World Cup Coverage

[Ian Royal]

It's not a simple fact. They did it for years and there are now more digital channels availble to use for it.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

It's not a simple fact. They did it for years and there are now more digital channels availble to use for it.

But their programming and priorities have changed. They are simply not prepared to give put a whole day's cricket guaranteed priority over everything else. Keep gainsaying it as much as you like, but I'll keep repeating it because it;s just true. The free-to-air channels have other priorities than to devote so much uninterrupted and guaranteed airtime to sport.

I could write you an 800 word deconstruction of the reasons for this, but frankly I cba

[Tony Le Mesmer]

So yet another tournament ruined by the like of Mark Lawrenson and Andy Townsend.

The sooner a dedicated channel gets the coverage the better. I have given up watching any games covered by ITV or BBC and normally end up listening in the Radio instead.

[LUX]

there has to be a cull soon. Look, I am old, but having Lawro and co just makes no sense any longer. We need more recent ex-players, who can talk, who are interesting. It's OK for cricket to have the likes of Boycott, but Lawro is a legend nowhere. Don't get me started on ITV. Even Soccer Saturday on Sky needs that cull. Pinoccio Thompson for a start. Probably Charlie Nicholas too


Vialli, Klinsmann and (grudgingly) Gary Neville are the way forward.

[stealthpapes]

That's the bit that bothers me - do people really watch MotD etc for the pundits? What the oxf*rd do they have to lose by trying to have someone a bit more knowledgeable talking about the game? Are a million people going to switch off because they're using a vocabulary bigger than "he's a top, top player"? I honestly doubt it.

I like this clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOOjHrJw3os

the other two have literally nothing intelligent to add.

[stealthpapes]

FWIW, its precisely that that annoys me most

They have nothing smart to say, so rather than stay silent, they crack awkward jokes. At least Mick McCarthy is self aware to mock himself with it.

Same as Lawro - he doesn't pretend to research the teams England are playing and basically resorts to cliches that were unbearable in the mid80s. I remember him watching Macedonia drawing 0-0 with England and they were keeping the ball down and passing it about and he came out with "this lot can play a bit".

They're all professionals.
They're all playing in top flight teams around Europe, albeit not in England (although one might have played for West Brom).

Of course they can play a bit.

[sandman]

Lawro knows more than he lets on tbf and is probably the best out of the studio regulars because he's the only one of them who goes out to do commentary for the radio etc and therefore watch games.

[LUX]

Lawro knows more than he lets on tbf

well, that's no fcking use, is it

[Bandini]

Plus they (BBC2) were prone to cutting away from important passages of play to cover the 2.45 from Newton Abbot

Sky's cricket coverage has been excellent. Crucially, they have never employed Tony Lewis.

[LUX]

yes, Sky has been great for most sports.

Channel 4 was also good for the cricket.

[Barry the bird boggler]

Cricket, the only "sport" where it's possible to actually fall asleep while you're "playing".

[6ft Kerplunk]

Lawro knows more than he lets on tbf

well, that's no fcking use, is it

LOL, has nobody explained to Lawro what a pundit is supposed to do.

[TBM]

Do people honestly watch BBC/ITV football for the pundits though? - i would rather it be free than having to pay just cos you get better pundits

[stealthpapes]

Lawro knows more than he lets on tbf

well, that's no fcking use, is it

exactly.

"I'll just pretend to be a fucking moron."

[stealthpapes]

Do people honestly watch BBC/ITV football for the pundits though? - i would rather it be free than having to pay just cos you get better pundits

I don't, so why can't BBC spend a bit of time bringing in different people with different points of view? Or, perhaps, ones that know a bit more about football than "Premiership. Best league in the world".

It'd probably turn out to be cheaper as well.

[sandman]

He doesn't do it wholly on purpose he's just got so used to larking around it disguises the fact he knows a fair bit more.

Quotes like "this lot can play a bit" is so obviously a tongue in cheek joke on the Pro-England hype of every major tournament I'm surprised people get wound up by it.

[stealthpapes]

Yeah, obviously.

[stealthpapes]

sadly, I can't find the clip of him on Question of Sport getting Chamakh mixed up with Gervinho.

It was clearly a tongue-in-cheek jibe about all africans looking the same.

[winchester_royal]

Do people honestly watch BBC/ITV football for the pundits though? - i would rather it be free than having to pay just cos you get better pundits

It's not like it would cost the BBC more to get in better pundits though. The amount they pay to the likes of Hansen and Linekar for their 'services' is extortionate.

[sandman]

Look all I'm telling you is that it's generally acknowledged that Lawro knows a fair bit more than most of the BBC lot because rather than being on the golf course on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon he watches live games and commentates for the radio etc.

Tbf Probably got Chamakh and Gervinho mixed up because they're both shit.