Sky

[Chris O'Connor]

If they lacked money, whats wrong with amateur sport? If you think about it, why should good sportsmen be better paid than surgeons, scientists or great artists? Most people play sport for the love if it and don't need paying. Why not have a uswful job too? I remember enjoying rugby - and not so long sgo that was entirely amateur.

As for the beeb - I like that old style, at one end. Just like at the match. And i don't need the over analysis jibber jabbering on to enjoy the match. Ah well, we all have different preferences.

Nothing is wrong with amateur sport, I myself played amateur cricket, rugby at school (rugby playing school) and football for a local team, then of my own volition during school and afterwards being part of the local cricket club was and is a large part of my life in the summer.

But there is a reality and practicality involved here, we're talking of the very top end of the sport. Talented cricketers are often talented at other sports too, the likes of Buttler, Pietersen, Morgan wouldn't even be heard of if all sports were professional except cricket, they had other alternatives growing up and top end amateur sport wouldn't have been the practical choice at all. it's a little idealistic imo to think we could ever bring amateur status back into top level cricket, before around 1964 top level cricketers who were also generally well off having s well paid profession too, could opt to play as a 'gentleman amateur' - but cricket was riddled with class distinction, shamateurism and hypocrisy which made the professional status for all inevitable.

On the coverage, you may have liked it that way, those that saw a 'better' way when Aussie coverage was shown in the ashes down under highlights wondered why we hadn't moved on, channel 4 obviously did too and sorted it. It was essentially left unchanged on the Beeb because they could get away with it, not spend money and do on the cheap. You had no choice if you didn't like it there was no alternative, you had to accept the limited or obstructed view every other over, the cheaper way they'd always followed. To say it's just like at the ground is true, just imagine football or rugby covered from one man's view in the ground with such limitations too. People got used to the only way they were allowed to view it and change to a better way isn't always appreciated as people like the way they've always viewed it. Ive watched it a lot post 2004 and before - one way may have been a lot cheaper to provide but there's absolutely no comparison in value for the viewer

Similar problems with brown expenses envelopes and shamateurism plagued union too and professionalism became inevitable

 

[kenada_blue]

Least that is the last we will see of the annoying Skybet Tools advert.

BOOOOOOOST

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Playing at the very top level should have nothing to do with it either. Koeman played at the very top level but is an awful manager. Would you have him as a Sky pundid.
The job should be given to someone with a good on-screen persona and a good knowledge of football. John Motson never played at the highest level but is possibly the greatest football pundit ever.

Well, John Motson is a commentator not a pundit and I note you've said they're all the same in subsequent replies but I think you miss the very clear differences in each role. Moton's background through journalism gave him his opportunity.

There's no shortage of professionals who have played at the very highest level - broadcasters can ensure from all them they pick people with the other credentials mentioned.

For me, pundits that have played at the top have an edge - to use a crude example, I'm much more interested in reading Carlo Ancelotti's book than I ever would be Marco Silva just because of the experiences I know Ancelotti has had.

Top flight experience doesn't translate to being a good pundit, Thierry Henry was in my opinion terrible.

There's a balance, but I think gender, sex, nationality, race etc are all ridiculous ways to assess someones suitability for any role.

 

[Lelouch]

I didn't mind it back in the day it use to be something to chill and watch on a Saturday afternoon, Probably time to freshen it up though they've been doing it for yonkers, I hope they do pick Micah Richards/Alex Scott to annoy them absolute cry babies.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

I didn't mind it back in the day it use to be something to chill and watch on a Saturday afternoon, Probably time to freshen it up though they've been doing it for yonkers, I hope they do pick Micah Richards/Alex Scott to annoy them absolute cry babies.

This attitude can risk doing them both a massive disservice in suggesting they're picked for any other reason than their ability.

 

[ToffeeTim]

I didn't mind it back in the day it use to be something to chill and watch on a Saturday afternoon, Probably time to freshen it up though they've been doing it for yonkers, I hope they do pick Micah Richards/Alex Scott to annoy them absolute cry babies.

They are both decent pundits tbf. I think Richards has a different style, but he's entertaining and that's more than most pundits on sky.

Sky should use more pundits and have less regulars IMO. A bit of variety is better than the same opinions from Souness, Carra, Redknapp every week.

 

[Lelouch]

This attitude can risk doing them both a massive disservice in suggesting they're picked for any other reason than their ability.

I just find it funny they're losing there heads because they're being replaced and the 1st assumption is "Well Sky is giving in to the PC brigade aren't they." Any BAME that gets picked for the role regardless of ability if one is selected will be met with negativity.

 

[Yid4life]

I couldn't give a flying F who any of them are replaced by. I have never watched that programme once. What a ridiculous concept. Watching people watching TV. Weird.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

They are both decent pundits tbf. I think Richards has a different style, but he's entertaining and that's more than most pundits on sky.

