Some of the idiots on Twitter (though not everyone on there as it'd be unfair to tar everyone on there with one brush) do need to grow up and get a life.
Yes ideally the window could well be replaced but it's really not the end of the world - and if people are criticising an entire broadcast over it they really do need to get a life.And this mob attitude on Twitter sometimes is awful - particularly the "Everything ITV do is awful" narrative. And I have to say I normally think ITV are awful so it's not as if I'm an ITV defender but I think they've been grea this World Cup and would be criticised by some people whatever they do.
It's a logistical nightmare! Plus it's not up to ITV in this instance.
Well unfortunately as a big fan of both, I am in a catch 22 situation, listen to 5lives commentary with the legend Greeny, or stick with BBC TV Commentary and listen to the thoughts of Lawro.
Thoughts?
Anything to switch Pearce off.
I never liked JP but during the last WC I changed my mind about him as some of his ridiculous lines seemed to disappear and anything he said couldn't be as bad as "Goal for Africa".
The last few days he's really embarassed himself.
Also, one thing massively evident earlier was Townsend's lack of knowledge on the Algerians.
Eamon Dunphy on RTÉ was just caught out saying "Fcuking...Neymar " at least two times live in air, O'Herlihy then said with a rather shocked face that "we are live on air" haha you could not beat RTÉ's coverage.
I am disappointed at not getting RTE`s coverage on Sky, thought it would be on as they showed the Confederations Cup last year. RTE have always had a good football ethos, showing more games than the British channels. Dunphy is good craic.
He isn't, but if you have seen a shot of the outside of the studio, it's quite clear it isn't the International Broadcast Centre unless they decided to build the IBC as a ramshackle building straddling a road
Yes, I don't have a problem with it at all. I remember David Coleman once saying (during commentary) that a viewer had phoned up the BBC with a question about the game and he proceeded to answer it.
Yes, I don't have a problem with it at all. I remember David Coleman once saying (during commentary) that a viewer had phoned up the BBC with a question about the game and he proceeded to answer it.
No difference really
The difference is that Pearce just read out the fairly standard opinions of a couple of random Twitter users, along the lines of "If Brazil don't improve, they'll lose".
To me that's not viewer interaction, it's just pointless time-filling.
The difference is that Pearce just read out the fairly standard opinions of a couple of random Twitter users, along the lines of "If Brazil don't improve, they'll lose".
To me that's not viewer interaction, it's just pointless time-filling.
I don't think the Coleman example was any different to be honest.
Wasn't the viewer's tweet a question about Paulhino?
The medium of communication may have changed but I have heard commentators on some sports read out viewer's comments on a number of occasions.
I don't think the Coleman example was any different to be honest.
Wasn't the viewer's tweet a question about Paulhino?
The medium of communication may have changed but I have heard commentators on some sports read out viewer's comments on a number of occasions.
I think there were 2 tweets (besides the Sturridge one) and admittedly I didn't catch what the first one was about, but the second was definitely just a statement.
Sky F1 tweets (I can't vouch for the BBC coverage) have always been, to the best of my knowledge, technical questions - the answers to which would be of interest to many other viewers. That's different - I see that as being in the same mould as the Coleman example. Pearce's attempts (and I know he's just being told what to read) sounded to me like superficial "interaction" just for the sake of it.
BBC winning World Cup ratings war so far after day 5 - average shares:
BBC1 - 40pct [35pct excl England]
Itv - 31pct
Interesting stat but to be frank, I don't anyone really cares about this 'ratings war' - it's just creating competition between BBC and ITV for the sake of it. Especially since basically it's not a huge difference. Maybe those are the ratings shares but I doubt there's a 'ratings war' as such.
Both I'm sure are happy with their ratings and I doubt there's anyone in real life (except Gazza here) thinking 'Oh that game's on ITV so I won't watch it' or the same with the BBC. It's basically saying who has the more attractive games (and therefore a higher share).
I think there were 2 tweets (besides the Sturridge one) and admittedly I didn't catch what the first one was about, but the second was definitely just a statement.
Sky F1 tweets (I can't vouch for the BBC coverage) have always been, to the best of my knowledge, technical questions - the answers to which would be of interest to many other viewers. That's different - I see that as being in the same mould as the Coleman example. Pearce's attempts (and I know he's just being told what to read) sounded to me like superficial "interaction" just for the sake of it.
A question is just a question, isn't it? I know it's Pearce bashing season (and he had a mare the other day). But he is far from the first TV (or radio) commentator to read out viewer correspondence.
