F1 goes to Sky sports

[Born Racer]

It would seem it's a part of ITV's remit. The Lewis Hamilton sycophancy did my head in.

[bella]

in itv's defence, even if national pride is quite a tabloid-y angle to go for a quick visual survey of the crowds at the british gp would suggest it's not an unreasonable idea. the majority of the crowd there support a british driver, or a british team. if you take that as a representative sample of the viewing public then to suggest a commentator focusses on british hopes is a fair thing to do.

there's a balance though, and i think james allen by nature is and definitely was at the time better at writing words than saying them. i haven't enjoyed his contributions to five live and whilst he's been busy with ball-chasers i've enjoyed the radio again. i actually think jonathan legard is brilliant for non-visual coverage. if he could tone himself down back to his pre-tv days he would be superb. i like the way he's careful to describe the scene around as well as the track action. it's proper broadcasting.

i have no strong opinions on ben edwards. i don't mind a commentator getting excited, mistakes are very easy to make and absolutely shouldn't be criticised unless you can genuinely say you've commentated on a f1 race, had the story of the race running in the background of your head, been trying to keep a partnership with an expert co-commentator going and immediately been trying to think of the concequences of what you're talking about on screen. even just doing a pre-recorded piece to camera is difficult, let alone talking with a similar level of knowledge and competancy about live events.

it really isn't as easy as it looks.

[Paradise City]

When a commentator makes mistakes, I forgive. When they are over-excited, I'm amused.

What bugs me is dishonesty. When a commentator deliberately misleads in an attempt to preserve the commentators own authority, that infuriates me. Be upfront about what you know and don't know. I admire that.

When the commentator shows a headstrong lack of knowledge of the sport, that aggravates me. A commentator should make an attempt to be informed on the sport in which he seeks to commentate on. I haven't listened to Allen in years but I don't ever remember him falling into either category for all his faults. Can't say that of some other commentators.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by bella

in itv's defence, even if national pride is quite a tabloid-y angle to go for a quick visual survey of the crowds at the british gp would suggest it's not an unreasonable idea. the majority of the crowd there support a british driver, or a british team. if you take that as a representative sample of the viewing public then to suggest a commentator focusses on british hopes is a fair thing to do.

But one of the great things about British motorsport fans is that, although some of them may have preferences for British drivers, we appreciate drivers and teams from all countries. I was in a grandstand last year at Silverstone and the applause and respect for Fernando Alonso was a far cry from the reaction of, for instance, Spaniards in Spain for Lewis Hamilton.

[bella]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

When the commentator shows a headstrong lack of knowledge of the sport, that aggravates me. A commentator should make an attempt to be informed on the sport in which he seeks to commentate on. I haven't listened to Allen in years but I don't ever remember him falling into either category for all his faults. Can't say that of some other commentators.

i think it's difficult to get a handle on f1 if you've say, just been called up to do it. it takes years as a regular paddock fixture to get to the kind of knowledge of the ins and outs of the sport that coulthard, brundle and also david croft and jonathan legard do actually have.

but that's why we have an expert commenter alongside the lead commentator.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by bella

i think it's difficult to get a handle on f1 if you've say, just been called up to do it. it takes years as a regular paddock fixture to get to the kind of knowledge of the ins and outs of the sport that coulthard, brundle and also david croft and jonathan legard do actually have.

but that's why we have an expert commenter alongside the lead commentator.

The level of knowledge that I expect from a lead commentator isn't alot and can be learned in a manner of a few of days from two books. Last years annual and a history of F1. The trade magazines for this year would be good too. Get a broad understanding of the people and the politics which can be complex but within the reach of the literate and certainly possible for someone in the journalistic disciplines. I don't expect intimacy with Norbert Haug or detailed familiarity with every inch of the paddock nor even technical expertise. That can be deferred to the 'expert'. Some of these commentators though just don't reach a very basic minimum or else they are such phenomenal scatterbrains, that the brain gets cut off from the mouth within sight of a live microphone. Maybe it's the latter. In any event, while I generously forgive mistakes, I don't have alot of sympathy for uninformed commentary since these people are supposed to be professionals.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by ghinzani

Given ITVs truly appalling Euro 2012 coverage that does not surprise me one bit. Thank Gawd its over!

ITV is truly dreadful in everything they do. I think it should be beeb free all the time, but I'd find the sky subscription worth every penny if it keeps it off ITV.

[henners88]

Originally Posted by Adam43

ITV is truly dreadful in everything they do. I think it should be beeb free all the time, but I'd find the sky subscription worth every penny if it keeps it off ITV.

If they had to have shared coverage I'd rather half on the Beeb and half on ITV if I'm honest. At least the less wealthy fans wouldn't miss out totally. ITV were awful, but interest was consistent each week because everyone with a TV license could still watch it.

[Adam43]

You still pay when you watch ITV, you pay with your soul.

Better to gouge you eyes out than watch ITV.

I think I've made my views clear here

[henners88]

Originally Posted by Adam43

You still pay when you watch ITV, you pay with your soul.

Better to gouge you eyes out than watch ITV.

I think I've made my views clear here

Originally Posted by Adam43

Quirks only become annoyances when they are on a channel you don't like

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by Adam43

ITV is truly dreadful in everything they do. I think it should be beeb free all the time, but I'd find the sky subscription worth every penny if it keeps it off ITV.

