uk f1 tv coverage - sky, bbc and ch4

[E.B]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

It was a momentous occasion - just waiting for the question it is the answer to....

I'll bite....

When was Jan Magnussen born?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Was it the day the the Vietnam war ended? I am trying to think what else happened that year, apart from sport in particular F1

The Vietnam War ended on the 30th April 1975. Nothing happened in F1 on that day, as it was a Wednesday and with the French GP having taken place on the previous Sunday at Paul Ricard, which Ronnie Peterson won. Wikipedia has quite an extensive list of events. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_4

[chillibowl]

Across all the sessions, i thought the SKY production was really excellent this weekend.

Brundle on point imo.

[codename_47]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Across all the sessions, i thought the SKY production was really excellent this weekend.

Brundle on point imo.

Crofty didn't imo, misnaming cars on multiple occasions, including Max's spin, assuming it was Albon just because....reasons

[Akrapovic]

Crofty gets pulled up on everything whilst Brundle made several errors regarding IDing Ferraris and that seems to be ok.

Brundle also continually talked about Maxes Wet Weather Masterclass. Presumably it's an introduction to wet surfaces, as Max spent as much time off the road as on it, and Brundle failed to notice.

[Greem]

I spotted the misidentification of Albon, but I must admit that for a lot of the race I couldn't hear the commentary very clearly due to all the laughter in my living room.

Having spent an excellent morning at a local kart track a couple of weeks ago, despite biblical rain, my son and I were highly amused to see multi-million-pound cars being driven by multi-millionaire sports stars driving just like we did

OK, we didn't have karts capable of 175mph in the wet, but still. It was a fun race and it made us laugh, as did the Turkish Grand Prix

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

NO surprise to see that Bottas suffered some damage and for Sky not to even speculate about it.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Greem

I spotted the misidentification of Albon, but I must admit that for a lot of the race I couldn't hear the commentary very clearly due to all the laughter in my living room.

Having spent an excellent morning at a local kart track a couple of weeks ago, despite biblical rain, my son and I were highly amused to see multi-million-pound cars being driven by multi-millionaire sports stars driving just like we did

OK, we didn't have karts capable of 175mph in the wet, but still. It was a fun race and it made us laugh, as did the Turkish Grand Prix

Love it!! That sounds like you had absolute blast!!!

I couldn't help but chuckle a fair bit at the on land skidoos too! 😅

There was so much action yesterday but poor old Croft couldn't change his tone to match it 😫

[Derwent]

I refuse to watch Sky so am quite happy with the Freeview later, you can switch on at the start and off at the finish and get rid of the continual statements of the obvious. what is the point of Steve Jones, what expertise has he in motorsport. It's the same with Vernon Kay on Formula E, Dermot O'Leary at Goodwood. Why? Would football fans tolerate Graham Norton doing MotD?, Susan Calman doing Wimbledon etc.
Why do motoring programmes (and I include Top Gear and the various classic programmes need "personalities" on them. Other sports don't.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Derwent

I refuse to watch Sky so am quite happy with the Freeview later, you can switch on at the start and off at the finish and get rid of the continual statements of the obvious. what is the point of Steve Jones, what expertise has he in motorsport. It's the same with Vernon Kay on Formula E, Dermot O'Leary at Goodwood. Why? Would football fans tolerate Graham Norton doing MotD?, Susan Calman doing Wimbledon etc.
Why do motoring programmes (and I include Top Gear and the various classic programmes need "personalities" on them. Other sports don't.

Steve Jones, Vernon Kay, Dermot O'Leary - their 'point' is that they are experienced television presenters.
When you are producing a TV show, you want a balance of Subject Matter Expertise for the subject of the show and a presenter skilled to present.

[Derwent]

But other sports don't seem to need these "experienced" presenters. These days the former competitors seem to do a good job in all other sports so why do we need these self important prats.

Lee McKenzie did a great job when Jones was absent. Give her the job full time.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Derwent

I refuse to watch Sky so am quite happy with the Freeview later, you can switch on at the start and off at the finish and get rid of the continual statements of the obvious. what is the point of Steve Jones, what expertise has he in motorsport. It's the same with Vernon Kay on Formula E, Dermot O'Leary at Goodwood. Why? Would football fans tolerate Graham Norton doing MotD?, Susan Calman doing Wimbledon etc.
Why do motoring programmes (and I include Top Gear and the various classic programmes need "personalities" on them. Other sports don't.

