another example of the lack of knowledge BBC co-comms & pundits have, believing the Premier League is the be all and end all. Further illustrated when you see the likes of Shearer and Savage flanked by Seedorf & Henry
What has Seedorf to do with the Premier League? He has played in Brazil, but never in England.
Is there a reason why Tyldesley has to constantly get Manchester United references into his commentaries even when he isn't doing their games?
He seems to be obsessed.
Is there a reason why Tyldesley has to constantly get Manchester United references into his commentaries even when he isn't doing their games?
He seems to be obsessed.
An important lesson for all commentators, commentate on what the viewers at home can see.
I don't think I can agree with that - they should be aware of what the viewers can see, but I also know exactly what I'm watching so I don't necessarily need the action described to me all the time. That's the radio commentators' job. I appreciate being told what the commentator can see and I can't, even if it's as simple as which substitute is getting ready to come on.
It is irritating, you're right. I don't know how he can still be supporting them during a Germany v Portugal game that he has to bring them them into the conversation on numerous occasions.
I don't think I can agree with that - they should be aware of what the viewers can see, but I also know exactly what I'm watching so I don't necessarily need the action described to me all the time. That's the radio commentators' job. I appreciate being told what the commentator can see and I can't, even if it's as simple as which substitute is getting ready to come on.
Indeed off-tube commentaries often show up confusion over whether a goal has been awarded or not during replays when an in stadium commentator has the advantage of seeing whether players are moving to the centre circle.
I think it reasonable to assume the big screen would have showed a clear judgement identical to what the viewer at home sees. The confusion at the sidelines and amongst the crowd was also clear for all to see.
What sort of idiot does that? They need to have their internet/phone access away for their own good.
I think Neville is handling this well. He was on 5Live this afternoon taking the criticism with good, self deprecating humour. The content of what he was saying was fine so there's no reason to believe he can't be a very good co commentator in time. I'd take him over Townsend or Lawrenson for sure. He recognises he should work on his delivery and he will get it right.
Absolutely agree. Phil Neville's content was very good. His broadcasting skills were less good but to me the content is the more important out of the two and the broadcasting is easier to work on. Of course you'd ideally have both but at least Neville has one of the two - in my view Lawrenson and Townsend pretty much have neither. I think the reaction has been a pretty sad reflection of the times really.
Indeed off-tube commentaries often show up confusion over whether a goal has been awarded or not during replays when an in stadium commentator has the advantage of seeing whether players are moving to the centre circle.
I think it reasonable to assume the big screen would have showed a clear judgement identical to what the viewer at home sees. The confusion at the sidelines and amongst the crowd was also clear for all to see.
Oh Pearce was definitely unlucky in some respects, no question. He was also unfortunate that that was just the worst of a few 'mistakes' which combined to make it a tough night for him.
But I meant my point more generally, that (at least for those viewers who have decent football knowledge) it's nice to get a broader view of what's happening at any given time. That's why I get irritated by the likes of Townsend and Clarke Carlisle (amongst many others), because so often they're only telling me things I could have comfortably worked out for myself.
Oh Pearce was definitely unlucky in some respects, no question. He was also unfortunate that that was just the worst of a few 'mistakes' which combined to make it a tough night for him.
But I meant my point more generally, that (at least for those viewers who have decent football knowledge) it's nice to get a broader view of what's happening at any given time. That's why I get irritated by the likes of Townsend and Clarke Carlisle (amongst many others), because so often they're only telling me things I could have comfortably worked out for myself.
I was broadly agreeing with the points you made. Should probably have quoted the same post you did.
What has Seedorf to do with the Premier League? He has played in Brazil, but never in England.
Seedorf has nothing to do with the Premier League. My point was BBC's usual pundits, Shearer, Savage, Hansen (when he's on), Owen, Lawrenson etc have very limited knowledge on the world game, it's all about the Premier League and those foreigners who play in it. By contrast, the likes of Seedorf, Henry, Vieira on ITV offer so much more (IMHO)
BBC highlights of Switzerland-Ecuador were voiced by Dave Woods. Footage of France's 'controversial' 2nd goal edited to try to do Jonathan Pearce a bit of a favour...
