BBC Football coverage, list problems here

they should show the clock on highlights.

yeah i've never understood this. i always thought it was some kind of tradition.

apparently it's because on motd they recut the action from multiple cameras with the benefit of hindsight, rather than use the live feed. that means shots are occasionally shown out of order on motd. so if they just took the timecode, the clock would very occasionally jump backward.

the thing i don't get about motd2 is that post-chiles it seems to have become more like a shitty internet forum, with 'lol moustaches' and 'lol old' instead of insight and whatnot. and the thing they don't seem to understand is people can get the highlights anywhere, people are going to tune in for insight. when the nani thing happened this weekend, people wanted to know what was said about it - they'd already seen it.

this is EXACTLY otm. and like, now that you can watch motd2 on iplayer for the first time, how many of you just flick to the highlights and ignore the analysis. people can get everything for free at the moment, music, video, whatever, you have to really fight to make them give a toss about your added content, eg the opinion of some "experts". i totally agree motd2 is now sort of just vague "lol".

MOTD used to actually be enjoyable to watch, and it'd have some semblance of a discussion and I'd want to hear what they said about Liverpool or whatever, but it's got quite poor like that. I don't get why they don't try and copy the RTE model, as much as that's flawed too people would fucking love it. Get some people who will actually get annoyed about their beliefs in football.

x-post haha ailsa I read chick young's column just to laugh at how bad it is!

x-post to matt no but they did hire colin murray, and they are going for a more tame tepid version of the same. i'd actually tolerate it more if it was just the unabashed WHO ARE YA of soccer am but they're trying to meld together the fucking kaiser chiefs and a decent football show...or robbie williams and mark lawrenson.

Some xposting there

Maybe not "gimmicky" as such, but certainly blokey and lolz and stuff, more so than blokes in suits discussing things earnestly (the latter being what I reckon people like my old man who doesn't have the internet would want?) - this makes for shit analysis, if I want lolz I'll come here (also for more insightful analysis than I get from MOTD, tbf). As a result, I rarely go out of my way to watch it these days - I tend to watch highlights online then read analysis/blogs from various places (including here), so it's not really a gap I need filled, but when I do watch, it adds precisely nothing to my viewing experience because they add nothing to what I've gleaned.

the only thing relating to motd/bbc coverage i have heard all season is hanson's challops when theo scored a hatrick. people tuned in for that and to hear them talk about the ability of a young english player. and then the week after when he again played terrifically (maybe that was the week he scored the hatrick) and to see what was to be said. again, it wasn't to see what theo did, it was about the analysis.

Only thing I really pay attention to is Tim Vickery's column but even waivering on that since they plastered his pornstar face all over it.

he is actually good yeah...tho running out of steam in terms of topics, at the start he was really interesting/informative.

they should show the clock on highlights

They can't do this because sometimes the editing is dishonest in order to get whatever narrative they're after, and the clock would flag it up too much. Couple of weeks back I put on Liverpool-Blackburn in the afternoon with an hour gone, saw Torres score immediately to make it 2-1, then saw Blackburn control the game but fail to create any decent chances. I posted on here that it seemed like a decent win but they still looked a bit ropey, andgot shouted down.

Saw motd2 a few days later, and what I got was wave after wave of Liverpool attacks, culminating in Torres' winner then cut to a jubilant Anfield. The entire last third of the game was missing. Liverpool looked sensational, and no wonder.

it's also very annoying when there's a goal between them and you don't know if there's 10 minutes or 30 seconds left

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqAZsoF-ghw

Brian Clough taking exactly the opposite view about analysis here. While I've got a bit of sympathy with where he in particular is coming from, there's a kind of anti-intellect bent to it (of the kind that often makes me feel I'm in love with the wrong sport)

I mentioned it in another thread, but Alan Hansen's "Who gave you that one?" to Lee Dixon after he rolled off a stat about Stoke made my blood boil. Happened during the World Cup, too.

