Don't know if anybody here is watching but one of the commentators will
wet themselves if they carry on like this.
Who could blame them!, well done you Lionesses:-))
On 31/07/2022 21:31, tony sayer wrote:
Who could blame them!, well done you Lionesses:-))
The Scots have been very quiet, usually lots of stories of them going
out buying England's opponents' football shirts. Perhaps they have
grown up at last. :-)
On Sun 31/07/2022 22:10, MB wrote:
On 31/07/2022 21:31, tony sayer wrote:
Who could blame them!, well done you Lionesses:-))
The Scots have been very quiet, usually lots of stories of them going
out buying England's opponents' football shirts. Perhaps they have
grown up at last. :-)
More to the point, have you noticed how quiet 'That Woman' has been of
late?
On 31/07/2022 22:23, Woody wrote:
On Sun 31/07/2022 22:10, MB wrote:
On 31/07/2022 21:31, tony sayer wrote:
Who could blame them!, well done you Lionesses:-))
+1
The Scots have been very quiet, usually lots of stories of them going
out buying England's opponents' football shirts. Perhaps they have
grown up at last. :-)
I've lived in Scotland for a decade now, and have never seen such a
story, so, yet again, where is your *EVIDENCE* for this bigoted claim?
More to the point, have you noticed how quiet 'That Woman' has been of
late?
WTF has 'that woman', whoever she might be, got to do with the success
of England's Women's Football team? At least their success is something
we can all feel good about, unlike the dismal choice of the next I'm-terrified-of-and-will-say-anything-to-please-the-right-wing-no-matter-how-much-it's-against-everything-I-once-said
liar to lead the country ever further up shit creek!
No, I was not. Its not my thing.
I would say however that the coverage of the various sports does seem to be
inconsistent at the moment. Once again it started with the bbc and Wimbledon >where they seemed to be unable to decide on an ongoing basis which channel
to screw up and which not to. The exact same mess is now going on with the >Commonwealth games, is it bbc2 3 or 1 this hour?
In the end you go, for gods sake who is in charge here. I'll not be wanting
any oof it but it would be nice to actually be consistent so the other shows >can be watched on the predicted channel.
Its like the schedules are organised by a cipher expert, deliberately to
annoy the potential audience.
Don't know if anybody here is watching but one of the commentators will
wet themselves if they carry on like this.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand.
On 31/07/2022 22:42, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/07/2022 22:23, Woody wrote:
On Sun 31/07/2022 22:10, MB wrote:
On 31/07/2022 21:31, tony sayer wrote:
Who could blame them!, well done you Lionesses:-))
+1
The Scots have been very quiet, usually lots of stories of them going
out buying England's opponents' football shirts. Perhaps they have
grown up at last. :-)
I've lived in Scotland for a decade now, and have never seen such a
story, so, yet again, where is your *EVIDENCE* for this bigoted claim?
More to the point, have you noticed how quiet 'That Woman' has been of
late?
WTF has 'that woman', whoever she might be, got to do with the success
of England's Women's Football team? At least their success is something
we can all feel good about, unlike the dismal choice of the next
I'm-terrified-of-and-will-say-anything-to-please-the-right-wing-no-matter-how-much-it's-against-everything-I-once-said
liar to lead the country ever further up shit creek!
Can I be the first to use the word "dreich" to describe the next PM? I
was going to say that she makes John Major seem positively
kaleidoscopic, but I see that one definition of that word is "quickly >changing from one thing to another", so perhaps not!
On 31/07/2022 21:31, tony sayer wrote:
Who could blame them!, well done you Lionesses:-))
The Scots have been very quiet, usually lots of stories of them going
out buying England's opponents' football shirts. Perhaps they have
grown up at last. :-)
I have long thought this. Why can't they designate one channel as theIt's the modern BBC for you,
sports channel for the duration of the tournament? I could understand
it when BBC2 was a minority channel only available to those with dual standard sets and UHF aerials. However, I think it is safe to say
there is no TV in existence that can receive BBC One but not BBC Two.
On 01/08/2022 11:03, Scott wrote:
It's the modern BBC for you,
I have long thought this. Why can't they designate one channel as the
sports channel for the duration of the tournament? I could understand
it when BBC2 was a minority channel only available to those with dual
standard sets and UHF aerials. However, I think it is safe to say
there is no TV in existence that can receive BBC One but not BBC Two.
