大象传媒

deja vu?

We really are lucky here in Canada, every game is shown live, two networks TSN and SNP have joined forces and when two games are on at the same time, each shows a different game and then repeats the opposite game right after. Hard to go against Brazil winning it all, but fingers crossed for England...Great tournament well done all.

I feel really sorry for you and your team that you have to suffer so much pressure. On the other hand, I feel jealous for British fans. They have so much covaerage of World CUp Football. On the other hand, we at South Asia do not have even 10% of it.
Millions of people in South Asia
as they do not have cable
TV connection. So, for South Asia it is an ESPN Star Sports World Cup.

Why did the 大象传媒 decide to show Brazil-Japan on 大象传媒1 and Croatia-Australia on a non-terrestial channel. I fortunately have digital so saw a great match. But choosing between a game with two interested parties and a game where there is little chance on qualifying for one team and an already qualified one should surely be easy.

I think the coverage, particularly by 大象传媒, has been excellent. I think the 大象传媒 line-ups are good, with the likes of Martin O'Neill and Alan Shearer providing very honest analysis which is pleasing to the ear. My only criticism is the commentary by Motty. I don't feel that there is a need to constantly refer to England in a match which does not involve our sole representative from these islands. Further, there is absolutely no need to persistently patronise teams with comments such as "Well Trinidad & Tobago should be honoured to be playing England today." These, so called, smaller teams are there on merit and have as much right as England to be at the tournament. Sorry to go off at a tangent but it is the only criticism of an otherwise unblemished 大象传媒 performance at the World Cup.

Television schedules of the final round games reflect the selfishness of UK broadcasters. The Canadians seem to have got it right. Why one match couldn't have been shown on ITV and the other on 大象传媒 terrestrial TV I don't know. I had to put up with an inconsequential match last night and not watch the most important match of the evening because there is no digital access where I live. I'm so angry because the highlights package was totally inadequate for such an important game as Australia v Croatia.

And, when you have two matches at the same time to broadcast, how do you decide which one is on 大象传媒1 (available to everyone) and which one is on 大象传媒3 or interactive? I don鈥檛 understand the criteria that you have followed in order to decide that today鈥檚 Spain vs Saudi Arabia will be shown on 大象传媒 interactive instead of 大象传媒1. Huge audiences have been watching the Spanish Team and in the past few days you have shown on 大象传媒1 the match where the higher ranked team in its group is playing. All but group H where the Spanish team is. Why?

What about this 大象传媒 World Cup TV panel? Lineker & Hanson in particular. The obsequious shower who fawn so sickeningly over Brazil. It is grovelling at it鈥檚 very best and with Leonardo, the resident Brazilian in their presence, it represents new levels of sycophancy.
If Brazil have problems in a game, the interpretation is that they have not played well. No credit is ever given to the other team. Croatia and Australia were actually better than Brazil when they played but received no recognition at all for that. Lineker described the victory over Croatia as comfortable. That could only come from someone who has not watched the match with a reasonable degree of impartiality.
If Brazil score a goal it is 鈥渁bsolutely magnificent鈥� (Hansen) to the nth degree, and every aspect is examined in overwhelming detail. Whereas, better goals from other teams are routinely described and then left. Take the Kak谩 goal against Croatia. Great goal but rather routine in a world where goals get better and better. (Look at the old Goal of the Month winners from the 1970s). Steven Gerard鈥檚 goal against T&T was a very similar goal to Kak谩鈥檚 but barely got a similar inflated mention. Neither did Joe Cole鈥檚 against Sweden. Good, but not worth examining in the same detail as Kak谩鈥檚.
Then the myths upon which all the fawning is born. They talk of Brazil鈥檚 past based on hearsay and 鈥渟tories鈥�. When Brazil do not do well there is a ready excuse. When France thrashed them in 1998, no credit was given to France, the 鈥渟tory鈥� was all to do with Ronaldo and how the Brazilians had been 鈥渢hrown鈥� by this episode. They could not possibly play well in these circumstances. So France received no praise for their performance. When Italy beat the 鈥済reat鈥� 1982 Brazilian team, the victory was described as some sort robbery, whereas the truth was that the Italians were as good if not better.
In 1970 England were actually a better team than Brazil. They were so unlucky to have lost the group game against them. In the final Brazil played an Italian team which could barely stand never mind run. They were a very poor opposition. The final goal by Alberto was more like the Monty Python team playing against a team of Long John Silvers. Maradona鈥檚 solo goal against England, routinely given second place to Alberto鈥檚 goal by 鈥渢he experts鈥� was at least against a team who could walk, run and defend.
In 1966 the 鈥渟tory鈥� was that the Brazilians were 鈥渒icked鈥� out of the tournament. Again a myth. I watched the games and was impressed by both Portugal and Hungary. Again, no credit was given to them. More of the myth was being generated. Just watch and see. It is clear that neither Lineker nor Hansen has ever watched these games in full.
In 1974 and 1978 very little was said about the Brazilians. Brushed under the carpet to protect the myth.
Martin O鈥橬eill, who is the only one on the panel with any deeper footballing sense, said that the referees should look at themselves after this tournament. Good advice also for panels of 鈥渆xperts鈥�.

