Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Lineker and Attenborough
Comments
-
Difference being a lot of people who have never watched it will have tuned in out of curiosity.ValleyGary said:Anyone know the viewing figures for MOTD from Saturday compared to before?
I preferred it without all the waffle.0 -
9
-
I don’t have any axe to grind and resent the fact you accuse me of it. Feel free to check historic posts from me stating I record the Football League Show and MOTD2 enabling me to fast forward all the analysis, replays, chat and adverts.JamesSeed said:
No one without an axe to grind preferred it.ValleyGary said:Anyone know the viewing figures for MOTD from Saturday compared to before?
I preferred it without all the waffle.
The viewing figures were way up, of course, through curiosity.Very few would watch it regularly in that format of course.5 -
A lot will prefer it without the pundits and I get that, but surely it’s best for all of we keep the pundits?That way those that enjoy the analysis can watch it, and those that don’t can fast forward (assuming most watch it the next day after recording it).3
-
I like to avoid knowing the scores when I finish watching us of a Saturday.
Then on the internet at 9pm I can watch the ITV 4 league coverage, with another window open for cribbage in the chat and adverts.
Then afterwards go to BBC for Match of the Day, press watch from the start and fast forward through all the chat, replays and ‘punditry’.
Lineker hardly appears on my personal radar, but he can use his Twitter if he likes, and it turns out he has accepted refugees into his home.
In short it is pretty easy to avoid the talking heads and concentrate on the talking feet.4 -
No but thank you.WSS said:Do people know you can actually watch that version of MOTD every week on YouTube from SkySports?
People don't tune in at 10.30 on a Saturday or on a Sunday morning to "just watch the footy", why would they when it's already available?
This weird pseudo-justification for not having presenters/pundits is backwards.
Also for the psycho-analysis.0 -
ValleyGary said:
You obviously think i care more than i do. I didn't 'already know', thats why i asked. Perhaps people would have prefered to boycott it, seeing as most are on Lineker's side.soapboxsam said:ValleyGary said:Anyone know the viewing figures for MOTD from Saturday compared to before?
I preferred it without all the waffle.
I'm sure you already know !
Of course it went up. It was like looking at a car crash.
Felt sorry for blind people with no commentary and "waffle".
That alright?
You had already said "you don't give a shit",
So I realized that you didn't care.
I like analysis from ex-professionals on screen when they highlight movement, passing ability etc. Because of the amount of live football shown MOTD isn't the force it once was and is reflected in much lower figures; commentary, analysis or just pictures with crowd noise.
The great thing is every individual can be their own editor and just watch the football and fast forward or just watch the analysis and not watch the 0-0 with no chances created.
To have freedom is a brilliant thing despite the noise and Information overload.
It's all about choice; if you have that then you were dealt a good hand in life.
0 -
No. I didn't. What I said was 'People care far too much about this shit...'.soapboxsam said:ValleyGary said:
You obviously think i care more than i do. I didn't 'already know', thats why i asked. Perhaps people would have prefered to boycott it, seeing as most are on Lineker's side.soapboxsam said:ValleyGary said:Anyone know the viewing figures for MOTD from Saturday compared to before?
I preferred it without all the waffle.
I'm sure you already know !
Of course it went up. It was like looking at a car crash.
Felt sorry for blind people with no commentary and "waffle".
That alright?
You had already said "you don't give a shit",
So I realized that you didn't care.
I like analysis from ex-professionals on screen when they highlight movement, passing ability etc. Because of the amount of live football shown MOTD isn't the force it once was and is reflected in much lower figures; commentary, analysis or just pictures with crowd noise.
The great thing is every individual can be their own editor and just watch the football and fast forward or just watch the analysis and not watch the 0-0 with no chances created.
To have freedom is a brilliant thing despite the noise and Information overload.
It's all about choice; if you have that then you were dealt a good hand in life.
Thank you for proving my point when I simply asked a normal question.3 -
I never watch it live and normally forward through the chat if I'm in a hurry to watch something else, or if Mrs JS is wanting to watch something else.
I don't mind the chat if it isn't banging on about how great City or Chelsea are (so if they've won), and I think all the analysis can be repetitive. However it can also sometimes be quite interesting, even for an old bloke who thinks he's heard it all before.
MotD uses a very successful format that's used around the world, and I'm not sure getting rid of the punditry would help viewing figures. However, perhaps they could offer an alternative twenty minute 'naked' version on the iPlayer. Win win.
