[Football] MOTD

[Dave the hatosaurus]

Discussing the penalties would also be more or less a moot point, seeing as how they really wouldn’t have impacted on the outcome. Might have been different if there’d only been a single goal in it but the win was comfortable enough so the penalties were hardly that controversial.

I agree with this point regarding the result not being affected but i would have liked to have seen, especially on MOTD2, a comparison of "handball" decisions across the premier league games in this weekend. There was one (not sure which game) where a player was struck close to the elbow similar to Dunk and no penalty given. Also the chelsea one where a cross was virtually punched out of play, again no penalty.
To me it would be nice to know exactly what criteria were being used to make these decisions as, although this time result not affected, it could be huge for us in the future. The thing i am really struggling to understand is that Dunk was sliding to block a cross with his body or legs, without his arms being thrown in the air which would have been unnatural, was struck on the elbow of his left arm furthest from the crosser of the ball and projecting slightly under his torso and yet the decision was reached so quickly and not overturned.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Show more football. Less boring interviews and analysis. Save the licence fee holder millions by binning off already extremely wealthy former pros. This formula worked for decades.

Person 1 "The analysis isn't in-depth enough"
Person 2 "Show less analysis"

 

[Brovion]

I'd much rather they used the time to talk about actual football rather than always spending half of it waffling on about decisions when they barely know the rules to start with.

Indeed. Also, and this just might be my imagination, were the analysis bits a bit shorter and the match action sections a bit longer? I never listen to the analysis sections (except ours), but my finger always seemed to be on the 'fast forward' button a bit less than in previous years.

 

[Brovion]

Person 1 "The analysis isn't in-depth enough"
Person 2 "Show less analysis"

Quite! I hate the analysis, and I've said before that MoTD should be split into two programmes: an old school pure highlights package for those of use who just want to watch the football, and and an analysis programme for those who find that (more) interesting.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Indeed. Also, and this just might be my imagination, were the analysis bits a bit shorter and the match action sections a bit longer? I never listen to the analysis sections (except ours), but my finger always seemed to be on the 'fast forward' button a bit less than in previous years.

To be frank, I Iucked out on finding the start on our match almost immediately, watched that bit and then turned off seconds after Lineker apologised for suggesting Spurs buy Ferguson (because I had no interest in the next match, not in rage at the suggestion).
So, I have no idea.
I can't remember anything they said about our game now I come to think about it.

 

[portlock seagull]

Person 1 "The analysis isn't in-depth enough"
Person 2 "Show less analysis"

That’s football. But my take would save millions on overly paid BBC pundits and revert to a style with more football that served generations well for decades.

 

[The Fish]

That’s football. But my take would save millions on overly paid BBC pundits and revert to a style with more football that served generations well for decades.

But unsurprisingly, in those decades, the audience has changed. Some people love the analysis, I know I enjoy it. And the people who just want the goals have already seen them on youtube, or on Sky, or whatever.

 

[SAC]

I listen to the analysis of our matches but usually skip it for other matches.

If I agree with them then they are ok, if I disagree, they are complete overpaid morons.

 

[Monkey Man]

I guess as Brighton fans we can spot flimsy or incorrect analysis about our players, or the game we've just watched, a mile away. It happens quite a bit on MoTD so I imagine it's a similar case with other clubs like us, outside the big six or seven or eight.

If you think about it, there's absolutely no way the pundits have had time to look at all the games they're covering in any depth. And you're probably likely to focus on the games that either involve the team you like (Spurs/Newcastle/Man City) or one of the games affecting the title race, so realistically how much time on a Saturday afternoon and evening will Lineker, Shearer and Richards have to spare watching Brighton and making lots of notes?

I can only imagine that there are loads of researchers in Salford, arming them with little nuggets like "Adringa looks like another gem" or "Dahoud gradually improved and may take time to adjust to the pressures of this league but he's not a like-for-like replacement for Caicedo" (to pick two made-up but plausible examples).

It's different in a game that's televised live, and the pundits are watching the action in real time. But in a highlights show like MoTD I'm not expecting incisive analysis about Brighton.

 

[portlock seagull]

But unsurprisingly, in those decades, the audience has changed. Some people love the analysis, I know I enjoy it. And the people who just want the goals have already seen them on youtube, or on Sky, or whatever.

Disagree. And you get what you’re fed. Stats stats and endless if he and should he is very dull IMO. Especially as my eyes already saw what the analysis later shows. A dozen angles then in slow motion to see if someones elbow was slightly raised is dull dull dull. And adds to the hyperbole and frenzied OTT online outpourings that do nothing for the game. It’s the very forensic nature of football now that’s made it out of all proportion/disappeared up its own backside. Back to Cup Final and England Schoolboy internationals only I say!

