Sky’s coverage of football

[Tucker]

It’s clearly not just me that thinks Sky’s coverage of football is shit, is it?

I don’t get how they are so bad at it, they’ve been doing it for well over twenty years, they have plenty of money to throw at production costs etc. But every game it’s the same old shit. No nothing ex players spouting the same old cliches, making uninformed comments and generally talking shite.

Yes sometimes Neville, and even Charragher will say something informative, but that’s about it. Martin Tyler is another bugbear, over hyping every single thing, and constantly drones on with useless little factoids or records. Screaming “it’s live” at the beginning of games etc.

Why do they go for this over hyped style? They have a captive audience, they don’t need to ram it down our throats we are already watching, and we’ve already gone to the effort of having sky sports installed etc. They don’t need to reel us in like a barker outside a fairground freak show.

Don’t even get me started on Soccer Saturday. I’ve started watching the BT equivilant, mainly because it seems far less like an old boys club for has been no nothings. BT aren’t without their problems either, but Sky’s coverage has really started to grate on me. They need a serious shake up.

 

[Romulus]

Sky are horrendous.

rule number 1 when a game is on there. turn it on a minute before kickoff and turn it off the moment the whistle blows. it saves a lot of stress that way

 

[rossdapep]

It’s clearly not just me that thinks Sky’s coverage of football is shit, is it?

I don’t get how they are so bad at it, they’ve been doing it for well over twenty years, they have plenty of money to throw at production costs etc. But every game it’s the same old shit. No nothing ex players spouting the same old cliches, making uninformed comments and generally talking shite.

Yes sometimes Neville, and even Charragher will say something informative, but that’s about it. Martin Tyler is another bugbear, over hyping every single thing, and constantly drones on with useless little factoids or records. Screaming “it’s live” at the beginning of games etc.

Why do they go for this over hyped style? They have a captive audience, they don’t need to ram it down our throats we are already watching, and we’ve already gone to the effort of having sky sports installed etc. They don’t need to reel us in like a barker outside a fairground freak show.

Don’t even get me started on Soccer Saturday. I’ve started watching the BT equivilant, mainly because it seems far less like an old boys club for has been no nothings. BT aren’t without their problems either, but Sky’s coverage has really started to grate on me. They need a serious shake up.

I think they have got comfortable and believe that what they produce is the best product around, so why change tact?

I fully agree with you though, there's a severe lack of insight and the majority of their pundits clearly don't do their research. When I tune in to watch Brighton vs Newcastle I want the show dedicated to that game and have some focus on the teams/players/fans etc. Instead we get ANOTHER dissection of how Liverpool are doing. There's too much overkill nowadays and Sky are massively guilty of this.

 

[Tucker]

I think they have got comfortable and believe that what they produce is the best product around, so why change tact?

I fully agree with you though, there's a severe lack of insight and the majority of their pundits clearly don't do their research. When I tune in to watch Brighton vs Newcastle I want the show dedicated to that game and have some focus on the teams/players/fans etc. Instead we get ANOTHER dissection of how Liverpool are doing. There's too much overkill nowadays and Sky are massively guilty of this.

Now that truly pisses me off. Even when they are talking about Spurs. It’s so disrespectful to the fans of the other clubs involved, and there’s just no need for it.

 

[Archibald&Crooks]

TBH I think people sometimes read way too much into it all. It obviously works for Sky otherwise the feedback they get would demand change and that isn't happening. I'd like to see the three amigos on Soccer Saturday replaced, I think they've had their day now. As with everything there's good bits and bad bits, I don't mind most of their pundits, the 'in game' ones are getting better, I like Hinchcliffe for example, but like I said there's good ones and bad ones, you'll get that no matter what the format and no matter who the broadcaster is.

Now BT's coverage for example. Its so heavily scouser populated, pretty much any game you watch reminds you of an episode of 'Bread' and I'm not a fan. I think their format and after game shows are better than Sky's though.

 

[danielneeds]

Yeah, they used to be cutting edge, but now are as stale as stale can be. Much prefer BT's coverage, and the Football Tonight show after the Saturday game is always worth watching.

