Watford FC On MOTD/MOTD2 - BBC1/2

I suppose you could argue that. But that assumes the glory hunters have some degree of interest in any other teams, and sufficient endurance after 15 rounds of prawn sandwiches and a bottle of Chardonnay to stay up until nearly midnight.

This thread is interesting because we are quite divided. Some of us (myself included) really couldn't give a toss. Others seem to crave some sort of affirmation from the Beeb and other outlets. Still others are not that bothered about recognition but are critical of the punditry.

 

MOTD coverage of smaller teams is poop. It doesn't have to be, but they choose to make it so. That is the nature of the Beeb's media elite bullspooh. I don't like it, but there you go.

What upset me about last night though was that three influencial ex professionals said the right thing to do to prevent our winner was to hack down Richarlison. I think this seriously brings BBC's coverage into disrepute.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the sentiment, and would have no problem with them saying it is what they would have done, but to say it is what you have got to do is just irresponsible.

Yep. If it had been the other way round, I would have little problem with our defender making the decision to take the player out and be carded, but would be equally happy with a good honest tackle.

But to tell the world that committing an offence to prevent a possible goal is the right thing to do in Football is I believe detrimental to the game and its progress.

To summarise, for those who may think I am unrealistic about a man's game: I completely understand that a player will make a decision to take out a player in the heat of the match, but it is totally wrong for influencial players on the BBC, or any other media outlet, to say it is either the right thing for the game, or a good thing for the game.

 

Is anybody else able to verify this as frankly l just don't believe it. I doubt l missed a word Hill said about us during this period and my memories are they were all factually accurate and essentially complementary at best, neutral at worst, often concentrating on Wing Commander Charles Reep's theory of getting the ball into the box as often and quickly as possible.

 

Interesting points, 424. We have exchanged about the elitism of the BBC before, and while I don't fully agree with you, I can see where you are coming from.

But I think we can disentangle the "attitude" towards us a bit more. For the reasons I give above, I think the position of our games in the MOTD running order, or the number of column inches we get in papers, is understandable. Ultimately these are numbers games, and media companies want to maximise sales/viewings. We don't have as many supporters, nationally or internationally, as most PL clubs, nor are we ever likely to do so. So, it's only when we upset the big boys or "do a Leicester" that we can expect more coverage.

A patronising, condescending attitude on the part of the pundits strikes me as a different matter. I can see no justification for that and all I would say that is, as time goes by, one would expect it to reduce. Though possibly the misperceptions as to the nature of Pozzo ownership (managerial merry go round etc) will mean it persists.

On your specific point about the punditry last night: it's always puzzled me why so many pundits, especially on TV, are ex-defenders. Is that simply the legacy of Hansen?

 

Who cares. Go to the games or stream the games and then you have no reason to even watch out for us on MoTD

 

Shouldn't be the case for the Beeb, which remains a public service broadcaster with a remit encompassing balance and lack of bias. After all, if it were just about numbers, it would be passionately in favour of Leave, rather than Remain....

 

The order of matches was not entirely unreasonable but was a Man U 1 nil away to Southampton more newsworthy than our 2-1

I am not over bothered about lack of coverage and analysis but when the pundits can be bothered get fed up with the belittling snidy comments

Why do BBC employ such boring pundits, shearer got nothing insightful or interesting to say, Danny Murphy just boring and ugly to boot

 

I was under the impression that the balance obligation only applied to political issues. I could be wrong...

 

You're right. The Victorians are routinely slated for hypocrisy, but it's hypocrisy which establishes new norms of better behaviour, even if it doesn't reflect reality until the new standards take hold.

