nsr Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Impressive you essentially answered your own question before you asked it. It's proportionate to the viewers. Why wouldn't it be? So minorities should just get shafted and like it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 i'm sure Italian commentators would say similar about their own players and leagues to their Italian audience. Except the Italians have experience of winning a WC and reaching a euros semi finals / finals since the turn of the century Also, I've never heard them hyping up their own players and league. I've usually found them rather realistic when discussing the national team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxsta Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 So minorities should just get shafted and like it? No. Nobody is getting shafted either you poor thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxsta Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I may be wrong as it was a long time ago, but were they not with the Scotland camp as much as they were the England camp during the group stages of France 98? My memory of it doesn't extend much beyond Jimmy Hill wearing a St Andrews bow tie though. I was 5 years old, my memory of 98 was moving to Scotland oddly enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxsta Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Except the Italians have experience of winning a WC and reaching a euros semi finals / finals since the turn of the century Also, I've never heard them hyping up their own players and league. I've usually found them rather realistic when discussing the national team. No need to be a pedant, i typed Spain out initially! Do you literally listen to Italian coverage of their WC preparations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JockysJetpack Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I don't support anyone at the World Cup really, except who I have in the sweepy (Croatia this year). I just like to see good games. I don't actively support England or the team they're playing, but I do have a wee chuckle when something like the Rob Green vs USA thing happens. More so, just because I can't stand the BBC bias, it's always the same and it always will be the same. I take no pleasure in rubbing my English friends faces in their failings, but I do get irritated by the countless articles that pop up around World Cup time with regards to England (not that I read them). Anyway, hoping for a good World Cup- the last one was a bit shit really. Mon the Croats! Niko Kovac's barmy army! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Impressive you essentially answered your own question before you asked it. It's proportionate to the viewers. Why wouldn't it be? No I never? Scotland is part of Britain, so the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) should give as much coverage to the Scotland team as they do England, why should we not get that because we are a smaller country?As I said I have no idea what happens as I am not old enough to remember the 98 coverage, I am saying this in response to this 'The majority of people watching the BBC are English it would be moronic, nonsensical and just illogical if they didn't cover England so much. They'd give you as much coverage as the audience would demand. Not a lot.' from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Is it really any different from Manchester United and Liverpool getting more coverage from the BBC than Hull and West Brom? The first two have more fans and interest more people so they get more coverage. Anyway, if Scotland qualified I don't think there would be a lack of coverage. Just like the 6 nations in rugby they would concentrate on them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxsta Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 No I never? Scotland is part of Britain, so the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) should give as much coverage to the Scotland team as they do England, why should we not get that because we are a smaller country?As I said I have no idea what happens as I am not old enough to remember the 98 coverage, I am saying this in response to this 'The majority of people watching the BBC are English it would be moronic, nonsensical and just illogical if they didn't cover England so much. They'd give you as much coverage as the audience would demand. Not a lot.' from you. No they shouldn't, why the f**k should they? You also don't get equal coverage because you don't qualify, not due to you being a smaller country. If Scotland qualified the coverage should still not be equal. Supply and demand amigo, get it learned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Is it really any different from Manchester United and Liverpool getting more coverage from the BBC than Hull and West Brom? The first two have more fans and interest more people so they get more coverage. Anyway, if Scotland qualified I don't think there would be a lack of coverage. Just like the 6 nations in rugby they would concentrate on them all. Thank you. I agree, I was responding to Maxsta with my initial posts. No they shouldn't, why the f**k should they? You also don't get equal coverage because you don't qualify, not due to you being a smaller country. If Scotland qualified the coverage should still not be equal. Supply and demand amigo, get it learned. Well why shouldnt we get equal coverage? Because we are a smaller country? Seems fair. Im with BerwickMad on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 This debate reminds me of when I was watching England play Northern Ireland a few years back with my (English) mother. She was getting more and more annoyed with the pro-Irish commentators, she nearly exploded with rage everytime they insisted on referring to Norn Iron as "us" or "we", and slating the English players for being dirty every time they attempted a tackle. By half-time I felt guilty and had to admit that I'd deliberately chosen to watch the BBC Northern Ireland commentary, just to wind her up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 No I never? Scotland is part of Britain, so the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) should give as much coverage to the Scotland team as they do England, why should we not get that because we are a smaller country?As I said I have no idea what happens as I am not old enough to remember the 98 coverage, I am saying this in response to this 'The