If they were presenting from the stadium, I'd hope they'd do it from a studio box rather than pitch side, as a hour long build up from the side of the pitch with all the noise wouldn't be great.
FIFA only allows you to have one camera and two microphones pitchside, so it simply isn't practical to do whole show there.
In terms of presenting from the beach set, the original plan was to do it pre-match on daytime shows. In the early days it wasn't always possible, either because of the rain or the security situation, but being on the beach gives you a much better atmosphere than being in the studio (even when the studio has that view) and the viewer appreciation index reflects that.
Interesting - will that be Hoddle, O'Neill, Wright and Dixon all in the studio? Sounds a bit of overkill if so!
Smith said that Hoddle, O'Neill and Wright would be with Chiles (they were pundits this evening - Smith said, "you three will be here tomorrow"). There was strangely no mention of Dixon. Surely he'll be involved.
Smith said that Hoddle, O'Neill and Wright would be with Chiles (they were pundits this evening - Smith said, "you three will be here tomorrow"). There was strangely no mention of Dixon. Surely he'll be involved.
Dixon is basically ITV's number 1 pundit now that Roy Keane has gone, so it would be very strange for him not to be there, unless something has gone on behind the scenes we're not aware of. I notice he's not tweeted for a couple of days.
Yesterday's match averaged 7.43 million viewers - very good rating! That should point to a very decent rating tonight across the board (obviously heavily weighted in favour of the BBC) - I would guess the BBC might get 12-15 million viewers and ITV might get 2-5 million?
I don't mean to go off-topic, but a thought hit me recently and I figured this thread was the best place to get an answer. In this World Cup, and in most of the major football tournaments of recent times, the BBC/ITV split has broadly seen ITV opt for England group games to guarantee a commercial return, with the beeb getting some of the knockout matches exclusively in return, should they happen.
However, in 2002 the BBC broadcast the Argentina and Nigeria games live while ITV only had the Sweden game, if I recall. Also, I believe both broadcast the Denmark/Brazil knockout games, as well as Ireland's last-16 game with Spain. I can see why this couldn't continue - it had to have been bad for their cosy relationship of sharing the rights - but why were the BBC so much more aggressive that time around?
Yesterday's match averaged 7.43 million viewers - very good rating! That should point to a very decent rating tonight across the board (obviously heavily weighted in favour of the BBC) - I would guess the BBC might get 12-15 million viewers and ITV might get 2-5 million?
Nearly 8 Million viewers for a 3rd place play off Just goes to show the power of football in this country, I think 5live may have underestimated the demand for the play-off, hence no coverage from them, I bet they regret it now!
Nearly 8 Million viewers for a 3rd place play off Just goes to show the power of football in this country, I think 5live may have underestimated the demand for the play-off, hence no coverage from them, I bet they regret it now!
In any other part of the competition they'd have been all over a game featuring Brazil and Holland. The 3rd place playoff is always a risk though. There's a possibility you could get one (or both) really unattractive teams in it.
The peak was over 9m. This must be the highest rated 3rd place PO other than 1990?
Really strong.
5Live clearly decided before the tournament not to bother with it.
Agreed but surely their plans before the tournament were bound to change anyway, all it would have taken was Ian Brown and whoever to do an off-tube commentary. Poor judgement by Jonathan Wall!
I don't mean to go off-topic, but a thought hit me recently and I figured this thread was the best place to get an answer. In this World Cup, and in most of the major football tournaments of recent times, the BBC/ITV split has broadly seen ITV opt for England group games to guarantee a commercial return, with the beeb getting some of the knockout matches exclusively in return, should they happen.
However, in 2002 the BBC broadcast the Argentina and Nigeria games live while ITV only had the Sweden game, if I recall. Also, I believe both broadcast the Denmark/Brazil knockout games, as well as Ireland's last-16 game with Spain. I can see why this couldn't continue - it had to have been bad for their cosy relationship of sharing the rights - but why were the BBC so much more aggressive that time around?