I can't justify the expense of Sky and don't expect my family to allow me 2½ hours access to the TV on a Saturday & Sunday to watch the qualifying & race highlights 'live'. (Well, they'd probably let me watch it but would talk over the coverage as they're not interested. When I'm watching something I'm interested in, I like to be able to give 100% attention to it). I tend to record both programmes and then get up early the following morning to watch them. This also gives me the opportunity to fast-forward past the dross and only watch the 'action' if I'm short of time.
Initially the purist in me didn't like Steve Jones either as he has no Motorsport background, but I have gone through the tolerating him phase into liking the guy. He does appear to be genuinely enthusiastic about the sport, his knowledge is growing and he seems to be quite passionate about it too. (Either that, or he has a good script writer anyway). I think the coverage needs an anchor man to hold things together, not for the type of motorsport fan who reads this forum, but for the less knowledgeable and more casual viewer. To make money from advertisers the programme has to attract as many viewers as possible so they have to widen the appeal to draw a larger spectrum of viewers in. (If they relied on people like me who record the programmes & fast-forward through the breaks, the advertisers would not be interested!) I think that C4 have got the balance right (especially now Eddie Jordan has been put out to grass) with David Coulthard, Mark Webber & Billy Monger for us petrol-heads, with Steve Jones there to hold it all together, pull the others back into line if they start spiralling into an over-technical discussion, and also to be able to ask them to 'describe to the man in the street what is really happening here in a non technical way he would understand'.

[Derwent]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

I can't justify the expense of Sky and don't expect my family to allow me 2½ hours access to the TV on a Saturday & Sunday to watch the qualifying & race highlights 'live'. (Well, they'd probably let me watch it but would talk over the coverage as they're not interested. When I'm watching something I'm interested in, I like to be able to give 100% attention to it). I tend to record both programmes and then get up early the following morning to watch them. This also gives me the opportunity to fast-forward past the dross and only watch the 'action' if I'm short of time.
Initially the purist in me didn't like Steve Jones either as he has no Motorsport background, but I have gone through the tolerating him phase into liking the guy. He does appear to be genuinely enthusiastic about the sport, his knowledge is growing and he seems to be quite passionate about it too. (Either that, or he has a good script writer anyway). I think the coverage needs an anchor man to hold things together, not for the type of motorsport fan who reads this forum, but for the less knowledgeable and more casual viewer. To make money from advertisers the programme has to attract as many viewers as possible so they have to widen the appeal to draw a larger spectrum of viewers in. (If they relied on people like me who record the programmes & fast-forward through the breaks, the advertisers would not be interested!) I think that C4 have got the balance right (especially now Eddie Jordan has been put out to grass) with David Coulthard, Mark Webber & Billy Monger for us petrol-heads, with Steve Jones there to hold it all together, pull the others back into line if they start spiralling into an over-technical discussion, and also to be able to ask them to 'describe to the man in the street what is really happening here in a non technical way he would understand'.

But other sports don't need to speak to the "man in the street", the folk who watch tennis or rugby are enthusiasts just as we are and deserve intelligent presenters.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Derwent

Lee McKenzie did a great job when Jones was absent. Give her the job full time.

That will be the Lee McKenzie who has been a journalist since the age of 15, and presenting for 15 years now?

[Derwent]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

That will be the Lee McKenzie who has been a journalist since the age of 15, and presenting for 15 years now?

She knows her stuff. her dad covered f1 for some of the Fleet St papers years back. Also we do need more female presenters.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Derwent

But other sports don't need to speak to the "man in the street", the folk who watch tennis or rugby are enthusiasts just as we are and deserve intelligent presenters.

I understand the point that you are making but unfortunately I don't think that you are comparing like with like. I am sure that a lot more people understand sports such as tennis, rugby and football probably because they play of have played the sport. Motor racing (especially F1) I would suggest is far more complex by comparison and so not so easy to understand by the casual observer.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

That will be the Lee McKenzie who has been a journalist since the age of 15, and presenting for 15 years now?

I always thought that Lee McKenzie was a totally committed motorsport fan as I had only ever seen/heard her on F1 programmes. last year I was surprised to her her voice whilst my wife was watching coverage of Wimbledon where she sounded just as passionate and knowledgeable about tennis. OK, I appreciate that these two diverse sports could be her equal two passions, but but I think it's more about her being really very good at her job.

