[IanFergus]

It will be interesting to see the ratings for this Saturday compared with a Saturday, say, one month ago.

[IanFergus]

Originally Posted by DragonQ

On ONE out of FOUR BBC channels and 50+ other channels. What is the problem?

Let him go, he's just trolling.

[Glenn A]

The BBC's coverage is very good and very comprehensive with experts like John Mc Enroe in the team. Also they got brownie points from me last night for playing Sporting Occasion at the end.

[Charenton]

Originally Posted by mossy2103

And likewise did a minority of the public watch BGT or X Factor.

And the Casualty ratings for example on BBC one rarely go above 5.5 million (as do many other BBC one Saturday evening programmes these days), somewhat less than your minority interest tennis which has now been switched to your self-styled minority interest channel BBC Two.

Time that you had a reality check I think.

A spectacular missing of the point, especially with respect to PSB (which is exactly what the BBC should be doing), and with respect to ratings (which, as you seem to be saying, the BBC should not be chasing)

A Public Service Broadcaster? You must be joking. And yes, the BBC should not be chasing ratings. They get their income whatever rubbish they screen, What's more, the majority of their income comes from people like who has no interest whatsoever in tennis.

I think it's you that needs the reality check.

[LOSG]

I could understand if the BBC covered the full ATP and WTA tours in the same way they do Wimbledon. But the way people go on is unbelievable.

I have "no interest whatsoever" in the voice but it certainly didn't bother me that it was on, nor the money they spent on it. Other people enjoyed it so good for them. I simply watched something else.

[Jules 1]

Originally Posted by T Penery

Going back to the lottery possibly moving. It was moved to BBC Two in 2005 because of BBC One showing Andy Murray vs David Nalbandian in the third round instead. Murray lost the match...

which he didn't yesterday.

[only mentioned this because of your reply to me in the other thread]

[LostFool]

Originally Posted by GeorgeS

I presume employment law will be an issue too if they want to play beyond 11pm. Employment law severly restricts under 16's working beyond that time so unless Boris wants to become a ball boy, Murray will have to retrieve his own balls.

Are the ball boys/girls actually employed (i.e. paid) or are they volunteers? Does that make any difference to the law?

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Hewjars

The ridiculous blanket coverage of Wimbledon every year really gets on my tits. The BBC should realise that not everyone really gives a tuppeny one about tennis and yet they mention it on every other program both TV and radio.
They must have known the miserable sweaty would be on last night so why on earth did they schedule two new series to start.

The draw doesn't come out until a few days before the tournament starts and the daily schedule isn't decided until the evening before. It's also a sport that's can have the schedule disrupted by the weather and where matches aren't a set time so how could they know an plan. Even on the day they would have expected the matches to have been finished before 9pm

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Charenton

My point is a minority of the British public watched the tennis. With this in mind the tennis should have been switched to the minority BBC2 channel and BBC1 left as programmed. Anyone interested could have switched channels. Live tennis and tennis highlights were already scheduled for BBC2 from 6.10pm to 9.00pm. The only programme that would have been affected was "The Hollow Crown", the first of four Shakespeare adaptations. I doubt people were coming home from the pub to watch that.

It was done to make viewing figures for the main channel look good.

The Hallow Crown is slightly more important than Casualty so ofc it was going to get preferential treatment over casualty.

[sn_22]

Originally Posted by Charenton

A Public Service Broadcaster? You must be joking. And yes, the BBC should not be chasing ratings. They get their income whatever rubbish they screen, What's more, the majority of their income comes from people like who has no interest whatsoever in tennis.

The majority of the BBC's income also comes from people who have no interest whatsoever in Casualty. Or EastEnders. Or the National Lottery. Or any other programme the BBC screens.

One one hand, you tell us "the BBC shouldn't chase ratings". And on the other, you tell us they shouldn't be showing stuff people have no interest in. Er... square that circle...

[Mark F]

Bascially peoplle are selfish in situations like this!

They only want what they like...

How did people cope before Sky/ and other digital platforms?

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by Charenton

A Public Service Broadcaster? You must be joking.

No, deadly serious actually, and something that you have already acknowledged when you posted

The only programme that would have been affected was "The Hollow Crown", the first of four Shakespeare adaptations. I doubt people were coming home from the pub to watch that.

And yes, the BBC should not be chasing ratings.

Again, something that you have already acknowledged when you posted

The only programme that would have been affected was "The Hollow Crown", the first of four Shakespeare adaptations. I doubt people were coming home from the pub to watch that.

And if tehy are showing stuff that people are not interested in then they cannot be chasing ratings can they. Your argument is now coming apart.

They get their income whatever rubbish they screen

Stop it, you are cracking me up with your odd logic and threadbare argument. Maybe you were referring to rubbish when you posted

The only programme that would have been affected was "The Hollow Crown", the first of four Shakespeare adaptations. I doubt people were coming home from the pub to watch that.

What's more, the majority of their income comes from people like who has no interest whatsoever in tennis.