1 -
Why?swordfish said:
Fully understood, and we're drifting so far down the river from the thread subject I feel quite embarrassed.seth plum said:
I can accept the vote of others, but I don’t see how there is a situation where (if you know how they voted) it is out of order to hate those who voted National Front or BNP amongst others.swordfish said:seth plum said:People can have different opinions, it is when those opinions are manifested in actions that hatred and division occurs.
A vote is an action.
Yet without division, there'd be no vote. I can accept other's voting as they do without hating them. That doesn't mean I agree with what they're voting for.
I wouldn’t ban those others, but reserve the right to hate them vehemently.
I couldn’t reach a state of rapprochement with racists for example, especially when I start from a position of hatred and contempt. How does toleration and acceptance come about in the situation I describe, be a teensy bit racist myself in order to get along with them?
Incidentally, loving seeing you use the word 'rapprochement' here. Don't often see that, or expect it on CL if I'm being honest. I was going to extol the virtues of the English language, but as that has distinctly French undertones, I probably shouldn't, not in the spirit of entente cordiale.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Yes, and The Road to Wigan Pier.Silverdreammachine said:
He’s probably Blairite Labour isn’t he?rananegra said:He's hardly a socialist, more of a liberal. Criticised Corbyn in tweets that weren't deemed a threat to the BBC's "impartiality".
Out of interest what do you call poor conservatives? Sewage-water drinkers? Or is it only rich people having values that don't match their perceived economic interests something to slag off?btw is being a champagne socialist supposed to be a bad thing @Silverdreammachine ? 🍾🥂
Never said it was a bad thing, have your read ''The Ragged Trousered Philantropists by Robert Tressell,
that will tell you about real Socialism!0 -
It has startled me that in a 90 minute football show we only actually get 20 minutes of the football.
Surely that can’t be true.1 -
AS EVERY sport on every channel when shown on TV has a commentator, and there's nearly always some sort of analysis afterwards, however brief, that does suggest that it's expected.
I find the Sky YouTube clips are fine when watching Charlton highlights, as I know our players anyway, but watching silent highlights of say Ipswich versus Bolton or Rochdale vs Carlisle doesn't work for me, when compared to having someone describing the action, even if not live.5 -
It’s also seemingly impossible to seek out clips online without the score being given away in the process.1
-
BR7_addick said:
Not for me I like them.Baldybonce said:BR7_addick said:
Massive viewing, obviously most of that will be contributed to curiosity. I’d guess this weeks will be massive also just to see if GL makes a sly dig or relevant comment.ValleyGary said:Anyone know the viewing figures for MOTD from Saturday compared to before?
I preferred it without all the waffle.
The smug grin and fawning adoration of his pundits will be puke inducing.
6 -
Well how many times have you seen it used on here then? A first for me! Perhaps it's seen more often on the HoC thread, but I'm a rare visitor there not having strong opinions and occupying the vacant space that is the middle ground in British politics these days.JamesSeed said:
Why?swordfish said:
Fully understood, and we're drifting so far down the river from the thread subject I feel quite embarrassed.seth plum said:
I can accept the vote of others, but I don’t see how there is a situation where (if you know how they voted) it is out of order to hate those who voted National Front or BNP amongst others.swordfish said:seth plum said:People can have different opinions, it is when those opinions are manifested in actions that hatred and division occurs.
A vote is an action.
Yet without division, there'd be no vote. I can accept other's voting as they do without hating them. That doesn't mean I agree with what they're voting for.
I wouldn’t ban those others, but reserve the right to hate them vehemently.
I couldn’t reach a state of rapprochement with racists for example, especially when I start from a position of hatred and contempt. How does toleration and acceptance come about in the situation I describe, be a teensy bit racist myself in order to get along with them?
Incidentally, loving seeing you use the word 'rapprochement' here. Don't often see that, or expect it on CL if I'm being honest. I was going to extol the virtues of the English language, but as that has distinctly French undertones, I probably shouldn't, not in the spirit of entente cordiale.
No need to take offense. None was intended.1 -
I love the office and I’m ashamed that this reference has gone right over my head.JaShea99 said:BR7_addick said:
Not for me I like them.Baldybonce said:BR7_addick said:
Massive viewing, obviously most of that will be contributed to curiosity. I’d guess this weeks will be massive also just to see if GL makes a sly dig or relevant comment.ValleyGary said:Anyone know the viewing figures for MOTD from Saturday compared to before?
I preferred it without all the waffle.