The Goal Of The Month music is shite an' all.

happened the last night too

Think this came up elsewhere but maybe there's a problem with having the same old faces for so long. Hansen and Lineker have been there for over 15 years but it doesn't seem like they are any better at the job now than when they started, and maybe feel too safe and unchallenged.

two key words at the end there.

I don't like the no clock thing too and have always wondered about it.

The Scottish football highlights are odd in that they don't even bother trying to offer any kind of drama or tension. I guess it makes sense since they aren't shown till long afterwards (which is bad enough itself), but having a highlights show where games are prefaced in the studio with comments like "now let's see how St Johnstone held Aberdeen to a draw" and the highlights themselves having commentary moments like "but Aberdeen didn't keep their lead for long" in the runup to the goal it's talking about doesn't help anything.

a clock that just faded on and off at regular intervals would be good

Lineker is very, very good btw - you just don't notice so much because he's not particularly likeable. Lets the guests speak, knows his stuff, generally steers things in the right direction and only occasionally lets himself down by getting involved with the crap. It's not his fault the guests are usually terrible - he shows appropriate respect to the good ones.

lineker deserves a better panel than shearer or lawrenson, and i think it's widely accepted that hansen would quite clearly be fit to up his game were he challenged to actually debate or analyze anything whatsoever. he's settled into the easy contempt of the bright kid in the remedial class for so long now.

john giles would have him for breakfast.

Hansen used to be really good and much more angry/critical. I actually think if they gave Lawro a bit of a kick up the hole he's at least got a brain, you can tell he's capable of analysing a game to some level. Shearer is just a tragedy though, the man is just a huge wanker.

Would love to see Shearer with Giles and Dunphy....god that'd be amazing.

they should try and give o'neill a permanent role for a while...

Shearer is just a tragedy though, the man is just a huge wanker.

for some reason this is my favourite sentence of prose I've read today

In an earlier time I think Ronan might have used the word "brutal"

I agree about Lineker, he's very good at what he does. No idea how much is left on the cutting room floor of course.

On Lineker's 'what's wrong with English football' thing when they showed footage of them watching Klose's goal, I was a bit shocked that Shearer was the one ranting and raving while everyone else just looked glum and deathly quiet. I guess I think of him as having so little personality that seeing him caring about something was a surprise.

just hates foreigners imo

and no lawrenson is a brainless gobshite, i don't think there's anything he's got in reserve or anything. his other media work just backs that up

Lineker is very, very good btw - you just don't notice so much because he's not particularly likeable. Lets the guests speak, knows his stuff, generally steers things in the right direction and only occasionally lets himself down by getting involved with the crap. It's not his fault the guests are usually terrible - he shows appropriate respect to the good ones.

― Ismael Klata, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:39 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

lineker deserves a better panel than shearer or lawrenson, and i think it's widely accepted that hansen would quite clearly be fit to up his game were he challenged to actually debate or analyze anything whatsoever. he's settled into the easy contempt of the bright kid in the remedial class for so long now.

both of these posts otm.

another problem to list - saying teams have scored on the live updates when they haven't. jeez is it that hard to only type goal updates and score changes WHEN SOMEONE ACTUALLY SCORES?

the live updates are terrible, if you compare the bbc one to the guardian one you see loads of incidents are missed, not to mention the fact that they sometimes leave huge gaps before updating it...

they are pretty much illiterate too. i mean i know it's live, but the guardian manages to remain coherent. and they're the guardian.

mind you that bloke doing bolton liverpool on saturday, that was all over the place, errors everywhere. they have a sub working with them as well at bbc so it's two people fucking up...i think they have it completely arseways tbh, they want newspaper experience for the people who do that job. all they need is people who are used to watching matches and feverishly typing on facebook/forums...

hot damn

haha, did your sky interview already happen? any news?xp

haha it's true tho, why on earth would you seek old media people to do such a colloquial and fun job. prob explains why most of them are like if that old beepy thing on grandscreen could form sentences.

