Match of the Day - 2016/17

[oakiecokie]

Yes, I know what the BBC showed, and I don't think it was accurate or fair.

The coverage on our website was precisely what the BBC should have delivered.

All entitled to an opinion Oakie and I respect yours, but your being massively outweighed with this one.

Outweighed only because too many have a negative opinion of MOTD full stop.
I`m trying to look at it more objectively ie. what else could they have shown in that first half ? Total possession with virtually no end product or goal mouth incidents that we had very little off,but Sunderland did.
MOTD wasn`t produced solely for City fans mate.
So when you say it wasn`t accurate how would you have edited it in that first half (thats all I`m discussing and have been all through this thread) ? You can`t deny that Sunderland had more attempts and more incidents in our penalty area than we did in theirs.
The second half they showed was nothing but City.Just think that in a 5 minute showing of that first half the editing wasn`t anywhere near as bad as some suggest ... irrespective of how much possession we had.

 

[oakiecokie]

At first, I was a bit annoyed that they seemed to be showing nothing, but Sunderland chances in the first 35 minutes.
Then I realised that apart from a long range effort from Fernandinho, it was a fair reflection of the first 35 minutes.

Fucking sanity at last.Well said that man.

 

[Chipmeister]

What was the result? They can't change that boys, Hahahaha get me another beer I'm pissed and loving the replays I'm watching

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The whole point of highlights is to to show as true a reflection of the football match as possible.

Not sure that's correct.

 

[Blue Hefner]

So in a 5 minute time slot for that first half,would you have shown a City dominance but creating very little,or show the 5/6 chances that Sunderland had,against our one,before we scored ? Not a lot the Beeb could do under the circumstances and even Pep said we created very little.It did show Sanes ball to Dave that was a bit too hard and a couple of nice runs from Sane but apart from that we had lots of possession but little to show for it.

Maybe they should stop showing managers sat in the bench, given they have limited time and it is hardly a 'highlight' watching someone drink from a bottle of water

It is difficult thought to show the dominance we had on motd as it didn't result in many shots

 

[oakiecokie]

Maybe they should stop showing managers sat in the bench, given they have limited time and it is hardly a 'highlight' watching someone drink from a bottle of water

It is difficult thought to show the dominance we had on motd as it didn't result in many shots

Bloody hell mate don`t get me started on that one !! I constantly shout at the tele when the ball is still in play and fuck me all you see is pictures of Managers,Players and the crowd !
No,just fuck off,I don`t want to see that shit,I want to see what the state of play is.Twats did that against Barca away and the next thing we saw was the fucking ball in the City net when Hart and Fernando fucked up between them.
I`m certain these Producers and the likes are not football fans ... twats.

 

[inchy14]

Bloody hell mate don`t get me started on that one !! I constantly shout at the tele when the ball is still in play and fuck me all you see is pictures of Managers,Players and the crowd !
No,just fuck off,I don`t want to see that shit,I want to see what the state of play is.Twats did that against Barca away and the next thing we saw was the fucking ball in the City net when Hart and Fernando fucked up between them.
I`m certain these Producers and the likes are not football fans ... twats.

We had a goal kick or throw in yesterday and the camera went to some young Sunderland fan sat in the crowd looking all fed up, he like the majority of fans watching him for 10 fucking seconds!! when they finally went back to the game Sunderland had the ball near our box!!
Why they think anyone watching on TV would want to watch the crowd or the dug out is beyond me, no reason for it whatsoever.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

We weren't great first half but we controlled possession and there was some great movement and passing that eventually broke down. To not show us with the ball at our feet until 37 mins is a misrepresentation and belies the context of the match. In contrast, there are teams that have come to the Etihad and barely had a touch - yet MOTD have made it look a decent contest.
I take Oakies point - it is a highlights show - but this was particularly poor editing at best.

 

[Proy]

Outweighed only because too many have a negative opinion of MOTD full stop.
I`m trying to look at it more objectively ie. what else could they have shown in that first half ? Total possession with virtually no end product or goal mouth incidents that we had very little off,but Sunderland did.
MOTD wasn`t produced solely for City fans mate.
So when you say it wasn`t accurate how would you have edited it in that first half (thats all I`m discussing and have been all through this thread) ? You can`t deny that Sunderland had more attempts and more incidents in our penalty area than we did in theirs.
The second half they showed was nothing but City.Just think that in a 5 minute showing of that first half the editing wasn`t anywhere near as bad as some suggest ... irrespective of how much possession we had.

The highlights on the official website were in the money.

Go and have a gander if you haven't already, that will answer all your questions.

 

[Proy]

Not sure that's correct.

It's certainly open to interpretation but I think it should reflect the balance of the football match in some capacity.