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by Derwent

But other sports don't need to speak to the "man in the street", the folk who watch tennis or rugby are enthusiasts just as we are and deserve intelligent presenters.

Tennis does not have constantly evolving technology (apologies to any tennis racket engineers out there) and baffling rules and such delicious yet mystifying politics going on in the background. There needs to be someone there to cut through all of this and ask the questions that get to the nub.

Steve Jones does this quite well, I think. But of course the joy of modern TV technology is that when someone doesn't want to listen, they can fast forward through all of that.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by steve_r

Tennis does not have constantly evolving technology (apologies to any tennis racket engineers out there) and baffling rules and such delicious yet mystifying politics going on in the background. There needs to be someone there to cut through all of this and ask the questions that get to the nub.

Steve Jones does this quite well, I think. But of course the joy of modern TV technology is that when someone doesn't want to listen, they can fast forward through all of that.

Tennis doesn't have baffling rules? 15 -30- 40 - ?.....!!

[BertMk2]

I think Steve Jones is an excellent foil for DC, Webber et al - he just keeps things moving along nicely and joins up all of the parts. It's very much a skill - Dermot O'Leary was mentioned earlier - another good example if a presenter that knows what they're doing. Steve/Dermot aren't there to provide knowledge - that's what DC/Webber etc etc are there for - they're there to smoothly join it all together and toss up the slam dunk questions for the experts to answer. For an example of a dreadful presenter see Tess Daly - utterly wooden with no charm or charisma.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

Tennis doesn't have baffling rules? 15 -30- 40 - ?.....!!

At least they are consistent.

[steve_r]

You bounced the ball in the wrong place, and therefore have been given a 3 point penalty. That combined with using the incorrect urinal 8 months ago and an unauthorized string change means that you are just one sweary outburst away from being forced to serve underarm and left handed in the next game, unless you are actually left hqnded in which case you have to play without tying up your shoelaces.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Derwent

But other sports don't seem to need these "experienced" presenters. These days the former competitors seem to do a good job in all other sports so why do we need these self important prats.

Are you certain?

A quick look at who presents the range of sports as listed by Sky on their website reveals a lot of presenters who have a media or journalistic background rather then competing in sports:

Jeff Stelling
Caroline Barker
David Jones
Eilidh Barbour
Sarah Stirk
Alex Payne

I'm not saying that ex-professionals do not make a valid contribution, but that there should (IMO) be a balance.

It is also worth remembering that just because someone's early media work has not been in the sports arena, that doesn't mean that they do not understand or have a passion for a particular sport.

Steve Rider is an example, and some recent interviews he has given are a revealing insight into how he got to where he is now. Many dismissed Jake Humphrey because his early 'celebrity' was in children's TV.

Some people retire from their sport and make very competent presenters. Some are better as a pundit or a co-commentator. Some of them should never be given a microphone or put in front of a camera for their own benefit.

Likewise - some TV presenters and journalists could cover sports very well. Some of them not so much. Does being known for work in media outside of a sport automatically mean you are unable to present a TV show covering that sport well?

[codename_47]

I think it says a lot that I can't even tell you the guy who presents for Sky's name and I've been watching him for 9 years

I know he came from their rugby coverage and wasn't an F1 fan, but he seems to fall between two stools of not being entertaining enough for the casual fan like Steve is or Jake used to be, nor being in depth enough for the hardcore fan. which you'd argue the enthusiast who has put their hand in their pockets to subscribe to Sky's extortionate prices would be

[wnut]

Originally Posted by steve_r

Tennis does not have constantly evolving technology (apologies to any tennis racket engineers out there) and baffling rules and such delicious yet mystifying politics going on in the background. There needs to be someone there to cut through all of this and ask the questions that get to the nub.

Steve Jones does this quite well, I think. But of course the joy of modern TV technology is that when someone doesn't want to listen, they can fast forward through all of that.

Tennis was however bright enough to ban innovations that were ruining the sport, spagetti strung and big headed rackets.
F1, not so much.

[Akrapovic]

lol. F1 really can't win can it?

F1: Bans stuff.
Fans: omg this is meant to be the pinnacle of technology! Why is everything banned?

F1: Doesn't ban stuff.
Fans: omg this is stupid the technology ruins the sport!