Both the 大象传媒 and ITV have to walk the delicate tightrope between pleasing football fans (who are very hard to please) and pleasing the non-football fans who are sick to death of their usual programmes being cancelled for a month because it's the World Cup. However, I do think both channels have screwed up by putting games on solely digital channels. Plenty of people do not have digital TV, and the whole point of the World Cup is that it is the people's tournament. Every game should be available to every TV viewer. It's not as if the 大象传媒 is overflowing with live football - the annual output of live footie on the 大象传媒 is a handful of FA Cup games and one or two internationals, so when the Beeb gets the opportunity to show the greatest sporting spectacle on the planet, they should do it properly and not shove games on digital-only channels. Given the current controversy about the license fee, and the fact that the 大象传媒 has taken a massive 300 members of staff to Germany, it seems a bit profligate to show matches on channels that many people cannot watch.

I have just seen the schedule for tonight and I don't get it. Tunisia-Ukraine on 大象传媒1. Good. Both Teams can qualify. Spain already through and KSA little chance to qualify.

But why not show South Korea-Switzerland. Both teams are unsure of Qualification. Togo are already out. France need to win by a two goal margin to secure qualifying.

Just stumbled across this blog and found it very interesting. The Brazil game was terrific yesterday, though in first half my NTL 大象传媒 Interactive service was playing up, meaning I was forced to endure the tedious commentary back-drop. Nothing against the 大象传媒's "team"; ITV are equally adept at delivering 90 minutes of utter nonsense interspersed with an array of abysmal jokes and schoolboy giggling. Anyway, got it sorted for the 2nd half so happy again. I will definately be tuning into the 大象传媒 should any of the future games be carried by both channels, ie the 2006 World Cup final, provided my service is working. If it isn't, though, just the mere presence of Lineker and his "sense of humour", the pseudo-sinility (or it may be genuine) of Motson, not to mention the likes of multi-millionaires Dixon and Shearer out on a jolly and monotonously droning me to sleep, will throw me kicking and screaming into the clutches of the always excellent Steve Ryder.

大象传媒 beats ITV every time!

The argument about the 1982 Brazil side in the match against Italy was that there was only one side playing beautiful football, and they weren't wearing blue.

The '82 Brazilians are, to this day, the best football team it has ever been my pleasure to watch, even better than the 1970 team.

Yes, the Italians deserve credit for devising a game plan to overcome a more talented opponent and perhaps "robbery" is too strong a word but I think most football fans would agree that, overall, Brazil were more deserving of progressing.

Hi Paul,

I dont know if you can answer this but i was wondering what your plans are for if England were to get to the final? Im sure you've thought about, even if it is a bit unlikely! Obvioulsy it would be an absoloutly massive massive day - would you build up to it for hours on end?

I noticed that the plan is to have the Wimbledon final 1.30, News at 5.35, then World Cup final 6.00 - 9.30. But if England were in the final you'd have to have a bit more than an hours build up surely?

I see the obsession with Brazil continues unabated at the 大象传媒 (although in fairness ITV are just as guilty). Why was Brazil v Japan chosen as the widely available 大象传媒1 game last night? Clearly the Croatia v Australia game was where the main interest of the evening should have been focused.
I'm lucky enough to have digital TV but many people would have missed out on what proved to be the best game of the World Cup so far.
Also, I know Ronaldo is unfit and not the player he was but I do think he is due a bit more respect from the 大象传媒 pundits and not the childish "Fat Bloke" jokes.

A quick straw poll of people I know shows that at least twice as many people watched the Australia game as the Brazil game.