Anybody else seeing a constant flickering in the top left of the screen as you look on all the BBC World Cup games? It's happening on both of my TV's and it's becoming annoying.
I prefer the BBCs coverage really like some of their pundits, Seedorf, Henry and Lennon especially. But can't stand Savage and Lawenson especially on co-comms when you can't switch off.
To be fair it is better than having no pundit or host and just showing the games.
From reading the comments it sounds like Sony six have catered for most indian preference and tried to mix Indian and English type coverage by having John Abraham and indian host and at the same time had Crouch, Silvestre and other pundits.
Creating pundit show is quite difficult in India anyway with half the population wanting English Punditry and the other half wanting Hindi Punditry. In Cricket Star sports does both with one channel having English coverage of the India game and the other having Hindi commentary.
Comments
No, the style doesn't allow for that with the score in the bottom left.
It's actually about 30km down the coast in Copa
It's a logistical nightmare! Plus it's not up to ITV in this instance.
Anything to switch Pearce off.
I never liked JP but during the last WC I changed my mind about him as some of his ridiculous lines seemed to disappear and anything he said couldn't be as bad as "Goal for Africa".
The last few days he's really embarassed himself.
Also, one thing massively evident earlier was Townsend's lack of knowledge on the Algerians.
I am disappointed at not getting RTE`s coverage on Sky, thought it would be on as they showed the Confederations Cup last year. RTE have always had a good football ethos, showing more games than the British channels. Dunphy is good craic.
Are you arius the 2nd?
He isn't, but if you have seen a shot of the outside of the studio, it's quite clear it isn't the International Broadcast Centre unless they decided to build the IBC as a ramshackle building straddling a road
I have no idea! Mainly as I have no idea who he is
I was thinking that too. What do we gain from it? (rhetorical question)
They've been doing that on American Sports for years, heard it on cricket too,
And in BBC and Sky's F1 coverage too.
Yes, I don't have a problem with it at all. I remember David Coleman once saying (during commentary) that a viewer had phoned up the BBC with a question about the game and he proceeded to answer it.
No difference really
The difference is that Pearce just read out the fairly standard opinions of a couple of random Twitter users, along the lines of "If Brazil don't improve, they'll lose".
To me that's not viewer interaction, it's just pointless time-filling.
I don't think the Coleman example was any different to be honest.
Wasn't the viewer's tweet a question about Paulhino?
The medium of communication may have changed but I have heard commentators on some sports read out viewer's comments on a number of occasions.
BBC1 - 40pct [35pct excl England]
Itv - 31pct
I think there were 2 tweets (besides the Sturridge one) and admittedly I didn't catch what the first one was about, but the second was definitely just a statement.
Sky F1 tweets (I can't vouch for the BBC coverage) have always been, to the best of my knowledge, technical questions - the answers to which would be of interest to many other viewers. That's different - I see that as being in the same mould as the Coleman example. Pearce's attempts (and I know he's just being told what to read) sounded to me like superficial "interaction" just for the sake of it.
Interesting stat but to be frank, I don't anyone really cares about this 'ratings war' - it's just creating competition between BBC and ITV for the sake of it. Especially since basically it's not a huge difference. Maybe those are the ratings shares but I doubt there's a 'ratings war' as such.
Both I'm sure are happy with their ratings and I doubt there's anyone in real life (except Gazza here) thinking 'Oh that game's on ITV so I won't watch it' or the same with the BBC. It's basically saying who has the more attractive games (and therefore a higher share).
He was unlucky to get such a lousy game the other night, but he's got Italy-Costa Rica on Friday so hopefully he'll be able to shine.
Bower's done well, but for me, Wilson has been by far the best of the UK brigade up to now.
However, last night I thought Ian Darke and particularly Taylor Twellman were sensational for ESPN on the USA-Ghana game1
A question is just a question, isn't it? I know it's Pearce bashing season (and he had a mare the other day). But he is far from the first TV (or radio) commentator to read out viewer correspondence.
http://www.scoopwhoop.com/sports/sonysix/?ref=homepage&type=sidemast
To be fair it is better than having no pundit or host and just showing the games.
From reading the comments it sounds like Sony six have catered for most indian preference and tried to mix Indian and English type coverage by having John Abraham and indian host and at the same time had Crouch, Silvestre and other pundits.
Creating pundit show is quite difficult in India anyway with half the population wanting English Punditry and the other half wanting Hindi Punditry. In Cricket Star sports does both with one channel having English coverage of the India game and the other having Hindi commentary.