Rugby Coverage: Sky v. BT Sport

Just finished watching Sale-Saracens and I had a thought. I find I prefer the way BT Sport is presenting the Rugby as compared to how Sky does. Not getting into the financials or the politics of each, simply the presentation and overall quality of the broadcast. To me, their broadcast seems more contemporary. The graphics appear cleaner, the commentators in general are a bit more conversational, their analysis is more detailed, and the overall quality just seems better. The play-by-play commentators are generally good. Now, I know a lot of this is subjective and really down to personal preferences, but it is very apparent BT Sport has invested significant resources and effort in their Rugby coverage. And that tells me they are committed to Rugby, not simply using it to fill time between soccer matches and adverts.

My question to the group is how do you see their coverage compared to Sky? Thoughts? Comments? How would you make it better (no - we cannot have Inverdale)?
I could have put up a poll, but I am more interested in your opinions.

I also like the woman who was commenting today and handling some of the interviews and leading the overall broadcast. I forget her name, but I wonder what she would make me for breakfast......

Sara Elgan (or something like that).

BT are much better than Sky (or at least the production company is, which I think is the same as ESPN used).

The only thing I don't watch is the Wednesday's show. It's a bit childish (I do watch some bits eaters it's done). Too much like the Scrum V international shows at their worst. But the actual match coverage I like.

Hey BT don't appoint Stuart Barnes as one for their main analysts or commentators. That is enough for me to scrap sky and pay for BT on it's own.
It will be interesting to see how the deal pans out though. I've never seen BT coverage myself but have heard good reviews about it. I will wait to see how they will share the coverage then decide to do then.

I much prefer the BT coverage and no Stuart Barnes is a bonus.

Personally i prefer BT, Sky like to be sensationalists where BT is just down to earth rugby talk. Oh and the little case that they don't have Stuart Barnes.

https://www.youtube.com/user/BTSportOfficial/videos

The rugby vids here are quite good

I far prefer BT. The analysis is stronger and the team they have put together is far better balanced than Sky's. Ben Kay in particular is a real find - one of the best technical analysts in the game today and also a half-decent commentator. Sky don't have anyone who can do both.

I even prefer Rugby Tonight to Rugby Club. If it gets a bit silly at times, it's because they have a bunch of presenters who are genuinely enjoying themselves and have been given the freedom to experiment with the format. But the payoff for that is some spark and debate between the team, and the technical aspects (e.g. the demos) are far better than on Sky.

I find the Sky build up a chore. For HEC and LV games I only tune in for kick off and then wish there was an alternative commentary. The sooner It's all on BT the better.

Agreed on Ben Kay. I was hoping Flatman would join the team full time as well but that hasn't materialised yet.

doctor_grey wrote:

I also like the woman who was commenting today and handling some of the interviews and leading the overall broadcast.  I forget her name, but I wonder what she would make me for breakfast......

That would be Simon Easterby's wife. Good luck with that .....

I think to a certain extent familiarity has brought a bit of contempt as far as Sky ( Barnes & Harrison) is concerned. Having said that now BT have given the fans a new comparable production Sky looks a bit dated.
The Rugby Club has slightly changed in format with the armchairs & more chat but BT have done a good job.

I've never felt the urge to watch any of the rugby on BT Sport to be honest, but if the rumours about Europe are true I might tune in soon enough.

If you have a spare afternoon Notch it's worth a watch, they put on a good show. There's some freebie trial things on this weekend I think.

I much prefer BT to Sky. To be fair to Sky they are better in every way to the BBC.

Rugby Tonight is pretty puerile in parts. OK if watched via Sky+ and fast forwarding through the rubbish.

BT has just left the bulk of the ESPN framework in place. That might represent good judgement, or was simply necessary because they didn't have much time to put anything else in place.

I like how they talk about rugby. By contrast, Sky can feel a bit brash at times. I've always felt Sky have got the tone of their rugby marketing wrong. Committed rugby supporters can find it annoying, while it doesn't give enough context for the floating fan.

Will Greenwood still does a good job for Sky but I'm not so convinced by the presenting talents of some of their other big names.

Incidentally, it was interesting to see Sam Vesty's reaction when he heard Clive Woodward and Jerry Guscott describing how Scotland ought to have defended Burrell's try on the BBC:

https://twitter.com/samuelvesty/status/432209047954411520

That analysis by Guscott and Woodward was ten years old. Game's moved on.

Which describes one of the problems for any broadcaster. A recently retired player or coach usually has some insight simply because of their proximity to the current environment.

Wind that on a few years, though, and they aren't necessarily looking at the right things any more. In the best case, they can use their distance to see the sport from different viewpoints. In the worst case, they just end up like an average fan, jumping on every new gossip bandwagon in an attempt to seem like they still have an inside line (cf. almost anything by Paul Ackford).

I don't get the impression anyone takes the time to train sports presenters any more. We just seem to throw people at the job and hope enough will stick.

You don't actually need to know what you're talking about to be a pundit though RF. That not in the job description really. The real job of a pundit is to convince other people you know what your talking about, many of whom don't really follow the game or haven't ever played it

That's why ex-internationals get the job. The more caps they have, the more people think "wow he got a lot of caps for England... must know what he's talking about" before getting incredibly confused about momentum and the forward pass.

Makes sense about ESPN/BT, RugbyFan.
I had thought the ESPN work was also a clear step up from Sky.  And I think BT Sport has plussed that up one more time.  Sky does have some good commentators.  I think Greenwood does do a very good job.  Maybe it is only me, but it seems Sky has not improved or changed much about their coverage in the last decade.  Almost the same old presentation.  

I like watching Super Rugby and I think their broadcast quality has been ahead of Sky for years.  Putting aside the quality of play which is not the point of this thread, I think one reason their Rugby looks great is because it simply looks better on the tv.   I believe BT Sport is in that category now.

BT use the same production company(IIRC Sunset & Vine)as ESPN used

Notch wrote:You don't actually need to know what you're talking about to be a pundit though RF. That not in the job description really. The real job of a pundit is to convince other people you know what your talking about, many of whom don't really follow the game or haven't ever played it

That's why ex-internationals get the job. The more caps they have, the more people think "wow he got a lot of caps for England... must know what he's talking about" before getting incredibly confused about momentum and the forward pass.

That may be true. But to be a GOOD pundit you need to know what you're talking about

I will say Dawson sucks. By far the worst on BT IMO