Why on earth was the Brazil game shown on 大象传媒1 then? The Australia game proved to be a cracker, as could have been predicted due to a goal changing the qualification from Croatia to Australia and back again.

Watching a poor Brazil team play an industrious yet limited Japan team is hardly primetime 大象传媒1 fare, unless you had already booked Leonardo....

It is my view that John Motson is well past his sell by date. A view proably shared by many other football fans. His sensed 'delight' at being able to predict impending England failure or mishap during matches is irritating and his constant babble is a great annoyance. Whilst the 大象传媒 used to lead in both commentary and analysis this can no longer be said about the former. My circle of friends and I all now favour ITV for the big games.

I think that the coverage of this World Cup has been brilliant. I also feel that the 大象传媒 have got it right with regards to the panel. Both Leonardo and Desailly have spoken the truth about the games and Marcel especially has not been afraid to be critical of the games he is a pundit on.

I prefer the beebs coverage.
But I have recently noticed Motty has his favourites, and Owen Hargreaves isn't one of them.
I saw an example of this in the first game against Paraguay.

Unfortunately I (like many others) do not have digital TV, so I took myself off to my local to watch the VITAL Australia Vs Croatia match.

Oh did I have a struggle getting it on, the head barman refusing to put it on as it wasn't the 大象传媒1 game, this is the influence you have on people, anyone who knows anything about football knew what the vital game was last night, apart from the beeb whose obsession with Brazil continues.

I eventually got my way and witnessed possibly the game of the tournament.
I was fortunate, how many weren't?

I'd just like to say how impressed I am with the 大象传媒's HD coverage of the World Cup. I'm lucky enough to have access to both 大象传媒 and ITV HD through Telewest and the 大象传媒's coverage has been much better than that provided by ITV. It appears that the 大象传媒 have really invested in it (with HD studio cameras, highlights in HD, etc.) whereas ITV have gone for the cheapest approach and use SD studio coverage, only switching to the host broadcaster's HD feed for the game itself. Coupled with the fact that ITV's commentators are so awful it highlights just what a good job the 大象传媒 are doing.

The French Channel TF1 is no different from 大象传媒. They showed Brazil-Japan, instead
of Australia-Croatia which was of more importance in terms of qualification. Had to follow the score on the Web.

Graham Poll wasnt the only pommie making bad decisions yesterday - who decided to put a dead rubber brazil-japan ahead of grudge match to determine who goes through croatia-australia. Bad decision, the Norway upset was a one off if thats what you were hoping for. Just like Poll hopefully it was a one off that can be lived down (poor bloke). Obviously 大象传媒 leaves ITV in the dust but then again I have to pay for 大象传媒! Keep up the good work.

The 大象传媒 dropped a Poll-sized clanger last night by showing their favourite team in an exhibition match on 大象传媒1 instead of the most exciting match of the tournament so far. To their credit Ukraine v Tunisia is the right one to show on terrestrial TV, so perhaps this is a learning curve. And I agree with Sean about the 1970 Alberto goal in particular, and the general level of sycophancy shown towards Brazil. They are (usually) good to watch, but listening to commentators consistently wetting themselves is less enjoyable. And if Roberto Carlos has no Brazilian nickname shouldn't the commentator simply call him by his surname - as they do for every other player in the world?

I must say 大象传媒's coverage is far superior to ITV's and would be improved even more if Ian Wright spent more time on the sub's bench.

I agree with the comments about Motson, I have never liked him as a commentator because he seems to like nothing better than watching England fail - is he scottish by any chance ?
The panel would be great if Hanson and Lawrenson would go somewhere else !
Also on the subject of Hanson, please keep him away from your golf transmissions, its bad enough having to listen to him spout on about football God forbid he ruins your golf coverage as well.

I think appealing to "most fans" to resolve an issue (as Nick Davies does) is indicative of an invalid from of argument. Arguments are not generally settled by an appeal to a vote, and certainly not a vote of most football fans. In fact my argument is with "most football fans" who seem to be infected with a dose of Brazlianitis. The Italians won the 1982 World Cup in great style and beat the Brazilians in equally great style. I am not an Italian football fan, anything but, but I have to defend their 1982 efforts against those who would simply be working on the basis of a prejudice as to what constitutes "beautiful" football, and seek to do so by appealing to a majority vote. And in addition I want to awaken those who simply follow like brainwashed apostles of journalistic TV panel celebrity hype. I do not deny the Brazilians credit, I simply want to point out that they are "over credited". Even before tournaments we have "the story" written. If it does not measure up it is modified to fit. Motson always his story written before every match and in this World Cup, so too has the Lineker panel. That is the nature of journalism and that is basically what they are.

