Watford Game - Sky Sports Vs Itv

[Olé]

Like most people I appreciate the depth of coverage on Sky but if you compare the delivery of yesterdays game between Sky and ITV, the differences are laughable. If you've just heard Clive Tyldesley this morning on The Championship you will have heard passionate, excited commentary about both teams. I'm not even a fan of Tyldesley but he fulfilled the duty of commentating on both sides for the benefit of a mixed wider audience.

Sky's commentary team had an absolutely bizarre fixation with commentating from the Watford point of view. Any reference to us was completely passive, we were second class in their presentation and we never actually scored, Watford simply conceeded. This was the tone of the entire coverage, but just to check I'm not being unfair, I watched the goals again from both channels off the Sky box. The differences are embarassing.

While Tyldesley screams out in exultation of Showunmi's goal, describes the City players celebrating and refers to the contribution of individual City players, the Sky commentator describes it as 'putting Watford behind'. Don Goodman then immediately remarks during the replays about the Watford tactical plan, a Watford defender slipped, where is the Watford defence, its come at a time when Watford were more threatening. We obviously had nothing to do with it.

The Sky commentator then even tacitly sums up their ridiculous attitude by admitting "Well we were just talking all about Watford looking to punish them but it's come at the other end". And we really were 'them' in their eyes. Sky's presentation might as well have been for Watford TV. For the record, in reaction to our opening goal and replays of it, the Sky team said Watford seven times. The said City just once, simply to mention we ended our goal drought.

From what I've seen of the rest of the coverage we were treated as utterly passive, we didn't do anything, Watford simply did things or allowed us to do things. The winner was relished with great excitement by Tyldesley on ITV, but from Sky's point of view the 93rd minute winner was about the first time they even described us as doing something ourselves, and even then it was to describe it as a twist no one (least of all this Watford-centric presentation) could have predicted.

I'm all for us being on Sky as much as possible as great to watch again on the Sky box (rapidly filling up) but please god never again with this standard of commentary. If I wanted to remember yesterdays game from a Watford perspective I'd subscribe to Watford World (or whatever their equivalent is). As it is I'll keep a copy of the ITV highlights as they actually manage to capture our excitement rather than sound like Watford's Monday morning review video.

[Rocky]

It seems to be the same, I think us doing so well in this league offends the!

Gary Birtles seems to hate us!!

[Never to the dark side]

BBC,ITV,Sky, Radio Bristol BBC five live can be as biased as they like against us

in favour of the opposistion,as long as we win, I don't care.

[Geoff65]

Peter Beagre (sp?) prematch and post match more than compensated for the in match commentary - didnt notice any bias.

Solution: get Jonathan Pearce to do all commentaries on all channels for City matches.

Geoff

[bristolcity]

Like most people I appreciate the depth of coverage on Sky but if you compare the delivery of yesterdays game between Sky and ITV, the differences are laughable. If you've just heard Clive Tyldesley this morning on The Championship you will have heard passionate, excited commentary about both teams. I'm not even a fan of Tyldesley but he fulfilled the duty of commentating on both sides for the benefit of a mixed wider audience.

Sky's commentary team had an absolutely bizarre fixation with commentating from the Watford point of view. Any reference to us was completely passive, we were second class in their presentation and we never actually scored, Watford simply conceeded. This was the tone of the entire coverage, but just to check I'm not being unfair, I watched the goals again from both channels off the Sky box. The differences are embarassing.

While Tyldesley screams out in exultation of Showunmi's goal, describes the City players celebrating and refers to the contribution of individual City players, the Sky commentator describes it as 'putting Watford behind'. Don Goodman then immediately remarks during the replays about the Watford tactical plan, a Watford defender slipped, where is the Watford defence, its come at a time when Watford were more threatening. We obviously had nothing to do with it.

The Sky commentator then even tacitly sums up their ridiculous attitude by admitting "Well we were just talking all about Watford looking to punish them but it's come at the other end". And we really were 'them' in their eyes. Sky's presentation might as well have been for Watford TV. For the record, in reaction to our opening goal and replays of it, the Sky team said Watford seven times. The said City just once, simply to mention we ended our goal drought.

