Gary Lineker

[Monkey Tennis]

24 minutes ago, KirkieRR said:

 

Or indeed when Lineker tweeted his support for the Union in 2014. And while I disagreed with him on that I don't see why he shouldn't opine about that either.

Did he tweet about that?

Humza Yousaf was asked about that as a sort of hypothetical on TV this morning.  I didn't realise it had actually happened.  There was also the matter of the dozens of signatories to that open letter.  I don't remember any BBC careers being derailed by that.  

The reality is that all the parallels recently unearthed, from Alan Sugar to Andrew Neil, just reveal the BBC stance here as ludicrous and indefensible.  

It's clearly politically motivated, either through the convictions of those deciding, or due to external pressures.  Either way, they look absurd.

[Salvo Montalbano]

5 hours ago, 19QOS19 said:

I couldn't give a f**k about how close the strikers are to each other or how the midfield is keeping a poor or solid diamond shape.

And that's fine. But I, and plenty others it would appear, as the format is successful and people talk about "good" and "bad" pundits all the time, do. Seeing the goals is great - but sometimes seeing why pressure builds, why a normally reliable defender has made a mistake, how a manager has reacted to a going a goal down is where my interest lies.

4 hours ago, Ludo*1 said:

Sky's presentation of the highlights are just superior to MotD these days. They stick them up on YT not long after the game has finished - most of the time have a commentator (which I've previously stated doesn't put me up nor down) - and it gets rid of all the needless waffling in between the games.

(Snip)

An example of the stuff Sky produce:

 

As I said earlier, I often see those as I don't often see MotD and like to catch up on the goals, but they don't tell me much other than who scored and when. In-house SPFL highlights are typically about 10 minutes long and still sometimes miss talking points, chances, bookings etc. I'm not getting a sense of how the game went in under 3 minutes.

[doulikefish]

41 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Yeah, can't remember who but there was a Tory MP on Twitter claiming how much he liked the new format as it allowed him time to watch it all and still get to the pub before last orders.

It doesn't fill me with confidence that the people in charge of making decisions on things like the economy, trade negotiations and the NHS are too thick to master iPlayer.

Yeah that was the tube Scott Benton who called it an "episode" so that immediately rules him out from actually ever watched football in his life 

[19QOS19]

13 minutes ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

And that's fine. But I, and plenty others it would appear, as the format is successful and people talk about "good" and "bad" pundits all the time, do. Seeing the goals is great - but sometimes seeing why pressure builds, why a normally reliable defender has made a mistake, how a manager has reacted to a going a goal down is where my interest lies.

 

Then show it. We don't need someone going into great detail in a replay showing pressure building. I've watched football long enough to know what I'm watching. I don't need someone spoonfeeding me. 

[Salvo Montalbano]

11 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

 

Then show it. We don't need someone going into great detail in a replay showing pressure building. I've watched football long enough to know what I'm watching. I don't need someone spoonfeeding me. 

So you'd have a 2-3 minute montage of something, or a graphic showing a tactical change with no comment over tjr top of it? Each to their own but that sounds shite.

[Ludo*1]

19 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

 

Then show it. We don't need someone going into great detail in a replay showing pressure building. I've watched football long enough to know what I'm watching. I don't need someone spoonfeeding me. 

This.

If you need to have someone talking about football for 10-15 minutes at a time for it to be enjoyable, then I'd suggest you're more of an armchair fan.

[sophia]

36 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Did he tweet about that?

Humza Yousaf was asked about that as a sort of hypothetical on TV this morning.  I didn't realise it had actually happened.  There was also the matter of the dozens of signatories to that open letter.  I don't remember any BBC careers being derailed by that.  

The reality is that all the parallels recently unearthed, from Alan Sugar to Andrew Neil, just reveal the BBC stance here as ludicrous and indefensible.  

It's clearly politically motivated, either through the convictions of those deciding, or due to external pressures.  Either way, they look absurd.