I think 大象传媒 have got the edge solely due to having Martin O'Neill on the panel. His opinion is always worth hearing. (Special mention too to Guillem Balague in the Metro)

O'Neill should have been the next England boss - far ahead of the red faced vegetable from Boro'.

I have long thought Motty was boring & inane (and always biased in favour of Man Utd.) I always preferred Barry Davies before he retired.

Jonathan Pearce as heir apparent??

COYS

If you all think Motty is past his sell by date and have digital TV try putting on the 5live commentary. Mike Ingham and Alan Green are accurate, informed and passionate commentators, beats dull TV comments every time.

In answer to the questions about Brazil v Japan and Croatia v Australia. Well, we covered them both including streamed on this site; and 70% of the UK audience can get digital television, so a clear majority would have had a choice. For anyone without digital TV, Radio Five Live covered the Croatia game. As for why Brazil were on our main television channel: Brazil are the most-watched World Cup team in the UK after England, and that was demonstrated again last night. The peak audience on 大象传媒 Three was 1.4m while the peak for Brazil was 8.4m on 大象传媒 One.(And yes, we did regularly tell people they could opt into 大象传媒 Three for the excitement going on in Dortmund.)

We switched around our plans this afternoon because the Spain v Saudi Arabia game is definitely dead in the sense that Spain are group winners and the Saudis are out - whereas last night Japan could still, just, have qualified. But even here anyone with Broadband or 大象传媒i interactive TV will have the choice - and offering choice is our main aim.

You are right Alan. At least Green has the courage to voice an opinion, whereas Motson (and the cowardly) Lineker) obsequiously searches for approval. He is the Uriah Heap of commentators.

Same same for the Ghana Vs USA game. I've no digital and even though the 大象传媒 showed excerpts on 大象传媒1 I still wondered why ITV couldn't have had the game. After all they were only showing some old dodgy film.

大象传媒 coverage has been excellent, however I could really do without listening to Mark Lawrenson. He rarely contributes with anything of substance - usually states the obvious and can even be quite offensive when he tries a bit of 'humour' (e.g. recently calling Peter Crouch 'coat hanger').

Thankfully due to digital TV I can listen to 5 Live instead, however I'm dreading the return of the domestic season when we'll have to suffer him again.

Yes, Roger is right. There was a choice on offer but I think his advice to 30% of the populace without Digital TV to go and listen to Radion 5 Live instead is rather dismissive of their needs.
But his reasons for choosing the Brazil match for the main Channel is disingenuous. In his deliberations, did he genuinely think the Brazil match was going to offer more of a spectacle that the Australia match? His reasons for going with the Brazil match were twofold. Firstly, Brazil would attract a greater audience and secondly, Japan could have gone through. The second reason can dismissed as Japan would have probably needed a 3-0 win. The firat reason is interesting. It does not tackle the issue of which match would have been more of a footballing spectacle at all. It simply appeals to the clipboard mentality. How "many" people would want to watch Brazil. He dismisses the whole area of "quality" for quantity.. For a public broadcaster to do this is unforgiveable.

Is it the end for Motty? Not many people singing his praises on here. I agree with the comments about Martin O'Neill and not only because I am a Celtic fan. The guy is class and I personally cannot help but hang on every word he says. I firmly believe he could teach Hansen a thing or two about football.

I was one of those watching Croatia v Australia last night and it was fantastic. I couldn't believe that 大象传媒1 had stooped to the level ITV usually use when they repeatedly show Man United Champions League games. Football fans want to watch the best match. The best team against a nobody does not make a great match.

Have to say Guy Mowbray was brilliant with everything going on last night and needs a higher profile on 大象传媒 sport. Motty is being shown up in this tournament the same way as Zidane is.

If I never see that beer advert again it won't be a moment too soon.