Sky should use more pundits and have less regulars IMO. A bit of variety is better than the same opinions from Souness, Carra, Redknapp every week.

Always thought/said this.

 

[trueblue84]

Can't believe I'd not seen this before... Charlie Nicholas showing his incredible wit and skills at bantz..

 

[chrismpw]

Lol I completely get your first statement on some bars. This post seems more reasonable to me, I respect people and like being around people who generally aren't influenced by advertisements, or others, and like what they like.

Some of your other points just seemed a tad more extreme. Blaming people who purchase Sky for a bunch of footballs problems. As you like what you like, some people might just enjoy the game. Even if you don't find it as entertaining as it used to be.

I think you're smart enough to probably have thought this before, but what I've realized as I've gotten older, sports lose their allure. You start to see them for what they are and you can't really lose yourself in it like you did growing up. At least that's my experience.

I've pondered that myself.

I used to be very competitive (always fair and uncheating) - too competitive really, at everything I did. Then one day a switch flicked and I lost it. It was a Christmas board game if 'who wants to be a millionaire' with my sister's family. I won! I won a million pounds! The excitement was transitory as with crashing realisation I realised that I'd won a board game. What was the point!

Now I'm genuinely not arsed at anything that doesn't provide a lasting practical improvement to life. Maybe that is an age thing.

 

[Prevenger17]

I hope they do pick Micah Richards/Alex Scott to annoy

I think Alex Scott is fairly useless tbh. Haven't seen her in a good while so maybe she has come on since then, but I remember the main pundit would offer a question in the form of the answer she was going to give, so it was basically two pundits saying the exact same thing to fill up time:

Pundit: "So Alex, do you think Gylfi Sigurddson should contribute more elsewhere on the field? Could he track back more and help out his defence instead of relying on the occasional goal from outside the box?"
Alex: "Yeah, I think Gylfi Sigurddson should contribute more elsewhere on the field. In my opinion, he could track back more and help out his defence instead of relying on the occasional goal from outside the box"


I'm sure there are loads of good female pundits out there, but Alex Scott isn't one of them. This isn't a gender-based appraisal, the vast majority of Sky's pundits are crap

 

[chrismpw]

Nothing is wrong with amateur sport, I myself played amateur cricket, rugby at school (rugby playing school) and football for a local team, then of my own volition during school and afterwards being part of the local cricket club was and is a large part of my life in the summer.

But there is a reality and practicality involved here, we're talking of the very top end of the sport. Talented cricketers are often talented at other sports too, the likes of Buttler, Pietersen, Morgan wouldn't even be heard of if all sports were professional except cricket, they had other alternatives growing up and top end amateur sport wouldn't have been the practical choice at all. it's a little idealistic imo to think we could ever bring amateur status back into top level cricket, before around 1964 top level cricketers who were also generally well off having s well paid profession too, could opt to play as a 'gentleman amateur' - but cricket was riddled with class distinction, shamateurism and hypocrisy which made the professional status for all inevitable.

On the coverage, you may have liked it that way, those that saw a 'better' way when Aussie coverage was shown in the ashes down under highlights wondered why we hadn't moved on, channel 4 obviously did too and sorted it. It was essentially left unchanged on the Beeb because they could get away with it, not spend money and do on the cheap. You had no choice if you didn't like it there was no alternative, you had to accept the limited or obstructed view every other over, the cheaper way they'd always followed. To say it's just like at the ground is true, just imagine football or rugby covered from one man's view in the ground with such limitations too. People got used to the only way they were allowed to view it and change to a better way isn't always appreciated as people like the way they've always viewed it. Ive watched it a lot post 2004 and before - one way may have been a lot cheaper to provide but there's absolutely no comparison in value for the viewer

Similar problems with brown expenses envelopes and shamateurism plagued union too and professionalism became inevitable

You make valid points. Doesn't mean I have to like them! lol

 

[larbert toffee]

Great news that “Thommo” has gone.

About time they got rid of Lawrenson at the beeb, not only is he increasingly looking like Jabba the hutt but he swans about like he owns the gaff.

 

[Alan Whittle]

Remember the good old days when the current lot were seen as a welcome upgrade on Mullery, McClintock, Best, Marsh etc?
I don’t often see it but when I do the current lot are like a comfy old pair of slippers and even the hideously contrived “bantz” is easier on the ear than the faux serious BBC final score. They have been looking a bit jaded recently and all things must pass. Just as an aside, wherever I do watch it, the best at a game reporter / summariser by miles is Michelle Owen, always upbeat and word perfect. It is also noticeable that Jeff doesn’t try any clumsy bantz with her (as he does with a few of the others). I think she would be good in the studio.