Euro 2016 - The TV Coverage

ArmaniJeanss

Mec27 wrote: »

I think it is mad BBC chose the Spain Italy game tbh. You have your two closest neighbours, two teams, one being the largest immigrant group in your country playing against your other neighbour, the host nation and longtime rival with the backdrop of the Henry handball, its must watch tv.

You need to look at the overall schedule rather than the individual games.
Only 2 games on Monday so they wouldn't want a 'dry' day, therefore picking Italy/Spain makes sense.
Also means they prevent ITV getting a clear run at both the build up and actual game of Eng/Ice (the big game from their pov).

Joe_ Public

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

You need to look at the overall schedule rather than the individual games.
Only 2 games on Monday so they wouldn't want a 'dry' day, therefore picking Italy/Spain makes sense.
Also means they prevent ITV getting a clear run at both the build up and actual game of Eng/Ice (the big game from their pov).

That makes a lot of sense. But also if I was lookign at it dispassionately as a tv exec, would I ever choose France/Ireland over the heavyweight clash of Italy/Spain in any circumstance? Allowing for the game schedule, which is likely to have the higher ratings? And if the immigration figures were a major factor, then it's highly unlikely the Poles would have been left as last pick.

dfx-

Arghus wrote: »

Jonathan Pearce was comically overwrought after Hoolahan's miss:

"Wes Hoolihan will see that in his nightmares for many years to come"

That's a large reason why he's a terrible commentator.

He becomes captain hindsight and gets very righteous and harshly critical of something he had backed previously. Very hard to listen to, the BBC either have him or Lawrenson on, especially for Ireland games.

philstar

Tinie wrote: »

Noooo! I really wanted the BBC to get the ROI/FRA game purely for Henry to be on punditry and also prefer they're analysts compared to ITV (barring Billic).

yeah its a shame:( would have made great TV

i say he was mighty relived they aren't covering it..

gormdubhgorm

There has been very little mention in the media that Italy did not try at all and Ireland had to bust a gut to beat an Italy second team, a second team that did not try at all.

Corholio

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

There has been very little mention in the media that Italy did not try at all and Ireland had to bust a gut to beat an Italy second team, a second team that did not try at all.

Why would a 'second team' of players trying to get into a team not try? Of course they tried but we were better on the night. We'd love to have some of their second team players that's for sure.

gormdubhgorm

Corholio wrote: »

Why would a 'second team' of players trying to get into a team not try? Of course they tried but we were better on the night. We'd love to have some of their second team players that's for sure.

Ok I will re-phrase it half of them did not try/care and the rest of them were scared because they were inexperienced young fellas.

Arghus

dfx- wrote: »

That's a large reason why he's a terrible commentator.

He becomes captain hindsight and gets very righteous and harshly critical of something he had backed previously. Very hard to listen to, the BBC either have him or Lawrenson on, especially for Ireland games.

It's not his Captain hindsight qualities that bother me so much, I think all commentators are guilty of that at times. My problems with him are more basic: he has a voice that's just a tiny bit too high pitched: it gets awfully grating over the course of ninety minutes, especially when something big happens and it sounds like he's going to have a heart attack. Something about the way he says things can make him sound incredibly pompous, which is maybe the worst quality you can have as a commentator. You want someone who doesn't sound like an ass.

It amazes me how many commentators have relatively harsh on the ears, high sounding voices. Stephen Alkin is another one - nothing he says is bad, per se. It's just a case of his voice itself that makes me gnash my teeth.

I was watching a game the last day and John Kenny was on commentary duties, obviously he wouldn't have done as much research as some of the others in the field, but I could listen to him no bother: because he has a pleasant sounding voice and unassuming manner.

philstar

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Ok I will re-phrase it half of them did not try/care and the rest of them were scared because they were inexperienced young fellas.

don't put a dampener on it

Ol' Donie

Lads...

Seriously...

What the hell am I supposed to do today?

Kerrydude1981

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

There has been very little mention in the media that Italy did not try at all and Ireland had to bust a gut to beat an Italy second team, a second team that did not try at all.

Arghus

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Ok I will re-phrase it half of them did not try/care and the rest of them were scared because they were inexperienced young fellas.

I have to agree with this.

Firstly, let me say that I really, immensely, enjoyed last night. The Irish team were deserved winners and my emotions at the final whistle were a mixture of pure happiness and joy.

But, - as much as I think Ireland played well and deserved it - I am 99% convinced that if Italy had needed something out of that match last night they would have got it.

