Sky 'do up' Summerbee

[PruneHead]

Anyone got Buzzers record at the swamp? Some rag at work saying 'Summerbee has clearly gone senile as they won a couple but mostly lost' but I cant find stats that far back

 

[johnmc]

Blown out of proportion all this.

 

[Clubber]

Blown out of proportion all this.

I what way?

 

[Metal Biker]

Here's a view from a red and I'm being as fair as I can.

Firstly I can understand him wanting to fight his corner, it's actually admirable. For those to say he was fitted up I think that's just too far fetched.

Mike Summerbee was the first to mention stats, he said City had had 60% of possesion and more chances on goal. How would Sky know in advance he was going to say this in order to make him look wrong? I suppose they could have altered the figures quickly after he mentioned stats himself, but why would they? Even if Sky were out by a few and City had more possesion, it makes them both wrong surely. If the correct stats were eg 53% City, they stil would have shown him being wrong as it wasn't 60% the number that Mike quoted. The guy hosting the show even made the point of saying "They agree with what you're saying Mike as they both had 10 chances, Utd had 5 on target and City 3". He actually said this even though Mike had said City had more chances. So they may both had been out somewhat but I can't see an agenda. Sky want viewing figures but I seriously doubt they try to 'fit up' guests as it serves no purpose.

His loyalty was admirable but as a pundit he should be getting his facts right also rather than making them up. Sky should have the correct stats also. If Sky hadn't displayed any stats then other people may have been as annoyed as some on here are, as Mike would have told the nation the wrong stats also. I'm not trying to be argumentative as everyone has their own interpretation, but I see no purpose in fitting somebody up?

Mike Summerbee made the suggestion that the pundits were fawning over United too much and not giving City the credit they deserved. He felt, like many, that Sky were undermining City's performance making out it was a totally dominant Utd display.

His statement of "I thought City had 60% possession" has been shown to be inaccurate. BUT, and here's the clincher and the basis of the debate, Sky IMMEDIATELY came up with stats to shown that not only was Mike Summerbee wrong but it was indeed United who had the majority possession with a fabricated percentage of 54% to Utd.

That was untrue, as ACTUAL stats supported by the Telegraph, the BBC and then later on the Sky Sports Website showed that, although Summerbee might have exaggerated the claim of 60%, Utd did NOT dominate and had 49% to City's 51%.

Neither here nor there you'll agree but the topic here is that Sky made up a stat to make Summerbee look foolish when in truth they themselves wer lying about United dominance when as the figures show it was a very even game and they should have reflected this in their post game analysis instead of wholly focussing on Utd, giving the impression it was one sided...

....which is exactly what Summerbee was complaining about. ☺

Summerbee wasn't incorrect in his opinion that he believed his fellow pundits felt Manchester City were outplayed, which is the impression that Sky were trying to give off. From his point of view, the match was even with City having great spells of possession and decent chances that could have won the game.

Sky Sports were making out he was a duddering old fool, not grasping the reality and, oh look, here's some (fake) stats to prove WE are right, and a former legendary England International is wrong. Buzzer sadly wasn't in access of in-game stats at the moment he made the 60% assumption. But to say "he was wrong to make a false precentage" detracts from the issue completely.

He's a pundit who gave an opinion. For Utd fans and Sky to try and make out he was "lying to the public" (laughable) for giving an "opinion" which doesn't hold favour to Utd supporters is ludicrous. The United fans have taken Summerbee's "stat" literally and way too seriously. How often have you heard people in everyday life making statements such as "Have you seen the mess in the hallway? There must be 'MILLIONS' of cans that have been knocked over"

Are you one of those sad acts how comes out of nowhere and proclaims
"Actually i think you'll find your estimation as to the quantity of upturned cans to be wholly inaccurate and ridiculously exaggerated. I count 1,876 cans...not the 'millions' that you've claimed. You sir are an embarressment to your profession and all other opinions you have on this matter should be rendered hollow for your failure to grasp such simple arithmatic."

He said "I thought City had 60% possession". The production team then took the step of going "No, no, you're wrong! City didn't have 60%, they had 46%!!! So you're wrong, wrong all your opinions are wrong!!"

You think that to be professional?

 

[Fat Chance]

The %'s are'nt even where it's at..Rednapp replied from his own volition "so they should with the money they've spent"...and chose to not reply when being reminded how many £30millions Trafford had spent on defenders 8 yrs ago. That for me gives a teeny weeny sneak look into what is/was pre-loaded in the rent boys mind, his problem was Mike winded it.

