The BBC Commentary team needs to be gagged

First topic message reminder :

...and then preferably led out of the room, never to be heard from in television again. They add absolutely nothing to the match, & just detract from the experience with a constant stream of sycophantic Murray comments & inane, pointless statements. You can barely understand what Boris Becker is saying 50% of the time! I think overall these guys increase the annoyance factor by about 50% when Murray plays, which for me lifts it unbearable levels.

HM - A lot of boxes act passionately a lot of the time and when it crosses the line is a very subjective thing. For me personally, I don't have an issue with any of it.

I don't have an issue with any player doing it, so it's not a tribal thing as far as I'm concerned. You think Novak's dads behaviour is also crossing the line, so fair enough as that's consistent and you're not changing your stance because its your player.

I guess the only thing we disagree on is what we find acceptable. To be honest I'm maybe the wrong person to be talking about it as if two boxes starting having a brawl with each other I'd be loving it!  

The BBC are truly breaching bias regulations. This is more like the Murray Lovefest not the Wimbledon Championship. This is why the mute button is so underrated  

I do support Murray but I would also wish to see less of Judy and other team members' reaction after points. She can react how she likes but I'd just rather it not be the focus of the TV coverage - it's hardly a BBC-specific issue though. I can't really think of another sport where the athletes support team are covered quite so much. That said, sometimes it does add to the emotional feel of the match - for example to see Stakhovsky's wife willing him over the line.

Judy has many strengths, including much enthusiasm & action to raise the participation in her sport in her country, but she really does look terrible during Murray's matches.

As regards the BBC coverage, I'd agree with the others who have said that it's perfectly reasonable for coverage to focus more on home players, but that doesn't mean being so condescending & dismissive to other players or reporting inaccurate information (through lack of preparation) or carrying out unprofessional interviews. That's no criticism of Robson or Murray, it's a criticism of the quality of the BBC production.

Danny_1982 wrote: To be honest I'm maybe the wrong person to be talking about it as if two boxes starting having a brawl with each other I'd be loving it!  

Actually, if that happened, I'd love it too!

Maybe that's my problem - fist pumps and shouting aren't enough for me!

HM Murdoch wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote: To be honest I'm maybe the wrong person to be talking about it as if two boxes starting having a brawl with each other I'd be loving it!  

Actually, if that happened, I'd love it too!

Maybe that's my problem - fist pumps and shouting aren't enough for me!

Novak's dad v Lendl could be a good battle!

Jelena v Kim is what the papers would be focussing on though. And me, to be fair.  

Have you ever thought there is a reason for that BB? We know Judy is passionate about her tennis - it is in her blood. I may be barking up the wrong tree or maybe not but Mirka is not of the same ilk is she? If she were I'd hazard a guess she would be exactly the same. Odd as well that we have no complaints here about Verdasco's connections yesterday. From the highlights they were equally as vociferous with the fist pumps but nobody has said a word. How curious.

Craig, Mirka's a former player so presumably she's passionate about tennis too.

On your other comment, she's not being accused of anything, but given that Murray's matches will always be covered in the UK (on various channels), we all see a lot of Judy and people are free to comment that they'd rather she was more composed. I doubt many of us see a lot of Verdasco's support team and that is why there are no comments on them.

The thing is if people within the sport have no problem with it then neither have I. People celebrate in their own way and if people are fed up of over-exposure of certain individuals then blame the BBC.

HM Murdoch wrote:If the BBC is going to show images like this, they should give us a warning. I have a young child, pets and sometimes a full stomach.

(I believe in the below picture, an opponent has just had a first serve called out)

A couple of years ago I watched a Murray match on court 1 (Nadal was playing on center so I felt like I'd drawn the short straw... sigh). It was a second round match and Murray was playing a low ranked player who's box was empty   We were sat directly opposite the Murray box that was full of his entourage and it was difficult not to notice their every move. TBH it was fascinating and more interesting than the match. They were all so totally involved, fist pumping, cheering and looking like they might suffer cardiac arrest when Murray lost a point etc. We were close enough to see their facial expressions and felt quite worried for them. In fact we speculated that it could be they were in fear of getting shot or at least sacked if Murray lost (including his Mum and GF).