I thoroughly enjoyed the Brazil match last night. As a football fan I look forward to watching world cups, and especially the involvement of Brazil. Correct, the other game turned out to be a better game, but hindsight is wonderful, and I suspect that most people would have opted for Brazil if they could choose only one game to see, unless they were supporting Croatia or Australia.
I agree about Mr Motson though, for a while now the standards left by Mr Davies have been slipping, and this coupled with Mr Hansen / Mr Lawrenson are depressing at times. There seems to be no positive things to say about people, unless they are Brazilian or on a winning England side.
That said, 大象传媒 beats ITV hands down. I tend to record ITV matches and skip their previews, analysis and post match reviews. All they seem to offer is a dodgy "premium number" competition every five minutes, and comments which don't really bear any resemblance to the game on offer.
Let's have more honesty (thank you Mr O'Neill) and more realistic opinions and forecasts (thank you Mr Wright). So called experts should at least have an opinion, rather than hiding behind consensus and populist views. For example, should England play Portugal or Holland in the quarter finals, let's have some honest evaluation or realistic aims. Come on England.

Baffled as I am as to why people would rather watch Australia vs Croatia as oppose to Brazil, it's fair enough I suppose.
I absolutely agree with the bloke earlier who pointed out that Ronaldo should be given more respect. I don't care what schoolboy Lineker and co joke about in private. But I do expect football coverage to be professional. Ronaldo is one of the all time great strikers. How pitiful that the best the 大象传媒 can come up with to present their football coverage is a man who uses the English tabloid press as a short-cut to thinking.

I think Roger misses the draw and power of 大象传媒1 in his defence of a poor scheduling decision last night.

Does he think that should they have demoted the exhibition game of Japan Brazil to 大象传媒3 and had the full panel, build up and ramataz of 大象传媒1 coverage on the Australia game that the viewing figures would have been reversed? Rather than looking at the two channels in isolation when quoting the 8.4 and 1.4 million viewing figures, for the respective games do you not think that you could have increased your overall viewing above 9.8 million for the two games by giving the competitive fixture the full 大象传媒1 treatment.

After all, if Brazil are such a draw then surely they'd have held up their end of the figures regardless.

Or is Leoarndo too expensive to put out on the balcony at half time, and Adrian Childes too lightweight to have on the panel?

I wish i was in England to watch the world cup on the 大象传媒 or even ITV but i live in New York City and have to watch the games on ESPN1 and 2 and on ABC. It's great that they show all the matches but there is little build up and the first few games and it seems the weekend games there is no build up and no national anthems they just go straight into the game at kick off, for example i was watching ABC waiting for the world cup and there normal programs where on which on a saturday morning is cartoons then as soon as the cartoon finished the game came on at the whistle of the first half. Also the comentators are dreadful and have no idea what is going on and they regulary compare the buitiful game to basketball or american football also they make simple mistakes when talking about the countries playing by getting the name of the country wrong and then taking along time to realised thay made a mistake. They also get information about the players wrong as well (but this is more understandable asfootball is not a big sport over here even though they show alot of the premier league games) however there are some comentators who know what they are talking about but they don't seem to get the bigger games to comentate on. My point being be glad that you have the 大象传媒 commentating on the world cup as it is alot worse in other places in the world and some places in the world you can't even see it.

The 1982 Brazil Italy game was possibly the best game of football I have ever seen on the box. To dismiss the Italian involvement as "robbers" is very very far from the truth. They won a great match because they had a well balanced side that could also defend. The Brazil side of that year indeed had great flare but on the day Italy showed that it takes more than great attacking play to be a great team.

To be fair to the 大象传媒 the decision to show Brazil was made before anyone knew just how good the Australia v Croatia game was going to be.

Its easy with hindsight to say that they made the wrong choice but if they'd opted for the other game and the Aussies had gone two up early on and spent the rest of the game playing for time, would people be saying that they'd rather have watched Brazil come back from 1-0 down and score four goals?

It is a very difficult job to produce live television and choosing which games to show on which channel is very difficult. The majority of pubs and clubs have Sky or some other form of non-terrestrial television and some of the pubs in my area had both games on on thursday evening. I have to agree with the comments made by other regarding the qualifty of the 大象传媒's coverage compared to ITV's. The quality of the ITV commentators is oner reason i dont wath Champios League matches as they really annoy me.

So Laura

It's wrong to show the game in the group where the fate of the teams is already decided unless it's Spain??

Sounds like you want your cake and be eating it !

