Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
the pigman

Match of the day.

Recommended Posts

How many of you watch it Sat night in real time or record it and watch later missing out all the time wasting punditry.Who at the BBC thinks it is money well spent to have these so called experts wasting our time,its not needed,show more of the games,some replays of the important action a quick summery by the commentator.Lets just have action no presenter,no studio and a lot cheaper prog.Match choice on Sky is a much better format but not available to all.BBC must waste millions of our cash on uneeded presenters on loads of their progs.These people must be laughing at the cash they get for this uneeded job they do,what is the point for it.I wont list my most useless presenters,some of them are outside footy but I am sure you all have them so for some light relief away from footy fire away and lets here them.All right I will start with a complete waste of time and money,Claudia Winkleman.Beat that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It does come across as a cosy club, insulated from the modern world ...perfectly fine of course, if we weren''t obliged to pay for it. The punditry needs to ''step up'' to earn it''s (our) corn. But, yes, more footage of games, edited to reflect the overall match would be welcome.

Just as an aside, the BBC highlights currently remain light years ahead of anything by ITV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More often than not, I fall asleep before they show our match, so I catch it on Sunday morning and also prefer Goals on Sunday, But being at the match anyway I''m not to bothered about what the Pundits say, Most of them are retired Has bins any way, Won''t mention Mills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well,Splutcho with a name like that I am surprised you are an expert in English but you no doubt are and I live and learn.Do you do on line English lessons I could sign up for as you must speak proper down your way.if you have time please correct my posting for others to read more clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had to laugh last night when the BBC live reporter said when Real Madrid were 5 up that " you have to fancy Real to go through". You pay good money to for judgement like that!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apologies Piggy it was only a tongue in cheek comment. I agree with your point to an extent, but I''d prefer analysis not done by monkeys but people that know what they''re talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You best organise a country wide boycott then. Because clearly more than enough people are watching. And the BBC don''t waste millions of ''our cash'' on unedited presenters.

You could say that about loads of shows on loads of channels. Why does any TV football show have commentators? Why does Bargain Hunt even exist? Why does TV exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="pete_norw"]More often than not, I fall asleep before they show our match, so I catch it on Sunday morning and also prefer Goals on Sunday, But being at the match anyway I''m not to bothered about what the Pundits say, Most of them are retired Has bins any way, Won''t mention Mills.[/quote]MOTD has become a prime example of the current obsession by society in general (and a growing number of people on this forum) with statistics, number crunching, audits and trends. Week after week Lineker and his chums trot out some meaningless figure, in which I have absolutely no interest whatever.The only figure on a weekly basis that I care about is whether my team has scored more goals than the opposition, or less.So yes, I am finding myself now regularly recording it and watching it at my leisure on a Sunday, carefully editing out all the verbiage. I thought I was a bit odd, and the only one who did that, but clearly there are others of that persuasion !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reggie if you think stats are meaningless then you don''t have a very good understanding of football.

I''m 100% certain managers and coaching staff pay very close attention to them to help improve their team. No one would argue the score line is the most important part, but if you are really saying the rest is meaningless, well, quite simply they are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And it''s not a current obsession. My Grandad can remember certain stats printed in the newspaper from the 49 FA cup final.

And football on TV hasn''t changed recently, it''s been the same for as long as I''ve watched it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Gingerpele"]Reggie if you think stats are meaningless then you don''t have a very good understanding of football.

I''m 100% certain managers and coaching staff pay very close attention to them to help improve their team. No one would argue the score line is the most important part, but if you are really saying the rest is meaningless, well, quite simply they are not.[/quote]I understand football as well as the next amateur, GP, thank you very much. I leave the number crunching to the professionals I contribute to the pay to run my team.In any case managerial tactics are not so much what I was referring to. More the ''so and so player has played in 35 consecutive games for so and so team'' and the like. As I say...meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find myself watching it every week, though I do avoid it when we lose, much like this place.To be honest, theres usually not much else on at that time anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is it anymore meaningless than actually watching football?

What''s so meaningful about football full stop?

Clearly if people are buying publications, reading websites and watching shows to get these statistics, they aren''t meaningless. Doesn''t mean you have to take any notice of them, but they aren''t meaningless and it''s just insulting to a large number of people. And that''s not what they do on MOTD anyway, they analyse the game, something that some people find helps them understand it better, I haven''t watched more than 2/3 of them in the last two years. But as you point our we''re ''amateurs'' so surely it''s definitely worthy to have a professional give their view? If you don''t thnkmso then you don''t have to watch, like you don''t so it''s all fine.