interview is friday...i'm fucked with a chest infection but it might be breaking a bit hopefully, i haven't been able to think about it much cos of that but now that it's easing feeling quite confident. actually heard today got an interview with the guardian as well (just to ensure i've slagged off every potential employer here) in a few weeks, but it's not a sport related role.

well good luck!

there is a thread for slagging the guardian off more generally on ILE if that would be useful?

yeah i'm there plenty, i'm scared they'll ask if i use comment is free, i might delete my account beforehand so they don't see me making endless juvenile remarks about articles...

actually thinking about the updates thing...it's probably as slow it as it is because the first guy writes it, the second guy checks it, he then sends a copy to the bbc lawyers who forward it to text rights, then it is filtered through the bip system and must be signed off manually by tvc security.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/9156977.stm

the headline for this on the main page "managerial greats, are they a dying breed."

real clever there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_9160000/newsid_9162600/9162687.stm

lawro out of his comfort zone. not actually as funny as it could have been (since everyone funny has been fired) but still funny seeing lawro in this mode...

how'd it go ronan?

Yo sam thanks for asking, i posted a tiny bit of this on ile, it went largely well but was really weird.

I expected a full on interrogation type deal like you'd get in BBC but it was really informal and nice. Made me worry they'd already given the job away except they spent ages talking about what it's like to work there etc. Loads of it was them selling/reassuring me about the job.

Then I had to do a subbing test in the middle with a sports news script and I cut it down a lot and removed all the kerrazy mistakes. There was one about cricket tho where I knew it was a mistake but didn't know the exact right year.

I mean overall it went great in that I was well able to answer everything they asked. I guess personally I'd rather if they'd been harsher as I'd have had more chance to show my skills. I guess maybe they are happier to take your cv at face value than the beeb.

They did show me around the office too at the end. I guess the relaxed feel either means they've already decided I can do the job or as I said, already given it away!

There's two jobs going, one permanent and one freelance. Permanent would be pretty amazing and would avoid what happened to me at BBC ever happening again.

I've noticed there's a kind of MOTD hierarchy of importance - Chelsea, Man U and Arsenal all get lengthy, above-the-fold treatment; the stage is set with a narrative introduction beforehand and highlights are followed by video playback and analysis. Then a fourth club gets a half-hearted version of this. Then you get an absolutely peremptory, moronic intro to the next match ("X have won two in a row..... while Y are unbeaten at home this year!" FFS); the remaining matches are shown with no intro, no analysis, only goals or shots on goal.

Is it just because I is American, or does it strike anyone else as strange that the pan-UK BBC dedicates the lion's share of each MOTD to the same three or four teams every single show? Would it be heresy to suggest trimming the top four condensed games by a minute or so each, so as to offer better highlights from ALL the games and a bit more analysis of them? Sure, Wigan's not a big-market team but it's a show about the Premier League - they need to be in there properly surely!

dude you've forgotten basic capitalism 101

it's the BBC! they don't have the same pressures! there are LEAGUE games (in the following five-hour League show) that get more attention than many Premier League games

It's funny, but I never used to notice the hierarchy until a couple of years back when somebody made a big thing of their team always being on last. Now any suspense the show had is totally ruined for me - if Chelsea-Fulham is on before Man Utd-Everton it's obvious Chelsea must've had a shock defeat. At least if Blackburn-Wolves is up first it gives due notice that there must've been a death, so you can look away if squeamish.

it's at least 7 and a half hours long

also lol klata

the consequence of MOTD's top-heaviness is that when any of the Big Clubs play any of the other clubs (which is all the time) there's no narrative there. Lineker and others need to tell the story of the smaller clubs, build a narrative beyond "beset by injuries of late" or "best start to the season since 2001". in any given game there are at least 24 stories to be told.