I'd just like to add my thanks to being able to watch 大象传媒 coverage and listen to the 5live commentary. Similarly I can now bear having to watch any games being shown on ITV. If you watch it on terristial and listen to 5live through freeview the timing is just about right - and you get interesting mid or post match thoughts, especially when it's Mike Ingham and Alan Greene (but the others are good too and Mark Pogatch as anchor is excellent) not adverts

John Motson's hero worshipping of Wayne Rooney and the constant need to mention (regardless of whether England are playing) his name drives me to despair. His comments during the Brazil v Croatia game were typically inane. He managed to inform us that when England played Croatia during Euro 2004 Rooney wasn't injured. About 45 minutes later he told us that when we were eliminated from that competition Rooney was injured.

I think a job behind the scenes for John would be the kindest way of letting him down gently and allowing me to possibly enjoy commentaries again on the 大象传媒 or he could always become Coleen's personal shopper.

ps I do hope and expect Wayne and the rest of the team to stuff Ecuador on Sunday.

Due to World Cup overload, I waited until ITV's highlights to watch the Brazil - Japan and Aus - Croatia games. Seeing Graham Poll make a complete spectacle of himself was worth the watch in its own right. It just goes to show that a long held belief that English refs are the best in the world has been blown apart.

However, on the subject of commentators - Motty has gone seriously past his sell by date. Bring back Barry Davies! If not, give Guy Mowbray more air time. Even Jonathan Pearce's demonic ranting has lost the appeal it had for Euro 96, in his pre-beeb days.

I've tried to get R5 Live commentary - but my Freeview box has only given me the choice of the two games to watch. Am I missing a trick here?

By the way, is there anything worth watching on TV apart from football....(World Cup overload notwithstanding!)

Not really a comment, more a career question. How would one get involved in working in the MOTD team? Ie Internships or work experience?

Many thanks

Alastair

Surely anyone really interested in football has already invested in a digibox or similar? We live in Thanet where there is no terrestrial digital signal and no cable channel, so we got a 'wires only' account from Sky -- so that the kids could watch Cbeebies, surely it's not a huge inconvenience for footie fans to do the same?

Come on England! etc.

I wholeheartedly agree with post 28 - O'Neill, Balague and (possibly) Allardyce are out ahead of the rest for punditry. For those who don't get Metro, Balague's daily column always offers an interesting slant on the tournament, and as he is Spanish suffers none of the bias of, for example, Brazilians commenting on performances by Brazil. A joy to read every morning.

And though Motty has been a great servant to the Beeb, times do move on - Jonathan Pearce, whilst not to everyone's taste, is at least capable of keeping up with events and injecting some life into his commentary. Although 5live commentators outstrip them all, of course.

What's wrong with showing the Brazil vs. Japan game? If Japan had gotten another 2 goals and sat back a little bit then it would have been the shock match of the tournament.

...and actually, there are more Japanese ex-pats living in the UK than Brazilians and it would be my guess that they don't have digital but actually do pay their licence fees, so the 大象传媒 made the right choice.

Well done Australia, anyway. Keep off the eucalyptus and you may, just may, beat Italy!!

Well I overcame the problem of deciding which game to watch by simply watching both simultaneously. As part of the London HD trials I was provided with a new freeview box (thank you guys!), but it doesn't get all the normal freeview channels, so I've kept my old box hooked up thru the Scart socket and the new one thru HDMI.

I set the HD box to the 大象传媒 HD channel showing Brazil vs Japan and the old box to the Aussie game. Set the TV up to show both games side by side (40" LCD, gives two 21"ish 4:3 pictures). I then set the centre speaker of my system to give the sound for the Brazil game and the right speaker that of Aussie. Suffered a bit of sensory overload, but really it worked quite well and made for an exciting evening of football!

I have just read the comments in this blog, and I can barely believe what I am reading about the 大象传媒 commentary.

There seem to be a couple talking sense, particularly Alan Cole - Mike Ingham and Alan Green are vastly better than Mottie

BUT

I simply can't understand how people can complain about Motson when he is coupled with guest commentators such as Mick McCarthy and Mark Lawrenson, who are both utterly dreadful.

Lawrenson makes Mottie look like the eternal optimist, and I have never heard a word of praise from him in earnest, and McCarthey is incapable of putting together any sort of reasoned chat about what is going on, limited to "he's taken the ball and the man, that's good defending", or "great ball".

I would honestly prefer to listen to ITVs commentary. Gareth Southgate may be new and a little unsure of himself at times, but he's a lot better than anything the 大象传媒 have come up with.

That said, 5 live is streets ahead of both.

As for Lineker and Co, their schoolboy japes are simply not suited to what has to be considered a mainstream audience. This is not MOTD2, it's the world cup. I don't personally mind discussions about "S&M getting whipped", for example, but I completely understand why people would take umbridge at the style of "analysis".

