[TV] Question of Sport revamp

[Palacefinder General]

Yes, but you can't say that because it's sexist. Graeme Souness may be something of a dinosaur and doesn't always do his research, but he still knows more about top level men's football than Alex Scott does because played it and managed in it, so his opinion is worth listening to. Emma Hayes, the Chelsea women's team manager, is a far better pundit than Alex Scott, but she's much less, er, camera-friendly, so doesn't get the gigs. And I probably shouldn't be saying that either. But we all know that that's how the producers think.

Yep, and if they’re rushing (as most now are) to tick the equality box a light skinned/mixed heritage black woman such as her or Rochelle Humes on ITV is going to get the gig ahead of someone with darker skin as they are deemed more palatable to a white audience.

Such panel shows and TV quiz shows in general are very 20th century and surely their days are numbered in any case. Do people really still watch that stuff with everything else on offer?

 

[Springal]

The Mail don't even try to hide it. The top 2 'scrolls' on their main page today were all race related. The BLM / Diversity thing, Alex Scott, some story about a joke a black comedian made about white people, 'defund the bbc' right wing campaign group thing.

Vile, nasty **** rag. No wonder so many anonymous gammons exist online thinking they can go round saying what they like

 

[blue-shifted]

My boy loves question of sport.

I like attractive women.

When does it start?

 

[Palacefinder General]

The Mail don't even try to hide it. The top 2 'scrolls' on their main page today were all race related. The BLM / Diversity thing, Alex Scott, some story about a joke a black comedian made about white people, 'defund the bbc' right wing campaign group thing.

Vile, nasty **** rag. No wonder so many anonymous gammons exist online thinking they can go round saying what they like

The Holy Grail have made a big thing about Micah Richards being their new columnist, making his picture bigger than the rest of their otherwise all white team (Keown, Redknapp, Crouch and Sutton). Vile organ.

 

[albionalex]

Yes, but you can't say that because it's sexist. Graeme Souness may be something of a dinosaur and doesn't always do his research, but he still knows more about top level men's football than Alex Scott does because played it and managed in it, so his opinion is worth listening to. Emma Hayes, the Chelsea women's team manager, is a far better pundit than Alex Scott, but she's much less, er, camera-friendly, so doesn't get the gigs. And I probably shouldn't be saying that either. But we all know that that's how the producers think.

Alex Scott also has a degree in sports journalism.

 

[blue-shifted]

[TWEET]1306521222360989696[/TWEET]

100% that's their business model .... and it's been highly lucrative for them and highly destructive for society

 

[vagabond]

Alex Scott got the Gig, bit of eye candy at least

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/10466618/alex-scott-single-love-life/

could be similar to Vorderman / Riley upgrade?

What a surprise. Didn’t see that coming at all.

 

[JBizzle]

Yes, but you can't say that because it's sexist. Graeme Souness may be something of a dinosaur and doesn't always do his research, but he still knows more about top level men's football than Alex Scott does because played it and managed in it, so his opinion is worth listening to. Emma Hayes, the Chelsea women's team manager, is a far better pundit than Alex Scott, but she's much less, er, camera-friendly, so doesn't get the gigs. And I probably shouldn't be saying that either. But we all know that that's how the producers think.

It's also not true in my opinion.

Additionally, if you're going to use an example with whom to compare Alex Scott, at least choose a good one. Souness is a ****ing awful pundit. His "top level" men's football experience is 25 years out of date and it's a completely different game now. His football style of smashing people and ending careers doesn't make him relevant or a good pundit 30 years later.

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

It's also not true in my opinion.

Additionally, if you're going to use an example with whom to compare Alex Scott, at least choose a good one. Souness is a ****ing awful pundit. His "top level" men's football experience is 25 years out of date and it's a completely different game now. His football style of smashing people and ending careers doesn't make him relevant or a good pundit 30 years later.

Spot on. Souness, like most of his generation, is an appalling pundit who contributes absolutely nothing of intelligent or relevant analysis.

On topic, I like Scott and it seems like a really good choice for QOS. Might watch again for the first time in years.

 

[atfc village]

Like Tufnell, but Barker is dreadful, and Dawson is the smuggest, most annoying man on television.

Long overdue a revamp.

He also was the smuggest man in my local pub the other week.

 

[Wozza]

The Holy Grail have made a big thing about Micah Richards being their new columnist, making his picture bigger than the rest of their otherwise all white team (Keown, Redknapp, Crouch and Sutton). Vile organ.

He was their hot signing after his well-recieved punditry last season.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

He was their hot signing after his well-recieved punditry last season.

In fairness, I'd far rather read Micah Richards' (or his ghostwriter's) written words, than hear his hugely irritating fake laugh, spoiling every TV or radio show he goes near...

 

[hans kraay fan club]

He also was the smuggest man in my local pub the other week.

See, what you've done now. That smuggy *******'s very presence in a pub I wasn't even at, has made my skin crawl.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I'd imagine it was less to do with her being older, and more to do with her being massively, massively annoying.

I like her, whereas I find Alex Scott annoying, it’s all opinions.

I shall miss Tuffers. I like his daft sense of humour. He was excellent on a recent celebrity painting programme too.