the football league show is even worse btw - they tend to give 20 minutes to a big championship game, 15 minutes to a big league one game, 20 minutes to claridge, manish + lizzie doing their vapid thing, and about 30 seconds to every other game

here's an idea: every game gets 3 good minutes, there is no presenter

in fact, slate ITV all you like but this ^^^ was kinda how they did the football league in the late 90s/early 00s

My favorite thing about the League show is Manish's tight black trousers and his incredibly awkward "just standing around" pose

Also the inexplicable WALKS he takes down the motel corridors that line the upper section of whatever airplane hangar they're in. "Oh hello..." I half expect him to be zipping up his tight black trousers at the beginning of the shot. "Excuse me! Just popped in for a quickie"

I still haven't forgiven him for his presentation of the 2007 Cricket World Cup. Yeah he's improved as a broadcaster since then but he's still a mudskipper clambering out of the marsh on the sports correspondent evolutionary chain.

Ah, shame, good guy. RIP Jimmy.

LIVE FA Cup - De Bruyne with cheeky free-kick v Cardiff

FFS! If only he had attempted a deferential free-kick, cos I hate that word.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-45194443

literally end the bbc here

privatised, shut down, fucked off. over.

AHAHAHA LOOK IT'S NOLE GALLAGER I WROTE A "JOEK" ABOUT DEFINITELY MAYBE THAT WAS WORTH EDITING IN

cunts

Oh, well, OK, Sutton was talking about the Premier League. But I refuse to recognise that backstop, which exists in these discussions simply to excuse people with no sense/knowledge of history.

— Richard Williams (@rwilliams1947) February 7, 2019

the former old grey whistle test presenter mugging off Chris Sutton goodstyle!

RW is a contributor to Mark S's book and was at the launch party a few weeks back. I regret not having a word with him. He seems like a righteous fellow.

Sutton doing the clod-hopping football shock jock thing is currently vying with zombie Humphrys as the worst thing about BBC radio.

I like him a lot, despite him stanning for Nicola Sturgeon! It's probably counter to everything ILM/ILX represents but I liked his music blog (that is currently on hiatus) as well. His knowledge of 70'/80's footballers is unfuckwithable and he seems to realise it actually existed before Murdoch. Yeah and that fucking high-octane talksport twat style of punditry that is so prevalent these days - he's about as far opposite of *that* as it gets.

Tim otm, out-Savaging Savage is no way to go thru life

we have this twat (ex-goalie matt glennon) as a summariser on local bbc radio, and he's done the same course I think.

god I just want make clear I was repping for RW in xxp in case it sounds like CS.

That was clear.

Though the idea that you're an avid reader of Chris Sutton's music blog is a happy one.

The only thing I don't like about RW's blog was that he kept reviewing great-sounding shows that happened within a mile of our flat and the first I heard of it would be his review.

virgil van dijk is great tho

I don't have words for the degree of my contempt for the cunt Lawrenson

Hard to tell what he despises more - football or being alive

'Brighton beat Leicester in seven-goal thriller'

A seven-goal thriller is 4-3 you tossers, this is canon

Idk there is a certain intrigue to watching a team desperately chasing a fifth so as not to have won 4-2, which as I will elucidate in the coming paragraphs is the most embarrassing scoreline to wi

fair fucks

It was mostly a battering though for real

One less problem, one less member of the Liverpool FC mafia and one less jaded miserable git sucking all the joy out of whatever game he's commenting on.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/09/24/mark-lawrenson-axed-bbc-65-year-old-white-male/

Mark Lawrenson was sacked by the BBC because he was a 65 year old white man... who travelled the world to commentate on the greatest fixtures in sport but did it in the style of a performance art piece about a miserable depressive hermit utterly consumed by a hated of football.

— Europe's Leading Soccer Futurologist (@TreborRhurbarb) September 25, 2022

Some aspects of BBC soccer coverage have worsened over time. I'm not convinced that Lawro going is part of that, though.

Greatest Lawro moment anyone? For me it's a game early in the 2018 world cup, where a French player was down injured, and our man witheringly diagnosed a 'dislocated shoelace'