TV's Football Coverage is far better than that of Rugby.
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
TV's Football Coverage is far better than that of Rugby.
Call it Wendyball, take the mick, whatever.
But the well put together football programmes paid good attention to the relegation plights of West Ham, etc, the European aspirations of Tottenham, Liverpool, etc and all the other periphery.
But it was clear that Man Utd's quest for the title, and QPR's confirmation of Championship winners notwithstanding the aborted points deduction, was paramount.
Rugby?
Pathetic.
Tigers' dramatic claim of top spot was reduced to the least importnat game of the campaign and had a bundle of tries condensed into about 60 seconds of incoherent action.
Pathetic pathetic pathetic.
Je suis peed off, monsieur,
But the well put together football programmes paid good attention to the relegation plights of West Ham, etc, the European aspirations of Tottenham, Liverpool, etc and all the other periphery.
But it was clear that Man Utd's quest for the title, and QPR's confirmation of Championship winners notwithstanding the aborted points deduction, was paramount.
Rugby?
Pathetic.
Tigers' dramatic claim of top spot was reduced to the least importnat game of the campaign and had a bundle of tries condensed into about 60 seconds of incoherent action.
Pathetic pathetic pathetic.
Je suis peed off, monsieur,
Kicks and scrums and ruck and roll.....Is all my brain and body need!
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 1782
- Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 2:55 pm
- Location: Birmingham / Bangor Uni
Re: TV's Football Coverage is far better than that of Rugby.
I think ITV had a difficult job to do this week in so far as 5 of the 6 games had something riding on it - but they missed the glaringly obvious
Wasps vs Exeter was the only game where nothing was at stake - that should have had the 60sec review
Wasps vs Exeter was the only game where nothing was at stake - that should have had the 60sec review
Re: TV's Football Coverage is far better than that of Rugby.
Of course football has better coverage - there's far, far more money involved. Let's put it in perspective: Tigers who are the best supported team in the UK by some stretch had a gate of 24,000 on Saturday for an important game, whereas 2¼ hours earlier a meaningless lower division (NPower Championship) game at the Walkers drew 24,860. All the Premier League games got bigger gates than us (except Bolton 22K), and most of them got 50% more even though only Man U (75,000+) of the big teams was at home. Plenty of Premier League footballers get between 1½ to 2 times the AP salary cap on their own!
Our sport, infinitely better than wendyball though it quite clearly is, is a minority one. In my opinion if that means we avoid the worse excesses of the other game then long may we remain so.
Our sport, infinitely better than wendyball though it quite clearly is, is a minority one. In my opinion if that means we avoid the worse excesses of the other game then long may we remain so.
For when the One Great Scorer comes to write against your name,
He marks - not that you won or lost - but how you played the Game."
He marks - not that you won or lost - but how you played the Game."
Re: TV's Football Coverage is far better than that of Rugby.
We watched the ITV coverage of Tigers' match last night and thought "Is that it?"
Good job we went to the game, really.
Good job we went to the game, really.
Today is yesterday's tomorrow.
Re: TV's Football Coverage is far better than that of Rugby.
As posted elsewhere on the forum, this clip was significantly better than the ITV coverage.
http://www.espn.co.uk/rugbyunion/sport/ ... 89454.html
http://www.espn.co.uk/rugbyunion/sport/ ... 89454.html
Today is yesterday's tomorrow.
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 880
- Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:22 pm
Re: TV's Football Coverage is far better than that of Rugby.
Ah those pints again.
Football is followed more than Rugby. It's not something that worries me.
The 24,000 was our capacity so we'll never know how many extra could have turned up.
What worries me more was at 8PM when I checked the news sites, the Leicester match wasn't even part of the Rugby headlines despite us coming back from 15 points down to finish top on the last game of the season.
Football is followed more than Rugby. It's not something that worries me.
The 24,000 was our capacity so we'll never know how many extra could have turned up.
What worries me more was at 8PM when I checked the news sites, the Leicester match wasn't even part of the Rugby headlines despite us coming back from 15 points down to finish top on the last game of the season.
Excuse me. Where do I get a yellow balaclava from?
I asked Gavin Henson if they sold them at Matalan but he said they didn't because they messed his hair up.
I asked Gavin Henson if they sold them at Matalan but he said they didn't because they messed his hair up.
Re: TV's Football Coverage is far better than that of Rugby.