 

[mattdefoe]

Coverage is awful over in England . In Australia we get every game . We ha e a goal rush on a Saturday showing the 3pm games live and it’s direct from London. No like don Hutchinson is brilliant as a pundit and commentator

 

[dude573]

I think a problem that English football coverage has is that you have to be a former pro to be a pundit.

If you have watched football across the world all your life then chances are you probably know a bit about it. I would like to see more people from non playing backgrounds do punditry. There are plenty of journalists, fans, coaches etc who can articulate themselves far better than the former player pundits on TV.

When you consider just how much the sport has changed, I don't think having experience a playing a different kind football 20/30 years ago is even that much of an insight in today's modern game.

 

[Danners9]

Coverage is awful over in England . In Australia we get every game . We ha e a goal rush on a Saturday showing the 3pm games live and it’s direct from London. No like don Hutchinson is brilliant as a pundit and commentator

Even on SBS, Lucy Zelic has obviously grown up with football in her family and knows enough to ask good questions. Craig Foster can come across a bit pompous at times but he always has something interesting to say. The guests they have on are decent too. The main thing, I think, is there's no real bias (except maybe Liverpool in Lucy's case...). Their World Cup coverage was excellent, I thought.

I find Sky is biased towards the traditional top 4 sides because they have larger fanbases and, I assume, make up a larger number of Sky's customers. They'll find a way to crowbar Man Utd or Liverpool into a game neither are involved in and will often ignore the first game of 'Super Sunday' to hype the second one later on. They should focus on each game equally.

Only downside to SBS is when they repeat lame rumours as if it's actually happening. I don't have Foxtel or Optus so can't really comment - although I quite like the Fox coverage of the A-League. The studio guests are outspoken and clearly care about the game. It's very similar to the NRL coverage. Maybe I like it because it's such a contrast from the way Sky cover games in England.

 

[mpickard2087]

Never really watch the pre and post-game stuff, so pundits can be avoided. Tyler is probably still the best commentator compared to the alternatives on BT or BBC - who really are awful.

My main annoyance, which I've mentioned before, though is the overuse of replays and random close ups of players, managers, chairmen, fans in the stand etc. More and more these days you're seeing these for several seconds, and then suddenly you hear the commentator getting excited and it cuts back to the main camera with a team bearing down on goal and you have no idea what has happened to get to that point. Was there some good play? A mistake that has let them in? No one fucking knows, because we've had some irrelevant shots of someone or other. Again, Sky probably started this and are bad, but BT and BBC I have noticed are even worse for this. Let us watch the bloody game!

 

[Danners9]

I think a problem that English football coverage has is that you have to be a former pro to be a pundit.

If you have watched football across the world all your life then chances are you probably know a bit about it. I would like to see more people from non playing backgrounds do punditry. There are plenty of journalists, fans, coaches etc who can articulate themselves far better than the former player pundits on TV.

When you consider just how much the sport has changed, I don't think having experience a playing a different kind football 20/30 years ago is even that much of an insight in today's modern game.

Good point about the pundits being out of touch.

I read this yesterday about Tony Romo and NFL coverage: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jan/24/tony-romo-cbs-nfl-analyst-dallas-cowboys

Check out the video about 1/3 down. He's offering genuine insight into what is likely to happen, what Brady is thinking and what to look for. Now compare and contrast with people like Jamie Redknapp. It's because Romo was still playing fairly recently. Even worse if you want to talk about the people they get on Soccer Saturday.

There are journalists out there who can add to the English football scene but the ones we see most often are largely tabloid hacks with pre-conceived ideas of what is going on and a blindspot for anything new. The Sunday Supplement crew. I've always enjoyed James Richardson's work, especially on Channel 4 Serie A, and he was involved in (I think) a show on BT Sport with some others who are aware of more than just what is happening at the top of the Premier League.

 

[SE Spurs]

May not be just Sky, but something that really pisses me off, with the actual coverage of the game, especially sky. Is the need for a replay, even though the game is actually going on. Its got worse this season, and times when they've almost missed goals showing a pointless replay. Happens near on every game. What happened to waiting till the balls gone out of play, to show us a row Z shot 30 times.

Also quickly, constant camera panning on celebs and the like, for half the game - while the bloody games in play. Drives me mad.