I reckon Roger is very lucky to have Mirka. IMO she may be the secret behind his success.

hawkeye wrote:I reckon Roger is very lucky to have Mirka.

Yeah, I also wonder about that sometimes.  She must understand him far better than some of the bimbos other guys pick.

Shock! Horror! Sue Barker is currently interviewing JJ and been nice and complementary - I'm actually started to like the rocket

This is obviously totaly biased against the British and is far to much on the side of the Poles

I'm going to complain - OK so we have a few Polish imigrants, but given the comments on these boards it's ridiculous that they are not 100% for Murray, 100% of the time

I think Roger's mother is on record as saying that 'Roger's success is Roger's and Mirka's success' in response to being asked about what pivotal role Mirka had played.  Lynette Federer went on to add that she didn't think Mirka realised just how much she had contributed to the success but that Roger did.

What a nice mother-in-law Lynette Federer must be #notjealousmuch!

HM Murdoch wrote:

banbrotam wrote:We've never ever panned to the Federer box and seen Mirka looking nervous have we?

Oh sorry!! It's different if it's Novak or Andy

The difference between Mirka's reactions and that of Andy's box is that Mirka generally behaves with a bit of decorum.

Andy's box, and in particular Judy and Jez Green, just act like rottweilers. Even on an opponents unforced error, it's fist pumping, lips curled into a snarl. It's not joy or relief coming off them, it's pleasure at an enemy's demise.

And that's not me being partisan. Novak's brother's often behave the same way and I feel the same when they do it.

Anyway, on the subject of poor quality from the BBC, making a big feature of the fact Sir Alex Ferguson was in the crowd was so vapid. It's one thing to let us know he's there but constantly cutting to him for his reaction and then basing an idiotic post-match question on him, pretty much sums their level up.

Actually HMM nailed it here, at times Murray's box do overdo things but in general they are ok, they could learn something from Lendl thou   who shows no emotions good or bad and keeps himself composed, Lendl rules. 

Mirka looks like she is awaiting an award.

Djokovic's box is full un-coordinated retards.

Murrays box is full of rottweilers.

Who the Frak cares. Seriously

I think I'd prefer my team to wear poker faces - enthusiasm when they are up is great, but long or worried faces if they thought you were down would be considerably less agreeable.

bogbrush wrote:What on Earth are you rambling on about bantroban?

This is a thread about how awful the BBC coverage is, and how irritating it is that they switch to the feral behaviour of the Murray box. Not Andy, not the opponent, not the rules.

Honestly, you guys are so protective of your man that you feel the need to run to any lengths to deflect any perceived slight. What next, the weather in Dunblane is great?

The Murray box is absurd, Lendl excepted. The Federer and Nadal boxes are exemplary in decorum and general behaviour. The Djokovic box has had bad moments and is a bit strident for my tastes, but Judy etc go mental all the time including yesterday standing up after every point.

It's just not classy at all. Not illegal, just a bit shabby.

I'm actualy amsued by the self-righteous outrage that some on these boards can get over a few celebrations. Please stop making assumptions about my motives.

I'm a bit confused though;-

1) If the thread is about how awful the BBC Coverage, what's wrong with my point showing that they get 'excited' about anything news worthy. Or do you think the JJ interview was "awful"? Or are we now judging the quality of the BBC coverage on how often they pan to the Murray box? Seems a bit limited to me if people are, a bit like assuming someone's a racist if they've got a Union Jack over their house

2) If it's about the BBC coverage, why has it decended into the slagging off of the Murray box?

And please stop exaggerating - they do not stand up after every point. Please stop taking the tension of yesterday out of context in order to spout on about one of your pet hates. I've seen them at seveal matches where they've hardly done anything and so have you (unless you're choosing to ignore that)

Incidentaly, I'm not like the Murray box, but if my son had made that comeback given the importance of it in his career and the numerous times I'd had to make sacrifices to help him get to this moment - then I'd probably had done a few fist pumps as well

invisiblecoolers wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

banbrotam wrote:We've never ever panned to the Federer box and seen Mirka looking nervous have we?