And I agree with Sean over Brazil. Over hyped, under-performing. I'm sick of hearing about mediocre performances from purportedly superior players, made to sound like the work of gods.

Enough ranting. Listen to 5 live!

Martin is right, Mottie can't be character assassinated all on his own. Lawrenson and Hansen are idiots. There is something I like about McCarthy but it's not his footballing mind. O'Neill definitely tries to think differently but sometimes has difficulty getting what is inside on the outside in a form that resembles adequate ideas. Hansen is hilarious when he tries to attribute praise with a limited vocabulary, particularly in adjective department. "Absolutely magnificent", is his favourite. His laugh would wake the dead! When he seeks to show how good Riquelme is though examples, all we see is the Argentinian making straight ten yard passes which in fact is all he does, and which are described - yes you have it - as "absolutely magnificent". Lineker is afraid to pass anything that resembles an opinion. He simply makes timid remarks to defer to Hansen. What a shower!!

Whilst Mottie can be somewhat obvious in his commentary, so can all the others. It only need one slip at a vital time, and you're left in a commentary style like Roberto Baggio in USA '94 - ball blasted well over the bar.

I heard Gareth Southgate state that Dennis Lawrence was one of the 鈥渇ew players in this tournament at the same height as Peter Crouch at 6 foot 7. Although Crouch probably has half an inch on him鈥︹�� Obviously he鈥檚 blissfully unaware of the three players in the tournament who are 6 foot 8 inches tall.

I always try to watch 大象传媒 as much as I can, as I prefer what they have to offer than ITV. I think the 大象传媒 are getting it right, with the type of people they have taken to commentate. Gavin Peacock is a revelation, there also needs to be more of Gordon Strachan, whose comments are both insightful and funny (although I鈥檓 sure a lot of people from the southern end of England may have difficulty with his accent when he really gets going 鈥� being a Southampton fan I鈥檓 quite used to him by now). Adrian Chiles has shrugged off the new boy tag, and Marcel Desailly has also proved interesting alongside the usual crew.

Leonardo has been a good pick, and I think Gary Lineker and the others are entitled to ask the questions of him about the performances of Brazil - let鈥檚 not forget they are the number one ranked team. If England retain the Ashes this winter, we鈥檒l be questioning the Australians鈥� performance at home, similarly we would question any number one ranked contender in any sporting situation if they fail to perform. Granted I watched the Australia v Brazil game at the time, but still wanted to see how Brazil got on (although cheering for an upset by Japan).

I am surprised at the lack of talk about Argentina (and possibly Spain), who have shown in the opening group games what it is really all about. However, I鈥檓 glad England are not playing them (at least not yet).

I invested in a new HDTV LCD television which I picked up the day of the opening game, and am able to pick up great pictures purely on an internal aerial watching Freeview. This was done specifically so that I could access the interactive service, as we don鈥檛 have any kind of satellite or cable package. Even from the internal aerial, I am able to see much better quality pictures, and am very pleased to have the choice of games to watch.

I noticed another posting from the US and heartily agree at the inane stupidity of the American commentators. And it's made all the more pathetic by some mysterious time-warp in which their comments come seconds after the event. The shot is taken, ends up in the crowd, the goalie prepares to take the goal-kick AND SUDDENLY YOU'RE EARS ARE BLASTED BY AN EXCITED COMMENTATOR BABBLING ABOUT A NEAR-MISS ETC ETC. It's quite entertaining at first but gets old after 10 minutes - and it happens in every game. So I just turn the sound off - who needs commentators anyway? If you go to a game and watch it "live", do you miss the inane ball-by-ball comments? I doubt it. Silence is golden but most commentators seem to be paid by the word and won't shutup and let the game speak for itself.

Seems the Beeb's choice over Thursday night's game has a lot of people voicing their opinions! Very interesting. Personally, I watched the Australia game, as was always my intention - for various reasons including it was the game with qualification riding on it, but I think the Beeb made the choice for, possibly, non-footballing viewers. In truth, if you aren't happy, upgrade your service.

Re. the 36th comment about ITV only showing Man U games, it isn't true that ITV 'chose' their games it's just that Man U invariably seem to play on a Tuesday- when ITV have rights to show games and SKY boradcast the Wednesday games.

