Disappointed with SKY

[thirteenthman]

On 26/10/2020 at 12:26, meast said:

Just an aside, i made a point whilst watching the NRL grand final of trying to do a comparison with commentary.

Basically, Ray Warren was the commentator, the caller, whatever, the other 2 "co-commentators" or whatever they're called, only spoke when Warren brought them in, and then it was only to discuss certain salient points to do with the game or the tactics, it was 3 minutes into the game when someone other than Warren spoke, they didn't force their opinion on anything, they didn't babble on about what they thought they had seen while the VR was checking things.

At times, there was a few seconds of silence while the game played out, and then it was Warren who continued to call the game.

Compare that to SKY, where there are 4, 5, or 6 people all talking over the top of each other offering various opinions about various things, sometimes, not even relevant to the game on the screen, babbling on while the referee is talking to the players, the amount of times one person gets interrupted on the SKY commentary is awful, it's like they're all fighting for airtime and the poor commentator is reduced to a bystander while they all squabble or indulge in banter with each other.

There is constant talking, from the moment the commentary team go live until they hand back, it just becomes constant background noise.

The actual game presentation is 100 times better too, no showing pointless shots of coaches while the game is going on, no missing things happening on the field because of countless replays of something mundane.

Hopefully, but doubtful, someone else puts a big bid in to take RL off SKY and completely shake it up.

I wouldn't argue about the deficiencies of the Sky commentators (Ben Proe is the worst commentator I've heard, and that's saying something), but if you have a look on the Aussie forums you'll see plenty of criticism of Ray Warren et al,  with much talk about how he's gone on too long and should retire. And Phil Gould is notorious for starting mid game rants about the latestnge rule change he wants to promote.

The silences during the commentary on Sunday morning were likely where Channel 9 went for ad breaks mid game - something else we thankfully don't have to suffer. 

And on replays, Sky do perhaps show too many, or maybe show them at the wrong time, but the Aussies tend to go the opposite way and don't show enough replays.

[redjonn]

1 hour ago, Rupert Prince said:

What is needed is investment and inevitable consolidation.  After that we might think about expansion.  The current mealy mouth blinkered attitude is the clubs responsibility.  But rugby league clubs are backward looking.

yep, but its a difficult one.

Myself I think they need to take a hit and find another alternative broadcast channel for SL.

They can't do without Sky's money but maybe don't sell the exclusive rights, accept the hit for only part parcel of games but find another channel that can help grow together with RFL/SL the offering and have competition for Sky to get their fingers out..

As someone says we have a good sport, good for TV but its an awful overall product on Sky currently...

Its obviously easier said then done with the consequentially monies hit, especially when trying to recover from the Covid hit.

Never-the-less at some point the sport here needs to take a longer term view and accepting shorter term impacts. Otherwise its just a slow dwindle to the floor.

[Wirral Warrior]

The pre and post game punditry and analysis is currently really good . Jason Robinson and Jon Wilkin wre both enthusiastic, knowledable and extremely articulate in their presenting their opnions . Carney and Wells likewise. Agree sartorial standards have slipped , but that goes across all Sky Sports now.

Similarly the BBC coverage is of a very high standard via Chapman and Woods etc

The Sky Commentary team does require some 'rationalisation' in quantity and volume , but on balance I think they do a good job.

To a degree you feel they are marking time until the new TV deal is finalised one way or another. 

 

[RigbyLuger]

10 minutes ago, Wirral Warrior said:

The pre and post game punditry and analysis is currently really good . Jason Robinson and Jon Wilkin wre both enthusiastic, knowledable and extremely articulate in their presenting their opnions . Carney and Wells likewise. Agree sartorial standards have slipped , but that goes across all Sky Sports now.

That's why I can't understand why Peacock chose to publicly have a go at Wells. Odd behaviour.

[fighting irish]

1 minute ago, RigbyLuger said:

That's why I can't understand why Peacock chose to publicly have a go at Wells. Odd behaviour.

i'm sorry i've not seen this, can you tell me what Peacock said? 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, thirteenthman said:

I wouldn't argue about the deficiencies of the Sky commentators (Ben Proe is the worst commentator I've heard, and that's saying something), but if you have a look on the Aussie forums you'll see plenty of criticism of Ray Warren et al,  with much talk about how he's gone on too long and should retire. And Phil Gould is notorious for starting mid game rants about the latestnge rule change he wants to promote.

