Chris Rattue: Murky coverage hint of things to come

Photo / Dean Purcell

Questions. England is the home of football, right? Or at least it once was, and now has the most glamorous league in the world.

England is also a fairly sophisticated place, next to a fairly sophisticated continent. We're not talking about Outer Mongolia here.

In contrast, New Zealand is not the home of football, is it? And we're a heck of a long way from anywhere that can claim to have that title.

Yet when England played Ukraine in a World Cup football qualifier yesterday morning, we got to watch it in New Zealand, and England didn't. The game from Ukraine was there in full living smudginess on our subscriber Sky network's ESPN channel, the home of murky football images.

Yet in England, their fans could only watch the game via the internet unless they happened to live near one of the movie theatres that carried the game.

Safe to assume that most English football fans did not see the game from Ukraine.

England had already qualified for the finals in South Africa next year, so with the importance of the Ukraine game diminished the major broadcasters BBC and ITV refused to fork out two million quid for the right to show a competitor to primetime viewing favourites such as X-Factor.

How did this bizarre situation arise, leaving the BBC and ITV almost willingly brushed aside?

The Ukrainians sold the rights to a Swiss mob, who then sold them to subscriber TV pea-weights Setanta, who went belly up in June.

The Swiss mob then appointed another party to market the game online in the northern mass market. Fans could pay between $15 and $35 with a maximum of one million subscribers allowed.

But for a late deal negotiated by the BBC, English fans would not have even seen highlights on TV.

This is remarkable when you consider that New Zealand's Sky subscribers could happily watch ESPN's blotchy coverage of the game which was on at roughly the same time as New Zealand's potentially historic and bravely fought nil-all draw with Bahrain, which was carried on another Sky channel.

This bizarre situation does raise the question: will (and, if so, when) will the internet dominate sports coverage and what will it mean in terms of getting to see what you want to see and the cost of doing so. It could be very good in bringing more obscure or remote events into the home, and it could be bad in terms of quality and cost as English football fans have just found out. But the time is at hand when the home computer will be hooked up to the TV screen.

As the Maori Television rugby World Cup bidding furore has shown, the rights battle is an expensive business, and the internet is ideally set up to spread that load and risk, and increase profits.

So the weekend was a chance to not only come to terms with the All Whites' short and sharp bid to make next year's World Cup finals, but also to check out the World Cup internet coverage.

The weekend provided at least one good reason to Google your way into the World Cup qualification maze: Cristiano Ronaldo.

Portugal's bid to stay in contention for the finals held centre stage, because to fail would mean robbing the finals of the world's favourite footballer.

Portugal cannot top their group in Europe, where just 13 of 53 teams will qualify. But their 3-0 win over Hungary yesterday has them well placed to finish second and go into a playoff game.

Having stumbled upon a website which was streaming this game free - there were a host of others that wanted money - the game showed up the internet's strengths and weaknesses.

Without the internet, no Ronaldo, Portugal and Hungary. With it, something definitely better, although the picture quality is marginal.

The yardstick for any sports coverage is ESPN. If the picture is worse than ESPN's, then it's time to do the lawns.

ESPN appear to cover all football matches through a lens that hasn't been cleaned since 1963.

It's not quite as bad as those dodgy DVDs where the movie is interrupted by a bloke getting up to buy an ice cream (so I'm led to believe). But it's not a heck of a lot better either.

In comparison, the internet coverage of the Portugal-Hungary game was almost superior for close-up shots. You could clearly make out Ronaldo's disdain for the rest of the universe, although you could hardly see the limp which took him from the field (this may not have been because of the coverage).

The pull-back shots were of decided ESPN calibre, unfortunately, and from this distance the ball appeared to be on drugs.

The bonus extra with internet coverage is the box of live contributions from punters around the planet although the value of "what a wuss" and "go get your nails done" - two comments that can be repeated here - is dubious. Live anonymous blogging is a world full of sideline eyes uninhibited by those annoying broadcasting codes.

You certainly wouldn't want to watch the entire World Cup this way, not until better broadband speed or whatever else is needed brings higher-quality pictures.

And so, over to Manama (via conventional television) where the All Whites battled to a scoreless draw against Bahrain. What wusses.

Please - football needs goooooooooals, even in the first leg of World Cup qualifiers.

There should have been a few, and one in particular. Salman Ali missed a goal so open you could have set up a ticket stall and hot dog stand next to it before any of the All Whites' defence got back to provide an obstacle. If Bahrain don't get to South Africa, Salman Ali is not going to be remembered well.

As for coverage quality and atmosphere via the TV, someone needed to turn the crowd noise up and the bloke doing what sounded like a call to prayer down. Even Jordan Luck songs at rugby grounds don't go on as long as the Manama wailer.

The commentators were studio-bound - the result being that the wailing-heavy audio came across as if it was a match being played in a Middle East cafe with the commentary provided by passersby.

The pictures were war-zone-by-satellite-phone quality.

At least the All Whites are still firmly in the hunt. A hopefully inhospitable Wellington stage - in terms of weather at least - is now set for Bahrain on November 14.

On yesterday's showing, Bahrain are more than capable of winning in our capital. They have the more fluid footballers, and the All Whites' defenders are of varying quality.

The introduction of the New Zealand-born Scot Michael McGlinchey gave cause for hope - he brought an energetic class to a skill-limited and static midfield. Coach Ricki Herbert might also revisit his decision to use Leo Bertos as part-defender. The All Whites got away with the Bertos ploy yesterday, but he was vulnerable and they might not be so lucky next time.

Two-leg football duels are strange animals. New Zealand has the advantage, yet without an away goal they are also very vulnerable. Should Bahrain strike first in Wellington,the All Whites would have to searchfor two goals which in turn wouldopen opportunities for the skilful Bahrain outfit, who could sail into the sunset.

Then again, an initial Bahrain goal might tempt the visitors into defensive mode, which will allow New Zealand more possession and the chance to build waves of pressure. Once in the mode of defending a lead, it can be hard to get out of it.

Things may go well for the All Whites, or they could turn ugly.

In other words, our World Cup finals picture is about as clear as ESPN's.

The All Whites did a solid job against a higher-ranked team and despite the lack of goals they still have a very promising forward line. Manama may turn out to be an important step towards the glory fields of South Africa next year.

But it won't appear like that, should the All Whites lose in Wellington, and goalless football isn't a winner if the game wants to sell itself to the Kiwi masses.

One thing is certain - one way or other, Wellington will be a very different story.