Here's the list from 2014 

[Cosmic Joe]

4 minutes ago, sophia said:

Here's the list from 2014 

A sackful of rogues in a "nation" 

[sophia]

6 minutes ago, Cosmic Joe said:

A sackful of rogues in a "nation" 

TC Attenborough, I've never liked him 

[Bairnardo]

Way too many pages to catch up on, but I assume the screenshots of previous complaint responses from the BBC made it onto here. Really have made themselves look like utter fannies here by effectively "listening to the shouts" from the Tory party. 

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

4 hours ago, StellarHibee said:

Wonder how long it will take them to replace the non-commentary with a "vote conservative" add campaign dubbed over the footage.

[19QOS19]

1 hour ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

So you'd have a 2-3 minute montage of something, or a graphic showing a tactical change with no comment over tjr top of it? Each to their own but that sounds shite.

Not quite sure how you've come to that conclusion from what I wrote tbh. 

[Mark Connolly]

4 hours ago, Mark Connolly said:

LT Smash is currently writing a song called "Evit Avresnoc Etov" to play as the background music

 

3 minutes ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

ETA: Great minds and all that…

Edited March 12, 2023 by Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo

[philpy]

[Salvo Montalbano]

6 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

Not quite sure how you've come to that conclusion from what I wrote tbh. 

Because I said that I enjoyed the pundits showing things like explanations of where pressure has built up over time, tactical changes that happened etc and you said "Well just show it then", and said that you didn't need it "spoonfed". Seems that you want to see such things but don't want pundits telling you what's going on. So if they are showing clips as a montage to show context, or showing how a team changed shape when they've made a sub or other tactical change, how else can that be done?

[D Angelo Barksdale]

Me no like the talky men, me just wanna see goals.

[19QOS19]

4 minutes ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

Because I said that I enjoyed the pundits showing things like explanations of where pressure has built up over time, tactical changes that happened etc and you said "Well just show it then", and said that you didn't need it "spoonfed". Seems that you want to see such things but don't want pundits telling you what's going on. So if they are showing clips as a montage to show context, or showing how a team changed shape when they've made a sub or other tactical change, how else can that be done?

I'd be happy with them showing the start of a play/extended highlights and I can see a team building pressure. I don't need them to freeze the play and some guy pinpointing where the attack starts, I can see that for myself. 

Similarly, I don't care about them talking about a player having a bad game. I can see that for myself as well. I go to live games every 2 weeks or so and can see this stuff for myself without the need for some guy on a 6 figure salary telling me what I'm seeing. 

[Cosmic Joe]

8 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

I'd be happy with them showing the start of a play/extended highlights and I can see a team building pressure. I don't need them to freeze the play and some guy pinpointing where the attack starts, I can see that for myself. 

Similarly, I don't care about them talking about a player having a bad game. I can see that for myself as well. I go to live games every 2 weeks or so and can see this stuff for myself without the need for some guy on a 6 figure salary telling me what I'm seeing. 

If I recall correctly, you aren't a fan of female pundits and commentators. 

Why did you not just widen the field from the word go? 

 

Edited March 12, 2023 by Cosmic Joe

[Soapy FFC]

8 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

I'd be happy with them showing the start of a play/extended highlights and I can see a team building pressure. I don't need them to freeze the play and some guy pinpointing where the attack starts, I can see that for myself. 

Similarly, I don't care about them talking about a player having a bad game. I can see that for myself as well. I go to live games every 2 weeks or so and can see this stuff for myself without the need for some guy on a 6 figure salary telling me what I'm seeing. 

Unfortunately not all of us the ability or nous to see such things for ourselves. I know from my experience of going to live football every 2 weeks that 20 people can see the same piece of live action and there can be 20 different interpretations of what happened, or 20 different opinions of who played bad. If people don't like the talk then they can record it, and use the fast forward or mute buttons.

Edited March 12, 2023 by Soapy FFC