Aside from the "pragmatic" team selection, there were times you could see that they weren't giving it their absolute maximum out there on the field. One moment defined it for me - it was in extra time and Insigne was out near the touchline, shaping up to boom a cross into the box, there were two Italian forwards on the edge of the Irish area. Neither of them made any real attempt to move to attack the ball as it came in, and it was cleared to safety. This was in the final moments of the game. If they had really desired that goal, they would have been busting their guts; their goalkeeper would have been up there throwing himself at it. Throughout the game there was instances of Italians being wasteful in possession - How many times did a ball from the wings float aimlessly into touch? - or giving Irish players time and space on the ball - extremely uncharacteristic You wouldn't have seen that from an Italian side if the result had some real bearing for them.

I'm not saying that there second eleven wasn't a very talented team in it's own right, or that they didn't try a leg all night - they weren't pulling out of tackles or anything like that - they attacked occasionally too, but, overall, I think they just lacked that little bit of 10% intensity and against a team that wanted it a lot more on the night, I think that made the difference.

Understandably, we're all fairly chuffed after the result, but I do find the extent to which this basic fact of the game has been overlooked to be amazing. It's not as if the media did not bring up the possibility of a half-hearted Italian performance before the game, far from it - It was mentioned time and time again as our main fig-leaf of hope. Now, in the glorious afterglow, we want to give praise to our boys and yes, they did perform, and yes, they did deserve it and, yes, the result was terrific. But I wish the media wouldn't forget - aside from a few minor mentions - that we had close to the most perfect opponents we could have faced yesterday: the worlds most cynically pragmatic team, needing precisely nothing from the game.

Sometimes, I feel when things are going badly, the team gets far too much criticism, but when things go well we - myself included - lose all sense of tempering our happiness. Kind of a boom or bust mentality that manifests itself everywhere - in the stands, on the pitch, in the media. We might be better served sometimes by cooler heads, we'll need them come Sunday. But then again, if we had cooler heads we wouldn't be Irish.

briany

Arghus wrote: »

I have to agree with this.

Firstly, let me say that I really, immensely, enjoyed last night. The Irish team were deserved winners and my emotions at the final whistle were a mixture of pure happiness and joy.

But, - as much as I think Ireland played well and deserved it - I am 99% convinced that if Italy had needed something out of that match last night they would have got it.

Aside from the "pragmatic" team selection, there were times you could see that they weren't giving it their absolute maximum out there on the field. One moment defined it for me - it was in extra time and Insigne was out near the touchline, shaping up to boom a cross into the box, there were two Italian forwards on the edge of the Irish area. Neither of them made any real attempt to move to attack the ball as it came in, and it was cleared to safety. This was in the final moments of the game. If they had really desired that goal, they would have been busting their guts; their goalkeeper would have been up there throwing himself at it. Throughout the game there was instances of Italians being wasteful in possession - How many times did a ball from the wings float aimlessly into touch? - or giving Irish players time and space on the ball - extremely uncharacteristic You wouldn't have seen that from an Italian side if the result had some real bearing for them.

I'm not saying that there second eleven wasn't a very talented team in it's own right, or that they didn't try a leg all night - they weren't pulling out of tackles or anything like that - they attacked occasionally too, but, overall, I think they just lacked that little bit of 10% intensity and against a team that wanted it a lot more on the night, I think that made the difference.

Understandably, we're all fairly chuffed after the result, but I do find the extent to which this basic fact of the game has been overlooked to be amazing. It's not as if the media did not bring up the possibility of a half-hearted Italian performance before the game, far from it - It was mentioned time and time again as our main fig-leaf of hope. Now, in the glorious afterglow, we want to give praise to our boys and yes, they did perform, and yes, they did deserve it and, yes, the result was terrific. But I wish the media wouldn't forget - aside from a few minor mentions - that we had close to the most perfect opponents we could have faced yesterday: the worlds most cynically pragmatic team, needing precisely nothing from the game.

Sometimes, I feel when things are going badly, the team gets far too much criticism, but when things go well we - myself included - lose all sense of tempering our happiness. Kind of a boom or bust mentality that manifests itself everywhere - in the stands, on the pitch, in the media. We might be better served sometimes by cooler heads, we'll need them come Sunday. But then again, if we had cooler heads we wouldn't be Irish.

Yeah, I accept that Italy weren't playing at 100 percent last night and I think most people would as well. However, I don't think that Ireland played at 100 percent against Belgium on Saturday either. They looked afraid at times, McCarthy looked disinterested, McClean looked rash, Clark was stupid. The team selection wasn't all it could have been. Did Belgian fans say, in the wake of that, that they only beat a compromised Irish side? Do they say that it probably should have been 0-0? Or do they say, "Good job. Good way to recover from the defeat to Italy"?

