Dear Blog,
Yes, it is I, the Mysterious And Exciting Guest Blogger. I cannot reveal my true identity, but for the purposes of this post you should know that I am used to watching football in England, though currently find myself enjoying ABC/ESPN coverage of the World Cup here in the States.
Let's go through the subtle differences and similarities I've noticed so far in the commentary. First, the areas in which US commentary has fallen short:
(1) Pronouncing `Paraguay', `Parag-way'. Just wrong.
(2) Saying that Steven Gerrard's yellow card was justified. Even taking pleasure in saying it. Two problems with this, one that they were simply incorrect in this instance, and two that England players never deserve yellow cards. The BBC understands this kind of situation much better.
(3) Mistaking England for Germany. Usually a definite no-no in English commentary. The kind of mistake Motson would disembowel his co-commentator for. The kind of mistake not even Ron Atkinson would make. `Nuff said.
On the plus side, there are some reassuring similarities:
(1) Always calling Peter Crouch `The Big Man' or `Long-striding'. Excellent. The killer comment was: "it's ironic that a man who stands 6'7'' is called `Crouch'". Mottie would be proud.
(2) Producing the factoids: "this goal-keeper substitution is the earliest in World Cup history" and "this match is the first match ever in the World Cup to finish 1-0 decided by an own-goal". Truly fascinating, and makes me wonder if they've hired Statto.
As the mathmocoprophagiacs amongst you will have noticed, there are more flaws than plus-points so far. Perhaps it'll improve---I'll be keeping you posted.