From what I've seen of the rest of the coverage we were treated as utterly passive, we didn't do anything, Watford simply did things or allowed us to do things. The winner was relished with great excitement by Tyldesley on ITV, but from Sky's point of view the 93rd minute winner was about the first time they even described us as doing something ourselves, and even then it was to describe it as a twist no one (least of all this Watford-centric presentation) could have predicted.

I'm all for us being on Sky as much as possible as great to watch again on the Sky box (rapidly filling up) but please god never again with this standard of commentary. If I wanted to remember yesterdays game from a Watford perspective I'd subscribe to Watford World (or whatever their equivalent is). As it is I'll keep a copy of the ITV highlights as they actually manage to capture our excitement rather than sound like Watford's Monday morning review video.

Spot on!

I'm not just saying it cos i'm a City fan either, my misses who wasn't even watching the game commmented on how they 'preferred' Watford!

[madmax]

Spot on!

I'm not just saying it cos i'm a City fan either, my misses who wasn't even watching the game commmented on how they 'preferred' Watford!

Yep. My misses was getting ready to go out and even she said, "blimey, they like the other team don't they?!?!" So even she noticed it!

MM

[tin]

It's been going on for a while now with Sky but who cares, we got the best result of our season so far yesterday and it was deserved.

[cidercity1987]

We are a very lucky team according to Sky! We 'got lucky' when Basso made a great save to tip Kings cross onto the post. We 'were lucky' when Basso had to save a deflected shot, not to mention Showumni being unable 'to believe his luck' when he scored!

[Barrs Court Red]

I thought they were very fair.

Some people look for bias when it doesnt exist imo.

[Redminster]

Like most people I appreciate the depth of coverage on Sky but if you compare the delivery of yesterdays game between Sky and ITV, the differences are laughable. If you've just heard Clive Tyldesley this morning on The Championship you will have heard passionate, excited commentary about both teams. I'm not even a fan of Tyldesley but he fulfilled the duty of commentating on both sides for the benefit of a mixed wider audience.

Sky's commentary team had an absolutely bizarre fixation with commentating from the Watford point of view. Any reference to us was completely passive, we were second class in their presentation and we never actually scored, Watford simply conceeded. This was the tone of the entire coverage, but just to check I'm not being unfair, I watched the goals again from both channels off the Sky box. The differences are embarassing.

While Tyldesley screams out in exultation of Showunmi's goal, describes the City players celebrating and refers to the contribution of individual City players, the Sky commentator describes it as 'putting Watford behind'. Don Goodman then immediately remarks during the replays about the Watford tactical plan, a Watford defender slipped, where is the Watford defence, its come at a time when Watford were more threatening. We obviously had nothing to do with it.

The Sky commentator then even tacitly sums up their ridiculous attitude by admitting "Well we were just talking all about Watford looking to punish them but it's come at the other end". And we really were 'them' in their eyes. Sky's presentation might as well have been for Watford TV. For the record, in reaction to our opening goal and replays of it, the Sky team said Watford seven times. The said City just once, simply to mention we ended our goal drought.

From what I've seen of the rest of the coverage we were treated as utterly passive, we didn't do anything, Watford simply did things or allowed us to do things. The winner was relished with great excitement by Tyldesley on ITV, but from Sky's point of view the 93rd minute winner was about the first time they even described us as doing something ourselves, and even then it was to describe it as a twist no one (least of all this Watford-centric presentation) could have predicted.

I'm all for us being on Sky as much as possible as great to watch again on the Sky box (rapidly filling up) but please god never again with this standard of commentary. If I wanted to remember yesterdays game from a Watford perspective I'd subscribe to Watford World (or whatever their equivalent is). As it is I'll keep a copy of the ITV highlights as they actually manage to capture our excitement rather than sound like Watford's Monday morning review video.

Just sums up the London and North West bias of the sporting media in this country. Thankfully I didn't have to put up with that as the pub I was in had the commentary down low!

[Alex_BCFC]

I thought they were very fair.

Some people look for bias when it doesnt exist imo.

I agree. I couldn't fault anything they said to be honest- they aren't going to know every little thing about our team.

[WTFiGO!?!]

I'm usually sceptical of paranoid City fans, but that yesterday was weird. It was as though we were listening to Watfords local radio station at times.

I've got it recorded so I might pick out some lines, actually, that's most unlikely in all reality.