Edited still further on this morning's highlights show where they just cut out the "NO GOAL" bit entirely and just started it from the keeper fumbling it, with "the goal has been given" put in from somewhere. As mentioned, Roder sounded a bit confused as well, but of course unlike Pearce we didn't get to hear if he then spent ten minutes talking about it, which was the big problem.
The article actually contains a direct quote from the BBC:
"In a statement, the BBC said: “Phil is an important, well respected member of our team and will continue to play a key role throughout the tournament, both as a studio guest and match commentator.”"
I wouldn't have thought the BBC would make such a statement if Neville had decided before the start that he would be returning to the UK after the group stage.
Well, that could mean all kind of things, it could easily mean he's going to go home but pre-record a few bits for later about his favourite goals and so on. In this context it's simply the Beeb saying they're not going to rid of him right now, given they're responding to the various complaints demanding his imminent removal. If they'd said "he'll be part of our coverage for the next week or so" that would just cause more kerfuffle, everyone would start saying Phil's been sacked.
Course, if Twitter had been around ten years ago I don't doubt we'd have got a similar number of complaints, if not more, about Bobby Robson's co-comentary on England for ITV where, fine man though he was, he was totally unsuitable for the role and was still talking about incidents ages after they happened.
on sky sports news, they interviewed Alan Smith whos he working for if anyone?
Well, he's got a column in the Telgraph, maybe they've subsidised his travel and he's combining appearances on Sky Sports News with a few articles and some stuff for sponsors. When people complain about the Beeb and ITV sending too many people out, most of their pundits have got other commercial interests like sponsorship and newspaper columns so presumably they make some kind of contribution to their expenses.
Indeed off-tube commentaries often show up confusion over whether a goal has been awarded or not during replays when an in stadium commentator has the advantage of seeing whether players are moving to the centre circle.
Of course, a great example of a commentary going wrong in similar circumstances to Pearce last night was a year ago in the U21 Chanmpionships, where Martin Tyler announced an England goal and then only two minutes later did he realise it had been ruled out. Smaller audience, smaller competition, of course, so much less of an outcry, but equally embarrassing for all concerned. Especially as someone should have noticed they hadn't kicked off.
Seedorf has nothing to do with the Premier League. My point was BBC's usual pundits, Shearer, Savage, Hansen (when he's on), Owen, Lawrenson etc have very limited knowledge on the world game, it's all about the Premier League and those foreigners who play in it. By contrast, the likes of Seedorf, Henry, Vieira on ITV offer so much more (IMHO)
Well, given their regular job is to comment on the Premier League, of course they're going to know more about that. The point of getting people like Seedorf and Henry in is to get a different perspective when they're at the World Cup. The same is true the other way round. I know this sounds a bit like Andy Gray's classic "Could they do it on a wet Tuesday night in Stoke", but could they do it on a wet Sunday night in Salford? In our league? In the Barclays Premier League?
Absolutely agree. Phil Neville's content was very good. His broadcasting skills were less good but to me the content is the more important out of the two and the broadcasting is easier to work on. Of course you'd ideally have both but at least Neville has one of the two - in my view Lawrenson and Townsend pretty much have neither. I think the reaction has been a pretty sad reflection of the times really.
Fair enough on the broadcasting point - but he was awful at the broadcasting part and really the most watched game of the tournament so far shouldn't be where you put someone who is that inexperienced at co-commentary or who may 'need work'.
I'm normally quite forgiving on pundits (or at least a few of them) and I'm sure with more practice Phil would improve on co-commentary (and fair play to him for taking the criticism well and seeming a nice bloke) but it was still a silly decision to put him on a game like that and he really was awful - he was speaking so quickly at points and mumbling and in such a monotone voice that I couldn't catch much of what he was saying.