And from people who have no interest in soaps, no interest in Casualty, no interest in Shakespeare, no interest in stand-up comedy, no interest in science documentaries, no interest in nature documentaries, no interest in .... well, lots of things. It's a good job that it attempts to cater for all them by providing a wide range of programmes across its channels.

I think it's you that needs the reality check.

I think that you are deluding yourself there mate. You have already made a fool of yourself with a series of points that don't stack up. But hey, who am I to spoil your fun.

[bluesdiamond]

Originally Posted by hallstar

And it is not very often that the Olympics happen in UK primetime. In the last 20 years this is the only the 3rd year that they have taken place in a timezone that suits UK primetime. (92 Barcelona / 04 Athens)

will disagree slightly here taking Athletics and some approx guessing here
92 Barcelona +1 hour so in effect the evening session of Athletics is primetime UK
96 Atlanta approx -6 Early Athletics maybe 10am - 1pm so would run into primetime.
00 Sydney + 10, some late nights at weekends (rowing anyone?) But a lot more overnight events
04 Athens +2 and again is into prime time
08 Beijing +8 another lot of over nights running into breakfast. lot so of live stuff as we had breakfast at work and before late shift was good times

Of course some people do confuse Olympics and Commonwealth Games
1994 Hamilton Canada so like Atlanta could be overspill of day sessions into prime time
1998 Kuala Lumper guess about +7 hours so live would finish mid afternoon
2002 Manchester and yes it took over the schedules
2006 Melbourne more overnight drama
2010 Delhi about 5 hours ahead, but again most live stiff would be out of the way by 8pm

So I would guess
Olympics have spilled into Prime 3 out of 5
Commonwealths 2 of 5

note some events would start earlier like rowing at 2012 starts 9am, think marathons have started early like 8am but that would only bring the Olympics/Commonwealths into the 10pm-midnight time frame.

[F1Ken]

Originally Posted by mossy2103

No, deadly serious actually, and something that you have already acknowledged when you posted

Again, something that you have already acknowledged when you posted

And if tehy are showing stuff that people are not interested in then they cannot be chasing ratings can they. Your argument is now coming apart.

Stop it, you are cracking me up with your odd logic and threadbare argument. Maybe you were referring to rubbish when you posted


And from people who have no interest in soaps, no interest in Casualty, no interest in Shakespeare, no interest in stand-up comedy, no interest in science documentaries, no interest in nature documentaries, no interest in .... well, lots of things. It's a good job that it attempts to cater for all them by providing a wide range of programmes across its channels.


I think that you are deluding yourself there mate. You have already made a fool of yourself with a series of points that don't stack up. But hey, who am I to spoil your fun.

Very well argued.

What the man need's to understand is that the BBC offers something for every one. Drama,Sport,Comedy,Factual you name it the BBC does it. If you look at the BBC's reach figures I think you will find that it backs me up.

But at the end off the day people who hate the BBC are to blind to realise how lucky we are.

Ken

[Straker]

Pic quality on red button gets worse - I can barely see the ball until it gets to the near side of the net and to add insult to injury the bloody sound is out of synch as well!!

[FBI]

5 Live's coverage - the main presenters - deary, deary me

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by Straker

Pic quality on red button gets worse - I can barely see the ball until it gets to the near side of the net and to add insult to injury the bloody sound is out of synch as well!!

As I said elsewhere, the Red Button stream is broadcast at a lower resolution than that of the main SD channels. Therefore it will look worse (and of course, people will complain about it even if they have suggested that the Red Button be used).

[James Martin 2]

So, Murray's playing later. Does this mean it's getting switched to One?

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by James Martin 2

So, Murray's playing later. Does this mean it's getting switched to One?

As he will not be on Centre Court, and as prolonged rain is due, I doubt that the question will arise.

[willowfan]

Originally Posted by mossy2103

As I said elsewhere, the Red Button stream is broadcast at a lower resolution than that of the main SD channels. Therefore it will look worse (and of course, people will complain about it even if they have suggested that the Red Button be used).

I've given up on Freeview red button/301 and watch any match not in the main programme coverage on the BBC Sport app via PS3, which has the added advantage of showing all available matches at a superior picture quality.

[Alex2606]

Originally Posted by mossy2103

As I said elsewhere, the Red Button stream is broadcast at a lower resolution than that of the main SD channels. Therefore it will look worse (and of course, people will complain about it even if they have suggested that the Red Button be used).

This is different, I've watched plenty of Wimbledon so far on the Red Button on Freeview and the PQ today is noticeably different to what it has been so far through the tournament

[mikw]

Originally Posted by Straker

Pic quality on red button gets worse - I can barely see the ball until it gets to the near side of the net and to add insult to injury the bloody sound is out of synch as well!!

You want to try ITV4's coverage of British SuperBikes for awful picture quality, it looks like a mosaic......

[_SpeedRacer_]

They're currently showing the same match on BBC1 and 2

[StargateNerd_24]

Not now though

[mossy2103]

Sounds like they were in between matches on one of the televised courts, so rather than show an empty court or some talking heads (despised by some), they chose to show some action from the other televised court.