Oh sorry!! It's different if it's Novak or Andy

The difference between Mirka's reactions and that of Andy's box is that Mirka generally behaves with a bit of decorum.

Andy's box, and in particular Judy and Jez Green, just act like rottweilers. Even on an opponents unforced error, it's fist pumping, lips curled into a snarl. It's not joy or relief coming off them, it's pleasure at an enemy's demise.

And that's not me being partisan. Novak's brother's often behave the same way and I feel the same when they do it.

Anyway, on the subject of poor quality from the BBC, making a big feature of the fact Sir Alex Ferguson was in the crowd was so vapid. It's one thing to let us know he's there but constantly cutting to him for his reaction and then basing an idiotic post-match question on him, pretty much sums their level up.

Actually HMM nailed it here, at times Murray's box do overdo things but in general they are ok, they could learn something from Lendl thou   who shows no emotions good or bad and keeps himself composed, Lendl rules. 

Not disagreeing with you but you think that's what Murray wants though. He is on record as saying that he enjoys it more when the crowd is into the game. He has made these comments at Flushing Meadows and Roland Garros where he has been playing against the crowd favourite. Remember his smile last year against Gasquet when the crowd were booing him. Then he just went on to win easliy. I'm sure if he wanted them to sit down and just clap politely he would tell them and they would do it. It's fine for Lendl to sit there showing no passion because that's what he has always done but I think that Murray likes to know that people are rooting him on as well and the remainder of the team do that.

CaledonianCraig wrote:What I'd love to know is how the opposing players feel about Andy's team? In short I'd guess they don't give a s***. People need and crave and want reasons to have a pop at Murray and now he is a slam winner and his tennis does the talking people now have their pop over anything they can find. Sad really. Rant over.

OMG, you just can't take anything on Murray right? if Murray and his team learns Lendl's composure he will be a multi time slam winner soon, the more they show the emotions the more its irritating to the viewers as well as the opponents.

This is not a war, its just a game, so enjoy the game as the game, Verdasco did nothing wrong really.

HM Murdoch wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:What I'd love to know is how the opposing players feel about Andy's team? In short I'd guess they don't give a s***. People need and crave and want reasons to have a pop at Murray and now he is a slam winner and his tennis does the talking people now have their pop over anything they can find. Sad really. Rant over.

A little over-sensitive here, Craig, perhaps? Why is a comment on the behavior of some people in his box a pop at Andy?

And if you really think winning a slam will stop people having a pop at a player, you're in for a disappointment. Nadal's won 12 of them and is constantly criticised!

What about Federer ? , he was the one who got maximum criticsm on his hey day and the worst part he is getting it even at 32 years of age for doing nothing wrong, critisicm happens for all successful players coz they are successful and hence some people gonna be envious on them for sure, while some critcs are right some are absolute bulls. 

CaledonianCraig wrote:HmM I take your point but aren't you and others being atad contradictory. I am being called overly sensitive but it isn't me getting in a huff about Andy's mum etc getting excited and showing joy when her son is completing a great comeback. Oh and please spare me the poor sportsmanship thing about 'celebrating' unforced errors as that myth was dispelled a long time ago as even Saint Roger does a fist pump and a 'Come on' following an opponent's error.

Roger never did that in his hey days, all it shows is age is catching up with him, but it is ridiculous if Andy does it at his young age:hug: 

summerblues wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:(I believe in the below picture, an opponent has just had a first serve called out)

Is this comment for real or in jest?  If true, then it is hilarious.

If its true they should be deemed psychos , clearly why on earth somebody do a fist pump for an opponents first serve going out , they need mental conditioning, Lendl's job might be more tougher than he imagined.  

hawkeye wrote:I reckon Roger is very lucky to have Mirka. IMO she may be the secret behind his success.

