Sky Sports Lions coverage

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Firstly, considering the money people play for Sky Sports I this policy of not actually critiquing the Lions play is a disgrace. Presumably it's not to alienate a nation of fans but the constant hyperbolic praise of players is doing that anyway

Here's a very good post from another forum:

I got rid of my Sky Sports subscription a few years ago because I wasn't getting the use out of it. I usually go to friends' houses to watch games, or pubs, or try to find something online.

I was staggered how vacuous the post-match "analysis" was yesterday. Nearly an hour of nothing.

Scott Quinnell is fun, but he's hardly insightful, is he? His contribution is usually to agree in colourful terms and in a lovely accent ("...the Lie-Yuns were fantastic") with what the anchor has just said. McGeechan, God bless his legendness, is becoming the Yoda of rugby - every question must be answered in the context of previous tours and how a backline move will rank in the great pantheon of what's gone before. Wallace is OK but too bland to be memorable - he needs Neil Francis get a proper spark out of him. And surely never has one player owed so much of his fame to just three rugby games played in the mists of 16 years ago. (If the Lions had lost the 2nd test in 1997, where would PW be?).

Sitting on the couch yesterday, listening to this lot, I longed for debate on some or any of the following:
- How did the Lions back row look so flat considering how good so many individual players had looked through the tour?
- Which sides' locks were the best? (2nd row battle was even I felt)...
- Why did Phillips fail to make impact?
- What happened the 10-12-13 attacking threat?
- Why was the midfield defense so shaky?
- Why was the front row changed so early?

Instead, we got a bunch of magazine stuff, like a predictable interview with the Youngs brothers (fair play to them by the way) on "how proud were you both bla bla ?"

Strange that Sky invests so much into terrific technical coverage, do a superb job on marketing the product, yet you end up with a panel and a line of analysis that, although better than Jamie Rednapp (just) is not remotely as good as Gary Neville. Why?

bilston

Their analysis is usually very in depth. I think that for the Lions tour they realise that there are a lot of passive viewers and therefore they maybe don't want to get too technical. That said Dean Ryan's analysis is as always excellent.

.ak

TBH, the coverage quality of the Lions versus HCup is WORLDS apart. I love Sky during the HCup, really insightful and some real cool analysis of set pieces and stuff.

The Lions coverage makes me vomit in my mouth. I thought Quinnell was drunk last night. The other panelists were lost for words after his rants (not in a good way).

.ak

Like, yesterday I made a point of watching Sky for the build up and the post game stuff... Don't think I'll bother for the rest of the games, just watch it in the pub.

WorldRugby99

problem is sky team appear to be behaving too much like cheerleaders for the lions,rather than impartial independent broadcasters presenting a sports event. Scott quinnell as others have said has been incredibly cringeworthy in particular.Theres been little proper analysis. some players particularly likes of phillips,cole,lydiate and roberts havent had great tours but you wont hear about it on sky.

Swiwi.

I did find the commentary cringeworthy at times. Apparently the same went for the Aussie version. If there was French commentary I would go for that. Sadly France has no interest whatsoever in the Lions, even some of the regular French posters on this forum don't post on the Lions threads.

chippers

I have to say that I come to this thread to get some decent analysis. I get nothing from the sky coverage. I have to say I miss George and the lads. However many times he's way off the mark sometimes he's absolutely bang on the money as well and says it as it is. The sky panel are full of nothingness.

TheGoldenAges

I like the indepth stuff they do on the touchscreen showing different backline moves etc, suppose in the stadium they didn't have a proper broadcast box so that wasn't possible.

Also what passive rugby fan pays attention to analysis?

ThisRegard

I think it was telling that my wife asked me yesterday morning was I actually going to watch this until the game starts in a mocking tone, whereas she'd happily watch the RTE crew, whom I also enjoy watching tbh.

LeeroyJones

The pundits have instructions that they are to follow. Their analysis has a premeditated tone.