The smug grin and fawning adoration of his pundits will be puke inducing.0 -
I believe they also reduced the length of highlights per game.seth plum said:It has startled me that in a 90 minute football show we only actually get 20 minutes of the football.
Surely that can’t be true.2 -
It's like some don't want to listen to people with experience in a certain area talking about something, I'm sure this rings a bell with something else.WSS said:Do people know you can actually watch that version of MOTD every week on YouTube from SkySports?
People don't tune in at 10.30 on a Saturday or on a Sunday morning to "just watch the footy", why would they when it's already available?
This weird pseudo-justification for not having presenters/pundits is backwards.2 - Sponsored links:
-
I think Seth was referring to a normal MOTD show, not what was shown last night. I may be wrong thoughThe Red Robin said:
I believe they also reduced the length of highlights per game.seth plum said:It has startled me that in a 90 minute football show we only actually get 20 minutes of the football.
Surely that can’t be true.1 -
I also don't have an axe to grind and preferred it without the endless punditry, although I would have preferred a bit of commentary.JamesSeed said:
No one without an axe to grind preferred it.ValleyGary said:Anyone know the viewing figures for MOTD from Saturday compared to before?
I preferred it without all the waffle.
The viewing figures were way up, of course, through curiosity.Very few would watch it regularly in that format of course.0 -
According the National Scotland the viewing figures up by 500,000.ValleyGary said:Anyone know the viewing figures for MOTD from Saturday compared to before?
I preferred it without all the waffle.
By and by I check the National out to get a
Balanced view of what is being said in Scotland
By comparing their take to the UK press take.1 -
Both been ruled as own-goals by the dubious goals committee...The Red Robin said:6 -
Fair enough ESM, silly generalisation. Have no idea whether you like Lineker or not. I also often FF through the chat and ads btw.eaststandmike said:
I don’t have any axe to grind and resent the fact you accuse me of it. Feel free to check historic posts from me stating I record the Football League Show and MOTD2 enabling me to fast forward all the analysis, replays, chat and adverts.JamesSeed said:
No one without an axe to grind preferred it.ValleyGary said:Anyone know the viewing figures for MOTD from Saturday compared to before?
I preferred it without all the waffle.
The viewing figures were way up, of course, through curiosity.Very few would watch it regularly in that format of course.
A few have said they preferred the show with no commentary at all, but for me it was interesting for a few minutes, but it just left me feeling irritated, like when there's a technical fault. But different strokes an' all that.
I wonder what the anti-Linker, anti-football-with-commentary Venn diagram would look like, as a matter of interest.1 -
Peak Practice. I honestly thought you did it intentionally.BR7_addick said:
I love the office and I’m ashamed that this reference has gone right over my head.JaShea99 said:BR7_addick said:
Not for me I like them.Baldybonce said:BR7_addick said:
Massive viewing, obviously most of that will be contributed to curiosity. I’d guess this weeks will be massive also just to see if GL makes a sly dig or relevant comment.ValleyGary said:Anyone know the viewing figures for MOTD from Saturday compared to before?
I preferred it without all the waffle.
The smug grin and fawning adoration of his pundits will be puke inducing.0 -
Commentary on the highlights is fine - it’s the fact that the over analysis of everything between each match means it takes 90 minutes just to see what happened in about 6 games.
By comparison, the EFL highlights fit 30+ games into the same amount of time, with a load of waffling thrown in!1 -
Sorry, I should have made it clear that I meant the absence of commentary when I said 'it'.robinofottershaw said:
I also don't have an axe to grind and preferred it without the endless punditry, although I would have preferred a bit of commentary.JamesSeed said:
No one without an axe to grind preferred it.ValleyGary said:Anyone know the viewing figures for MOTD from Saturday compared to before?
I preferred it without all the waffle.
The viewing figures were way up, of course, through curiosity.Very few would watch it regularly in that format of course.
I normally fast forward through much of the chat as well, particularly when they're discussing teams I don't like.0 -
It’s not.seth plum said:It has startled me that in a 90 minute football show we only actually get 20 minutes of the football.
Surely that can’t be true.
Take the MOTD programme from the previous week:
Total running length (83 mins)
Arsenal v Bournemouth (10 mins of highlights)
Man City v Newcastle (9 mins)
Brighton v West Ham (7 mins)
Wolves v Tottenham (7 mins)
Southampton v Leicester (6 mins)
Chelsea v Leeds (7 mins)
Aston Villa v Palace (6 mins)
52 minutes of highlights in an 83 minute programme.8
This discussion has been closed.