You know how much I loathe ITV, but I actually feel they have done a better job of the football than the Beeb.

The Beeb coverage has had some really good montages and historic pieces but the punditry on ITV has been vastly superior. Vastly. Their commentators, whilst still slightly grating, don't seem to be chasing annoying soundbites for the highlights reel either.

And the BBC have Mark Lawrenson passing bitter, unfunny pub bore comments off throughout matches.

Fair play to ITV I say.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by henners88

Although I can't think of any person on ITV, BBC or sky that I have a significantly different opinion after they moved.

It is something fundamental.

[henners88]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Although I can't think of any person on ITV, BBC or sky that I have a significantly different opinion after they moved.

It is something fundamental.

Me neither. Allen, Brundle and Croft have always annoyed me to a degree regardless of which broadcaster employer them. Kravitz is a good journalist but I wouldn't swap him for Gary now we have experienced his input.

[Adam43]

My overall objection to ITV would not have changed if they'd stopped the whatsit.

[Born Racer]

I'm not sure if all is right with the world Mr V. They have a convoluted way of doing things because I've now got a letter saying it's £40 a month from July and I have an 'entertainment' package. Originally it was supposed to be 30 quid and the F1 package. I'm starting to think they invent these things to get a bit of extra money. Looks like I've have to call them again as this contradicts what they told me on the phone. Hopefully, it's just a stock letter that doesn't correlate with what they told me.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

I'm not sure if all is right with the world Mr V.

I had to think hard as to why you directed that at me, then i remembered that i'd replied to you about 2 weeks ago

[Adam43]

It is true that sky are trying to make money out of their subscribers.
However in the many years I've been with them (I only started because I wanted F1digital) I haven't noticed any comedy price rises. It has only happened whe. I'vebought the new technology or package.

[henners88]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

I'm not sure if all is right with the world Mr V. They have a convoluted way of doing things because I've now got a letter saying it's £40 a month from July and I have an 'entertainment' package. Originally it was supposed to be 30 quid and the F1 package. I'm starting to think they invent these things to get a bit of extra money. Looks like I've have to call them again as this contradicts what they told me on the phone. Hopefully, it's just a stock letter that doesn't correlate with what they told me.

My father and Brother have both had Sky put the price up on them in a stealth fashion in the past. No letter informing them of a price hike, just a secret tenner added to their direct debits until they notice a few months down the line. Obviously they got their money back but its the inconvenience and the fact they have to threaten to leave to get any form of help on such issues. I suppose its how they boost their profit because there will be many people who won't argue it, or don't notice. I think I'll stick with borrowing somebodys Sky Go pass thanks lol.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by henners88

I think I'll stick with borrowing somebodys Sky Go pass thanks lol.

How lucky for you that while others are being ripped off by Sky, you get to watch it for free

[henners88]

Originally Posted by Mr V

How lucky for you that while others are being ripped off by Sky, you get to watch it for free

Well as long as I have the subscribers permission, there no harm done. But yes, I suppose I am lucky not to have to pay, but then again for the majority of races I haven't needed to use Sky.

[Flavio Galtieri]

Message to Bernie and all F1 sponsors: Sport on the BBC works!

Just imagine the pathetic figures if Sky were involved last night.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...win?CMP=twt_fd

[henners88]

Originally Posted by Flavio Galtieri

Message to Bernie and all F1 sponsors: Sport on the BBC works!

Just imagine the pathetic figures if Sky were involved last night.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...win?CMP=twt_fd

Quite.
With this kind of potential on the Beeb, it should be the sport investing in its popularity, not selling if off to a satellite company with a quarter of the viewers!! Bernie and the sponsors should be happy a FTA channel is capable of reaching a figure like this IMO. This just highlights what a dull move this whole deal was. Sure its great for the fans in a position to have a dedicated channel, but in the grand scheme of things its produced the start of a decline in popularity with the majority of British fans still sticking with the Beeb. With rumours live coverage is likely to disappear completely off FTA in the next couple of years, it makes you wonder what they know that we don't? Bernie may put a brave face on the surface, suggesting Sky are doing great and its all for the good of the sport, but simple logic prevails and he's fooling nobody.

[Adam43]

A quarter of the viewers, I doubt it is that high!

Reduce the number of viewers, there will be less money for the teams, more cost cutting and less of the excesses that we don't like.
Only hardcore fans watching? Less need for artificial rules that appeal to the masses and it becomes more of a sport.
What's not to like?

[henners88]

Originally Posted by Adam43

A quarter of the viewers, I doubt it is that high!

Reduce the number of viewers, there will be less money for the teams, more cost cutting and less of the excesses that we don't like.
Only hardcore fans watching? Less need for artificial rules that appeal to the masses and it becomes more of a sport.
What's not to like?

Hardcore fans like me not being able to watch it without relying on others paying for it maybe?

[Marcus666]

I'm from Sweden and I watch the BBC iPlayer stream because of:

1. Good quality and no need to go for a livestream site with 40 pop up windows.
2. Ben "The man" Edwards and David "Coolthard"!
3. Swedish commentators suck ballz!
4. Georgie Thompson is with sky just because for her tits and not for her knowledge.


My Honest Opinion!