Camera Angles

You might remember the beginning of the Australia-Italy match during the 2006 World Cup. Because of “technical difficulties”, the only working camera was high behind one goal, and for ten glorious minutes, we could watch the game develop across the entire pitch. Much football broadcasting follows the ball around like a playground centre forward, which means you see little of off-the-ball movement (that movement that was what so impressed observers of the teenaged Wayne Rooney).

Sadly, all good things, and the serendipitous technical hitch was sadly resolved.

Here’s Match of the Day’s coverage of Huddersfield Town v Coventry City in May 1966. England would be World Champions within eight weeks, not that you could tell from this. But the winners would achieve promotion to the old First Division, so it was an important game.

And it’s filmed throughout from behind the goals. Owing to the poor film stock used – especially for the time: this is not Mitchell and Kenyon – it’s often hard to really see what’s going on. But nevertheless far more of the pitch visible, and so they’ve captured English football off-the-ball before the wholesale abandonment of wingers in the wake of the World Cup. That has to be of some value:

Advertisements

3 responses to “Camera Angles

  1. That’s why all the people pontificating about games they watched on TV are limited by the fact that they only see what the camera shows them. Being a TV-watching supporter is a SUBSTITUTE for being at the game itself. Got it? That might be hard for you to digest, but that’s the way it is.

  2. Pierre, I go to games regularly and – as I suspect most regular attendees would say – there are good vantage points and bad ones. TV is a big part of all major sport these days, and has been for the best part of fifty years, so I won’t have that substitute stuff. Many people can’t get to matches – not because they are lazy, but because of age, illness, infirmity, geographical location..

    I really object to your taking that tone, incidentally. That’s my cue to say, get your own blog.

  3. I was addressing TV-watching supporters who have never been to a game. Not trying to insult the old or handicapped. We are talking about what happens off the ball and not on camera. I may have been intemperate but I am right. If you can’t see what’s happening off the ball you do not have a full understanding of what is going on in the game. Or you have a different understanding of it. But that’s OK, the cultural experience of TV football is too important and ingrained to be challenged by me. I object to you thinking I was attacking the old or the ill. Where did that come from?
    Something has clearly upset you. Perhaps the word pontificate. I wasn’t actually attacking you. I don’t pretend to know whether you go to matches or not.
    You should know your readers comments are written very quickly – they are unconsidered -and are liable to be misinterpreted because they are not accompanied by gestures, facial expressions or tone of voice, but you have decided you don’t like my tone and very politely told me to f… off. Message received. I enjoy your blog. You put an awful lot of work into it. But as Petrarch said Il tempo passa et l’ore son si pronte
    a fornire il viaggio ch’assai spazio non aggio
    pur a pensar com’io corro a la morte