Well, ahead of the final, my considered review of UK TV and the World Cup is that both broadcasters have done a decent job. My bias has always been towards the BBC so to give ITV any credit is not usually in my make up, however, I think they've bossed this tournament away from the match coverage itself.
I'd rather listen to O'Neill, Strachan, Dixon, Hoddle than Ferdinand, Shearer, Neville and Savage and although Lineker slightly shades it, I think Chiles has done a great job too. The beach segments have been a real boon the ITV guys and they have come across as being a big family of broadcasters enjoying a great World Cup. ITV have been far more entertaining pre and post match (their only mis-step being Cannavarro IMO) and brought the atmosphere of the tournament back to the UK much more effectively than the BBC. Early on in the tournament, Henry, Vieira and Seedorf all brought a bit of insight and panache to both sides but Juninho and the aforementioned Cannavarro were mistakes IMO. Poyet was OK.
In terms of ITV I've even preferred Matt Smith to Mark Chapman although neither offers anything beyond ordinary to me.
Commentary has been a different matter with the BBC smashing ITV out of the park. Steve Wilson has been the best followed by a solid Guy Mowbray and, despite Pearce's cock ups, I've enjoyed him too. Lawrenson makes me smile where he pisses others off and Keown has been OK. Danny Murphy was a revelation, the second coming of Big Ron and should be given more co-comm games IMO.
On the other side Tyldesley and Townsend have remained insufferable, their only positive being that they are not Matterface and Carlisle who have reminded me a bit of a bad edition of Sky's Fanzone segment. Meanwhile, Speight and Dixon have been ITV's top commentary pairing despite being off-tube, even so Speight is relatively light-weight and Dixon is a better pundit than co-comm.
So, overall, a good World Cup for both broadcasters, I have thoroughly enjoyed the coverage on both sides and as for the final? I'll watch BBC (old habits die hard) to see Hansen off, listen to 5Live to hear Ingham off and then later I'll go back to a recording of ITV's coverage to re-watch their build-up and analysis. ;-)
However, in 2002 the BBC broadcast the Argentina and Nigeria games live while ITV only had the Sweden game, if I recall. Also, I believe both broadcast the Denmark/Brazil knockout games, as well as Ireland's last-16 game with Spain. I can see why this couldn't continue - it had to have been bad for their cosy relationship of sharing the rights - but why were the BBC so much more aggressive that time around?
The early kickoff times were the main difference, ITV were very keen to show the Sweden match as it was on a weekend and the BBC could take advantage of that. They could also get away with simulcasting the Denmark match as it was a Saturday afternoon so was when viewers would expect sport to be on.
Yeah, that's right, ITV really wanted the Sweden match because it was the only one in the group stage out of office hours, and I'm pretty sure it was the highest rated match of the tournament. They were perfectly happy with that. Of course on the day of the Argnetina match ITV also scheduled a full rerun at 8pm, based on the idea that people would miss it because they were in work, but of course everyone who wanted to see it had already seen it. But in any case, as far as ITV were concerned Sweden was the top pick and everything else was a distant second.
As for the knockout stages, in Des Lynam's book he says that the Beeb were so fed up that England vs Argentina in 1998 was only on ITV that they vowed to try harder to get the knockout games, which is why every tournament after that the Beeb's first choice has always been the first choice knockout game. In Euro 2000, had England got through the group stage, both channels would have simulcast all England's games (they did of course simulcast the group game against Germany) so clearly around that time both the Beeb and ITV thought simulcasting was the way to go. I wonder if the idea that England wouldn't get out of the group in 2002, which a lot of people thought would be the case, might have had something to do with it as well. But it did nothing for ITV so from 2004 onwards they didn't engage in that.
I've said this before but also in Des Lynam's book he said that in 1998 the Beeb went to ITV and said they wanted to show all the England games and they didn't care if ITV did as well. But ITV said no.
Was there not a possibility of the semi-final being simulcast in 2006 if England had got there?