They are made for each other, Roger for all his fame , money, fitness and looks would have got any girls he desired for but he chose Mirka and settled with her, that shows how much he values her, on the other side Mirka understands her celebrity partner and sacrificed all personal things to keep him relaxed composed and neat.

One of the best things I heard is very heart touching,

Wimbledon 2008, when Fed was down 2 sets and 1-2 in the 3rd when rain came down, Roger looked completely cooked and didn't believe in himself, during the break Mirka gave him a kiss and gave the confidence and wanted him to enjoy, its little personal things the commentry caught it and we saw how much those moments made an impact in the match, Roger came back from nowhere to almost seal the deal 

I will put it this way Roger is intelligent in selecting the partner and understanding how much she is for his success. 

Calder106 wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

banbrotam wrote:We've never ever panned to the Federer box and seen Mirka looking nervous have we?

Oh sorry!! It's different if it's Novak or Andy

The difference between Mirka's reactions and that of Andy's box is that Mirka generally behaves with a bit of decorum.

Andy's box, and in particular Judy and Jez Green, just act like rottweilers. Even on an opponents unforced error, it's fist pumping, lips curled into a snarl. It's not joy or relief coming off them, it's pleasure at an enemy's demise.

And that's not me being partisan. Novak's brother's often behave the same way and I feel the same when they do it.

Anyway, on the subject of poor quality from the BBC, making a big feature of the fact Sir Alex Ferguson was in the crowd was so vapid. It's one thing to let us know he's there but constantly cutting to him for his reaction and then basing an idiotic post-match question on him, pretty much sums their level up.

Actually HMM nailed it here, at times Murray's box do overdo things but in general they are ok, they could learn something from Lendl thou   who shows no emotions good or bad and keeps himself composed, Lendl rules. 

Not disagreeing with you but you think that's what Murray wants though. He is on record as saying that he enjoys it more when the crowd is into the game. He has made these comments at Flushing Meadows and Roland Garros where he has been playing against the crowd favourite. Remember his smile last year against Gasquet when the crowd were booing him. Then he just went on to win easliy. I'm sure if he wanted them to sit down and just clap politely he would tell them and they would do it. It's fine for Lendl to sit there showing no passion because that's what he has always done but I think that Murray likes to know that people are rooting him on as well and the remainder of the team do that.

May be you are right, this is what Murray wants and hence his box dishing it that way, and maybe maybe thats the reason why Murray is not a multi-slam winner like Lendl is given his talent, Murray's box now should take more digs for not helping Murray but indirectly spoiling his focus by giving the child the wrong things what it wanted. 

invisiblecoolers wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:What I'd love to know is how the opposing players feel about Andy's team? In short I'd guess they don't give a s***. People need and crave and want reasons to have a pop at Murray and now he is a slam winner and his tennis does the talking people now have their pop over anything they can find. Sad really. Rant over.

OMG, you just can't take anything on Murray right? if Murray and his team learns Lendl's composure he will be a multi time slam winner soon, the more they show the emotions the more its irritating to the viewers as well as the opponents.

This is not a war, its just a game, so enjoy the game as the game, Verdasco did nothing wrong really.

Actually the things I object to are nonsensical and meaningless stuff such as how his team react. I am known on here for being open enough to criticise Andy on many occasions myself so please cut the pretence that I see no wrong in him - there are far more posters here far worse for that with regards their favourite player.

Craig, why - when you're trying to watch a tennis match - is being confronted on screen by a line of near-hysterical unpleasantly aggressively contorted faces meaningless? I find it irritating and unpleasant, and it sounds like I'm in the majority on here.

And just in case it comes up agin, this has nothing to so with rules, or opponents, or even Andy himself. It's the BBC and the hideous Murray box all over my TV when I don't want to look at them.

Does it help if I say I think Judy's hair looks better grown out grey?