They did brand BBC 1 as 'The Olympic Channel' in 1984, and got into
terrible hot water with the IOC for doing this with their globe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5KWUPc9KFs
Indeed, there are no differences in coverage between BBC 1 and 2 today.
All that said, if the Women's Football had been tucked away late at
night on BBC 2, it wouldn't have become as suddenly popular as it
suddenly has this summer.
I'm not fan of football, but I think what's happened is A Good Thing.
The matches and interest seems to be genuine family interest, and the
whole thing has a really nice vibe about it.
Reminds me of American sports events I've attended. Just a nice atmos.
I've attended a fair few men's Premiership Matches (for work), and I
find it horrible. I hide inside the OB Truck
"Brian Gaff" <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
No, I was not. Its not my thing.
I would say however that the coverage of the various sports does seem to be >> inconsistent at the moment. Once again it started with the bbc and Wimbledon >> where they seemed to be unable to decide on an ongoing basis which channel >> to screw up and which not to. The exact same mess is now going on with the >> Commonwealth games, is it bbc2 3 or 1 this hour?
In the end you go, for gods sake who is in charge here. I'll not be wanting >> any oof it but it would be nice to actually be consistent so the other shows >> can be watched on the predicted channel.
Its like the schedules are organised by a cipher expert, deliberately to
annoy the potential audience.
I have long thought this. Why can't they designate one channel as the
sports channel for the duration of the tournament? I could understand
it when BBC2 was a minority channel only available to those with dual standard sets and UHF aerials. However, I think it is safe to say
there is no TV in existence that can receive BBC One but not BBC Two.
On 01/08/2022 12:55, Scott wrote:
I cannot believe that anybody wanting to watch the football would haveI agree, but having it on BBC 1 has probably generated thousands of new >followers that wouldn't have appeared if the matches had been on BBC 2,
been unable to locate it, given the clue that it was on the BBC.
or C5, or ITV 4 etc
Whether it's the BBC's function to promote the sport, and generate new
fans, is a quite different question !
On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 13:21:07 +0100, Mark CarverOh, moving, yes I agree, Wasn't all the women's football on BBC 1 or
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/08/2022 12:55, Scott wrote:Okay, maybe football is a special case but for Wimbledon I cannot see
I cannot believe that anybody wanting to watch the football would haveI agree, but having it on BBC 1 has probably generated thousands of new
been unable to locate it, given the clue that it was on the BBC.
followers that wouldn't have appeared if the matches had been on BBC 2,
or C5, or ITV 4 etc
Whether it's the BBC's function to promote the sport, and generate new
fans, is a quite different question !
how moving a match from one channel to another is likely to generate
anything other than irritation.
On 01/08/2022 12:55, Scott wrote:
I cannot believe that anybody wanting to watch the football would have
been unable to locate it, given the clue that it was on the BBC.
I agree, but having it on BBC 1 has probably generated thousands of new followers that wouldn't have appeared if the matches had been on BBC 2,
or C5, or ITV 4 etc
Whether it's the BBC's function to promote the sport, and generate new
fans, is a quite different question !
I cannot believe that anybody wanting to watch the football would have
been unable to locate it, given the clue that it was on the BBC.
No, I was not. Its not my thing.
I would say however that the coverage of the various sports does seem to be inconsistent at the moment. Once again it started with the bbc and Wimbledon where they seemed to be unable to decide on an ongoing basis which channel
to screw up and which not to. The exact same mess is now going on with the Commonwealth games, is it bbc2 3 or 1 this hour?
In the end you go, for gods sake who is in charge here. I'll not be wanting any oof it but it would be nice to actually be consistent so the other shows can be watched on the predicted channel.
Its like the schedules are organised by a cipher expert, deliberately to annoy the potential audience.
I think the reference was to NIcola
There were a few worries that the higher salaries in English Women's
teams might attract people. I can remember when there were lots of
Scottish players in English teams and every time there were
international matches the Scottish tabloids etc blamed Scotland losing
on the English teams not releasing the Scottish players for the matches
or for training.
I was not for one moment suggesting the matches should not have been
live, just that for the Olympics, Euros and Commonwealth games they
should have designated one channel instead of this repeated
'retuning'.
I'm not fan of football, but I think what's happened is A Good Thing.
The matches and interest seems to be genuine family interest, and the
whole thing has a really nice vibe about it.
Reminds me of American sports events I've attended. Just a nice atmos.