To put it simply, people respond when they are told what they like to hear. Now, you or I may want to hear genuine debates - analyse why in fact Warburton is picked & SOB/Tipuric are not etc. However, the majority of Sky subscribers don't follow rugby as closely as boards.ie posters. Sky know full well that we are going to be tuning regardless of debates so it is their aim to attract as many other viewers as possible. How is this done? Tell the people what they want - Aren't we great, isn't this fantastic - basic selling techniques really. They can do this with the Lions more so than in the H Cup. Sky have a lot more customers who are Lions fans than Ozzies in the UK and Ireland - goes without saying. In the H Cup their viewers are split across Leicester, Northampton, Leinster, Munster, Ulster and so on, so they have more scope for genuine analysis.

Now, one may argue that this is not a good service and it's not. However Sky are a commercial business and what the final product we watch on Sky is a result of that.

19543261

edit: ^^^^

OldRio

It's called dumbing down.

Woody1997

Yesterday's post match analysis was mind-numbing at best. To be honest, I found quinnell quite annoying, I normally like his insight into a lions camp and passion for the game but yesterday was borderline ridiculous at times. You could see it in Alex Payne's face after he finished yet another meaningless speech about how the team will be looking at each other in the changing room etc.etc.

I was thinking that maybe the lack of criticism on this tour could be due to the close proximity of the sky team to the players. I tune into sky to get their analysis of the games as it is in the Heineken Cup and I have been disappointed on this tour. Last week they spent the whole half time break promoting Sam Warburton's at best ordinary performance against the Waratahs, and completely neglecting discussing the stand out performances of other players. Harrison and Barnes in commentary need to cut out the boring sentences in between phases and breaks in play, they are occasionally very cringe-worthy and are often inaccurate in their comments on decisions/rucks/mauls/tries. They are very good at promoting the tour and the matches and getting the adrenaline pumping in the lead up to matches but it would make for much easier viewing and listening if they just commentated on the match rather than filling time with irrelevant views such as trying to predict what a player is thinking before he takes a kick

Seanbass

I agree with other people's points here that the coverage is well below H cup level.
I can usually stomach the H cup coverage whereas by now I'm completely sick of the constant hyping up of the lions etc.

It's also hard to listen to how great an Impact an English or Welsh player has had in two minutes game time compared to how an Irish player probably "could've done better with that last pass etc".

I've taken to listening to this and muting the television..

http://www.arcrugby.co.nz/


very funny, tongue in cheek and Is a hell of a lot easier to listen to.

only hard part is getting it in sync at the start or after halftime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cny1i4qyyMo

longshank

.ak wrote: »

TBH, the coverage quality of the Lions versus HCup is WORLDS apart. I love Sky during the HCup, really insightful and some real cool analysis of set pieces and stuff.

The Lions coverage makes me vomit in my mouth. I thought Quinnell was drunk last night. The other panelists were lost for words after his rants (not in a good way).

That was my impression too!!

ThisRegard

Seanbass wrote: »

It's also hard to listen to how great an Impact an English or Welsh player has had in two minutes game time compared to how an Irish player probably "could've done better with that last pass etc".

For all its faults, this is not one of them tbh.

Seanbass

ThisRegard wrote: »

For all its faults, this is not one of them tbh.

Not in so many words no.
my friends and I have definitely noticed this kind of attitude while commentating though.
there's no such comments by the pundits at all in fairness.

thomond2006

I'm watching the Fox Sports post-game analysis, it's really good. They invited Stuart Barnes on.

SlickRic

the poor coverage is down to them obviously looking to dumb the whole thing down.

It's night and day compared to their great H-Cup coverage.

bilston

Seanbass wrote: »

Not in so many words no.
my friends and I have definitely noticed this kind of attitude while commentating though.
there's no such comments by the pundits at all in fairness.

I honestly think this anti Irish thing on Sky is a complete myth.

.ak

Seanbass wrote: »

I agree with other people's points here that the coverage is well below H cup level.
I can usually stomach the H cup coverage whereas by now I'm completely sick of the constant hyping up of the lions etc.

It's also hard to listen to how great an Impact an English or Welsh player has had in two minutes game time compared to how an Irish player probably "could've done better with that last pass etc".

I've taken to listening to this and muting the television..

http://www.arcrugby.co.nz/


very funny, tongue in cheek and Is a hell of a lot easier to listen to.

only hard part is getting it in sync at the start or after halftime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cny1i4qyyMo

Jed is God. Spent most of the 2011 WC listening to him instead of the regular commentary.

its_phil

thomond2006 wrote: »

I'm watching the Fox Sports post-game analysis, it's really good. They invited Stuart Barnes on.

link please?