What bothers me the most is the local coverage Tigers get,especially on the radio.I would say that it is 50/50 when it comes to support for either City or Tigers yet them at the Walkers always seem to get preference over Tigers who end up on the digital service,its only when City are not playing then we get lucky and can listen on FM.
ITV highlights have been poor all season,bring back Rugby Special on the BBC.
ITV highlights have been poor all season,bring back Rugby Special on the BBC.
POSITIVE MENTAL ATTITUDE.
-
- Super User
- Posts: 2988
- Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:48 am
- Location: In the office pretending to work
Re: TV's Football Coverage is far better than that of Rugby.
I think that Sky's coverage is generally of a good standard although it is frustrating when there is no time for post-match analysis (usually because a football match is about to start!).
ITV's coverage is poor but then they rely on Sky for the highlights and they pay a lot more than you probably think for those 30 seconds.
ITV's coverage is poor but then they rely on Sky for the highlights and they pay a lot more than you probably think for those 30 seconds.
I saw Marika Vunibaka play
-
- Bronze Member
- Posts: 378
- Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 9:42 am
- Location: Herts
Re: TV's Football Coverage is far better than that of Rugby.
I keep on about this hoping that there will eventually be a groundswell of support to convince Tigers management/Premier Rugby.
Living in the Rugby desert of Surrey, I pay for both Sky and Espn and am pleased with coverage so far of Tigers matches.
However, a few years ago, the people who recorded matches for the clubs had an excellent scheme where for a fiver a time you could receive a DVD of the weekend match on Tuesday - no commentary. This was stopped, I believe because of the so called "highlights packages" - what rubbish they are!.
How I would love to see the full DVD of Saturday's match!
Living in the Rugby desert of Surrey, I pay for both Sky and Espn and am pleased with coverage so far of Tigers matches.
However, a few years ago, the people who recorded matches for the clubs had an excellent scheme where for a fiver a time you could receive a DVD of the weekend match on Tuesday - no commentary. This was stopped, I believe because of the so called "highlights packages" - what rubbish they are!.
How I would love to see the full DVD of Saturday's match!
Re: TV's Football Coverage is far better than that of Rugby.
So would I and I was there! I always enjoy watching the games I've seen 'for real' later in slow time, as I get a bit over-excited when I'm there.MelChannerFan wrote:I keep on about this hoping that there will eventually be a groundswell of support to convince Tigers management/Premier Rugby.
Living in the Rugby desert of Surrey, I pay for both Sky and Espn and am pleased with coverage so far of Tigers matches.
However, a few years ago, the people who recorded matches for the clubs had an excellent scheme where for a fiver a time you could receive a DVD of the weekend match on Tuesday - no commentary. This was stopped, I believe because of the so called "highlights packages" - what rubbish they are!.
How I would love to see the full DVD of Saturday's match!
For when the One Great Scorer comes to write against your name,
He marks - not that you won or lost - but how you played the Game."
He marks - not that you won or lost - but how you played the Game."
Re: TV's Football Coverage is far better than that of Rugby.
Yeah I'd love a DVD scheme like that. At matches I sometimes can't see who is doing what. I watch games and can't tell you who scored sometimes.
-
- Super User
- Posts: 14868
- Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:23 pm
- Location: Essex
Re: TV's Football Coverage is far better than that of Rugby.
Drink less beer?Purebob wrote:Yeah I'd love a DVD scheme like that. At matches I sometimes can't see who is doing what. I watch games and can't tell you who scored sometimes.
Still keeping the faith!
Re: TV's Football Coverage is far better than that of Rugby.
Sadly I don't drink mister W ! Given up coming up a year now :D
Re: TV's Football Coverage is far better than that of Rugby.
Tiger's better win then - otherwise how else can you drown your sorrows?Purebob wrote:Sadly I don't drink mister W ! Given up coming up a year now :D
For when the One Great Scorer comes to write against your name,
He marks - not that you won or lost - but how you played the Game."
He marks - not that you won or lost - but how you played the Game."
-
- Super User
- Posts: 6009
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 9:26 am
Re: TV's Football Coverage is far better than that of Rugby.
Not sure which channel it is, I'm thinking Sky, but the super slow motion shots of a tackle, break or scrummage is very, very annoying. These are normally shown during a break in play, but often they return to live play and they've missed the line out or scrum and you see the ball flying out to the backs with no idea who won the ball etc ....arrrrggghhhhh !