 

[Deleted member 14625]

I love Summerbee, but he made a bit of a tit of himself on Saturday.

No he didnt. He fought his case and rightly bloody so

He did the exact thing that needed doing. Sky did their usual trick of making the whole programme about the Rags and gave us snippets of slots here and there to talk about us. Buzzer just got too emotional about it and started to lose his focus on what he was trying to say so stumbled on his words a bit and missed out a few key things. But he did the right thing. Sky are a joke. We played just as well as United but the whole post-match talk was about them. And not just about the goal but about how well individual players played and they completely brushed us aside like we'd been beaten 4-1. It took Buzzer to lose his rag with them and mention Silva for them to talk about us.

 

[Ricster]

Here is the email i've just sent

Your tv station is nothing short of a disgrace. You know exactly what i and other City fans are talking about, and if you dont i'm talking about the fictional stats that were put up after the game to make Mike Summerbee look an absolute c***.
Why cant sky come out and explain why this was done? No, no, you lot would rather hide behind your computers or camera's and try to goad City and its fans.
The bias shown on Sky now is unbelievable and the smugness in your presenters voice when those fictional stats came up was there for all to hear.

W*****s, the absolute lot of you. As you can understand, i am a very annoyed, and goaded, thanks to your researchers, Manchester City Fan.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Mike Summerbee made the suggestion that the pundits were fawning over United too much and not giving City the credit they deserved. He felt, like many, that Sky were undermining City's performance making out it was a totally dominant Utd display.

His statement of "I thought City had 60% possession" has been shown to be inaccurate. BUT, and here's the clincher and the basis of the debate, Sky IMMEDIATELY came up with stats to shown that not only was Mike Summerbee wrong but it was indeed United who had the majority possession with a fabricated percentage of 54% to Utd.

That was untrue, as ACTUAL stats supported by the Telegraph, the BBC and then later on the Sky Sports Website showed that, although Summerbee might have exaggerated the claim of 60%, Utd did NOT dominate and had 49% to City's 51%.

Neither here nor there you'll agree but the topic here is that Sky made up a stat to make Summerbee look foolish when in truth they themselves wer lying about United dominance when as the figures show it was a very even game and they should have reflected this in their post game analysis instead of wholly focussing on Utd, giving the impression it was one sided...

....which is exactly what Summerbee was complaining about. ☺

Summerbee wasn't incorrect in his opinion that he believed his fellow pundits felt Manchester City were outplayed, which is the impression that Sky were trying to give off. From his point of view, the match was even with City having great spells of possession and decent chances that could have won the game.

Sky Sports were making out he was a duddering old fool, not grasping the reality and, oh look, here's some (fake) stats to prove WE are right, and a former legendary England International is wrong. Buzzer sadly wasn't in access of in-game stats at the moment he made the 60% assumption. But to say "he was wrong to make a false precentage" detracts from the issue completely.

He's a pundit who gave an opinion. For Utd fans and Sky to try and make out he was "lying to the public" (laughable) for giving an "opinion" which doesn't hold favour to Utd supporters is ludicrous. The United fans have taken Summerbee's "stat" literally and way too seriously. How often have you heard people in everyday life making statements such as "Have you seen the mess in the hallway? There must be 'MILLIONS' of cans that have been knocked over"

Are you one of those sad acts how comes out of nowhere and proclaims
"Actually i think you'll find your estimation as to the quantity of upturned cans to be wholly inaccurate and ridiculously exaggerated. I count 1,876 cans...not the 'millions' that you've claimed. You sir are an embarressment to your profession and all other opinions you have on this matter should be rendered hollow for your failure to grasp such simple arithmatic."

He said "I thought City had 60% possession". The production team then took the step of going "No, no, you're wrong! City didn't have 60%, they had 46%!!! So you're wrong, wrong all your opinions are wrong!!"

You think that to be professional?

You'd be surprised what SLY TV can cue up in an instant.

As an extension of the theory. When Mike flagged up Silva during his rant, lo and behold, SLY interjected within seconds, Silva touches footage.

As somebody has said, Jamie Redknapp let his true guard down when he attempted to qualify the argument by citing City's spending.

Which is the basis for the antogonism in the first instance.