And to be fair I think people are entitled to criticise and you can't expect the general reaction to be 'oh, he'll get better so fair enough' especially since it was such a high profile role on such a well-watched game. I do think the BBC have some explaining to do though - fair enough taking a 'risk' on co-commentary but it didn't pay off (whereas Sky's normally do). I don't think the reaction has been too extreme really - I'd say the reaction on DS at points to ITV's scoreboard was OTT though.
Why has there been more attention from Clive and Andy on Ronaldo than Germany's excellent play?
Clive does seem obsessed with Rooney and Ronaldo and other 'superstar players' at points when they play (as if it's just Ronaldo and 10 other blokes v his opponents) and focuses on those players over most other stuff which irritates me no end.
I think Lee Dixon has been the unsung hero of the tournament so far. He was always decent enough, but in the slightly less 'stiff' environment of the BBC panel he has been a decent pundit and enjoyable too, had a few laughs.
I think Lee Dixon has been the unsung hero of the tournament so far. He was always decent enough, but in the slightly less 'stiff' environment of the BBC panel he has been a decent pundit and enjoyable too, had a few laughs.
The half time debate was great today!
I think Dixon and Vieira have been brilliant so far. Both had a brilliant post-match debate too and made great points clearly.
Dixon too was great when I heard him on co-commentary with Joe Speight earlier in the tournament. He really is a great pundit - has good opinions, knows quite a lot and seems to have a good personality and be up for a laugh. I hope we continue to see as much of him in the tournament as we have so far.
In fact it may just be me but I think the punditry so far has been far better than in most recent tournaments by both BBC and ITV - Thierry Henry, Rio Ferdinand, Lee Dixon and Patrick Vieira in particular have all done fantastic jobs and the likes of Seedorf and Poyet haven't been half bad either.
Is anyone else listening to 5Live for this game? Surely not all of the commentaries have been this bad. I know radio commentary is a different kettle of fish and silence is a sin, but Overend and Waddle really are wittering on at times. In fairness, it is a dismal game so far (I'm watching the pictures too).
Comments
What has Seedorf to do with the Premier League? He has played in Brazil, but never in England.
It is Roder
Ben Andrews on GRTS Gambia
Nothing wrong with Darren Fletcher and Tony Pulis on 5Live.
He seems to be obsessed.
He supports them but it's really irritating.
I don't think I can agree with that - they should be aware of what the viewers can see, but I also know exactly what I'm watching so I don't necessarily need the action described to me all the time. That's the radio commentators' job. I appreciate being told what the commentator can see and I can't, even if it's as simple as which substitute is getting ready to come on.
It is irritating, you're right. I don't know how he can still be supporting them during a Germany v Portugal game that he has to bring them them into the conversation on numerous occasions.
Indeed off-tube commentaries often show up confusion over whether a goal has been awarded or not during replays when an in stadium commentator has the advantage of seeing whether players are moving to the centre circle.
I think it reasonable to assume the big screen would have showed a clear judgement identical to what the viewer at home sees. The confusion at the sidelines and amongst the crowd was also clear for all to see.
Absolutely agree. Phil Neville's content was very good. His broadcasting skills were less good but to me the content is the more important out of the two and the broadcasting is easier to work on. Of course you'd ideally have both but at least Neville has one of the two - in my view Lawrenson and Townsend pretty much have neither. I think the reaction has been a pretty sad reflection of the times really.
Oh Pearce was definitely unlucky in some respects, no question. He was also unfortunate that that was just the worst of a few 'mistakes' which combined to make it a tough night for him.
But I meant my point more generally, that (at least for those viewers who have decent football knowledge) it's nice to get a broader view of what's happening at any given time. That's why I get irritated by the likes of Townsend and Clarke Carlisle (amongst many others), because so often they're only telling me things I could have comfortably worked out for myself.
I was broadly agreeing with the points you made. Should probably have quoted the same post you did.
