Beefy's Corner - The Off-Topic Chat Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheSecondStain said:
Ok, so I also assume then that you would agree that the highlights were not reprentative of the match, then..?
Click to expand...

As I just explained, they weren't, but that's not the point of the show - the point of Match of the Day is to show thehighlights of the game, the most entertaining parts. As I said, what did you expect them to do - show ten minutes of Wanyama and Schneiderlin stopping United from playing the ball through the middle?
 
Dan said:
As I just explained, they weren't, but that's not the point of the show - the point of Match of the Day is to show thehighlights of the game, the most entertaining parts. As I said, what did you expect them to do - show ten minutes of Wanyama and Schneiderlin stopping United from playing the ball through the middle?
Click to expand...

Actually Dan, showing representative highlights IS the point of the show. It has always been MOTD's format. Admittedly, when they only used to televise one or two games they had an easier job, but as far as I know, their remit has not changed. Anyone, seeing only the highlights, would have thought that Saints had just scraped a draw. But we know better. BTW, for good measure, I've seen the full match twice. The balance of the game is entirely changed.
 
I'm with Dan. We were in that slot where you get slightly longer highlights than normal. Time is still limited though so for something to get into the highlights it realistically has to be a goal, someone hitting the woodwork, forcing a good save from the keeper, getting sent off or injuring someone. De Gea didn't really make many (any?) saves that weren't routine. The highlights included the Clyne and Osvaldo chances but I'm not sure what else they could have shown.

TSS, bearing in mind the show's time constraints, which specific incidents would you have included that MOTD didn't and which of the incidents they did show would you have taken out?
 
TheSecondStain said:
Actually Dan, showing representative highlights IS the point of the show. It has always been MOTD's format. Admittedly, when they only used to televise one or two games they had an easier job, but as far as I know, their remit has not changed. Anyone, seeing only the highlights, would have thought that Saints had just scraped a draw. But we know better. BTW, for good measure, I've seen the full match twice. The balance of the game is entirely changed.
Click to expand...

It's hard to show representative highlights when there aren't any. That's what the analysis is for between the games, as Fran points out, Shearer made it clear that it wasn't as one-sided as the highlights themselves would suggest. I really don't know what they could have shown to make it seem more accurate - showing a few of Osvaldo's scuffed headers would, while provide more evidence of Southampton having attempts on goal, simply make the public perception "well they had chances but they weren't exactly great". Unfortunately, games like that are very hard to represent in a few short minutes of footage.
 
In memory of Duckhunter, check out this goal from a women's game in Ireland - remind you of anyone!??

[video=youtube;nRJppITfm9U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRJppITfm9U&feature=youtu.be[/video]
 
I suppose the replies to the point I'm making are representative of today's watchers of football. Put simply, in years past, MOTD would never have edited the match highlights like that. And yes, that means they would have left out one or two ManU moves to retain a representative balance. For example, was Evra's offside required showing..? And I really don't care whether a shot is scuffed or ballooned. Show it, if it represents a more balanced view of the match.
 
Can't say I care much. I saw the whole game, and I've seen the goals again. Whether they've shown what they thought were the most important highlights, or they've favoured United a tad, I couldn't really argue with them either way. Far more people want to see United than Saints.
 
TheSecondStain said:
I suppose the replies to the point I'm making are representative of today's watchers of football. Put simply, in years past, MOTD would never have edited the match highlights like that. And yes, that means they would have left out one or two ManU moves to retain a representative balance. For example, was Evra's offside required showing..? And I really don't care whether a shot is scuffed or ballooned. Show it, if it represents a more balanced view of the match.
Click to expand...

Possibly so. I don't know what time period you're talking about when you say "in years past" but isn't it the case that until the Premier League came along Match of the Day only showed highlights of selected games? So in years past there would be a reasonable chance TV viewers wouldn't have seen some (most?) of our games at all. Showing the goals from all the games means the time for the featured games has to be reduced and showing all 30-odd shots from our game just wouldn't be possible.

fran-MLs little camera said:
What was strange was discussing stuff that wasn't in the original highlights. As if they kept Saints highlights back.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree about that. I can only think it's a way of getting more footage of the game onto the show.
 
TheSecondStain said:
I suppose the replies to the point I'm making are representative of today's watchers of football. Put simply, in years past, MOTD would never have edited the match highlights like that. And yes, that means they would have left out one or two ManU moves to retain a representative balance. For example, was Evra's offside required showing..? And I really don't care whether a shot is scuffed or ballooned. Show it, if it represents a more balanced view of the match.
Click to expand...

I actually think that the offsides were fairly important in making it representative, because Man U's inability to beat our high line (and the inability of many teams to do likewise, actually) played a big part in the game. They succeeded once all game, and even that was offside by the slimmest of margins.
 
Not sure if GBS is about tonight, but Toro Rosso have signed Kvyat to replace Ricciardo (rather than a more obvious da Costa move). Interesting...
 
Le Tissier's Laces said:
Not sure if GBS is about tonight, but Toro Rosso have signed Kvyat to replace Ricciardo (rather than a more obvious da Costa move). Interesting...
Click to expand...

I know, big shock to me when I heard. He was very iffy at the start of the season, but has come good as the year has progressed. However, he is VERY inexperienced, much like a certain S. Sirotkin who will possibly be joining F1 next year too, so I fear that will not end well...
 
Getting back into Rome: Total War. I've still got it.

You must log in or register to see images
 
Gay Bacon Strips said:
I know, big shock to me when I heard. He was very iffy at the start of the season, but has come good as the year has progressed. However, he is VERY inexperienced, much like a certain S. Sirotkin who will possibly be joining F1 next year too, so I fear that will not end well...
Click to expand...

It's a Helmut Marko decision. He'll likely come good but this is waaaay too early for him & will probably ruin him. And stifle da Costa. Idiotic call.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back