Do not worry, Murdoch is currently cap in hand to our owner about setting up a SKY Arab news channel...

Some things take time to assimilate themselves.

 

[Ricster]

Mike Summerbee made the suggestion that the pundits were fawning over United too much and not giving City the credit they deserved. He felt, like many, that Sky were undermining City's performance making out it was a totally dominant Utd display.

His statement of "I thought City had 60% possession" has been shown to be inaccurate. BUT, and here's the clincher and the basis of the debate, Sky IMMEDIATELY came up with stats to shown that not only was Mike Summerbee wrong but it was indeed United who had the majority possession with a fabricated percentage of 54% to Utd.

That was untrue, as ACTUAL stats supported by the Telegraph, the BBC and then later on the Sky Sports Website showed that, although Summerbee might have exaggerated the claim of 60%, Utd did NOT dominate and had 49% to City's 51%.

Neither here nor there you'll agree but the topic here is that Sky made up a stat to make Summerbee look foolish when in truth they themselves wer lying about United dominance when as the figures show it was a very even game and they should have reflected this in their post game analysis instead of wholly focussing on Utd, giving the impression it was one sided...

....which is exactly what Summerbee was complaining about. ☺

Summerbee wasn't incorrect in his opinion that he believed his fellow pundits felt Manchester City were outplayed, which is the impression that Sky were trying to give off. From his point of view, the match was even with City having great spells of possession and decent chances that could have won the game.

Sky Sports were making out he was a duddering old fool, not grasping the reality and, oh look, here's some (fake) stats to prove WE are right, and a former legendary England International is wrong. Buzzer sadly wasn't in access of in-game stats at the moment he made the 60% assumption. But to say "he was wrong to make a false precentage" detracts from the issue completely.

He's a pundit who gave an opinion. For Utd fans and Sky to try and make out he was "lying to the public" (laughable) for giving an "opinion" which doesn't hold favour to Utd supporters is ludicrous. The United fans have taken Summerbee's "stat" literally and way too seriously. How often have you heard people in everyday life making statements such as "Have you seen the mess in the hallway? There must be 'MILLIONS' of cans that have been knocked over"

Are you one of those sad acts how comes out of nowhere and proclaims
"Actually i think you'll find your estimation as to the quantity of upturned cans to be wholly inaccurate and ridiculously exaggerated. I count 1,876 cans...not the 'millions' that you've claimed. You sir are an embarressment to your profession and all other opinions you have on this matter should be rendered hollow for your failure to grasp such simple arithmatic."

He said "I thought City had 60% possession". The production team then took the step of going "No, no, you're wrong! City didn't have 60%, they had 46%!!! So you're wrong, wrong all your opinions are wrong!!"

You think that to be professional?

You'd be surprised what SLY TV can cue up in an instant.

As an extension of the theory. When Mike flagged up Silva during his rant, lo and behold, SLY interjected within seconds, Silva touches footage.

As somebody has said, Jamie Redknapp let his true guard down when he attempted to qualify the argument by citing City's spending.

Which is the basis for the antogonism in the first instance.

Do not worry, Murdoch is currently cap in hand to our owner about setting up a SKY Arab news channel...

Some things take time to assimilate themselves.

I'd be telling Murdoch where to shove his Arab tv channel

 

[Metal Biker]

You'd be surprised what SLY TV can cue up in an instant.

As an extension of the theory. When Mike flagged up Silva during his rant, lo and behold, SLY interjected within seconds, Silva touches footage.

As somebody has said, Jamie Redknapp let his true guard down when he attempted to qualify the argument by citing City's spending.

Which is the basis for the antogonism in the first instance.

Do not worry, Murdoch is currently cap in hand to our owner about setting up a SKY Arab news channel...

Some things take time to assimilate themselves.

Precisely.

They were trying too hard to talk down to Mike. Every opposing opinion he had (which an 'impartial broadcaster' like Sky should be encouraging, surely!?) was quickly interjected with 'stats' and 'footage'. Was the man NOT allowed to have an opposing view?

Where were the stats on United's spending? It was brought up, why were there no stats showing a comparison?

If someone says "That shot was ten times worse than the one we saw at Goodison Park last week" Is some dweeb going to pop up stating "actually i find that the shot in question is but 3.58104792 times worse than it's comparison"

But then, this IS the Sky Sports generation of statistic loving armchair fans we're on about here.