Yes BB I do see what you are saying and surely the blame lies squarely at the BBC's door. I say that as if it is offended you so much then they are the ones showing it repeatedly. It isn't even anything to do with the team's reaction as like I pointed out Verdasco's team were just as clenching of their fists and in no way did it offend me even though they were cheering against my favourite player. It is totally understandable that connections get all excited. In my eyes as long as they are not looking to deliberately antagonise the opposing player's connection then I do not see what the problem is.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes BB I do see what you are saying and surely the blame lies squarely at the BBC's door.

I guess that's why I posted it on the BBC thread.

Yes fair enough so your gripe is with the BBC.

I don't understand the blandness of the BBC's coverage if truth be told. I mean Wimbledon is covered on so many platforms and they have the red button system but they don't use it to such good affect as Sky for sports coverage. Surely, they could have coverage so you can listen to either the BBC commentators or the Radio Five Live commentary or with no commentary. Camera angles could also be offered so if you choose the usual shot looking down the court you stay there throughout and so don't see players box etc. I am sure it could be implemented easily enough as Sky do it for football, cricket and F1.

Yes, and people complain when sports go to Sky.

Simple fact is that Sky do it better. The perfect comparison is now there on Formula 1, and the BBC looks hopeless next to them.

I just think the BBC are too stuck in their ways. They take things for granted I reckon. They feel they will never lose Wimbledon so carry on as they always have done. If coverage was split - say with Sky then it may make them get their act together. I mean lets be honest a lot of their team are amateurs as far as tennis is concerned. People like Gary Richardson and John Inverdale know nothing about tennis and yet there they are pretending to be experts. Similarly, we got the same in F1 with former Children's BBC presenter Jake Humphries.  

All in all the BBC need to have a complete rethink on their Wimbledon coverage in my opinion.

Monopolies are always complacent and give poor value for money.

I see the argument has moved on and I don't really want to take it back to the behaviour of Murray's box, but I will say that while I think Judy Murray is terrific and really good news for British tennis, she is exhausting to watch for a TV spectator when the cameras pan to her on the close points - I think she should have a better poker face because it must be quite emotionally draining for her son to witness her visible despondency in some matches when she looks crushed and the reverse - the over the top aggressive exhortations.  I don't know when emotional incontinency became so celebrated?

I also think it is nice to see a little bit more decorum in front of your opponent's box.  Can't agree with you about all of the Nadal box BB - Toni, Ma, sister and girlfriend are all great but the father does not always control his temper (Wimbledon 2011)

Anyway, back on topic - I like the Beeb's coverage in the main.  Where I would criticise it is in the greater intrusion on players but I think they are responding to modern broadcasting techniques and thinking that is what everyone wants.

Agree with BB's and Craig's posts about BBC stuck in the dark ages, and how poorly they compare to Sky.

If you think of a Masters tournament on Sky, or the USO, after a match they attempt to go in depth about small technical details, small changes to a players tactical approach during a match, how someone has slightly amended their body shape during their serving motion in the last 12 months, how a player has changed his rotation on a forehand.... Using old footage to compare things.

I don't always agree with it and a lot depends on who is doing the analysis (I always find Petchy has a good eye for smaller details, someone like Greg less so) but they try to focus on the technicalities. That's what modern sport is all about.

Compare it to the BBC. Most of the analysis consists of "he got tentative" or "he got more aggressive" or equally generic high level easy statements. Remember John Lloyd suggesting Murray would do better if he shaved like Federer and Nadal do? Good grief!

It's not just tennis either, compare the brilliant technical analysis of Gary Neville on the Sky football, compared with Shearer on BBC. World of difference. I would LOVE Wimbledon to move to Sky, as unpopular a statement as that may be.

Anything but carbon-dated Sue Barker and her pseudo-chumminess interviewing style, it's like she's in permanent Question of Sport mock laugh mode. They get great guests on set due to them being the BBC then she goes and "summer chintz's" everyone. Her analysis is as cutting as John Inverdale's sincerity.

Pfft!

Fair points about the commentary Danny. I like the Beeb's constant coverage so that you can see players at change of ends and watch the body language while Eurosport takes a break, but when I come to think about it, I always choose Eurosport over the Beeb for other tournaments if both covering.