 

['O Zio]

They're all far too comfortable in their jobs and it's like an old boys club. Getting rid of Keys and Gray should've been a catalyst to have a real shake-up of things there but they didn't take the opportunity.

On a more general note, I also (perhaps controversially) don't think that ex-players necessarily make the best pundits. Obviously there are some, Neville being the obvious example, who clearly put a lot of time and effort into their research and prepare for the shows properly so that they offer some real insight. But on the other hand you've got the majority of them who clearly just show up and wing it so they just regurgitate the same tired old cliches that are making up the headlines of the tabloids that day and nobody calls them out on it because they're all mates.

I'd much rather watch some of the better journos than ex-players to be honest. I'm not talking about the numpties that are on Sunday Supplement (also Sky-produced!) but the kinds of people who are on podcasts like Totally Football and the Guardian Football Weekly. Just because they haven't played the game as a professional doesn't mean they can't analyse the game. They often have far more well-researched and educated opinions and analysis than the majority of people on Sky Sports. Sure, ex-players can offer an insight into dressing room politics and so on, which is obviously valuable, but when it comes to analysing the game I really don't think being an ex-player is a requirement and if anything it seems to me that with a lot of them being an ex-player is almost a hinderance because they're afraid to slag off their mates or associates within the game, and they can be lazy knowing that they're not going to be sacked if they don't do their research.

 

[theShiznit]

Loved it how last night when Sanchez came on they said Spurs are changing to a back three, so clouded by there own bullshit that they couldn't see the fact that Dier had moved into a back three for the whole of the second half.

These people are supposed to be experts wtf were they watching? I assume the production team felt too embarrassed to tell them...

 

[rossdapep]

TBH I think people sometimes read way too much into it all. It obviously works for Sky otherwise the feedback they get would demand change and that isn't happening. I'd like to see the three amigos on Soccer Saturday replaced, I think they've had their day now. As with everything there's good bits and bad bits, I don't mind most of their pundits, the 'in game' ones are getting better, I like Hinchcliffe for example, but like I said there's good ones and bad ones, you'll get that no matter what the format and no matter who the broadcaster is.

Now BT's coverage for example. Its so heavily scouser populated, pretty much any game you watch reminds you of an episode of 'Bread' and I'm not a fan. I think their format and after game shows are better than Sky's though.

I actually think their 'under-the-radar' pundits and commentators are much better as they don't appear to be selling any narrative and they do offer better insight. I used to love the Spanish coverage. I guess you could get aggrieved with any pundit who has ties with a 'rival' and that doesn't bother me mostly. It's the necessity to distract us from what is happening right now and taking the focus away from the game that's happening.

For example, Martin Tyler's commentary is getting worse and worse. As Clive Tyldsley stated, commentators are responsible for keeping the listener engaged in the arena where the game is taking place, anything else and you take them out of that 'sphere'. Tyler mostly rambles nowadays and starts talking about rumours, which have absolutely no place in commentary. I want to be entertained but don't go overboard.

Maybe it's a sign of the times where people are sat watching the game whilst playing with their phones at the same time.

 

[teok]

The bar for football punditry is so low it's almost embarrassing. I have got to the point where I am satisfied if they don't actively annoy me.

As has been said. For some reason it's not treated as a proper job but just a retirement home for ex players who are completely incompetent.

 

[Gassin's finest]

I don't watch any of them.

 

[absolute bobbins]

The bar for football punditry is so low it's almost embarrassing. I have got to the point where I am satisfied if they don't actively annoy me.

As has been said. For some reason it's not treated as a proper job but just a retirement home for ex players who are completely incompetent.

With the rights holders we’re stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea. On one hand you've got ex pro's who, with a few exceptions (Jenas, Souness, Murphy off the top of my head), aren't sharp, eloquent or insightful, on the other you sports journalists clutching their Thora's from second rate universities with their overinflated sense of self importance, the loosest of grasps on reality and distinct lack of objectivity.

 

[The Mourneview Ace]

Alan Smith needs shot from a cannon. Nothing further to add at this point.

 

[Insomnia]

I turned the volume off last night Tyler & that **** Alan Smith gave me the right ache. I'd love it if you could press a button & just hear the noise in the ground instead of those 2 ****'s jabbering on.
Fuck Sky Sports in the beard