But Sky didn't move them back to Saturday - it was moved back as a result of Leicester playing in the Champions League tomorrow evening.

I think the point he was making is that the PL structure the first picks across several time slots to ensure that big games are spread out throughout the various time slots across the season. This ensures that the international markets all get big games in their biggest time slot - I.e Asia like the Sat 12:30am slot and the US like Sat 5:30pm etc.

I dont know about you but I enjoyed the second half of Super Sunday much more than the bore fest at Anfield tonight

Southampton were the only team in the last 3 games realky set up to attack and win their game.

In our match Boro didn't even bring on a forward as sub till the 88th minute!

A half decent side would have hammered us..

5.30 is not a new regular kick-off time, Saturday matches have kicked off at that time since 2008. And none of the matches at Christmas that kick off at 5.15 are on Saturday, so what is your point? No, matches don't usually kick off at 5.15, but they're not usually on Tuesdays either.


I can't say they're any weaker, though, to be honest. We're only in week eight. You can write the two off before the first two rounds of the Champions League because they have always been incredibly weak (in one of those rounds last season we had Watford vs Palace at 4pm). Then another one went up against the Ryder Cup, where Sky prefer not to do anything particularly special (hence Spurs vs Man City was played earlier in the afternoon). So there's hardly that many others to draw conclusions from. And it's more important to have big Sunday 4pm games in the winter when the clocks have gone back and it's already getting dark when they're on.

In my eyes Southampton v Burnley, was far more entertaining, than that overhyped nonsense we had for the last week, built up to that last night.

I find the big 4 matches, generally make me not want to watch, as we normally know the story, Tottenham v Man City being an exception.

I agree completely, it's entirely normal for games between 2 big teams to be hyped up like there's no tomorrow, then it ends up being duller than the dullest dishwater with little to talk about, get excited about, or to make people think "wow what a great game, the PL is clearly the best in the world, I want to watch more of this". Ironically games between the lesser teams can be 100x more entertaining on a reasonably regular basis I'd say.

Jim White calling the game out for what it was on Talksport.

I bet he'd say different if he was sat in the SSNHQ Studio this morning

Out of curiousity, what has he said?

Re if he was in the SSNHQ studio, yeah, a bit like most of the presenters he'd be told to 'big it up' and blabber on about it being a great defensive display for example, whilst not mentioning the fact that actually it was dull. I'm sure most of their presenters are used to having to big up massive games even though they know that more often than not the games are actually really boring to watch. Just doing as they're told basically. If they came out and said "sorry about last night's game, there isn't much to talk about or show you, so we're going to talk about something more interesting and exciting instead" they'd be told that they know where the exit door is and to talk through it and not come back.

He and Harry Redknapp basically said they felt sorry for the viewers, who pay the money to watch the game, and they could see it coming

And that the game belongs to the people, he wouldnt dare say that on SSN

They're spot on too. Be it people on TV or people in the ground, you pay stupid money to see supposedly some of the best players in the world playing poorly in a drab game, you're not going to be happy about it, especially when they'll still get a full weekly (frankly ridiculously high) wage even though they were poor and so was the game.

This is an interesting point, and goes to the heart of why alot of people get sick and tired with 'modern football'. Sky act like the Premier League is their product, and that the good things about the PL reflect well upon them. Why? The game will happen regardless, and Sky are merely the company that pays well over the odds to show them. If people are daft enough to let Sky dictate to them what they should feel about a game or a league then shame on them.

On the other side, you suggest that Sky should say 'sorry' for a poor game? What has the quality of the game got to do with them? They aren't producing an entertainment show, they are merely observing a football game and broadcasting it to the TV viewers. The game last night was a big game, and it is Sky's job to report that game, analyse the game and tell the viewer what has happened. If it isn't 'entertaining' they should give it short shrift and instead tell us about something far less important in the grand scheme of things? That would be ridiculous.

I'm not suggesting they say sorry for a poor game or give it short shrift if it's dull and move onto something else, merely that if a presenter was to say something along those lines, basically saying "let's talk about something more entertaining than that game as very little happened" then they'd likely find themselves being shown the door as you're not really going to be looked upon too fondly if you basically slam a game, even if it's not technically your fault that it was dull, as Sky will want you to big it up and find ways to back up claims that the PL is the best league in the world etc.

Viewing figures supposed to be down 19 %. Maybe people are finally getting wise to the fact the SKY hype for every game isn't worth it

The 1.9m average for last night's MNF says otherwise (and that's the whole coverage average).

Yes Liverpool v Manchester United was boring last night. It was still the main game of the weekend and therefore is still going to get mentioned on Sky Sports News.

The problem is with the analysis of the big games being boring is it would have simply been ignored had it been a more entertaining game.

There are also good games between big teams, bad games between smaller teams, and good games between smaller teams.

And it is not the players job to entertain.

No but it was just be nice for Sky Sports to finally admit that some of the games are poor !!!

But why would Sky do something that is not in their own interests to do.

As we are discussing Sky and how they look at matches hyped up or not.

Would there normal 2 hour slot between 10am-12noon programme work better say between 8pm/10pm on non Football nights, I doubt if many viewers at 10am, are the type who are into tactics etc.

Isnt Football not a entertainment business these days, Man U could loose the top 4 by the 2 points last night, and listening to the radio, a lot are saying Chelsea v Man U will be another 0-0

Per Sport Business:

Match average - 2.7m
Peak - 3.1m

Match average 1m higher than any other game this season - next highest was Man Utd v Man City (match average 1.7m).

Shows the importance of timeslot, MNF rating almost 60% higher than only a slightly less attractive game at Sat 12.30pm.

https://twitter.com/SB_Intelligence

Those viewing figures show people prefer to watch a Match because it has Big Clubs and Big Players involved, rather than the quality of the game.

Maybe they could spend more time talking about Huddersfield losing their Cup Final at the weekend?

Nobody knows how good a game is going to be in advance. Nobody is going to tune in to Watford v Stoke in the hope it may end 4-4, whereas millions will tune into Liverpool v United half knowing it might be a stalemate. You are right in your earlier post that for lots of people football is a form of entertainment, but for lots it is also about the atmosphere, the drama and the tension of big matches.

Whilst teams like Watford and Bournemouth can play some good stuff, and can be involved in really good games to watch, without the drama, the tension and the atmosphere around them they are not going to attract the neutral fan in any great numbers. The big clubs can do that, regardless of the way they play, because when they play each other the results have greater consequences and the games themselves have greater gravitas.

As a Blue, you will look forward to a derby game with alot more tension, nervousness and excitement than a game with Bournemouth. The game with Bournemouth may well end up being the better footballing spectacle, but it won't compare to the occasion of a derby game or a game at Goodison against United for example. It is not surprising that neutral fans will feel the same, and your home games against Liverpool and United will attract the best TV ratings you'll get this season as a result.

I don't think this has much to do with overseas rights.

The packages that the PL offers to the broadcasters need to be balanced because, in principle, a different broadcaster could win each and every package. This means that, whilst there are obviously difference in the value of each package depending on the number of 1st, 2nd picks etc, all of the packages are essentially guaranteed to get a good number of games that feature all of the top teams.

Otherwise you could end up with a 5th or 6th package getting very little interest from broadcast bidders because they wouldn't get the bigger teams playing on it often enough to make it valuable.

The fact that these have to be spread around so that the kick offs don't overlap and the televised games aren't competing with one another is the only real reason why we have such a spread of kick-off times. That some timeslots are better than others for certain overseas markets is merely a side-benefit and the overseas rights values are nothing like what the UK rights values add up to.