Can't stand the BBC tennis close-out music either, it's like something from 1930s English village, Famous Five days. It's all far too quaint & mumsy, needs updating for the 21st century high octane sport tennis has become. Sky knocks BBC out of the park, edgier & more incisive. Eurosport ok when Reed or Greg 'Where's my towel/blankee' Rusedski aren't on screen.

The music is the Beeb playing the heritage card.

I thought BBC coverage was poor but this recent conversation has me convinced beyond question. It's the sheer shallowness of the analysis that brings it home. Having a British hope really kills them though, it's like whatever pretence of rational coverage is just turfed out and they got Hell for leather on the patriotic card.
They seem to look for the lowest common denominator and go for it, but try to be nice about it.

Saints preserve us from Sue Barker post final interview this year. If Andy wins she'll have melted down and it'll be incoherent, if he loses she'll misremember the score like last year and ask him to cry, and if he loses the semi tomorrow she'll still make him the theme of her interview, to the utter bafflement of whoever she's talking to.

The BBC's taste in closing out music is dreadful. Almost post WW2 newsflash type things.

Sky are neutral and when it comes to tennis they are great, even more so if Andy is not featuring in a tournament as it leads to mushc better analysis. Now if they could only get rid of Barry Cowan I will be thrilled!

I don't mind the music at all - a pleasant nostalgic trip down memory lane and when you hear it Wimbledon springs to mind. It is the stagnation in the coverage that needs looking at. More options for commentary, more camera angles, more in-depth analysis, more presenters/interviewers with tennis expertise are the changes that should be made.

The BBC coverage of Wimbledon has been just awful this year. But then their coverage of sport has been dreadful for some time.
A few points:
1. Boris Becker - his English is just too poor to have him on the air.
2. Andrew Castle - totally in love with himself
3. Gary Richardson - pompous. Really pleased he made an ass of himself in the post-match Andy Murray interview on Wednesday
4. Incidental music/the ridiculously early timing of the match of the day at 8pm - change it.
5. The biggest bugbear of all is the BBC's attempt to get people who would not normally watch sport to....watch sport.
Let's face it, if you're not interested in watching Wimbledon you are not going to be more likely to watch it if its on BBC1 rather than BBC2.
  About the only times you are likely to get people not normally interested in sport watching is if England ever got to the soccer World Cup final. Then, and perhaps only then, can you have  dumbed down commentaries to keep maiden great-aunts happy.

Yep, Wimbledon coverage is designed to appeal to your common or garden Sun-reading brickie who takes a fortnightly interest in the sport every June. Sky Sports coverage actually appeals to per-annual tennis followers. That's the difference. The BBC treats every Wimbledon like a royal wedding...dripping with OTT metaphor, emotional guff, inane interviews and populist theming. It's like watching Antiques Roadshow except AR is more dynamic!

Lydian - brilliant description. Same with their coverage of snooker and the golf. Some of the old school - Coleman, Carpenter, Benaud - must be/would have been in despair.

Has anyone been reading Castle's column in the back pages of the Metro? He comes up with some cringe worthy stuff and does tend to disrespect players. He dismissed Verdsaco and said something about him being on a loser...true but he nearly humbled Murray.

Then you have people like Colin Murray (no relation I presume!) who come out with articles that include words such as Immortality etc. All very OTT. The media pressure dumped on Robson was unbelievable! She looked so nervous and petrified when he walked onto court!

I think this year the media are catering to the 2 week tennis fans. Listening to some of my colleagues in office frustrates me no end. Had another one comment on the mens/ladies QF's bemoaning the lack of big names. One mentioned the ladies and said its all unknown/unheard of people in the QFs which consisted of former champ Kvitova, GS winner Na Li, runner ups Bartoli/Radwanska to name a few! Also special mention was the unheard of tall player who fell over and hurt his leg i.e JMDP! Various radio channels have Wimbledon updates which constantly get names wrong, results wrong i.e mentioning Berdych vs Djoko match up and very knowledgably saying Berdych beat Djoko in 2011!

sirfredperry wrote:Lydian - brilliant description. Same with their coverage of snooker and the golf.  Some of the old school - Coleman, Carpenter, Benaud - must be/would have been in despair.