majority of people watching the BBC are English it would be moronic, nonsensical and just illogical if they didn't cover England so much. They'd give you as much coverage as the audience would demand. Not a lot.' from you. I support whoever is playing England and want them to lose, but seriously, give up on this point. Obviously there will be more coverage on England, they have a much, much larger population and therefore number of viewers so it's right that they get more coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 No I never? Scotland is part of Britain, so the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) should give as much coverage to the Scotland team as they do England, why should we not get that because we are a smaller country?As I said I have no idea what happens as I am not old enough to remember the 98 coverage, I am saying this in response to this 'The majority of people watching the BBC are English it would be moronic, nonsensical and just illogical if they didn't cover England so much. They'd give you as much coverage as the audience would demand. Not a lot.' from you. Well I can remember. Scotland played Brazil in the opening match and you would have thought it was the final never mind luck of the draw. It was saturation coverage and it continued until Morocco pumped them, by that time we were begging for it to be cancelled. In 74 and 78 when England didn't qualify all games were on terrestrial TV (there was nothing else, mind you, at that time.) I can't remember a meaningful Scotland game not broadcast live on telly and radio. Maybe you can tell me different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 The commentator on the England v Netherlands u-17s game is like some parody of an English football commentator (apart from being Northern Irish). 30 mins: "The Dutch will just want to get in at 1-0 with the pressure they're under". 40 mins: 1-1. LOL. He made a point of saying how much better than Netherlands England are playing literally at least 20 times in the first half, despite it being total bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Cool story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 It's entirely understandale that the BBC would put a large focus on England when they're the only British team at a tournament (unfortunately, that's all we've known for quite a while). It's also quite understandable that that can get quite annoying for some Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish viewers who would like to see a more neutral coverage. And by neutral, I mean a bit more news/analysis on the other 31 teams rather than a debate on whether Roy was right to ban his players from fucking the WAGs during the tournament. It's also understandale that English pundits will come away with laughably blinkered comments from time to time, I'm sure Derek Ferguson would probably come away with some howler about Robert Snodgrass being "world class" given the oppertunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 You'd probably find that most serious English football fans would prefer news and debate about the other 31 teams too, but I suppose the BBC has to cater for your more 'casual' football fan too. Everyone gets caught up in the excitement around the World Cup, and unfortunately a lot of the viewers care more about those trivial England 'news' stories on WAGS and stuff than they do about how South Korea might set up their team for a vital group match. The coverage in South Africa where the BBC pundits were all sitting around boasting about how little they knew about Slovenia was shocking. Paid to do that job and they couldn't even be arsed to research some of the teams. More like an expensive lads holiday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booker-T Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Howay the lads Invented the game, used to dominate the game, hopefully we bring are "A" game to Brazil dominate the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 I support whoever is playing England and want them to lose, but seriously, give up on this point. Obviously there will be more coverage on England, they have a much, much larger population and therefore number of viewers so it's right that they get more coverage. Aye so we suffer becuase we are smaller? Don't think I am making my point correctly tbh. Well I can remember. Scotland played Brazil in the opening match and you would have thought it was the final never mind luck of the draw. It was saturation coverage and it continued until Morocco pumped them, by that time we were begging for it to be cancelled. In 74 and 78 when England didn't qualify all games were on terrestrial TV (there was nothing else, mind you, at that time.) I can't remember a meaningful Scotland game not broadcast live on telly and radio. Maybe you can tell me different. Not old enough to, I was replying to Maxsta. It's entirely understandale that the BBC would put a large focus on England when they're the only British team at a tournament (unfortunately, that's all we've known for quite a while). It's also quite understandable that that can get quite annoying for some Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish viewers who would like to see a more neutral coverage. And by neutral, I mean a bit more news/analysis on the other 31 teams rather than a debate on whether Roy was right to ban his players from fucking the WAGs during the tournament. It's also understandale that English pundits will come away with laughably blinkered comments from time to time, I'm sure Derek Ferguson would probably come away with some howler about Robert Snodgrass being "world class" given the oppertunity. I understand that just now thats the way it is because they are the only British team there and I have no problem with that. I would agree with BerwickMad when he says 'a lot of the viewers care more about those trivial England 'news' stories on WAGS and stuff than they do about how South Korea might set up their team for a vital group match.' which I 100 percent agree with, would be the same if it was Scotland there. In other news.... Suarez is supposedly out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxsta Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Thank you. I agree, I was responding to Maxsta with my initial posts. Well why shouldnt we get equal coverage? Because we are a smaller country? Seems fair. Im with BerwickMad on this. It is fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.