, but I have one STRONG reaction to the material that's out there that I'd like to register. I don't actually mind the single camera; I realize that having two cameras and a handheld isn't feasible for many events, many venues, or many producers.
But please, please, please, pool people...you've GOT to get better announcers!!!
The voice commentary on the matches I've watched goes from very good (Mark Wilson is my favorite so far, although several I've heard were great), to just so atrociously bad that it borders on the surreal.
Just a few typical sins:
--Talking only about what the shooter might do next. Why not just wait and see, and provide some ANTICIPATION for what we're about to see, instead of just trying to second-guess it constantly?
--Not being quiet when there's nothing to say. It's not necessary to fill every second with jabber.
--Talking about other events, people, news, etc. Yeah, you sprinkle stuff like this in...but SPARINGLY. Going off on it for three racks' worth of play is absurd.
--Not talking to the public, just to other experts. And yet....
--Not knowing the score or even the name of one or the other of the players. This is just so amateurish you wouldn't believe it if SNL did a lampoon of it. But half the time the announcers have no idea what the score is. Or don't bother mentioning it.
--Talking to people on the chat and not even telling the YouTube audience WHAT THE QUESTIONS ARE. Are these productions considered to be only for the real-time chat audience with no thought to people who will watch the match later? I watched a positively Kafkaesque match the other day. Almost Dadaist. The announcer kept answering chat questions without repeating the question, so the effect watching the match on YouTube was a series of long silences followed by bizarre non-sequiturs that had nothing at all to do with the match. It was entertaining, in a parallel world kind of way, but not relevant at all.
And speaking of which, the biggest sin....
--NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MATCH. WTF? It's really, really strange to a newcomer to the sport than an announcer can talk for twenty minutes and not say a single thing about what is happening on the table. Ignoring big shifts in momentum, disastrous misses, anything. You get the feeling one of the players could pull out a gun and shoot the other and the announcer wouldn't say a word about it. Fifteen minutes later the announcer would pause and say, "Nothing much seems to be happening at the table. Somebody must be taking a pretty long break. Why are all those policemen in the audience today?"
I understand that good sports announcing is difficult, and I understand that there are lots and lots of things that could be done to improve the visibility and publicizing of pool, but in my humble opinion this would be a very, very good place to start...cultivate the good announcers, develop some new ones, and try to establish a few standards.
Pool needs a Bud Collins, never mind a Chris Collingsworth.
Mike