I'm afraid I found it quite elitist and insulting.

Calder106 wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Lydian - brilliant description. Same with their coverage of snooker and the golf.  Some of the old school - Coleman, Carpenter, Benaud - must be/would have been in despair.

I'm afraid I found it quite elitist and insulting.

I'd like to hear why you think that. I disagree profoundly.

bogbrush wrote:

Calder106 wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Lydian - brilliant description. Same with their coverage of snooker and the golf.  Some of the old school - Coleman, Carpenter, Benaud - must be/would have been in despair.

I'm afraid I found it quite elitist and insulting.

I'd like to hear why you think that. I disagree profoundly.

"Wimbledon coverage is designed to appeal to your common or garden Sun-reading brickie who takes a fortnightly interest in the sport every June."

You don't find that sort of stereotyping insulting. I'm afraid I do. One of the reasons I've seen on these boards regarding why there are so few top GB players is that people see it as being quite elitist in this country. So if I drop in from one of the other forums on this site and see a comment like that is it going to persuade me differently.

The BBC has a "star culture" - they just aren't able to challenge their stars. In the 1960's and 1970's it lead to "stars" abusing children with impunity. In the 2010's it means that rubbish pundits are allowed to continue to ply their trade because, well, they are stars.

Let's all say it - Wimbledon is the biggest tennis tournament in the world. People who want to watch it won't feel that anything is missing if Sue Barker and John Inverdale are not there. It should be about tennis analysis and slick and efficient presentation of the tennis.

Heritage is far more convincing when it is shown to be able to budge a bit with the times - that's why it remains heritage because if it is wholly unable to adapt it dies and ceases to be anything.

Calder106 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Calder106 wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Lydian - brilliant description. Same with their coverage of snooker and the golf.  Some of the old school - Coleman, Carpenter, Benaud - must be/would have been in despair.

I'm afraid I found it quite elitist and insulting.

I'd like to hear why you think that. I disagree profoundly.

"Wimbledon coverage is designed to appeal to your common or garden Sun-reading brickie who takes a fortnightly interest in the sport every June."

You don't find that sort of stereotyping insulting. I'm afraid I do. One of the reasons I've seen on these boards regarding why there are so few top GB players is that people see it as being quite elitist in this country. So if I drop in from one of the other forums on this site and see a comment like that is it going to persuade me differently.  

First - why did you not quote that comment in your reply? You implied Benaud etc were elitist.

Secondly, facts are facts. If they do target the lowest common denominator that's just how it is. The 'man of the people' thing,complaining at this being pointed out is excessively self-conscious.

barrystar wrote:The BBC has a "star culture" - they just aren't able to challenge their stars.  In the 1960's and 1970's it lead to "stars" abusing children with impunity.  In the 2010's it means that rubbish pundits are allowed to continue to ply their trade because, well, they are stars.

Let's all say it - Wimbledon is the biggest tennis tournament in the world.  People who want to watch it won't feel that anything is missing if Sue Barker and John Inverdale are not there.  It should be about tennis analysis and slick and efficient presentation of the tennis.

Heritage is far more convincing when it is shown to be able to budge a bit with the times - that's why it remains heritage because if it is wholly unable to adapt it dies and ceases to be anything.

I'll go further than that; heritage is based on excellence. Wallowing in heritage and presenting it as the product is not excellence.

The BBC needs to stretch people, to talk to the audience as if they have interest and a brain. We see this everywhere; political interest wanes so the BBC talks to people like they're idiots (contrast election night overage from the 70's with today - the former had political scientists, with the gimmickiest thing being a swingomoter (which explained stuff), whereas now they do cartoon and interview celebrities on boats).

This fear of being seen as elitist (as referenced by Calder) is at the root of decline. Elitism is good. Elitism stretches and achieves. Andy Murray is an elitist.