As it happens I read Lynam's book this morning. I think it was actually the BBC bosses who decided against showing all England matches because they didn't want to be accused of sport overkill, they wanted to provide an alternative and they were concerned about ITV running to the press.
I suppose though in the future if England continue to qualify for major tournaments (and other home nations continue not to) this year's pattern is likely to be continued (ITV get 2 England group stage matches and first pick in one of the knockout rounds, BBC get 1 England group stage match and first pick in two of the knockout rounds.) However, I was thinking recently that once these six matches go the next best match might well be considered to be the 2nd choice semi-final - ITV had the 7th choice this year so presumably got it but I wonder if when the BBC have 7th choice for the next World Cup they will take both semi-finals rather like they did at Euro 2012. Of course ITV could always choose to take the 1st choice semi-final as their knockout stage 1st choice pick but I think that's unlikely as they'd want a reasonable chance of showing England.
Was there not a possibility of the semi-final being simulcast in 2006 if England had got there?
Yes, there was - they would have simulcast it and then ITV would have got the other semi-final exclusively (well aware they would have little benefit from the simulcast). I think an England semi-final would be such a big game that any kind of gentleman's agreement might go out of the window and they'd both show it. It would be absolutely massive.
I was trying to work out if Wright knew Willian was playing or not! Was he saying he was surprised did not play more in the past, or saying he was surprised he was not playing today (yesterday)?!!
I think most people are quite fickle, they will initially tune into ITV at 7pm, and when ITV go to adverts, they will turn over to BBC1, and stay there.
Comments
FIFA only allows you to have one camera and two microphones pitchside, so it simply isn't practical to do whole show there.
In terms of presenting from the beach set, the original plan was to do it pre-match on daytime shows. In the early days it wasn't always possible, either because of the rain or the security situation, but being on the beach gives you a much better atmosphere than being in the studio (even when the studio has that view) and the viewer appreciation index reflects that.
Smith said that Hoddle, O'Neill and Wright would be with Chiles (they were pundits this evening - Smith said, "you three will be here tomorrow"). There was strangely no mention of Dixon. Surely he'll be involved.
However, in 2002 the BBC broadcast the Argentina and Nigeria games live while ITV only had the Sweden game, if I recall. Also, I believe both broadcast the Denmark/Brazil knockout games, as well as Ireland's last-16 game with Spain. I can see why this couldn't continue - it had to have been bad for their cosy relationship of sharing the rights - but why were the BBC so much more aggressive that time around?
Nearly 8 Million viewers for a 3rd place play off
In any other part of the competition they'd have been all over a game featuring Brazil and Holland. The 3rd place playoff is always a risk though. There's a possibility you could get one (or both) really unattractive teams in it.
Really strong.
5Live clearly decided before the tournament not to bother with it.
Agreed but surely their plans before the tournament were bound to change anyway, all it would have taken was Ian Brown and whoever to do an off-tube commentary. Poor judgement by Jonathan Wall!
The early kickoff times were the main difference, ITV were very keen to show the Sweden match as it was on a weekend and the BBC could take advantage of that. They could also get away with simulcasting the Denmark match as it was a Saturday afternoon so was when viewers would expect sport to be on. Some analysis here: http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/145017/world-cup-2002-bbc-vs-itv---war-ratings-beeb-and-itv-warming-titanic-match-competition-world-cup-ratings-adam-leyland-weighs-two-squads-marketing-match-fitness
I'd rather listen to O'Neill, Strachan, Dixon, Hoddle than Ferdinand, Shearer, Neville and Savage and although Lineker slightly shades it, I think Chiles has done a great job too. The beach segments have been a real boon the ITV guys and they have come across as being a big family of broadcasters enjoying a great World Cup. ITV have been far more entertaining pre and post match (their only mis-step being Cannavarro IMO) and brought the atmosphere of the tournament back to the UK much more effectively than the BBC. Early on in the tournament, Henry, Vieira and Seedorf all brought a bit of insight and panache to both sides but Juninho and the aforementioned Cannavarro were mistakes IMO. Poyet was OK.
