close + delete pls
Discuss sports, teams, players, matches and events. Anything and everything sporting.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| Enter our travel-writing competition for the chance to win a Nikon 1 J3 camera | 21-05-2013 | |
-
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
- Location: , Location, Location
- Posts: 1,374
Re: BBC and their coverageI'm quite annoyed. Two or three channels would be more than adequate for the vast majority of people, yet they are spending stupid amounts of money on twenty-odd channels whilst they cut back on other things such as quality dramas, Formula 1, children's shows,.....
-
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Posts: 2,154
Re: BBC and their coverageI second this(Original post by SpiggyTopes)
I'm quite annoyed. Two or three channels would be more than adequate for the vast majority of people, yet they are spending stupid amounts of money on twenty-odd channels whilst they cut back on other things such as quality dramas, Formula 1, children's shows,..... -
- Reputation:
- Respected Member
- Posts: 156
Re: BBC and their coverageI think it is pretty damn brilliant! I never had the luxury of digital television in 2008 for the Beijing games so I had to make do with whatever the Beeb felt like whacking on BBC 1.
It is blissful being able to handpick an event of my choice from upto twenty-four different options. No longer, do I have to sit and endure the synchronised swimming in hope that something a little more entertaining will be televised in the near future!
The lack of commentary on some of the events can be a little off putting at first but I watched an event which was quite exciting and I soon found myself content without any commentary. -
- Superbowl MVP
- Location: Monstropolis
- Warning points: 10
Re: BBC and their coverageBrilliant Coverage but my oh my are they biased, I'm fine with a bit of bias that's understandable but really the amount they've shown in some of the events is just shocking.
Some of the Commentary is rather poor though as well as if they have no idea what their on about -
- Reputation:
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 360
Re: BBC and their coverageTo be fair, though, this may be because handball isn't that big over here, s/he may not be conversant with the technicalities of the game. Although s/he should have read up on the rules.(Original post by That Bearded Man)
Some of the commentary was awful, I watched the handball and the commentator struggled.
Pronounced the names right and that's about it -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: West Bromwich
- Posts: 2,823
Re: BBC and their coverageI agree on the bias issue. They were disappointed for Cav and I've got no problem with that but they barel gave any attention or credit to the winner of the race, Vinokourov.(Original post by johnharris19944)
Brilliant Coverage but my oh my are they biased, I'm fine with a bit of bias that's understandable but really the amount they've shown in some of the events is just shocking.
Some of the Commentary is rather poor though as well as if they have no idea what their on about
Some of them probably don't have an idea.
I'm by no means an avid gymnastic viewer but he's been a commentator on it for a fair few years now, so he's not as inexperienced as some that are doing it. Obviously that doesn't necessarily mean he's any good(Original post by wibletg)
Some of the commentators are terrible - I mean Matt Baker for Gymnastics, really? He's a complete tool.
-
- Superbowl MVP
- Location: Monstropolis
- Warning points: 10
Re: BBC and their coverageWas really horrible how that lady sorta dismissed Vinokourov...(Original post by TheMagicRat)
I agree on the bias issue. They were disappointed for Cav and I've got no problem with that but they barel gave any attention or credit to the winner of the race, Vinokourov.
Some of them probably don't have an idea.
I'm by no means an avid gymnastic viewer but he's been a commentator on it for a fair few years now, so he's not as inexperienced as some that are doing it. Obviously that doesn't necessarily mean he's any good
-
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
Re: BBC and their coverageHuh? I was watching the match on one of the channels(Original post by mangoh)
Criticisms:
1) Not all the additional channels are being used for example Andy & Jamie Murray were playing LIVE in a tennis double match and it was on the red button only
It was on one of the later channels, 16-20 odd. -
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
- Posts: 927
Re: BBC and their coverageI think the coverage is good! They have really approached it holistically.There's the timetable on the red button for all the sports on that day which is alphabetised and provides snippet info (e.g. there are two swimming channels and the snippet info tells you what race is on). Then you've got the fact that there are so many ways of tuning into the Olympics, be it via TV, mobiles, radio or the internet all without any commercial interruptions at all whatsoever!
I understand one of the main qualms with the BBC's Olympic coverage is that not all the channels have commentators but in all fairness for any of the other sporting competitions that the BBC covers, not every red-button channel has a commentator and this time there are 24 channels (the most done by the BBC). What I was pleased to see, however, was that all the major sporting events had commentary and the commentators were the usual pundits for their respective sports.
So yeah, so far so good. I have enjoyed it so far and hopefully will continue to enjoy it especially if the UK does well and gets some gold medals! -
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
- Location: in the shadows
Re: BBC and their coverageThe commentary, lack of details, rubbish ambiguous articles ruin the fantastic digital effort. I've never been so disappointed with the BBC. One article said "weight lifter wins gold lifting 250kg"....yes, so how was that lifted? What's the name of the event? Scour the article and nothing is said!! Cavendish "Fails to win gold"...read the article, so what did he win, bronze? What place did he come? Again, nothing in this article. Much much later an updated article mentions 29th place.
These are just two instances of many terrible and elementary, amateur coverage. Their resources are spread very thinly and it shows. Most events the presenters have zero knowledge of wtf is going on. Did nobody do their job and research the main sports? They've had years to prepare.Last edited by silent ninja; 29-07-2012 at 03:35. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: A glass case of emotion
- Posts: 2,383
Re: BBC and their coverageActually he explained the rules reasonably well - it was the bog standard action(Original post by anna-chipie 95)
To be fair, though, this may be because handball isn't that big over here, s/he may not be conversant with the technicalities of the game. Although s/he should have read up on the rules.
"good save by Grimsbo" - ACTUALLY it went wide
"It had to hit both posts before going in" -ACTUALLY it hit one
"The deficit is 19-21" - THAT's not a deficit?
Etc. -
- Reputation:
- Adored and Respected Member
- Location: Edinburgh
- Posts: 454
Re: BBC and their coverageI think the BBC had two interactive streams on Freeview in 2008. Since then they have lost one.(Original post by Joinedup)
Seems pretty crap to me as a freeview pauper. Think they did a better job organising the channels / red button for 2008 on freeview.
Still, it doesn't seem too bad. I think BBC1 could spend more time showing actual sport, though.