Aidric

bilston wrote: »

I honestly think this anti Irish thing on Sky is a complete myth.

It's complete nonsense, doesn't exist. It's particularly rich seeing comments of that nature on this forum, which has been a hotbed of jingoism for this entire Lions tour, reaching levels previously unforeseen.

ScissorPaperRock

thomond2006 wrote: »

I'm watching the Fox Sports post-game analysis, it's really good. They invited Stuart Barnes on.

Is it available online?

.ak

Aidric wrote: »

It's complete nonsense, doesn't exist. It's particularly rich seeing comments of that nature on this forum, which has been a hotbed of jingoism for this entire Lions tour, reaching levels previously unforeseen.

Great use of the word jingoism.

Keep in mind that the posters here are generally supporters, not paid for their views....

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Aidric wrote: »

It's complete nonsense, doesn't exist. It's particularly rich seeing comments of that nature on this forum, which has been a hotbed of jingoism for this entire Lions tour, reaching levels previously unforeseen.

There isn't a bias but a lot of the comments from some pundits are not half as in-depth or thought out as some of the posts here

Swiwi.

I think whoever said about Sky having to pander to viewers (principally) from 4 countries and keep the sponsors happy hit the nail on the head. It wouldn't surprise me that they have protocols etc in place on what they can & can't say. I dont mean avoiding expletives etc, but they are probably told they have to be balanced to the point of inanity. Sometimes listenening to the radio with the TV on is much better, but given I virtually always watch rugby via the internet if I'm not at the pub or the game itself, I find it hard to get the 2 types of media to sync.

artvandelay48

chippers wrote: »

I have to say that I come to this thread to get some decent analysis. I get nothing from the sky coverage. I have to say I miss George and the lads. However many times he's way off the mark sometimes he's absolutely bang on the money as well and says it as it is. The sky panel are full of nothingness.

you're not including george hook and "decent analysis" in the same post, are you?

artvandelay48

To see a good example of dumbed down analysis, see the Irish Times' player ratings from sat. About 12 out of the 15 players all received 7!

Swiwi.

More brilliant analysis by GAGR. Doesn't make for good viewing for either coach IMO.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Le vieux renard wrote: »

More brilliant analysis by GAGR. Doesn't make for good viewing for either coach IMO.

That's a brilliant video. And it really makes a mockery of Quade Cooper's non selection

Cooper exploited the space outwide brilliantly during the reds game with his passing . JOC had a shocker

.ak

Le vieux renard wrote: »

More brilliant analysis by GAGR. Doesn't make for good viewing for either coach IMO.

Jesus. Makes me feel a little queazy how naive we were in defense. Or, you could say it was a master stroke that Gatland somehow knew the Aussies were going to go against the grain and play tight.

Nah, I think the Lions were lucky. One or two cut out passes and the Aussies would've had the Lions rolling backwards.

Swiwi.

.ak wrote: »

Jesus. Makes me feel a little queazy how naive we were in defense. Or, you could say it was a master stroke that Gatland somehow knew the Aussies were going to go against the grain and play tight.

Nah, I think the Lions were lucky. One or two cut out passes and the Aussies would've had the Lions rolling backwards.

I found the video shocking, in the sense that if they had got the ball to Folau maybe 2 or 3 more times, with that much room, if could have turned into a rout. I also thought Beale had a great game, but then that video made me think twice.

.ak

Yeah, me too. Thought he was great. Turns out he had blinkers on.

matthew8

Hopefully they call Mogg into the side. He's the ultimate in second distributors. He has fantastic pass. And seeing as it seems to be either Beale or O'Connor at 10 for Deans, and neither is that good at distributing, and Beale is a marginally better kicker from hand and a better runner, so I hope he gets the nod ahead of O'Connor.

Swiwi.

matthew8 wrote: »

Hopefully they call Mogg into the side. He's the ultimate in second distributors. He has fantastic pass. And seeing as it seems to be either Beale or O'Connor at 10 for Deans, and neither is that good at distributing, and Beale is a marginally better kicker from hand and a better runner, so I hope he gets the nod ahead of O'Connor.