The silences during the commentary on Sunday morning were likely where Channel 9 went for ad breaks mid game - something else we thankfully don't have to suffer. 

And on replays, Sky do perhaps show too many, or maybe show them at the wrong time, but the Aussies tend to go the opposite way and don't show enough replays.

Glad it's not just me. The Aussie commentary is just Eddie and Stevo level stuff.

I think Aussie accents sound decent to our ear and gives them credibility they often do not deserve.

[RigbyLuger]

35 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

i'm sorry i've not seen this, can you tell me what Peacock said? 

 

[Rupert Prince]

26 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

i'm sorry i've not seen this, can you tell me what Peacock said? 

I dont know, but i noticed that Wells did not comment on the Leeds Tigers game last night (he works for Cas.)

I thought the mixture looked ok last night. As long as someone as something to say and has time and space to say it then i dont think we need lots of talking heads.

I thought the lady doing the post match interviews was a bit of a waste of space.  She could go.  Jason Robinson has a good voice and, since some think this is important, he looks smart.

[Rupert Prince]

2 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

But aren't the other summerisers on the gantry, props?  Jon Wilkin a second row.

It strikes me as a bit of a rant. We should have people I hope who are coherent and objective.

[RigbyLuger]

13 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

It strikes me as a bit of a rant. We should have people I hope who are coherent and objective.

Exactly, and actually tell us what and why things have happened.

[whatmichaelsays]

3 hours ago, fighting irish said:

Well what the chuffing hell is Robert Elstone supposed to be doing?

Do you think, he's happy with Sky's production and the comical, inane commentary and standards of dress?

 

Elstone can't do an awful lot about how Sky present the sport. If he wants editorial control, he needs to bring the production of SL's content in-house, which won't happen. 

The point being that the line "we have a great product" is a misnomer. To the people who love this sport, it's a great product, but there aren't enough people who fall into that category. 

Instead, the "we're a great product" thinking needs to be ditched, because it creates a sense of hubris that nothing about it needs to change to appeal to new people. We're a great sport - when played at it's best, I would argue the best sport you can watch - but that doesn't make it a great, or even a good, product. We package this great sport and sell it appallingly in many cases. I've posted this on here before, but it's a great example how you can take an amazing thing - something that could sell out 80,000 seater stadiums at £100 a ticket - and sell it badly. It's a good metaphor for Super League. 

It's the clubs that produce the talent, it's the clubs that vote to make it harder to recruit and retain that talent, it's the clubs that insist on loop fixtures and it's the clubs that provide the spectator facilities and experience. This issue is on them. 

[fighting irish]

36 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Elstone can't do an awful lot about how Sky present the sport. If he wants editorial control, he needs to bring the production of SL's content in-house, which won't happen. 

The point being that the line "we have a great product" is a misnomer. To the people who love this sport, it's a great product, but there aren't enough people who fall into that category. 

Instead, the "we're a great product" thinking needs to be ditched, because it creates a sense of hubris that nothing about it needs to change to appeal to new people. We're a great sport - when played at it's best, I would argue the best sport you can watch - but that doesn't make it a great, or even a good, product. We package this great sport and sell it appallingly in many cases. I've posted this on here before, but it's a great example how you can take an amazing thing - something that could sell out 80,000 seater stadiums at £100 a ticket - and sell it badly. It's a good metaphor for Super League. 

It's the clubs that produce the talent, it's the clubs that vote to make it harder to recruit and retain that talent, it's the clubs that insist on loop fixtures and it's the clubs that provide the spectator facilities and experience. This issue is on them. 

I understand that he doesn't have editorial control, but given the length of the relationship and the amounts of money changing hands (from us to Sky and from Sky to SL) I'd expect him to be in regular contact with them, especially if the ''product'' is going down the pan.

If he is not trying to exert some influence on the quality of Sky's presentation he is grossly negligent.

I am willing him to do well, but I've yet to be impressed.

Admittedly, I don't know what he does hour by hour but from the outside, he looks like just another caretaker, rather than a skillful and effective agent of change. 

[whatmichaelsays]

3 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I understand that he doesn't have editorial control, but given the length of the relationship and the amounts of money changing hands (from us to Sky and from Sky to SL) I'd expect him to be in regular contact with them, especially if the ''product'' is going down the pan.