Whether Corinthian standards will ever take root in professional sport is very doubtful, but pros shouldn't be telling kids and Sunday league players that professional fouls are what's expected. The clue is on the name

 

Corrected for you

 

What worries me more is that MOTD focuses on incidents at the expense of reporting how the game went. The BBC website reported that we completely dominated for the first 35 minutes, but you wouldn't have known that from the coverage. Not the first time this season that the opposition's one shot gets as much screen time as six of ours

 

I'm not sure that's true at all. It's an entertainment programme that they own the rights to show as they please. Editorial judgement will always likely see some teams higher up the order unless something exceptional occurs. I can't agree with you that every match should have an equal time slot either.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I agree, best post of the thread.

 

I don't particularly care what the media's opinion of us is. As a Watford fan, you get used to the minimal and ill-informed coverage; it was ten times worse in the pre-Pozzo era. What irks me is that pundits clearly spend all their off-air time analysing the top 6, and it's so painfully obvious when it comes to us that their comments are not backed up by any prior research. Throw in a couple of tired cliches, and it's on to the next match.

 

I think the Beeb are in a difficult position.

They are judged on ratings and viewing figures but, at the same time, expected to provide a service that meets the needs of all and not just the majority.

In my view, viewing figures are secondary and the Beeb's main purpose should be as a public service. Let the commercial stations provide the programmes that win the popularity contests and satisfy their advertisers, the Beeb need to serve us all.

Unfortunately, in the current environment, the producers of MOTD are doing what they need to in order to maximize their viewing figures. I don't blame them for that. I do blame them for using licence payer's money to employ pundits to comment on teams and games without any apparent knowledge of what they're talking about though.

 

You missed the dig, UB - being that the Beeb is desperately pro Remain.

 

No, it's not. It's a really complicated game. Imagine playing chess, but with 'pieces' which have constantly varying analogue capabilities which you don't know in advance. There is huge input into a game from individuals - not just the team but also subs, coach, his backroom staff, the officials, the audience inter al and all of it is based on their individual subjective perceptions. Then there are the physical conditions.
Martin Keown had an illustrious career in football which lasted a good length of time and he talks coherently. Even then he is not always right. But he is part of a team of presenters whose task is to entertain and inform a very large and very wide audience whilst still satisfying the requirements of his employers. The phrase 'you can't please all of the people all of the time' applies.
Of course, you are free not to like him and to not listen to the 'useless guff'. I happen to think he 's quite good.
The basic design of football is simple, I agree. So it is with evolution and with rocket science. Not every body can actually get a rocket to the moon, however.

 

I do think there is a difference with MOTD 2 on a sunday night if Mark Chapman presents as they do tend to have a more critical analysis on a couple of matches (not always the sunday games) and IIRC we were featured maybe it was Bmuff or Saints away and the coverage was reasonable

 

I agree with what you are saying in principle, but they are public broadcast, and they are not supposed to be influencing public opinion one way or the other. However, their coverage is detrimental to smaller clubs, by being dismissive of them, and are therefore promoting a negative view of anything outside of the elite.

If I watch MOTD, I should expect equal respect given to my team as given to an "elite" team, or any other team. I understand that there are more high profile games because of league position which are more likely to involve the bigger clubs, but that is not a reason to be dismissive, in both coverage and comment, of other clubs. MOTD has been entirely dismissive of our last two wins and the position they put us into; highest placed outside of the elite (4th and 6th), in significantly good form. They have also been dismissive of other clubs who justified greater interest in their achievements.

At the moment they are not even being patronising, which is bad enough. They just seem to be making it clear to us and other non-elite clubs that we are just not of any interest to them, and therefore they are not going to tell anyone else who may be interested about us.

I wonder if it would be different with Sky. I would like to see them produce a 'Match of the Day' type highlights program, because they have a vested interest to keep punters interested in the non-elite games they intend to broadcast.

The BBC do not believe it is in their interest to promote the non-elite, whom they see as below the pale. They have one product, and it features the elite teams practically every broadcast, so the smaller teams are irrelevant. However, their view of the elite teams is that they are a greater entity than the beeb, and are grateful for any association they can make with them; thus they cow tail and nob suck at every opportunity, whilst being treated like a desperate ex-girlfriend.