[Xiled]

We've been 'treated' to an awful lot of television coverage this season - unfortunately all the live games are ofcourse with Sky.

I think their commentary is shockingly bad. They are always biased to the favourite or the bigger club. This applies to their Premiership coverage as well as last night's game.

I remarked during the last 15 minutes of last night's match that it would be a great option to only have the audio of the sound within the stadium - something the BBC offer for FA Cup Final coverage.

For the record I thought Watford vs City commentary was more balanced than our previous televised matches. Previously, it has been described with complete indignation that we should dare win a match at this level.......

The answer I guess is to have Radio Bristol on and the television muted. Generally when we are televised we are also on Radio Bristol because the time and date will have been shifted at Sky's request. At least the bias will be in favour of our team.

The Championship is a great programme. I usually watch it from beginning to end on a Sunday morning. By comparison Match of the Day and Sky's Premier League coverage bore me senseless.

[BristolCity1992]

We will be on BBC1 next year I think, unless we go up haha.

[Chappers]

Didn't notice, don't care.

[Xiled]

Didn't notice, don't care.

Great contribution.

[Andy082005]

Like most people I appreciate the depth of coverage on Sky but if you compare the delivery of yesterdays game between Sky and ITV, the differences are laughable. If you've just heard Clive Tyldesley this morning on The Championship you will have heard passionate, excited commentary about both teams. I'm not even a fan of Tyldesley but he fulfilled the duty of commentating on both sides for the benefit of a mixed wider audience.

Sky's commentary team had an absolutely bizarre fixation with commentating from the Watford point of view. Any reference to us was completely passive, we were second class in their presentation and we never actually scored, Watford simply conceeded. This was the tone of the entire coverage, but just to check I'm not being unfair, I watched the goals again from both channels off the Sky box. The differences are embarassing.

While Tyldesley screams out in exultation of Showunmi's goal, describes the City players celebrating and refers to the contribution of individual City players, the Sky commentator describes it as 'putting Watford behind'. Don Goodman then immediately remarks during the replays about the Watford tactical plan, a Watford defender slipped, where is the Watford defence, its come at a time when Watford were more threatening. We obviously had nothing to do with it.

The Sky commentator then even tacitly sums up their ridiculous attitude by admitting "Well we were just talking all about Watford looking to punish them but it's come at the other end". And we really were 'them' in their eyes. Sky's presentation might as well have been for Watford TV. For the record, in reaction to our opening goal and replays of it, the Sky team said Watford seven times. The said City just once, simply to mention we ended our goal drought.

From what I've seen of the rest of the coverage we were treated as utterly passive, we didn't do anything, Watford simply did things or allowed us to do things. The winner was relished with great excitement by Tyldesley on ITV, but from Sky's point of view the 93rd minute winner was about the first time they even described us as doing something ourselves, and even then it was to describe it as a twist no one (least of all this Watford-centric presentation) could have predicted.

I'm all for us being on Sky as much as possible as great to watch again on the Sky box (rapidly filling up) but please god never again with this standard of commentary. If I wanted to remember yesterdays game from a Watford perspective I'd subscribe to Watford World (or whatever their equivalent is). As it is I'll keep a copy of the ITV highlights as they actually manage to capture our excitement rather than sound like Watford's Monday morning review video.

I totally see where your coming from, but at the minute, I'm quite enjoying being the under dog in this league, or the little team no one knows anything about....its a refreshing change to the usual crap weve heard the last 9 years when we have been on Sky, i.e "sleeping giants" this and "Chelsea of League One" that......

Its nice to see our boys ram things down peoples throats. You reds!

[Northern Red]

I didn't think they were too bad. Don Goodman is certainly preferable to that tool Birtles, who really doesn't like us (probably still bitter about us beating Forest to promotion last year). I imagine they expected a Watford win, as most people bar us would have also, but praised our style of play often enough.

[Aberdeen_Pete]

I think the commentator was a tad biased but how can you say Don Goodman was biased, he kept saying how good we were first 30 mins, how much he rated sporule , and what good football we always try to play....Beagrie was also very postive of us and said we were well worth the win...Some people look for Bias...but come the end of the day who cares we won, we played better against the top of the table side on their patch!