In terms of ITV I've even preferred Matt Smith to Mark Chapman although neither offers anything beyond ordinary to me.
Commentary has been a different matter with the BBC smashing ITV out of the park. Steve Wilson has been the best followed by a solid Guy Mowbray and, despite Pearce's cock ups, I've enjoyed him too. Lawrenson makes me smile where he pisses others off and Keown has been OK. Danny Murphy was a revelation, the second coming of Big Ron and should be given more co-comm games IMO.
On the other side Tyldesley and Townsend have remained insufferable, their only positive being that they are not Matterface and Carlisle who have reminded me a bit of a bad edition of Sky's Fanzone segment. Meanwhile, Speight and Dixon have been ITV's top commentary pairing despite being off-tube, even so Speight is relatively light-weight and Dixon is a better pundit than co-comm.
So, overall, a good World Cup for both broadcasters, I have thoroughly enjoyed the coverage on both sides and as for the final? I'll watch BBC (old habits die hard) to see Hansen off, listen to 5Live to hear Ingham off and then later I'll go back to a recording of ITV's coverage to re-watch their build-up and analysis. ;-)
How about you?
Yeah, that's right, ITV really wanted the Sweden match because it was the only one in the group stage out of office hours, and I'm pretty sure it was the highest rated match of the tournament. They were perfectly happy with that. Of course on the day of the Argnetina match ITV also scheduled a full rerun at 8pm, based on the idea that people would miss it because they were in work, but of course everyone who wanted to see it had already seen it. But in any case, as far as ITV were concerned Sweden was the top pick and everything else was a distant second.
As for the knockout stages, in Des Lynam's book he says that the Beeb were so fed up that England vs Argentina in 1998 was only on ITV that they vowed to try harder to get the knockout games, which is why every tournament after that the Beeb's first choice has always been the first choice knockout game. In Euro 2000, had England got through the group stage, both channels would have simulcast all England's games (they did of course simulcast the group game against Germany) so clearly around that time both the Beeb and ITV thought simulcasting was the way to go. I wonder if the idea that England wouldn't get out of the group in 2002, which a lot of people thought would be the case, might have had something to do with it as well. But it did nothing for ITV so from 2004 onwards they didn't engage in that.
I've said this before but also in Des Lynam's book he said that in 1998 the Beeb went to ITV and said they wanted to show all the England games and they didn't care if ITV did as well. But ITV said no.
As it happens I read Lynam's book this morning. I think it was actually the BBC bosses who decided against showing all England matches because they didn't want to be accused of sport overkill, they wanted to provide an alternative and they were concerned about ITV running to the press.
I suppose though in the future if England continue to qualify for major tournaments (and other home nations continue not to) this year's pattern is likely to be continued (ITV get 2 England group stage matches and first pick in one of the knockout rounds, BBC get 1 England group stage match and first pick in two of the knockout rounds.) However, I was thinking recently that once these six matches go the next best match might well be considered to be the 2nd choice semi-final - ITV had the 7th choice this year so presumably got it but I wonder if when the BBC have 7th choice for the next World Cup they will take both semi-finals rather like they did at Euro 2012. Of course ITV could always choose to take the 1st choice semi-final as their knockout stage 1st choice pick but I think that's unlikely as they'd want a reasonable chance of showing England.
Yes, there was - they would have simulcast it and then ITV would have got the other semi-final exclusively (well aware they would have little benefit from the simulcast). I think an England semi-final would be such a big game that any kind of gentleman's agreement might go out of the window and they'd both show it. It would be absolutely massive.
Why anyone would choose the ITV coverage when they know they will be going to adverts within minutes, is beyond me.
I think most people are quite fickle, they will initially tune into ITV at 7pm, and when ITV go to adverts, they will turn over to BBC1, and stay there.
Not a big deal if they can't be bothered to put it on normal BBC Red Button.