RTE WC coverage...is it anti English?

Unearthly

Im sure some will have sympthathy with your view however the English bring all this bad will on themselves, either intentionally or unintentionally. They harp on about 1966 like it was some cosmic event. Just yesterday on the beeb on MOTD they were saying how England are as good as Brazil! and on ITV the previous day they had a 1966 'special' (which we have all been subjected to for the last 40 years). I think the biggest fear for not just us but Europe aswell is that they will never shutup about it if they did win it and we would have to listen to 4 more decades of anti-German rubbish and them telling us how great they are. Whether your biased or not thats how alot of non english ppl feel.

See the problem is we have access to most if not all English stations, and therefore we are going to hear about all their hype. We even get their tabloids. I'm sure countrys like Italy are just as bad, it's just we don't see it. Every country goes World Cup crazy.

Take for example the people moaning about so much coverage on Rooney, didn't they exact same thing happen with Keane 4 years ago? Keane dominated the news over here and he wasn't even in the squad!

Also how many times has David O'Learys peno, Ray houghtons goal against England and Italy popped up on RTE? Quite alot you will have to admit

KerranJast

Faerie wrote:

I think the commentary is so anti-English, it's pathetic.
I'm an England fan and I can admit they're playing badly but the commentators, particularly Dunphy, make me sick! They might not be playing well but even when they clearly have their moments, apparently it's only because the other team are crap. They even attributed David Beckham's goal to a mistake by the goalie!
The worst thing (and most pathetic) is the way they bring England into every match. Whatever about just bashing them when they're playing, they make a snide comment about England at every chance they get. That's not honest commentating!
And Dunphy's comment about gay sex on the BBC was just embarassing for RTE. It was even met by silence in the studio. It was incredibly unprofessional.

They were very positive about England at half time in the Sweden match when they were actually playing well so generally they call it like it is. As for the Beckham free kick it was the partly the keepers fault. Everyone watching it knew on previous form Beckham was going to go for the left side. The keeper was too far to the right. A top goalie like Buffon or Cech would have anticipated it better.

Being

incredibly unprofessional

is being a lickarse interviewer when the team obviously didn't perform. "The tactics worked" my arse. Garth Crooks is a muppet.

county

KerranJast wrote:

"The tactics worked" my arse. Garth Crooks is a muppet.

could`nt agree with you more,the BBC have some poor people working for them

DOLEMAN

iplogger1 wrote:

I noticed when Gerrard scored for England v Sweden in the 85th
minute that George Hamilton got carried away and exclaimed
"there's the winner!" or words to that effect. I thought to myself
that it was quite presumptuous (although I know he probably
meant it as an involuntary cliche or such). I was amused to
see Larsson equalise for Sweden within minutes and within ordinary
time.

I'm not a big soccer/sports fan but I am amused at the way the
commentators emotions and perhaps prejudices seem to come
out when there is so much excitement following the buildup leading
to a goal particularly in soccer.

I remember him shouting "run kanchelskis run!" during a man u game a few years back (kanchelskis was a man u player...)

MisterAnarchy

KerranJast wrote:

As for the Beckham free kick it was the partly the keepers fault. Everyone watching it knew on previous form Beckham was going to go for the left side. The keeper was too far to the right. A top goalie like Buffon or Cech would have anticipated it better.

Beckham nearly always aims for the near post when taking his free kicks.
I never understand whay a keeper stands on the far post.
Elementary physics would have you believe that the ball will take longer to reach the far post as it has further to travel.
If the ball has to travel further then the keeper has more time to react to save it.
Hence he should stand in the middle of the goals or slightly nearer the near post.

BaZmO*

Trilla wrote:

I will say one thing however, is when England aren't playin, RTE still tend to spend some of their pre match analysis on them, which shouldnt always be the case!

BBC and ITV done the same for us during USA 94 what with us being neighbours and all.

Unearthly wrote:

I'm sure countrys like Italy are just as bad, it's just we don't see it. Every country goes World Cup crazy.

They are. They expect their country to win every time they're in it regardless of how good or bad their team. As you've said, we just don't see it.

Unearthly wrote:

Take for example the people moaning about so much coverage on Rooney, didn't they exact same thing happen with Keane 4 years ago? Keane dominated the news over here and he wasn't even in the squad!

Our media came to an almost standstill with the amount of coverage it got.

Unearthly wrote:

Also how many times has David O'Learys peno, Ray houghtons goal against England and Italy popped up on RTE? Quite alot you will have to admit

Indeed. I'm not particularly a Rugby supporter but I do know that Munster beat the All Blacks in Thomond park in 1978. Why? Because the Irish sports media never shut up about it.

denachoman

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Beckham nearly always aims for the near post when taking his free kicks.
I never understand whay a keeper stands on the far post.
Elementary physics would have you believe that the ball will take longer to reach the far post as it has further to travel.
If the ball has to travel further then the keeper has more time to react to save it.
Hence he should stand in the middle of the goals or slightly nearer the near post.