Sky favor the big clubs, but see them, for the time being. as paid-for assets, along side the other teams in the league. Sky know that the big teams have the biggest audience, but they consider that every team has a potential audience, and that belittling one of their assets will likely reduce the potential returns from them.

In short, Sky cover the Premier League; it is in their interest that all its assets are desirable to watch. The BBC cover the big clubs, with the residual inconvenience of having to broadcast something, just enough to justify the idea of highlights, of the rest of them, which is blatantly apparent every time MOTD is broadcast.

Disclaimer: I have no particular admiration for Sky, I am only seeing what I think is a positive factor they have over the dreadful BBC.

 

I didn't miss it at all. You're right about that of course, but it's wrong for you to suggest that the country was strongly pro Leave.

And maybe the Bee's attitude towards Brexit has something to do with them being well-informed about the problems it is generating.

 

It's possible MOTD have been dismissive of the position our last two wins has put us in as, aside from curiosity amongst fans, the league table is still basically a 6 game form table. You can use it to point to the extremes - City and United scoring for fun at the top, Palace abject at the bottom - but everything in between is of interest only to the fans of the clubs concerned. Last week we lost and dropped 7 places in an afternoon. That says it all about how useful the league table currently is. Yeah, we're 6th but it's pretty much meaningless.

As for Sky, I'm sure lots on here remember the Burnley v Watford match last season where the entire MNF preamble was occupied with Jurgen Klopp talking about Liverpool. If that wasn't belittling I don't know what is.

 

Sky are not perfect. I am not saying they are. But it is not in their interest to reduce interest in people watching the games.

Sixth place is as meaningless as first, second, third fourth and fifth. Fourth though put us in touching distance of first, which may have been of some general interest given that we were the only non-elite team to be in such a position.

I agree, overall, it is meaningless, but it is clearly of interest, or why would the league table be shown at the end of the program? Last night, top of the table included mention of Spuds in fourth, with no mention that it was only on goal difference, with two other teams on the same points. Not a major issue, but missing a significant point, if only considering the closeness of teams at the top of the table after 6 games.

Regarding the Burnley game: If there was a wide interest in Liverpool and Klopp at the time, then including discussion of that is likely to increase the viewing numbers from the general football watching public. If the game coverage had been cut short, or the post match discussion had been dominated by talk of Klopp, then your point would hold more weight, IMHO. I rarely watch preamble, except for team news, or review, apart from goals; I'm not very interested in the opinions of pundits who know little about my club.

 

Yep - they came up with this.......

 

Two posters out of how many? And for me it was nowhere near as littered with mistakes or unforced as Swansea's goal, it was hard-earned and the culmination of a several minute spell of pressure resulting from Deeney's timely arrival, taking advantage of a couple of minor mistakes from Mesa and Mawson to get our reward. You could call it a grafter's goal, which is in its own way just as if not more impressive than a curling worldie from 30 yards out, and certainly no flukier.

 

If you want to see something which gives the club a little bit of praise watch Goals on Sunday. The second match talked about was Watford's and they were very complimentary towards the club.

 

I'd prefer us to be 6th and get no attention / credit than be say, 19th and have everyone creaming themselves over our fairy tale and bright young manager

 

I don't even know who that is!

 

I didn't say the country was strongly pro Leave, I said the BBC was strongly pro remain, which is why I clarified it.
And Armageddon seems to have been delayed somewhat,in spite of the forecasts of doom.

 

Really ? I think he had a decent career playing at the highest level. Suspect he knows more than most on here

 

Sorry, I misread what you wrote. But it's a slow slide towards Armageddon, starting with decline of the pound, to be followed by investment going elsewhere and tax-generating companies moving out, labour shortages in some labour-intensive sectors and finally companies having to comply with technical legislation which the UK has had no say in, if those companies want to continue doing business with the nearest, biggest and richest trading bloc in the world.

Which takes us some way from the shortcomings of MOTD!

 

You are Nick Clegg and I claim my free season ticket to Strasbourg