And your the second person in this thread to mention you pay for a huge organisation. If anything is meaningless it''s one individuals contribution to a football club, or licence fee pausing MOTDs presenters ''millions''. It''s certainly not a noteworthy point to make as part of your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be wrong, but I think Beeb are limited as to how much highlight action they are allowed to show.Cut out the pointless ''expert opinions'' and the show would be half as long - that''s a pretty good option!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally I prefer to listen to the opinions of proven professionals who know what they are talking about than read the opinions on here by people who think they know what they are talking about.I do not always agree with the opinions stated but hey! ........ that''s football.I still find it interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My real point was it is in most M O Ds it is far to long on punditry if they are not allowed to show more footy,lets have a nice short prog or combine it with the league show and cut out more overpaid presenters and pundits.just what is the cost of having these opinions which at the end of the day wont change the score of the game,what we all enjoy is the game not mindless conversation,we can get that on here,at work or at the pub for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is pigman, clearly people do enjoy the mindless conversation otherwise the programme wouldn''t be on.
BBC, Sky Sports, BT Sport and all the others don''t decide to pay pundits for fun. They pay them because people watch. Even though the BBC doesn''t have advertisers giving them money and dictating content, they still have ratings and adjust shows and their content because they have a limited income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if you didn''t have the presenter and pundits, and show format. People wouldn''t bother tuning in.
They''d just find highlights online. Quite clearly MOTD is a big part of the Premiership and how fans of this league watch their football. I remember when the highlight show moved over to ITV, it wasn''t half as good and people didn''t like it. Sure there is stuff to moan about with MOTD, but thats half the fun.
If they had a show with no presenter and no pundits they wouldn''t get half  the viewers, and they would probably just cut the show as it wouldn''t be financially viable for them to pay for the rights to show the highlights when people just go online or watch Sky Sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
people certainly don''t watch it for the punditry, they watch it because its become part of their routine, the fact that THEIR team is on TV as well as the its got the best players in the league (although that is debatable). People probably want to see the analysis after the game to a degree, but by two ex pro''s who state the obvious and have nothing good to say....but I could be wrong, if you like watching two miserable gits complaining about how we won comfortably but are rubbish by all means speak up. I would just prefer ! person in the studio, I don''t want a false discussion about how hard Berbatov works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn''t a show with no pundits really what you get in the Championship, when basically you just had the front man to introduce segments, Lizzie to read out a few viewers'' comments, and didn''t you have Steve Claridge making a few sensible blokish comments?  And then highlights of a couple of games and goals from all the rest.  Which was fine by me, except that the coverage for any one team is minimal, inevitable really when you''re covering 3 divisions although I always felt we got less coverage than was merited on our league performance.

 

My main gripes about MOTD are that it shows too little of the game and too much chat, and the analysis is generally extremely weak.  MOTD2 has often been better but as Danny Mills showed, it''s down to the individual pundits and it is possible for it to be worse than Shearer and co.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Ginger why to do people enjoy mindless punditry and as for people who do view can the BBC tell if we record a prog rather than watch it at the time,mostly I will record it and watch half hour later,so lets have a new question how many of you record it and miss the sh*t bits.The BBC cant know how many would watch it without punditry because they have never tried it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over here, the NBC Sports version of Match of the Day suffers from terrible editing, and previews of what''s coming next heading into commercial breaks.

The problem is the preview is usually a goal and so you''ve seen the action already :-( And the editing is terrible because it''s totally disjointed from the flow of the game. So for example, someone is shown taking a free kick and scoring from that, but there is no footage leading up to the free kick, so all in all, while it''s not a bad attempt, its a fail.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The BBC paid £180 million for rights to show Premier League highlights for 3 years. Unfortunately despite the high price paid they are very limited in the amount of highlights that they can actually show by Sky. I would estimate that they only show 10 minutes of actual game time once you take out the pre match filler, numerous replays and after game interviews.They need to pad this out to 75 minutes to justify the very large price paid for such a limited package. Personally I thing it could be cut down to 45 minutes without any great loss of content.I watch MOTD despite of and not because of the "experts" and having recorded it whizz through the thoughts and pre prepared expert spoutings of Shearer, Mills, Dixon, Kilbane and various other ex players on fast forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s not really an experiment we can run, but I would wager that getting rid of pundits would make no difference to the viewing figures. The closest the UK ever got to that though was when ITV had the highlights wasn''t it? Ad breaks reducing "analysis" time.I record it and forward through to the City match then come back to any match of interest. If we win I like to bask in the reflected glory of what the pundits say (...or moan at them for giving us no credit...) and I couldn''t care less who say what if we lost.As for wasting money look no further than Robbie f ck ng Savage doing tactical analysis. Give me strength. The people who made that decision must have a sense of humour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it doesn''t matter what the viewing figures are. Like you say, it will be the same. Lots of people watch it, but nobody likes to be patronised by Robbie Savage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...