I know it's very disappointing during the non play times, but the player zone segment is absolutely brilliant, just watched Mark Wood talking about fast bowling and giving tips to young bowlers, videos being sent in of boys and girls bowling, I found these segments fascinating and seeing kids of all backgrounds making their immediate environment fit to learn a skill is truly heartwarming.
I think cricket coverage in general is just superb. As is Formula One. There's a genuine reason to watch the analysis, interviews, predictions, and strategy comments from the former pro's and experts - it isn't all about the live event. Last week watching Warne and Nasser go through Sibley's batting action, and the position of slip fielders, was a joy to watch. Football is miles behind. Or is that unfair? Is it a more difficult sport to analyse, or do we just pluck any ex pro and throw them in to the spotlight, which means you have to spend your time listening to the likes of Jenas, Ashley Cole, Darren Bent, and Clinton Morrison? BT Sport do a better job than the BBC, with Jake Humphrey's and the football chats they sometimes have after games. But only Neville and Carragher really analyse the game and make you think they know what they're talking about - even if you don't agree.
I saw it yesterday morning when they did it live and thought it was brilliant. Can you imagine a World Cup winning England footballer, who’d not been selected for this game, giving half an hour up to talk through 7 year old’s techniques? Well done to Sky and Mark Wood.
you're right mate (don’t tell al). I think with cricket they have a long time to broadcast and therefore get a chance to delve in depth, they also have far better analytical presenters, especially since they sacked Botham. similar with F1. I’d love sky football to make some kind of analyst shows instead of just repeating old games through the day. The things Carragher and Neville do on a Monday night with tactics etc are good, they should do more of it
That's why I questioned myself on if I was being unfair as they're very different sports. But I very rarely watch any football analysis and feel like I've learnt something. They rarely explain the game, the tactics, and I don't listen to some of the 'experts' thinking they're experts - but maybe that's because I feel like I know football more than I actually do. With F1 and Cricket, I could watch them explain the dynamics of the sport for hours and just absorb it all.
People might disagree but when Richard kee and Andy gray did football they were far superior to any other football pundits today.
Neville and Carragher aside, there's some dross on Sky Sports. Souness is dated, and has an obvious agenda against black players, Paul Pogba in particular. Micah Richards and Roy Keane bounce off each other quite well, but offer little tactical insight, similar to most of the others on Sky. The pundits they have on intermittently all seem to be there to point out the obvious, that we can all see at home. The EFL coverage is even worse. They continue to wheel out the likes of Lee Hendrie, and Clinton Morrison, who seems unable to finish a sentence. Liam Rosenior speaks well, though. I suspect he'll follow his dad into management at some point.
Due to the shear quantity of football that is televised it's hard to do so much detailed analysis on each game. F1 there's only 1 event, 1 game cricket lasts 5 days.
I get that. But football struggles to keep you entertained for an hour before the game, but if there's so much football to review and analyse then wouldn't it be easier? Outside of Carragher and Neville on a Monday night, when is football really analysed to the point you feel like you've really learnt something, from someone who understands the game so much better than you do?
The Sky show with the journos on it is great for analysis WRT quantity, I think they're too busy getting you ready for the next match to go into detail on what's just happened in a previous match.
I think my overall complaint is that when listening to football pundits you're not in the same awe as you are with the likes of F1 and Cricket. There are some that are good, but in the main they're pretty poor (or at least what they're asked to present on is).
Yes I often say similar. I want to hear things that I wouldn't know. Not the blindingly obvious showing someone giving the ball away. Neville and Carragher on the Monday night do that. I'm not sure if it's as much down to who the pundits are or just the format of the presentation. I suppose F1 is a lot more complex so more to explain, but again I agree it's done brilliantly. I could listen to Martin Brundle all day. The cricket is similarly excellent, I think maybe football just don't see the need. Show the game, fill half time with adverts and move onto the next one. Feels it's more for the masses, where as the cricket and F1 examples feel more like they are aimed at specific audience of fans of those sports.
Interestingly, letting former players just go back and forth without a script (like Scholes and Ince now) is probably as good as it gets outside of Neville/Carragher. Having Hargreaves then be brought in on top works really well. Maybe it's more about creating that debate with football, like we have at the game or in the pub, but in a more strategical way?
However the BBC's highlights are rubbish. It has to be presented of course by a female person of colour and everyone stands at very safe distances from each other. The only white male presenter who gets on now and again is Michael Vaughan and he's a ******.
bit of a generalisation, but top-end ex-cricketers tend to be well-educated posh kids. as opposed to top-end ex-footballers, who are generally thick as f.cuk. probably related to the quality of coverage.