Match of the Day last night

[MSP]

they should just show highlights of the games with no studio presenter , no pundits and no discussion of the games

this would mean they could show another 5 mins of each game plus save the licence payer a fortune in not having to pay twats like Hanson , Lawrenson etc a wage

The wages paid are ridiculous given how replaceable they are, but let's face it, we could watch the highlights of the match with no presenter if we wanted. We don't because we love to be annoyed, to argue the toss, and to feel like we have superior knowledge compared to the ex-pros in the studio (and a lot of the time we do!).

Since it became important for newspapers to get comments on articles (it encourages more people to read and share the article, and gets higher rankings on Google), they often put out sensational opinion pieces just for the sake of stirring up controversy. Similarly, Match of the Day know that if they put up an intelligent pundit that everyone agreed with then their viewing figures would drop. They want to provoke debate, get people talking on forums, and then have us tuning in next week to see if we're going to be praised or insulted.

Exactly... MOTD could shut their door without pundits and analysis... most people watch highlights nowadays much before MOTD airs and though the MOTD offers extended ones it's post highlights pundits talk that make MOTD popular as it is.

 

[cyprustavern]

Like someone else has already stated they had two choices 1) to highlight a good away win at a difficult ground after going behind to a ridiculous penalty , and a return to form of Silva who ran the game. or 2) some bullshit about Kompany having a bad game and omitting a host of talking points and bad referee decisions.

Would they have chosen the same if it had been Utd , Liverpool or arsenal , spurs , chelsea?

The fact that the second option was chosen should tell you all you need to know about the show and the writers etc.

 

[BillyMC]

Like someone else has already stated they had two choices 1) to highlight a good away win at a difficult ground after going behind to a ridiculous penalty , and a return to form of Silva who ran the game. or 2) some bullshit about Kompany having a bad game and omitting a host of talking points and bad referee decisions.

Would they have chosen the same if it had been Utd , Liverpool or arsenal , spurs , chelsea?

The fact that the second option was chosen should tell you all you need to know about the show and the writers etc.

Me and Whitworth Park bumped into Lee Dixon outside the Bernabau and had a very frank exchange of views about MOTD, particulalrly around Hansen. Dixon was a gent, especially given the state of us two. Theres no doubt he's a big blue. He didnt disagree with anything we suggested about Hansen and comments about Balotelli, even took the piss out of how he dressed. That prick Adrian Chiles got some grief and was told to fuck off when we had pics taken.

 

[cyprustavern]

Me and Whitworth Park bumped into Lee Dixon outside the Bernabau and had a very frank exchange of views about MOTD, particulalrly around Hansen. Dixon was a gent, especially given the state of us two. Theres no doubt he's a big blue. He didnt disagree with anything we suggested about Hansen and comments about Balotelli, even took the piss out of how he dressed. That prick Adrian Chiles got some grief and was told to fuck off when we had pics taken.

yep i get the impression something happened between them 2 that caused dixon to leave / get sacked whatever....shame cos it should of been the wanker hansen that got fucked off.

 

[MSP]

Like someone else has already stated they had two choices 1) to highlight a good away win at a difficult ground after going behind to a ridiculous penalty , and a return to form of Silva who ran the game. or 2) some bullshit about Kompany having a bad game and omitting a host of talking points and bad referee decisions.

Would they have chosen the same if it had been Utd , Liverpool or arsenal , spurs , chelsea?

The fact that the second option was chosen should tell you all you need to know about the show and the writers etc.

I could agree with this though

 

[Mike N]

Like someone else has already stated they had two choices 1) to highlight a good away win at a difficult ground after going behind to a ridiculous penalty , and a return to form of Silva who ran the game. or 2) some bullshit about Kompany having a bad game and omitting a host of talking points and bad referee decisions.

Would they have chosen the same if it had been Utd , Liverpool or arsenal , spurs , chelsea?

The fact that the second option was chosen should tell you all you need to know about the show and the writers etc.

I could agree with this though

IMO they had already decided to highlight Kompany regardless of the performance or the result. Got a feeling they might have had something similar for Silva but his good performance meant they had to bin that.

 

[MSP]

Like someone else has already stated they had two choices 1) to highlight a good away win at a difficult ground after going behind to a ridiculous penalty , and a return to form of Silva who ran the game. or 2) some bullshit about Kompany having a bad game and omitting a host of talking points and bad referee decisions.

Would they have chosen the same if it had been Utd , Liverpool or arsenal , spurs , chelsea?

The fact that the second option was chosen should tell you all you need to know about the show and the writers etc.

I could agree with this though

IMO they had already decided to highlight Kompany regardless of the performance or the result. Got a feeling they might have had something similar for Silva but his good performance meant they had to bin that.

I was thinking about that but then surely they would use some of his not impressive stuff from recent games, they usually make some compilation from last few games.

Anyway, as I posted in my first post Hansen is definitely not Kompany hater, he loves the guy. He doesn't like City too much but he certainly rates Kompany a lot.

 

[trublue55]

Did any of you notice the stats, it said we both had 50per cent possession -was that right because it looked like we had the lions share of it to me??

I know, watching it I would say we had a least 60% of the ball and that is being kind.[/quote]


Don`t you realise, that being at the game and/or watching the entire 90 minutes is completely irrelevant when compiling stats for MOTD. If you are only going to show 5 or 6 minutes, and you can make it look like Fulham had 50% of the play, as long as you have the video to back it up, then just put it out as gospel.

In truth probably quite accurate stats based on what they showed (chose not to show any of City`s 20+ attempts)

The more you watch MOTD, the more they remind me of North Korea`s television coverage of the last World Cup, when the state broadcaster refused to show any goals that North Korea conceded. Sadly many fans in Korea are under the impression that Korea won or at least drew every game, and still cant work out how they didnt return home with the trophy

 

[Challenger1978]

I smell wankers from the BBC in this thread trying to justify the waste of money that is the BBC.

 

[Blueknows]

TBF Hanson has waged a one man campaign against City via Match Of The Day. You only have to go back to last season as proof.

At the Euro semi finals.. prematch for the Italy Germany game... Hansen " For me Mario would have to score 10 hatricks next season to be even considered a decent player".............post match when Lineker reminded him of what he said and Mario scored a hatrick and got MOTM...Hansen replied " I still wouldnt have him in my side"
Tells you all you need to know about the bitter no nothing muppet