By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Changed from Quest to ITV1 at 11.15pm, not finishing till gone 1am. Don't forget to adjust your recorders, since Dale probably won't be on till well after midnight
Being introduced by someone called Woozencraft, who sounds like a child of Kenneth Wolstenholme's conceived in an alcoholic haze
Ah yes, thanks - didn't look any further than ITV1 once i'd seen that
Bit weird repeating them later on
Probably testing the market. There’s those who will watch at prime time plus a reasonable amount who will stick it on when coming in from the pub whilst flicking through the channels. Be interesting to see if they continue it next week up against MOTD.
I wish they'd just show more highlights from the games rather than spending 50% of the show talking about the bare minimum highlights packages we've just seen, especially when they've probably only had time to watch a similar amount of footage themselves.
I wish they'd just show more highlights from the games rather than spending 50% of the show talking about the bare minimum highlights packages we've just seen, especially when they've probably only had time to watch a similar amount of footage themselves.
I think they are limited to how much they can show due to the terms of the contract.
I thought the show was very comparable with Quest. At least the set didn't make you adjust your eyes! They showed goals, any other incidents of major importance and then moved onto the next game.
The Championship will always have a brief amount of discussion, but I agree with you that some of it is just repeating what we've seen.
And, as I've mentioned before, think yourself lucky we have what there is now compared to Endsleigh League Extra at 1am on a Tuesday!
When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf?
I wish they'd just show more highlights from the games rather than spending 50% of the show talking about the bare minimum highlights packages we've just seen, especially when they've probably only had time to watch a similar amount of footage themselves.
This is something that's bugged me for some time
At the start of all highlight packages these days, whether it's football, cricket, whatever... there's a completely unnecessary (to anyone who follows the sport) intro which lasts about 3 or 4 minutes, time wasted that could've been added to actual current action and that's before they start prattling away
The obvious solution which i invariably follow is to record the programme and skip through anything except the action. I wonder if the programmers know how many people do this?
Edit: i take TVOS' point about time limitations on action allowed, but why subject us to 2 hours (if watching live) with less than half that actual action? Are there really people out there interested in fifth rate pundits opinions?
At the start of all highlight packages these days, whether it's football, cricket, whatever... there's a completely unnecessary (to anyone who follows the sport) intro which lasts about 3 or 4 minutes, time wasted that could've been added to actual current action and that's before they start prattling away
The obvious solution which i invariably follow is to record the programme and skip through anything except the action. I wonder if the programmers know how many people do this?
Edit: i take TVOS' point about time limitations on action allowed, but why subject us to 2 hours (if watching live) with less than half that actual action? Are there really people out there interested in fifth rate pundits opinions?
[Post edited 1 Aug 2022 13:29]
Most people do, I would imagine, especially how easy it is these days.
When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf?
I think they are limited to how much they can show due to the terms of the contract.
I thought the show was very comparable with Quest. At least the set didn't make you adjust your eyes! They showed goals, any other incidents of major importance and then moved onto the next game.
The Championship will always have a brief amount of discussion, but I agree with you that some of it is just repeating what we've seen.
And, as I've mentioned before, think yourself lucky we have what there is now compared to Endsleigh League Extra at 1am on a Tuesday!
Not many 'studio guests' add much to the proceedings, other than to offer a pretext to revisit some debatable point (such as, on Saturday, Lee Tomlin's strange sending off).
Presumably, Tuesday night fixtures, if there is a full programme of them, will feature on Wednesday night (with Sky showing highlights after three or four hours).
Having just watched the Sky highlights of yesterday afternoon's Sunderland vs Coventry match, it's hard not to assume, as the commentator is so well-informed, quick to identify players etc., that he read out his script after the match. But that's probably pretty general (likewise the later-added fans' cheering?).
At the start of all highlight packages these days, whether it's football, cricket, whatever... there's a completely unnecessary (to anyone who follows the sport) intro which lasts about 3 or 4 minutes, time wasted that could've been added to actual current action and that's before they start prattling away
The obvious solution which i invariably follow is to record the programme and skip through anything except the action. I wonder if the programmers know how many people do this?
Edit: i take TVOS' point about time limitations on action allowed, but why subject us to 2 hours (if watching live) with less than half that actual action? Are there really people out there interested in fifth rate pundits opinions?
[Post edited 1 Aug 2022 13:29]
I don't disagree with you about the pundits, but it's the way of the world now - and not just in football.
Look at cricket - how many commentators and co-commentators do they need?
Oh for the days of Jimmy Hill, with Bob Wilson bringing us brief news.
When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf?
I don't disagree with you about the pundits, but it's the way of the world now - and not just in football.
Look at cricket - how many commentators and co-commentators do they need?
Oh for the days of Jimmy Hill, with Bob Wilson bringing us brief news.
Tbf, I don't mind it in the cricket. A day of test cricket is a long broadcast and swapping the commentators around plenty stops the pundits themselves and the listeners from getting tired of the same voice and brings some fresh perspective.
Tbf, I don't mind it in the cricket. A day of test cricket is a long broadcast and swapping the commentators around plenty stops the pundits themselves and the listeners from getting tired of the same voice and brings some fresh perspective.
Yes, fair point.
I don't watch any other sports, but from channel hopping, I think it's the same across the board.
I do think on a highlights programme like the EFL, another voice, in addition to the presenter, is helpful.
Unfortunately, they are just repeating what the presenter says (it's all scripted, of course) or telling the viewers something they have already seen.
The ideal highlights package would be something in between what we have now and Endsleigh League Extra.
It's not going to happen any day soon, though, and I'm happy enough with what offering is currently served up, especially as I can fast forward through the boring bits as I don't usually watch it until Sunday morning.
When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf?
Tbf, I don't mind it in the cricket. A day of test cricket is a long broadcast and swapping the commentators around plenty stops the pundits themselves and the listeners from getting tired of the same voice and brings some fresh perspective.
There is an alternative, of which the late great Richie Benaud was the best exponent
He simply let the viewers watch the action (much as you would as if you were in the stands) on the basis that they pretty much knew what was going on
Only when something worth remarking on happened did he do so, and it was invariably intelligent, incisive and brief. And occasionally very, very funny. He then stfu again
Viewing a day of cricket with him commentating was more informative than watching a lifetime of constant rabbiting (including as the ball is being bowled sometimes) that passes for commentating these days. I watch with the sound turned well down, so that the reaction of the crowd can be heard but the inanities of the commentators are below the level of being intrusive
There is an alternative, of which the late great Richie Benaud was the best exponent
He simply let the viewers watch the action (much as you would as if you were in the stands) on the basis that they pretty much knew what was going on
Only when something worth remarking on happened did he do so, and it was invariably intelligent, incisive and brief. And occasionally very, very funny. He then stfu again
Viewing a day of cricket with him commentating was more informative than watching a lifetime of constant rabbiting (including as the ball is being bowled sometimes) that passes for commentating these days. I watch with the sound turned well down, so that the reaction of the crowd can be heard but the inanities of the commentators are below the level of being intrusive
[Post edited 1 Aug 2022 22:51]
"What a maaaarrrrvelous day's cricket"
When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.