I've attended a fair few men's Premiership Matches (for work), and I
find it horrible. I hide inside the OB Truck
On 01/08/2022 19:45, MB wrote:
There were a few worries that the higher salaries in English Women's
teams might attract people. I can remember when there were lots of
Scottish players in English teams and every time there were
international matches the Scottish tabloids etc blamed Scotland losing
on the English teams not releasing the Scottish players for the matches
or for training.
And they used to blame the lack of football on TV in Scotland on the BBC
when it was actually the Scottish football authorities not allowing the matches to be shown!
I'm not fan of football, but I think what's happened is A Good Thing.
The matches and interest seems to be genuine family interest, and the
whole thing has a really nice vibe about it.
I also have almost zero interest in football and regard 'sport' as a form
of noise on TV. However I did see the goals the Lionesses scored during the semi- and final. They quite impressed me as they seemed to actually be far better football than the usual men's games that infect the box.
They shot at the goal, and when that got bounced out, immediately followed
it and acted. That back-heel shot seemed brilliant to me, and showed quick reaction times and a mindset of "keep going until it goes into the goal."
Whereas the Men seem to be 'one legged' and having tried a fancy shot tend
to assume that's it.
That the audiences may be more of a family affair may also aid Women's football become a public success. Better better behaviour by the crowd if
it is complete families in the stands, perhaps.
That the audiences may be more of a family affair may also aid Women's >>football become a public success. Better better behaviour by the crowd if >>it is complete families in the stands, perhaps.
I am agree but they were good to watch, there are still moronic comments >being posted by supporters of the men's game. I think the women are more >skilfull and tougher, one of the commentators said of one after she took a >knock that she would carry on playing even with a broken leg.
I also have almost zero interest in football and regard 'sport' as a form
of noise on TV. However I did see the goals the Lionesses scored during the semi- and final. They quite impressed me as they seemed to actually be far better football than the usual men's games that infect the box.
They shot at the goal, and when that got bounced out, immediately followed
it and acted. That back-heel shot seemed brilliant to me, and showed quick reaction times and a mindset of "keep going until it goes into the goal."
Whereas the Men seem to be 'one legged' and having tried a fancy shot tend
to assume that's it.
On 01/08/2022 10:26, Brian Gaff wrote:
No, I was not. Its not my thing.
I would say however that the coverage of the various sports does seem
to be
inconsistent at the moment. Once again it started with the bbc and
Wimbledon
where they seemed to be unable to decide on an ongoing basis which
channel
to screw up and which not to. The exact same mess is now going on with
the
Commonwealth games, is it bbc2 3 or 1 this hour?
In the end you go, for gods sake who is in charge here. I'll not be
wanting
any oof it but it would be nice to actually be consistent so the other
shows
can be watched on the predicted channel.
Its like the schedules are organised by a cipher expert, deliberately
to
annoy the potential audience.
I think they do pretty well considering all the complications (and not everything being under their control).
People can argue that it should not matter what channel is use but they
will always try to protect BBC1 schedules and put the most important event there.
There was some confusion for a time because I think initially they
scheduled for coverage of the final to start at 16:00h on Sunday but when England reached the final it was moved forward to 15:50h but for next few days they did not seem sure and both times were given out at different
times and in different places.
Yes well, not sure. Unfortunately, myviews are biased the fact that I just don't get the concept of sports like Football at all. To me its a kind of artificial competition, with such convoluted rules and why a ball anyway?
On 03/08/2022 10:06, Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes well, not sure. Unfortunately, myviews are biased the fact that I
just
don't get the concept of sports like Football at all. To me its a kind of
artificial competition, with such convoluted rules and why a ball anyway?
Using a decapitated head might bring in large crowds but would not go
down well with the woke.
For someone with almost zero interest in football you seem to have
studied it quite closely!
It seemed to me that they played as a genuine team whereas men tend to
try and be prima donnas as they seek lucrative sponsorship deals. All
sport would be more watchable if wages were cut to the level of those
paid to the women footballers.
It is almost impossible to avoid seeing some Football on TV, almost every week as it keeps being presentedas if 'news'. Seeing it makes clear that...
...Yes. The men seem to wanna-be-a-star and live the now infamous 'lifestyle'. Not good for teamwork or*actual* sport. Football has also clearly become both an 'investment' and a 'sign of status' for
ultra-wealthy owners who probably have no actual interest in sport, just in themself.
Sadly, I fear the women's game may be eventually harmed by the above now it has 'value' for such owners, etc.
They did brand BBC 1 as 'The Olympic Channel' in 1984, and got into
terrible hot water with the IOC for doing this with their globe
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:36:39 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,336,200 |