Does ESPN.com’s sports reporting no longer include game coverage?

ESPN.com above the fold, 10:43 p.m., July 28, 2009

(Select the image to enlarge it and read ESPN.com’s headlines.)

Is game coverage no longer an essential part of ESPN.com’s sports reporting?

Yes, there’s a baseball scoreboard above the masthead, but in terms of articles on ESPN.com? Only one headline is about the result of a sporting match (“Phelps beaten buy world-record time in 200 free”).

Examples of what sports stories did merit prominent coverage:

• a washed-up quarterback is not coming out of retirement
• trial status for a football player who accidentally shot himself at a nightclub
• predictions of union talks

Did I catch the self-proclaimed “worldwide leader in sports’” website at an off moment or were ESPN.com’s editorial decisions the norm for sports reporting?

I’m not a doctor, but I’m pretty sure Greg Oden isn’t going to miss his rookie season in the NBA

A headline from The New York Times (as of about 10 minutes ago), “Oden Likely to Miss His Rookie Season”:

New York Times: Greg Oden to Miss His Rookie Seaso

I’m no doctor, but I don’t think surgery on the new Portland Trail Blazer’s right knee will cause him to miss his rookie season.

Oden’s rookie season will just be the following year—or whenever he gets around to playing again.

For the record, ESPN.com made the mistake too.

Is it British English or just wrong?

Because I have a fetish for has-beens who cash out, a few months ago I was following David Beckham’s first MLS game on ESPN.com.

The phrase “took finally the field” gave me pause: Did ESPN.com make a rare grammatical mistake? Or was it just another lame attempt by an American sports writer to infuse humor into a piece on Beckham by trying to sound British?

About 30 minutes later, I had my answer.

It’s better to be wrong than a hack anyway.