 

[Beanstalk]

Despite all the "old-man shouting at a cloud" rubbish on this thread, Match of the Day is great and we don't know how lucky we have it. It's a live programme that showcases extended highlights of all the day's Premier League games with good, exclusive commentary. The analysis is surface level, but what more do you want? Nobody's got time for the show to be longer and less inclusive with more in-depth analysis and the turnaround time from the final game to broadcast doesn't really leave much opportunity to go that deep. No adverts breaking it up, eminently watchable TV and the running order means if there are a bunch of duff games, you don't have to sit through them to get to the good stuff.

Long live Match of the Day!

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

MOTD has a challenge. It has to get a lot of content in a short space of time. It's not like Sky Sports where they can spend 3 hours waffling on to the Brentford manager about something pointless.

The thing I think could go is the interviews after each match. Sure if a manger has said something interesting then play an interview, but mostly they don't.

They could also save time on replaying incidents, for example a penalty decision. It's common to have an incident replayed 3 times. Just 2 would be sufficient surely, we want more content in there and a little more analysis would be better.

Don't really need to see shots of chairmen, random fans. Cut the fat, you could get quite a lot more football in there.

And Lineker can stop trying to sell our players thank you very much

 

[essbee1]

What really f******g annoys me about MOTD and always has is the commentators at the start giving out
visions of what might happen during the match with whom as if they are clever bastard Nostradamus.
"This team hasn't scored from a corner for 10 million years" - and wow, lo and behold, they do!!
We all known they add the commentary after, so who are they trying to fool.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Show more football. Less boring interviews and analysis. Save the licence fee holder millions by binning off already extremely wealthy former pros. This formula worked for decades.

Jimmy Hill was the definition of a wealthy former pro.

 

[trueblue]

in

What really f******g annoys me about MOTD and always has is the commentators at the start giving out
visions of what might happen during the match with whom as if they are clever bastard Nostradamus.
"This team hasn't scored from a corner for 10 million years" - and wow, lo and behold, they do!!
We all known they add the commentary after, so who are they trying to fool.

They don't add the commentary after.

 

[Machiavelli]

MOTD has a challenge. It has to get a lot of content in a short space of time. It's not like Sky Sports where they can spend 3 hours waffling on to the Brentford manager about something pointless.

The thing I think could go is the interviews after each match. Sure if a manger has said something interesting then play an interview, but mostly they don't.

They could also save time on replaying incidents, for example a penalty decision. It's common to have an incident replayed 3 times. Just 2 would be sufficient surely, we want more content in there and a little more analysis would be better.

Don't really need to see shots of chairmen, random fans. Cut the fat, you could get quite a lot more football in there.

And Lineker can stop trying to sell our players thank you very much

Good point about post-match interviews

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Despite all the "old-man shouting at a cloud" rubbish on this thread, Match of the Day is great and we don't know how lucky we have it. It's a live programme that showcases extended highlights of all the day's Premier League games with good, exclusive commentary. The analysis is surface level, but what more do you want? Nobody's got time for the show to be longer and less inclusive with more in-depth analysis and the turnaround time from the final game to broadcast doesn't really leave much opportunity to go that deep. No adverts breaking it up, eminently watchable TV and the running order means if there are a bunch of duff games, you don't have to sit through them to get to the good stuff.

Long live Match of the Day!

Agreed. Mrs DiS and I agreed yesterday that SKY overanalyses everything, which sometimes is OK but sometimes becomes tiresome.

 

[Easy 10]

As a slight aside, they've binned off all the studio analysis on the EFL highlights on ITV - and its all the better for it IMO. They just have some pitchside reporters presenting the whole show now, with highlights of 2 or 3 Championship games and a goals roundup of all the other games in the EFL. It's far more trim and watchable. There's only so much you can get from a deep-dive analysis from Dean Ashton on the build-up to Barnlsey's opener.

 

[Beanstalk]

They don't add the commentary after.

This. I sit right behind the comm position in WSU. Pearce often leaves before me if I clap the team off. He's not re-recording anything. It's all done live.

 

[The Fish]

Disagree. And you get what you’re fed. Stats stats and endless if he and should he is very dull IMO. Especially as my eyes already saw what the analysis later shows. A dozen angles then in slow motion to see if someones elbow was slightly raised is dull dull dull. And adds to the hyperbole and frenzied OTT online outpourings that do nothing for the game. It’s the very forensic nature of football now that’s made it out of all proportion/disappeared up its own backside. Back to Cup Final and England Schoolboy internationals only I say!

Honestly though, if you get home from the game, instead of waiting for a programme you clearly don't enjoy, why don't you just wait for Brighton to release their highlights package? Then your evening is free for mosh pits, magic tricks or whatever takes your fancy?

There's a place for statistics when they add something to the discussion/analysis, but all to often it's used as filler to let pundits who've not done their research sound like they have a clue.