If he is not trying to exert some influence on the quality of Sky's presentation he is grossly negligent.

I am willing him to do well, but I've yet to be impressed.

Admittedly, I don't know what he does hour by hour but from the outside, he looks like just another caretaker, rather than a skillful and effective agent of change. 

I'm not sure what Elstone could really do in that respect. How Sky want to run their business is their business and that includes who they employ. 

For me this all comes back to doing what the sport can control, rather than complaining about what it can't. Aside from a few rule tweaks to speed the games up and some more polished branding, I've not really seen anything that demonstrates that Elstone, or the clubs that vote on his proposals, know how to sell this sport to anyone other than the dwindling group of people who already buy it. 

Take the pandemic out of the equation and there is a lot of stuff, some of it more radical than others, that can be done to make the sport more attractive to new audiences both in the stadium and TV, irrespective of "Baz 'n' Tez". Installing some "shot clocks" isn't really going to cut it. 

[thirteenthman]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

Glad it's not just me. The Aussie commentary is just Eddie and Stevo level stuff.

I think Aussie accents sound decent to our ear and gives them credibility they often do not deserve.

The worst Aussie commentators are as bad as anything we have. Fox are generally better than Ch 9, but they have a fair few duds as well. I'd say in general, it's the same problem any sport has - the same voices week in, week out can start to sound tired and cliched.

To go back to Sky, for all the criticism Eddie Hemmings used to take, I'd still rate him above any of Bill Arthur, Ben Proe and Stuart Pyke. 

[daz39]

54 minutes ago, thirteenthman said:

The worst Aussie commentators are as bad as anything we have. Fox are generally better than Ch 9, but they have a fair few duds as well. I'd say in general, it's the same problem any sport has - the same voices week in, week out can start to sound tired and cliched.

To go back to Sky, for all the criticism Eddie Hemmings used to take, I'd still rate him above any of Bill Arthur, Ben Proe and Stuart Pyke. 

I'd rate Norman Collier above them too !!

[Damien]

6 hours ago, RigbyLuger said:

 

Its an odd rant, and not what you'd typically expect from an ex-player towards other ex-players. Its even odder when he leaves out the two worst pundits Sky have in Terry O'Connor and Barrie McDermott, both props like himself, a position where players aren't exactly known for their tactical nouse. JJB is as bad as they come too but strangely Peacock doesn't have a rant about him, just like he said nothing about McDermott. We all know the reason for that. Lets be honest its not like Peacock himself is much better than all these.

Jason Robinson, Brian Carney and Jon Wells come across far better than any of the above. Throw in Wilkin too from the Beeb. They are all articulate and can string a sentence together which is more than can be said for the others. Peacock mentions McGuire and maybe that is a decent shout as he always comes across well too from what I have heard of him.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Its an odd rant, and not what you'd typically expect from an ex-player towards other ex-players. Its even odder when he leaves out the two worst pundits Sky have in Terry O'Connor and Barrie McDermott, both props like himself, a position where players aren't exactly known for their tactical nouse. JJB is as bad as they come too but strangely Peacock doesn't have a rant about him, just like he said nothing about McDermott. We all know the reason for that. Lets be honest its not like Peacock himself is much better than all these.

Jason Robinson, Brian Carney and Jon Wells come across far better than any of the above. Throw in Wilkin too from the Beeb. They are all articulate and can string a sentence together which is more than can be said for the others. Peacock mentions McGuire and maybe that is a decent shout as he always comes across well too from what I have heard of him.

Yep, he's just been an idiot there tbh, it suggests he'd been drinking. Unless it was all tongue in cheek. 

Sky have had a very good variety of experts recently, really varied. 

[Hela Wigmen]

He’s right though. The pundits, Wells, Carney and Robinson, don’t really represent diversity and the talk is woeful. O’Connor and McDermott, are remarkably, in match commentators. I would expect some more diversity if we’re expecting to be breaking down plays and doing some more of the analytical side of the game at half time and post game. I know he’s not started with Leeds yet but Sean Long would be superb between now and the end of the season for that sort of thing.

That said, the introduction of recently retired players in the likes of Pryce and Wilkin amongst others, has been a very good addition and is something that I hope continues if we have some normality back next year.