To follow-up my opening, let me personally say it was splendid to see Grand Slam curling back in the national spotlight. As the summer faded out, it was starting to become concerning that there was still no T.V deal in place and the future of the grand slam events were in serious jeopardy. In August 2012, Rogers Communications came to the rescue, allowing curling fans all across this great country to breath a huge sigh of relief. Stability is key, and if Rogers stay committed to the product, it's most certainly plausible that the sport can reach a height that it's never seen.
To grow the game, it bottles down to the marketability of the players. Marketability relates to both off ice and on ice. In the games that were featured throughout the weekend, their was one common denominator, that being low scoring games that captivated a string of up and down the sheet ends that don’t provide the average curling fan the intricacies that make the game of curling so unique. Curling, in it’s purest form is a very strategical game that is a lot alike cat and mouse. Your next shot relies on what the opposition elects to play on the previous shot which is why no end is the same. This concept does not apply however when the entire end consists of peeling every rock on the sheet. Credit to the players, even the perfect freeze on opponent’s rock now a days can be easily removed, which is why I believe it is now an opportunistic time to employ the five rock rule(that has been used in select events), to create more offense and excitement. How the five rock rule works is similar to the four rock rule with the exception that the team that is without hammer would be unable to peel on the second’s first rock. This rule change should be made permanent in my humble opinion as the top teams have gotten so good with their take-out ability that the four rock rule no longer guarantees high-scoring affairs.
Now to me, the bigger issue in terms of growing the game is the on-air broadcast and the personability of the players through the duration of the game. It’s clear Rogers is in the game for the long haul now. In other words, TSN now has competition. The reason why the Brier and the Scotties and really the entire “Season of Champions” series have been successful over the years is due to the quality of the production. The tandem of Vic Rauter, Russ Howard, and Linda Moore is a nice mix between insightfulness and playfulness. The beauty of those three is that you get the impression that while describing the action, they’re also learning to make it easy for the average to below average curling fan to follow along. Sportsnet and CBC however, have yet to find the proper recipe when it comes to invigorating their broadcast. This bone to pick goes way back to when CBC had the rights to the semi-finals and finals for both the Brier and the Scotties. It is such a bland broadcast. When enduring through a CBC curling broadcast then, and to a certain extent even now with this new agreement, I come away with the realization that I didn’t learn a single thing that I didn’t already know. Get to know the players! Dig deeper into the storylines of the particular game being shown! I recall the one year(and I apologize if this is incorrect), I was watching a Brier semi-final pitting the great Jay Peachey(who’s known for having the third who quite possibly lays claim to the greatest Brier ‘stache) and Mark Dacey. After the game in which Dacey was victorious, they were in the midst of interviewing Mark and they cut it off mid interview to throw it back to the in studio host to set the nation up for the next televised event. I realize it’s only one instance but it’s the kind of unprofessional coverage that leads me to think that all they really worry about is the revenue they’re raking in and not the quality of the media coverage. This point is confirmed when we analyze who the on-air personalities are. I’ll let Mark Lee slide because I’m assuming Bruce Rainnie will handle the bulk of the CBC games, but are we seriously going to be stuck with Joan McCusker and Mike Harris again? They say the definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing over and over and expect different results. Well, either Rogers is an insane company which isn’t true or they were okay with the results all along, with the latter probably taking the cake. Russ Howard provides a sharp tongue and controversial opinions. In the past he’s made it clear that no one steers clear of his criticism, including his own son. On the other hand, Harris and McCusker play it safe in fear that they will say something that will rub one of their curling compatriots the wrong way. A personal suggestion of mine would be for Rogers to give ol’Randy Ferbey a call. He’s never been afraid to speak his mind. Wouldn’t a Ferbey/Cathy Gauthier combination be a lot more appealing then Mike” monotone” Harris, and Joan” that was a great shot even though it was a miss” McCusker? One can only dream. Rogers has a big opportunity ahead of him here. The Grand Slam, with the quality of fields could surpass the hype and excitement of the Brier and Scotties if done right. The onus is on you Rogers.
So the previous paragraph focused on media coverage, but we all know that’s only half the battle. Like any sport, the players are the real cash cows. Curling can never be mistaken for a high octane sport, but a little personality from our supposed top players would be appreciated. There’s a reason why during featured games the networks put microphones on the skip and the thirds to listen in on the dialogue. The expectation is that it would allow the viewer to hear the strategy that goes into each shot. Not only that, but the usage of the microphones should bring out the real personalities of these players to provide a sense of relatability to the viewing audience at home. It’s not helping when the likes of Kevin Koe are essentially whispering to the fellow third, or Kevin Martin starts making weird facial expressions that don’t seem to stop throughout the course of the action(Okay, that one isn’t so bad, just a personal beef of mine). The sport needs some drama, some controversy. As an avid curling fan, quite possibly my most memorable curling game, aside from the Brier that involved the great Jay Peachey, was that of the 2009 olympic curling trials in a game that featured Kevin Martin and Glenn Howard. Now, the curling game itself was “Peachey” (I’ll get an interview with him some day), but what made the game memorable was the infamous incident that involved Ben Hebert and Richard Hart. To refresh the memory, Hebert was sweeping a stone down to the house when he inadvertently swept his broom across the rock which in Hart’s opinion was unethical and it started an in game war of words. People will remember that. Or, how about the back and forth nasty newspaper dialogue that went on between Brad Gushue and Randy Ferbey after Ferbey was subsequently kicked off the Newfie’s team. Now, one can easily form the opinion that because Ferbey was involved one shouldn’t be surprised, because it was after all the volatile great from Alberta, but the point I’m trying to make is that it’s not about who, it’s about what. The more national attention this great sport gets the better the sport will be because of it.
If some how, some way the players would grasp the importance of becoming more visible in the public’s eye, the sport would attract new fans on a daily basis. Something the sport, the players, and the networks covering it so desperately need.
No comments:
Post a Comment