ESPN Needs to Get Rid of Dave O'Brien for Soccer

by SSreporters

Why you ask?

1. Too many stupid "human interest stories". Seriously, out of all the American soccer announcers, he brings up the most. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to hear about uh... I don't know..... the ACTUAL GAME!!! If I wanted to know about a player who grew up in a war torn nation, I'd read Newsweek or Time.
2. Umpteen baseball references. They're called referees, not umpires Dave. If you have been covering soccer for a year, you have to know that basic term. I could've sworn I heard him compare a soccer team to the New York Yankees one time. It's not just baseball actually. During the US vs. Ecuador friendly, he mentioned that Oguchi Onyewu could be a good NFL player. Thank you Dave, I needed to know that.
3. Too much irrelevant information. Why the heck do I need to know how many doses of Viagra Cobi Jones takes per day? (I know that's not real, but you get the picture.) I'm going to assume that may not be his fault, as much as it is the producer or director.

Unfortunately, this is a quote from ESPN senior coordinating producer from the World Cup last year. Props to On the Pitch.

"When asked about criticism of O’Brien from soccer fans by The New York Post on June 9, Tim Scanlan, ESPN senior coordinating producer for World Cup coverage and the man believed to have chosen O’Brien, said: "You can look at this from another side. Maybe soccer has finally been given its due to have this type of broadcaster delivered to the sport."

Uhhhhhhh..........NO!! Don't get me wrong, his voice is fine for soccer, but his knowledge and passion is not even close. Give me a JP Dellacamera and a Derek Rae over DOB any day. Please ESPN, give this guy the sack.

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

861 days ago

Score 0

Anyone who watches Fox Soccer Channel and gets to listen to Sky's announcers will most likely want to use the mute button when watching soccer on ESPN. Granted, most Sky announcers can spew their own BS (particularly when glorifying Manchester United), but at least they're talking about the game.

I think ESPN tries to make soccer interesting to Americans by having a casual "couple of guys watching a game" approach to announcing, instead of people who simply dictate what is happening and occasionally analyze the match.

The collection of random facts that pour out of my TV speakers when watching soccer on ESPN always gives me a headache. ESPN should team up with Advil or Tylenol to sponsor their soccer broadcasts. The synergy is perfect.

Permalink | Reply

SSreportersLegend

861 days ago

Score 0

I really don't need to watch FSC (although I do) to mute the guys at ESPN. If ESPN tries the "couple of guys watching a game" approach to announcing, instead of people who simply dictate what is happening and occasionally analyze the match, isn't that called dumbing down the most popular sport in the world?

Permalink

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

861 days ago

Score 0

It's called trying to boost ratings in a country in which said sport is not all that popular. ESPN has never been about sports, it's always been about ratings.

Permalink

SSreportersLegend

861 days ago

Score 0

But in Canada, soccer isn't exactly popular either (although it has increased significantly). Why are they not doing the same thing as the US?

Permalink

IbeargRed-Shirting

861 days ago

Score -1

It may be the most popular sport in the world, but it ain't here. While it is growing a good deal of the audience doesn't know the players, doesn't particularly know the game very well and they probably should be dumbing down the broadcast. btw two articles in a day about "bad" espn personalities. You sure you're not just campaigning for your own spot?

Permalink | Reply

SSreportersLegend

861 days ago

Score 0

I don't know if you've noticed, but Who's Now has magically generated a huge ESPN haterade by many writers (especially me). But dumbing down the sport here has got to be a specialty. I guarantee you that they aren't doing it in Puerto Rico.

Permalink