You can only play what's in front of you, as the man said. Last night, Ireland did that and were pretty deserving of the three points. Maybe it was lucky to get a relatively disinterested Italy team in the last game, but it made up for the bad luck of the OG v. Sweden and the denied penalty vs. Belgium. It's not just the victory v. Italy that's worth celebrating but it's also worth celebrating seeing what it meant to Irish fans, the dramatic nature of the victory and one of the greatest Irish goals in tournament football.

Arghus

briany wrote: »

Yeah, I accept that Italy weren't playing at 100 percent last night and I think most people would as well. However, I don't think that Ireland played at 100 percent against Belgium on Saturday either. They looked afraid at times, McCarthy looked disinterested, McClean looked rash, Clark was stupid. The team selection wasn't all it could have been. Did Belgian fans say, in the wake of that, that they only beat a compromised Irish side? Do they say that it probably should have been 0-0? Or do they say, "Good job. Good way to recover from the defeat to Italy"?

You can only play what's in front of you, as the man said. Last night, Ireland did that and were pretty deserving of the three points. Maybe it was lucky to get a relatively disinterested Italy team in the last game, but it made up for the bad luck of the OG v. Sweden and the denied penalty vs. Belgium. It's not just the victory v. Italy that's worth celebrating but it's also worth celebrating seeing what it meant to Irish fans, the dramatic nature of the victory and one of the greatest Irish goals in tournament football.

I suppose Belgium should probably have said something like, "well we performed well, but we have to remember we were up against an opponent who made it easy for us at times".

I agree with the idea that you can only play what's in front of you. And I agree that last night was a special night for Irish football. Just, today, with our emotions leveling off, I don't know, we have to maybe keep the caveat in our minds about the motivation levels of our opponents.

Having said all that: Allow me to contradict myself - Maybe we should just focus on the positivity. I think if we are to beat France, it'll be on account of belief on our part. Hopefully the team will feel strong and confident going into the game. I think what the media back at home has to say sometimes filters back into the mindset of the squad and can have a role, partly, in determining their mentality. Not a big role of course, but it'll probably do no harm for the team to feel that everyone is behind them on the day.

I just have a fear that we have an opportunity here to be missed. The pressure is surely on France. We're massive underdogs. I just hope that our ecstatic levels of delight from last-night don't transmit to a feeling of we're in bonus territory here and, sure, wasn't it great craic! There's a game to be won. France have been far from convincing, I think it's not wildly impossible to beat them. Improbable, yes. Impossible, no.

KingBrian2

Another reason why Italy were not at their best. Worked it out last night, they have to play Spain next.:eek: They will be resting their players for that match.

Does not mean we did not deserve to win. We should have got penalties and with the bad match and poor referring when we played Belgium the result yesterday was appropriate.

It was great to see the Irish team delivering a much needed win and against the great Italian defenders. No team defends better than the Italians. We did well to contain them.

Corholio

Arghus wrote: »

Understandably, we're all fairly chuffed after the result, but I do find the extent to which this basic fact of the game has been overlooked to be amazing. It's not as if the media did not bring up the possibility of a half-hearted Italian performance before the game, far from it - It was mentioned time and time again as our main fig-leaf of hope. Now, in the glorious afterglow, we want to give praise to our boys and yes, they did perform, and yes, they did deserve it and, yes, the result was terrific. But I wish the media wouldn't forget - aside from a few minor mentions - that we had close to the most perfect opponents we could have faced yesterday: the worlds most cynically pragmatic team, needing precisely nothing from the game.
.

I'm not exactly sure what has to be said though. Yes Italy had an understrength team but let's not forget they still had Barzagli and Bonucci, their first choice centre backs, and the very experienced Motta in the team. I certainly wouldn't say they were close to the most perfect opponents, especially having to score against that defence. It was a win that got us through to the knock out round, with a pretty decent performance and a deserved win coming up against still some world class players. I'm not really sure why it would need to have brackets after it.

siblers

blueser wrote: »

Eh? Not sure what that has to do with my comment about Pearce.

Drunk and quoted the wrong post

ProudDUB

Folks - is there anywhere to watch the end of the Ire v Italy game, plus the immediate aftermath?

The RTE Player just has a couple of edited highlights shows, plus Martin O'Neill's press conference. I really want to watch from the goal, to the very end of the RTE broadcast.

KingBrian2

ProudDUB wrote: »

Folks - is there anywhere to watch the end of the Ire v Italy game, plus the immediate aftermath?