O'Connor is having his career munted by being moved all over the place. He's either a 12 or a 14, I haven't decided which, but he just needs to pick a position and specialise in it. I don't rate Cooper that highly, but man he would have exploited that space I reckon with his passing game. It's not as if Croft was exactly shutting down the space. The biggest potential loss for Aussie is AAC, 12s are a dime a dozen in Australia, but genuine centres are a much rarer breed. He's under-rated, and he defends well.

.ak

As the video highlights, a good pass means nothing if you haven't got the awareness. That kind of stuff should be bread and butter to JOC and Beale, but at the end of the day they were both put in huge pressure situations and whilst they didn't let the side down they clearly didn't flourish the way they were meant to.

You could ofcourse say the same about the Lions, but with those extra caps they should know better.

If an actual 10 was playing for the Wallabies they'd have won. I'm not sold that JOC is actually anything more than a very skilled back three player. Beale on his day can be one of the best FB's in the world. Neither are 10s imo. Deans' stubbornness could cost him the series.

Swiwi.

.ak wrote: »

As the video highlights, a good pass means nothing if you haven't got the awareness. That kind of stuff should be bread and butter to JOC and Beale, but at the end of the day they were both put in huge pressure situations and whilst they didn't let the side down they clearly didn't flourish the way they were meant to.

You could ofcourse say the same about the Lions, but with those extra caps they should know better.

If an actual 10 was playing for the Wallabies they'd have won. I'm not sold that JOC is actually anything more than a very skilled back three player. Beale on his day can be one of the best FB's in the world. Neither are 10s imo. Deans' stubbornness could cost him the series.

You might want to flick out the ol' edit button there .ak...

Tox56

.ak wrote: »

As the video highlights, a good pass means nothing if you haven't got the awareness. That kind of stuff should be bread and butter to JOC and Beale, but at the end of the day they were both put in huge pressure situations and whilst they didn't let the side down they clearly didn't flourish the way they were meant to.

You could ofcourse say the same about the Lions, but with those extra caps they should know better.

If an actual 10 was playing for the Wallabies they'd have won. I'm not sold that JOC is actually anything more than a very skilled back three player. Beale on his day can be one of the best FB's in the world. Neither are 10s imo. Deans' stubbornness could cost him the series.

Sexton is a really invaluable player at the moment. Not many 10s of note around, you're almost guaranteed to have an advantage at 10 if you have him in your team whoever you're playing. If he was in that Australia team they'd have won at a canter. Then again put Genia in the Lions team and the same is true I suppose

.ak

Le vieux renard wrote: »

You might want to flick out the ol' edit button there .ak...

Ugh, what did I do now?

Swiwi.

.ak wrote: »

Ugh, what did I do now?

If an actual 10 was playing for the Lions Wallabies they'd have one won.

I'm assuming you weren't meaning to take a dig at Sexton

Woody1997

Le vieux renard wrote: »

I found the video shocking, in the sense that if they had got the ball to Folau maybe 2 or 3 more times, with that much room, if could have turned into a rout. I also thought Beale had a great game, but then that video made me think twice.

The video showed that Australia had opportunities, but they didn't take them. I think the fact that nobody saw these chances arising throughout the match says a lot about whether they were genuinely try-scoring opportunities. I'm sure if someone made a video like that for the lions everybody would be saying that they should have won by more had they been more clinical

Buer

.ak wrote: »

Yeah, me too. Thought he was great. Turns out he had blinkers on.

I guarantee that if you go through any high intensity test match with a critical eye, you'll be able to find multiple examples of every outhalf and most three quarters making decisions when there was a better option available.

I'd find more issue with Deans sitting up in the stands with a birds eye view of the alignment and not identifying it and getting word to the players.

.ak

Le vieux renard wrote: »

If an actual 10 was playing for the Lions Wallabies they'd have one won.

I'm assuming you weren't meaning to take a dig at Sexton

I have no idea what you're talking about...

chippers

It's the same defensive structure the Lions used against the reds and Cooper took full advantage of it. They're really missing the boat not selecting him.