Moving on to live games i feel the right choice was made showing the Brazil match as they are a team everyone wants to see because of their flair players.

Is it just me or do Shearer and O'Neill not get on?...

How on earth have the 大象传媒 managed to end up without one of the two best non England games from the last 16 draw, Holland/Portugal or France/ Spain?

Must agree with above comments about the 大象传媒's panel love-in with anything Brazilizan. The best team display by far as been by the Argentinians and although the panel have given them due praise they and Motson seem to be waiting for a repeat of 1970 in Mexico. Ronaldinhio is grossly overrated on evidence so far and I believe they will struggle to get past Ghana before being dumped by the Spanish.
Let's hope so anyway and then we can listen to the excuses made about them. Playing in blue, packed defences set out against them, difficult draw and playing in Europe. These will all be touted instead of mediocre team living off country's former glories.

In response to Tom W, ITV get 2 live Champions Legaue games on a Tuesday night, one on ITV1 and one on ITV4. Invariably Man United end up on ITV1 and Chelsea, Arsenal or Liverpool will end up on ITV4 even if their game is more important. ITV then trot out the excuses as per the bbc above about larger audiences etc.

Well put Gary.

England were once again just dreadful today against Ecuador and the post-match excuses have long worn thin. Still, fortunately for them, theirs was not the worst performance of the day. That honour fell to the 大象传媒 pundits, (again), who insisted that Carrick had been magnificent and that everything was fine in the second half!

Their consistent misrepresentation of the truth during this tournament is becoming worthy of the Blair government. Tony did do a stint on 606 recently didn't he? Maybe he gave them a coaching session while he was there.

The Switzerland v Ukraine game was a joy to watch. A spectacle of quick, skilful and "potentially" inventful football. The fact that not many clear cut chances materialised was due to swift and appropriate action taken by astute defenses and hard work in the midfield by both teams. They were both so "up for it", mentally and physically they more or less nullified the attacking each other's attacking options. Yet both teams continued to probe. There was no slow, slow, quick, quick slow. Not even slow, slow, slow, slow, slow, stroking it around at the back. It was always forward moving. No aimless lobbing the ball forward when nothing seemed on. It was all done at speed and the technique to keep this up was really good to watch.
So, back in the 大象传媒 Match of the Day studio the whining got off to an early start. They were clearly "up for it" from well before the match started. Clearly they didn't like the fact that they were landed with what seemed to be such an unattractive fixture. So, the ever sophisticated in expression Shearer, the man whose favourite ploy as a player, was to take the ball into the opposition corner ten minutes from full time to preserve a lead, complained that this sort of play was killing football as a spectacle. Strange that he should now want to reinstate 鈥渁mateur鈥� codes of sportsmanship now that he no longer plays. Haystack hair Lawrenson, slumped inelegantly in his chair, as if deposited there by crane, bemoaned the lack of chances and the dreariness of negative play, and the fact that the score wasn鈥檛 5-4, whilst Lineker continued to feed them leading questions related to the dull nature of the proceedings. Leonardo, clearly afraid to disagree, timidly proposed the notion that neither team wanted to win. All in all they were non plussed about this insult to entertainment. How strange. How very strange. Asked previously about England performances they were unanimous in their opinion that it is results that count. In the England match against Ecuador, Lawrenson, in bed with Motty in the commentary position 鈥� not a pretty thought - suggested that England, after scoring the goal should play keep ball for twenty minutes and hang the notion of going out for a second. More or less saying, sod the spectacle, let鈥檚 just win any way we can. The fact is, these pundits have no subtlety of mind when it comes to appreciate the finer points of play, which, when on show, they regards merely as posturing. They want crude 鈥渆xcitement鈥� all the time. Huff and puff football. Basketball scoring..

How depressing it is to see so many 'experts' line up to blame the manager for literally all that went wrong in Germany. Arguments that Sven-Goran Eriksson is responsible for everything from Wayne Rooney losing his head to Frank Lampard repeatedly kicking the ball either into the stands or into the turf when faced with yawning open goals are childish. Observers who are so quick to absolve Rooney for losing his cool (Bobby Robson and Alan Hanson among others) should remember that, at 20 years of age, Rooney is the same age or older than so many young men serving in the British army in places like Iraq or Afghanistan. These young men also have to perform under pressure. Indeed they have to make split second decisions involving life or death every day. On the other hand, we should not be surprised I suppose. Since when have professional footballers, or commentators for that matter, had to live in the real world?