Discussion in 'Pure Football' started by AC Mack, Jul 8, 2012.
Sorry, wouldn't let me have it all in one post.
So much sense in the article.
It raises the question (again, no doubt) about why this is allowed to happen. The answer being either the public either want this shit, can't see any better, or simply don't care.
We, the public, will watch the football. And the highlights. It could be fronted by an X-Factor reject or the most imsightful footballing journalist who has ever existed. We will still watch it. Oh we'll moan about the coverage, maybe even one person will send an email to the tv company saying it's shit. But we'll still watch.
If we bombard ITV and BBC and Sky about their coverage and actually stop watching it, things might change. But we won't, so things will stay the same.
Many people will just turn off rather than listen to any of the TV pundits, which is quite telling.
I'd rather go to the next thread than read all that shite.
Spot on article cheers for posting - good read.
But the BBC red button has a commentator free option, and some people watch something else during half time. They will still watch the actual football on telly.
Some people may have turned away from MOTD but millions of us still watch. We may hate all the studio stuff, but we want to see the highlights. And before you mention Sky's goals package or whatever, I don't have Sky because Sky are a bunch of shite bastards who should be aborted before birth.
That doesn't surprise me tbh.
Say what you want about sky, but their coverage is absolutely fantastic.
A decent read. Have to say though I disagree about Carragher. The fella's a waste of skin
I might be fantastic, but Sky as a whole are one of the worst things to ever happen to television. Rather Sky be shut down and this fantastic football covereage go somewhere decent.
One trouble (and I'll admit its such a long article that I skipped bits so it might have been said) is that the author is writing as a football fan, saying what he thinks other football fans would like to see and, largely, I agree with him. The BBC however arent really trying to appeal to football fans (the type that go to games and spend their free time discussing it on message boards etc). They are looking to appeal to a "broad" audience. Football fans will watch Euro 2012/ MotD anyway, they dont need to attract them to the programmes but they are trying to make their coverage also "appeal" to those who might turn on but would be tempted to turn back off again if presented with an opening segment full of in depth analysis of teams and tactics. They want an overview, some shite element of celebrity (like the wanking over Rooney's return), they basically want ready meal TV.
I'm not saying the BBC are right (and ITV are guilty of it to, they really want to attract those with only a passing interest as they need the ratings to be high), I'd rather the BBC in particular said "fuck those who aren't arsed, lets make this a real football programme for those who are genuinely interested in the game". I'd like to see them kick that nondescript Jake Humphreys cunt off the tele along with Lawrenson and a load of the rest but that will never happen, they want to appeal to a broad range of people so they'd rather have dumbed down presentations and commentators who attempt to "amuse" those who are watching rather than have commentators bore these viewers with tactical analysis.
Blog writers are different, they can afford to go in depth about tactics etc because they are trying to appeal to football fans but I think to compare what they do with what BBC do is a bit naive. Having said that I agree 100% about the pundits lack of knowledge- regardless of how the programme is presented for the money they're on they should at least know about the players, trying to appeal to a broad range of viewers doesn't excuse an obvious lack of preparation
Good article, I never watch motd live, sky+ it then skip through their dribble.
Would it though? They put so much money into football which has been a bad thing in quite a lot of people's eyes. But it ensures they delivery a brilliant product around the world that we all enjoy.
There is nothing better than settling down on a Sunday to watch the 2 live games, or the games they broadcast early Saturday morning before we play. That is before you get to monday night games and Champions league midweek schedule. I really enjoy their coverage.
I also find the punditry to be of a much higher standard, people like Gullit, hoddle, Neville and souness are far better than other channels.
It's not the football thing I have a problem with Sky about (well, maybe the whole host of fixtures getting moved left right and centre for TV coverage, then that made worse by games moved due to midweek european games) but the rest of the network. Especially how they essentially treat the Beeb and Channel 4 as test channels for a whole host of TV shows, mainly American imports that Sky really aren't sure about. As soon as it's clear it's popular, Sky mop it up for themselves by throwing more money at the American network selling the rights.
Sports aside, Skys original programming content is about as good as ITV.
I'm not sure why football is so hard to nail down for the BBC.
Over the last two weeks of Wimbledon you could watch literally any of several matches happening at the same time and have interesting and engaging commentators who knew what they were talking about. They all made insightful comments about the way each player was playing, their tactical approach at different times and parts of the court etc.
Yet they can't show ONE match at a time which has presenters or commentators that do anything of the above, it's staggering.
Pretty much bang on to the issue, or at least what the BBC controllers think they need to do
Separate names with a comma.