BBC Coverage or ITV?

[jevs]

Well i voted ITV purely because i detest those two clowns Lawrenson and Hanson.

 

[Worthai Seagull]

BBC but if Sky had rights it would be 1000000000000000000000000000% better.

And why do you say that? All that would be different is those arrogant cnuts Andy Gray and Richard Keys would be involved and Martin Tyler would commentate. Apart from that , nothing would be different......Sky would still be taking the 'world feeds' from SA , with maybe an extra camera or two for close-up's , and ENG cams for interviews etc.

 

[Napper]

And why do you say that? All that would be different is those arrogant cnuts Andy Gray and Richard Keys would be involved and Martin Tyler would commentate. Apart from that , nothing would be different......Sky would still be taking the 'world feeds' from SA , with maybe an extra camera or two for close-up's , and ENG cams for interviews etc.

that already sounds better.

The analysis would be more interesting and the whole thing would be much much better

Sky as soon as a game finishes have the league table up, the next matches , interviews sewn up, it is all sorted. Itv as an example f*** off to a break and BBC have a load of boring twats talking like geeks

 

[JGaleBHA]

Oh, BBC is winning by miles. I went for ITV, I thought they set it out better, I liked the look of it today.

 

[John Bumlick]

And why do you say that? All that would be different is those arrogant cnuts Andy Gray and Richard Keys would be involved and Martin Tyler would commentate.

speaking of which...

any of you little bitches start whining about bbc and/or itv coverage and i'll...well...i'll be happy if you shut up. over here, watching on ESPN, so far we've had Martin Tyler and Andy Gray followed by Ian Darke and Ally Mc-f***ing-Coist. don't even get me started on the 'experts' in the studio. i wish the crowd would blow their little plastic trumpets a bit louder. might drown these fuckers out. at least the coverage is in HD i suppose...

 

[Eggman]

Beeb. ITV terrible. And I hope Sky never touch the World Cup. f*** em

 

[Eggman]

Andy Gray. ****. Football didn't exist before the Prem. f*** off mate.

 

[Easy 10]

Just how PATRONISING was Hansen to Adebayor tonight ?
I was very impressed by Adebayor, he was succinct and articulate, even in the face of moronic unnecessary prompting from Hanson along the lines of

"You like his skill ?"

f***ing hell.

 

[Rookie]

BBC for me but think ITV improved a lot just need to get rid of Townsend

 

[Easy 10]

Chiles is just an absolute winner for me. He's got a job in a football studio NAILED on for life. Its actually impossible to take a dislike to him.

Go on, try it.

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

Bit of a conclusive poll!

I do like Chiles but everything else about ITV's coverage is crap in comparison

 

[Easy 10]

Bit of a conclusive poll!

I do like Chiles but everything else about ITV's coverage is crap in comparison

Lets face it, its just the ads.

They're intrusive, but in terms of the studio analysis and the match commentry, there's not much to choose. In fact compared with the BBC, I thought the Chiles / Townsend / Southgate combo was about 62% down on the smug-factor. AND there's no miserable-bastard-Lawro to put up with. So f*** it, I'm voting ITV.

 

[HseagullsH]

I expected BBC to win this poll but did not expect it to be so one sided!

Although we seem to get daily threads about ITV's poor coverage, I was sure we had a lot of moaners about BBC's too?

Personally I really like Gary, Alan and the team and think it's brilliantly run on BBC

 

[Easy 10]

And if you're watching in HD, there is no difference in picture quality. They are BOTH pin-sharp.
The ONE thing BBC had over ITV for me (other than the lack of ads) was Adebayor. I liked him.

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

Chiles was good and admittedly Southgate was ok but I do not like Townsend on TV. Adebayor was also NOT a good idea for the BBC. I do not know why they felt they had to get an African player on and why they had to get someone who has never played in a world cup. I do like Lineker and Hansen though as I feel they talk a lot of sense about football.

The ads are frustrating but the main reason I hate ITV is their appalling commentary. All of their commentators are terrible

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

And if you're watching in HD, there is no difference in picture quality. They are BOTH pin-sharp.
The ONE thing BBC had over ITV for me (other than the lack of ads) was Adebayor. I liked him.

Funny, I really didn't take to Adebayor

 

[Spider]

I actually thought ITVs studio stuff was okay today. Didn't think much of Hansen, Adebayor and Shearer at all. I thought the BBC commentator Wilson was much better than Drury on ITV ("GOOOOOAAAAALLL BAFANA BAFANA!"), but both Beglin and Lawrenson were f***ing annoying. It's such a shame both channels have such a different idea of what football fans actually want - but then I suppose they design it more for people who are more interested in seeing someone they recognise than interestng analysis.

Also - I swear BBC's picture is better than ITV's. Is this just my imagination?!

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

I see ITV have now wheeled out their biggest twat for the highlights show, Matt Smith. And why have they got a rugby player on?!

 

[Badger]

BBC for me, purely because the commentators on ITV are just an irritating bunch of cnuts. As for the analysis and predictions it's the same old pointless nonsense whichever channel it is on, half an hour of "this is what will happen" followed by the match and then another half an hour of "they didn't do what I thought they were going to do".

As for Sky, I'm glad they don't bring their "News of the World" style brand of sports coverage to the World Cup.

 

[Gazwag]

Sigh.
*waits for everybody to jump on the "ITV is so f***ing shit" bandwagon.*

how can you jump on a bandwagon when the facts are plain for anybody to see whos not blind.