The RTE Player just has a couple of edited highlights shows, plus Martin O'Neill's press conference. I really want to watch from the goal, to the very end of the RTE broadcast.

Try RTE24 hr news channel.

Utopia Parkway

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

There has been very little mention in the media that Italy did not try at all and Ireland had to bust a gut to beat an Italy second team, a second team that did not try at all.

My first thought is who cares?

ProudDUB

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Try RTE24 hr news channel.

They just show the news. They don't re air entire broadcasts of sporting events.

JaMarcusHustle

Maybe not the right thread, but Im in Mexico and could only catch the game with Spanish commentary.

Anyone have a link to the goal with English commentary? Preferably RTE but will listen to any of them. Preferably in real time, not just the replay. Thanks.

Arghus

Listened to Kenny Cunningham on Off The Ball last night, talking about the Italy game and looking forward to France. He was really, really good at breaking down the performance tactically.

I think he's been given short shrift by RTE during this tournament, largely relegated to the punditry B-team and filling in on the graveyard shift with such semi-pros such as Aiden Power, Pierre le Pup and Stephen Hunt.

I think people don't warm to him because he's a bit too intense. If you just want to listen to some football talk while you are having your tea Kenny can come on a bit strong, a monologue gale-force, with those eyebrows undulating in total seriousness at the gravity of the completely crucial information he's firing at you, like blasts from a belt fed machine gun: 430 WPM...

RAT-AT-TAT..RAT-AT-TAT... AT THIS PARTICULAR TOIME...RAT-AT-TAT... POSSESSION OF THE FOOTBALL...RAT-AT-TAT...POSSIBLY SO...RAT-AT-TAT...OUTSTANDING...

So, yeah: a barrage. But, Jesus, he can be really good. I find that if you separate the content from the form in what he has to say, you'll find a lot of knowledge about the game. I love how he's not interested in giving it to in slick cliche soundbites; just in unadulterated Cunninghamese.

Edit: I'll also add that I find it refreshing that he rarely, if ever, gets petty or insulting towards players. He's always more likely to praise a player for what they do bring to the equation, rather than to slag them off just to make himself look smart

Ferris_Bueller

ProudDUB wrote: »

Folks - is there anywhere to watch the end of the Ire v Italy game, plus the immediate aftermath?

The RTE Player just has a couple of edited highlights shows, plus Martin O'Neill's press conference. I really want to watch from the goal, to the very end of the RTE broadcast.

It is on the RTE player, I watched it last night. You need to have a root around to find it though, there are a few tabs under "Euro 2016".

Corholio

Arghus wrote: »

Edit: I'll also add that I find it refreshing that he rarely, if ever, gets petty or insulting towards players. He's always more likely to praise a player for what they do bring to the equation, rather than to slag them off just to make himself look smart

Ya I definitely agree with this, have noticed that too and it's refreshing. He's like the anti-Houghton.

I always like listening to Cunningham and the way he talks about the game, he's also got a very sharp humour that because of his delivery isn't as noticeable.

Ol' Donie

+1 for Kenny.

Think he's one of the best on RTE. Anywhere, actually.

Arghus

Corholio wrote: »

Ya I definitely agree with this, have noticed that too and it's refreshing. He's like the anti-Houghton.

I always like listening to Cunningham and the way he talks about the game, he's also got a very sharp humour that because of his delivery isn't as noticeable.

I think his sense of humour comes through on the highlights show at times; he's usually too quick witted for the presenters. It's funny how, because he takes the analysis side of his job very seriously, he can appear a bit humourless sometimes, but - if given the chance - he can be quite funny. His deadpan is top-notch.

Clearly there must be something about keeping him and Dunphy apart, after the simmering tension in the studio at times during the '14 World Cup. There were a few moments when the disparity of up to date knowledge - between the two of them - about the game made the older man look like the complete spoofer he is. I liked that Kenny didn't automatically assume that you had to pay heed to Dunphy's rubbish and automatically genuflect before him just because he was good oul Eammo.

I used to regard Ray Houghton as Kingpin of bitterness, but I think Ronnie Whelan has him beat these days. I strongly suspect Ronnie might really genuinely hate the game.

Green Fella

Dont want to be too harsh on Duffer but he really needs to improve the public speaking. I know hes nervous and probably inexperienced but its frustrating to hear him every 2 seconds:

" Eh , eh eh, erm , erm erm eh ,eh ,"

Try listen to him closely and see, its pretty annoying to listen to. Again that can be stamped out with training and experience, but that should probably already be the case before he lands on TV.