Have to disagree with this I'm afraid. The main reason why the keeper favours the far side of the goal is that the wall invariably covers the near side of the goal.

Elementary physics will tell you that having the wall on the near side means that the ball must be bent around or over the wall to get to the near side of the goal and would take longer to reach the goal than a piledriver to the far side of the goal. Also, the keeper can stand towards the far side to block a direct shot as he will have more time to scramble across for a shot that comes over or around the wall because it will be a less forceful shot and will take that fraction longer to reach the goal.

The reason Beckham goes for the near side alot is because he is extremely talented at getting a lot of bend or dip on the ball without taking too much pace off and the keeper can't react or scramble across in time.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

BaZmO* wrote:

BBC and ITV done the same for us during USA 94 what with us being neighbours and all.


They are. They expect their country to win every time they're in it regardless of how good or bad their team. As you've said, we just don't see it.



Our media came to an almost standstill with the amount of coverage it got.



Indeed. I'm not particularly a Rugby supporter but I do know that Munster beat the All Blacks in Thomond park in 1978. Why? Because the Irish sports media never shut up about it.

And then there's Ryle Nugent bring Delaney back from 56 in Cardiff earlier this year. But people conveniently tend to forget about all this because it ****s up their cover.

Dagnir Glaurung

RTE aren't anti-English. They are howver, anti-Ronaldo *sniff* Anyway, Bill has said he wants England to win numerous times. Dunphy just says things for effect and the rest have quite rightly got stuck into England's poor play, just like they have over Brazil's.

Brian Capture

I'm sure the Real IRA / IRA don't want England to win the World Cup.

BrookieD

the prize for the stupid statement of the day goes to the above

nlgbbbblth

BrookieD wrote:

the prize for the stupid statement of the day goes to the above

It might be irrelevant and of no consequence to the discussion at hand....but it's probably accurate.

cooperguy

Its being honest they are terrible.

Bixmoo

I wonder were the people over in England as upset back in 1990 when we stumbled our way into the quarter finals despite playing rubbish football

BaZmO*

Bixmoo wrote:

I wonder were the people over in England as upset back in 1990 when we stumbled our way into the quarter finals despite playing rubbish football

That's differnent. We knew we were crap and we didn't have dillusions of grandeur.

J.R.HARTLEY

Bixmoo wrote:

I wonder were the people over in England as upset back in 1990 when we stumbled our way into the quarter finals despite playing rubbish football

yeah do you remember that, when dunphy said we were going to win the world cup and george hamilton came down to jacko and said "so the tactics worked perfectly jack, we snuck through on penos",
oh yeah never happened,
at least our pundits were honest about our crapness.
this is about calling the games as they see it, not banging on about honest fan euphoria for reaching certain stages despite riding luck, if you can't seperate those two you shouldn't be trying to engage in the discussion.

po0k

I've had the dubious pleasure of watching match commentary on various English channels on NTL, and most of the time I was sickened by the bias.
If they'd just stfu about 66 and take the British Empire rod out of their ass and accept that they aren't really all that good, maybe they'd get less stick.

It's our national broadcaster. The presenters are having a bit of craic.

If we're not entitled to take the piss, particularly when it's deserved), what's the point?

Political Correction gone mad Jim.

BaZmO*

SyxPak wrote:

Political Correction gone mad Jim.

Speaking of all things political. I was watching a bit of Question Time on BBC1 last night and it was coming from Perth in Scotland and one of the topics of conversation was regarding Scottish Parliments' First Minister Jack McConnell's comments that he would be supporting any team in the World Cup other than England.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2239106,00.html

A lot of the comments from the audience were along the lines of what have been said in this thread already.
So it's not just the Irish that have a problem with the dillusional way in which the English media portray their national football team. And I'm sure you'd get the same reaction from the Welsh too.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

BaZmO* wrote:

That's differnent. We knew we were crap and we didn't have dillusions of grandeur.

Not really - most English fans would agree that England haven't been all that great. Gabby Yorath, Gary Lineker and whoever writes in the Sun can hardly be discribed as a good cross section of knowledable Englsih football fans.

BaZmO*

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

Not really - most English fans would agree that England haven't been all that great. Gabby Yorath, Gary Lineker and whoever writes in the Sun can hardly be discribed as a good cross section of knowledable Englsih football fans.

My comment that you quoted was mainly about the Irish Press.

And nobody has said that the English fans don't agree that they haven't been performing. The discussion is about the the way the English Press big up their team with ridiculous and unfounded expectations.

Bixmoo

Dunphy is a clown, he can be embarassing sometimes, if they could just let him have one glass of wine every day to relax

pickarooney

You should hear how the French commentators rip on them, in a glasshouse-free manner.