Seedorf has nothing to do with the Premier League. My point was BBC's usual pundits, Shearer, Savage, Hansen (when he's on), Owen, Lawrenson etc have very limited knowledge on the world game, it's all about the Premier League and those foreigners who play in it. By contrast, the likes of Seedorf, Henry, Vieira on ITV offer so much more (IMHO)
Edited still further on this morning's highlights show where they just cut out the "NO GOAL" bit entirely and just started it from the keeper fumbling it, with "the goal has been given" put in from somewhere. As mentioned, Roder sounded a bit confused as well, but of course unlike Pearce we didn't get to hear if he then spent ten minutes talking about it, which was the big problem.
Well, that could mean all kind of things, it could easily mean he's going to go home but pre-record a few bits for later about his favourite goals and so on. In this context it's simply the Beeb saying they're not going to rid of him right now, given they're responding to the various complaints demanding his imminent removal. If they'd said "he'll be part of our coverage for the next week or so" that would just cause more kerfuffle, everyone would start saying Phil's been sacked.
Course, if Twitter had been around ten years ago I don't doubt we'd have got a similar number of complaints, if not more, about Bobby Robson's co-comentary on England for ITV where, fine man though he was, he was totally unsuitable for the role and was still talking about incidents ages after they happened.
Well, he's got a column in the Telgraph, maybe they've subsidised his travel and he's combining appearances on Sky Sports News with a few articles and some stuff for sponsors. When people complain about the Beeb and ITV sending too many people out, most of their pundits have got other commercial interests like sponsorship and newspaper columns so presumably they make some kind of contribution to their expenses.
Of course, a great example of a commentary going wrong in similar circumstances to Pearce last night was a year ago in the U21 Chanmpionships, where Martin Tyler announced an England goal and then only two minutes later did he realise it had been ruled out. Smaller audience, smaller competition, of course, so much less of an outcry, but equally embarrassing for all concerned. Especially as someone should have noticed they hadn't kicked off.
Well, given their regular job is to comment on the Premier League, of course they're going to know more about that. The point of getting people like Seedorf and Henry in is to get a different perspective when they're at the World Cup. The same is true the other way round. I know this sounds a bit like Andy Gray's classic "Could they do it on a wet Tuesday night in Stoke", but could they do it on a wet Sunday night in Salford? In our league? In the Barclays Premier League?
Fair enough on the broadcasting point - but he was awful at the broadcasting part and really the most watched game of the tournament so far shouldn't be where you put someone who is that inexperienced at co-commentary or who may 'need work'.
I'm normally quite forgiving on pundits (or at least a few of them) and I'm sure with more practice Phil would improve on co-commentary (and fair play to him for taking the criticism well and seeming a nice bloke) but it was still a silly decision to put him on a game like that and he really was awful - he was speaking so quickly at points and mumbling and in such a monotone voice that I couldn't catch much of what he was saying.
And to be fair I think people are entitled to criticise and you can't expect the general reaction to be 'oh, he'll get better so fair enough' especially since it was such a high profile role on such a well-watched game. I do think the BBC have some explaining to do though - fair enough taking a 'risk' on co-commentary but it didn't pay off (whereas Sky's normally do). I don't think the reaction has been too extreme really - I'd say the reaction on DS at points to ITV's scoreboard was OTT though.
Clive does seem obsessed with Rooney and Ronaldo and other 'superstar players' at points when they play (as if it's just Ronaldo and 10 other blokes v his opponents) and focuses on those players over most other stuff which irritates me no end.
The half time debate was great today!
I think Dixon and Vieira have been brilliant so far. Both had a brilliant post-match debate too and made great points clearly.
Dixon too was great when I heard him on co-commentary with Joe Speight earlier in the tournament. He really is a great pundit - has good opinions, knows quite a lot and seems to have a good personality and be up for a laugh. I hope we continue to see as much of him in the tournament as we have so far.
In fact it may just be me but I think the punditry so far has been far better than in most recent tournaments by both BBC and ITV - Thierry Henry, Rio Ferdinand, Lee Dixon and Patrick Vieira in particular have all done fantastic jobs and the likes of Seedorf and Poyet haven't been half bad either.