Green Fella

Arghus wrote: »

I think his sense of humour comes through on the highlights show at times; he's usually too quick witted for the presenters. It's funny how, because he takes the analysis side of his job very seriously, he can appear a bit humourless sometimes, but - if given the chance - he can be quite funny. His deadpan is top-notch.

Clearly there must be something about keeping him and Dunphy apart, after the simmering tension in the studio at times during the '14 World Cup. There were a few moments when the disparity of up to date knowledge - between the two of them - about the game made the older man look like the complete spoofer he is. I liked that Kenny didn't automatically assume that you had to pay heed to Dunphy's rubbish and automatically genuflect before him just because he was good oul Eammo.

Totally agree. Eamon must wield alot of power in the studio because people he had fall outs with often are gone entirely like Souness and Cunningham, which is a shame as both are very good pundits and actually challenged him which made for good TV. Now he has free reign to say whatever nobody challenges him and its boring.

Rarely see Sadlier on with Dunphy either. Wish Kenny was back in match analysis hes better than half the lads in there.

Esse85

Is there any commentator more negative than Ronnie Whelan?

Ol' Donie

Esse85 wrote: »

Is there any commentator more negative than Ronnie Whelan?

The symbol -, the actual symbol for minus, is less negative than Ronnie Whelan.

Kerrydude1981

Esse85 wrote: »

Is there any commentator more negative than Ronnie Whelan?

Jim Beglin used drive me mad when he used be on,but I would gladly listen to Jim now instead of Ronnie

As I said before RTE should use the UEFA feed for some of the games.

retalivity

Im watching on bbc...mark lawrenson is actually worse than i remember. Woeful

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Esse85

Patww79 wrote: »

Everything that comes out of his mouth is some sort snipe or smart remark.

Yes he comes across as bitter and so unenthusiastic.

Muahahaha

retalivity wrote: »

Im watching on bbc...mark lawrenson is actually worse than i remember. Woeful

Now theres a man who truly hates the game of football. He simply never has anything good to say.

Kerrydude1981

Yes Ronnie it is harder to dink a ball over the keeper these days

https://youtu.be/cQbyOjIrAIY?t=54

Say Your Number

I like how Richie dismissed the notion that a penalty shoot out is a lottery.

surripere

Esse85 wrote: »

Is there any commentator more negative than Ronnie Whelan?

Worst commentator I've ever had the displeasure of listening to. He can barely string a coherent sentence together, to say nothing of his incessant negativity, mind you I think Houghton may have him beat there.

OwaynOTT

surripere wrote: »

Worst commentator I've ever had the displeasure of listen to. He can barely string a coherent sentence together, to say nothing of his incessant negativity, mind you I think Houghton may have him beat there.

And mark Lawrence has them both beat there.

Billgirlylegs

surripere wrote: »

Worst commentator I've ever had the displeasure of listen to. He can barely string a coherent sentence together, to say nothing of his incessant negativity, mind you I think Houghton may have him beat there.

Fascinating that so many really annoying experts are all ex Liverpool players- Beglin,Whelan,Houghton, Lawrenson, Hansen, The Saint.
Souness is (or .was??) the exception

The Talking Bread

meh, Houghton is a decent co-commentator, sees a lot more going on that most. I always like Beglin also, just something works well between him and Hamilton. Whelan and Hamilton have no chemistry

Joe_ Public

Ramsey floats cross into the Norn Iron box and as Vokes rises to head George shouts "BALE". It's like he's thinking that's where Bale should be so just assumes it must be him. Dreadful.

A Primal Nut

Great to see 'arry on TV3. I hope everyone who works for TV3 has been warned not to use the term "wheeler and dealer".

A Primal Nut

Nice version of Making a Murderer intro with Cristiano Ronaldo on TV3.

Paully D

I posted this on the match thread but it probably fits better here:

First game I've watched on TV3 in some time. Look, it's great having the football on free-to-air and I do appreciate it, but how on earth is the picture quality so poor?

JoeA3

Paully D wrote: »

I posted this on the match thread but it probably fits better here:

First game I've watched on TV3 in some time. Look, it's great having the football on free-to-air and I do appreciate it, but how on earth is the picture quality so poor?

Because TV3 is only HD if you have Sky (and maybe some of the other pay services too, not sure). I'm looking at it here on Sky and it's decent.

On saorView you're only getting SD TV3.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

A Primal Nut

Anyone else watching on RTE Player or TV3 player in a browser? Full screen is no longer working for me today, was working for me earlier in the tournament. Tried both Chrome and Firefox. When I click full screen, the start menu and browser tabs are still visible. The player expands but only to place a blank background around the video, which doesn't increase in size. Cheers.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.