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

See, what you've done now. That smuggy *******'s very presence in a pub I wasn't even at, has made my skin crawl.

If you haven't already read it, I suggest you look up Jonathan Liew's incredible take down of Dawson from a few years ago. It was in The Telegraph and behind a paywall so I can't copy and paste it now but if you have got a Telegraph account or are better than me online and can find it, I promise you won't be disappointed!

 

[Gwylan]

See, what you've done now. That smuggy *******'s very presence in a pub I wasn't even at, has made my skin crawl.

And yet he's less irritating than Austin Healey. I'm not quite sure how rugby has managed two of the smuggest, up-themselves men in sport

 

[Gwylan]

If you haven't already read it, I suggest you look up Jonathan Liew's incredible take down of Dawson from a few years ago. It was in The Telegraph and behind a paywall so I can't copy and paste it now but if you have got a Telegraph account or are better than me online and can find it, I promise you won't be disappointed!

"In essence, people like Dawson epitomise why people who hate rugby hate rugby, and why people who hate England hate England. He represents the morons and the charlatans of the sport, its privileged and entitled side, and in so doing does it a grave disservice.

The truth is that rugby is much more of an inclusive, national pastime than many of its detractors would care to admit. Go to places like Bath and Exeter and Leicester and Northampton, and you will find an entirely different sort of game: a game watched by families; a game that resonates with all social classes, a reasonably-priced day out that brings communities together.

But to many casual observers, their first glance at the sport is something more prosaic. The unnervingly corporate sheen of Twickenham. Or the armies of moneyed, Jack-Wills-clad Home Counties hooligans you find in the pubs of south-west London. Or the witless, pseudo-ramblings of Dawson on television. And the danger is that people see these things, and think that’s all the sport has to offer. It isn’t."

Ouch! That's one of the most perceptive remarks I've seen on a newspaper's sports page. It speaks volumes of the type of people who haunt Twickenham (and I speak as someone who loves rugby).

 

[hans kraay fan club]

If you haven't already read it, I suggest you look up Jonathan Liew's incredible take down of Dawson from a few years ago. It was in The Telegraph and behind a paywall so I can't copy and paste it now but if you have got a Telegraph account or are better than me online and can find it, I promise you won't be disappointed!

Yep:

Naturally, Dawson’s achievements in the game have lent his words a certain weight, and so in retirement speaks as if utterly convinced that he is the wisest and most charismatic man in the room, even when all the available evidence contradicts this. Imagine how irritating Tim Lovejoy would be – how shamelessly self-aggrandising, how inoperably insufferable – if he had not just played professional football, but won the World Cup with England. Matt Dawson is the man you are imagining.

In essence, people like Dawson epitomise why people who hate rugby hate rugby, and why people who hate England hate England. He represents the morons and the charlatans of the sport, its privileged and entitled side, and in so doing does it a grave disservice.

The Guardian's Pete Cashmore knew the score, too:

Coleman was replaced by Sue Barker, a passable tennis player carving out a new career as an on-camera presenter. Her replacing Coleman was akin to instating Meghan Trainor at the top of a festival bill because Bob Dylan pulled out. Almost cosmically vacuous, Barker came, and continues to come, with the added bonus (or handicap) of finding everything that she encounters in her waking life absolutely and equally hilarious. Her presentational credo is simple: if in doubt, crack up guffawing. This is perhaps to be expected. Barker was, of course, previously operating in tennis, a sport in which it only takes a pigeon landing on the net to reduce an entire crowd to self-soiling hysterics. With Barker apparently came a new diktat from the team captain selection committee: from now on, regardless of their sporting pedigree, they had to be “characters”. And so we got not-nearly-as-funny-as-he-thinks-he-is snooker star John Parrott; goofy jockey Frankie Dettori; none-more-matey Scottish footballer Ally McCoist; and rugby plank Matt Dawson. Then Phil Tufnell, pretty much the modern epitome of lolz over actual sporting ability, took on the armband. Basically, if Phil could spin a ball as well as he could spin a yarn, he’d be Shane Warne.

Tufnell, you can almost forgive, because he was never really anything but a source of amused derision: “Lend us your brain, Tufnell!” one Australian fan once quipped during a Test match. “We’re building an idiot!” But Dawson? My God, he is an industrial-strength wazzock, a precision drone-strike of gurning over-reaction and obliterating bonhomie. It’s as if he is trying to crowbar another 15 years of post-match boozy ribaldry into every second he spends on screen. He is, in panel-show-**** terms, Pele, Muhammad Ali and Phil “The Power” Taylor rolled into one. You would not want to be stuck in a lift with Matt Dawson. Oh, and without AQoS, there would be no A League of Their Own. So content yourself, at least, with this knowledge: everyone involved with it will go to hell.

 

[Palacefinder General]

"In essence, people like Dawson epitomise why people who hate rugby hate rugby, and why people who hate England hate England. He represents the morons and the charlatans of the sport, its privileged and entitled side, and in so doing does it a grave disservice..

Interesting read and sums up why (for all the wrong reasons apparently) I’ve never bothered with rugby beyond hoping England lose.

 

[Grombleton]

100% that's their business model .... and it's been highly lucrative for them and highly destructive for society

Blimey. some of those are like a template for a Bear Pit post.