Var

[Witton Park]

BBC jumping on the triathlon bandwagon seems harsh. I'm certain they used to broadcast races such as Bath back in the early 90s before the Olympics destroyed triathlon!! I remember watching Simon Lessing and Spencer Smith have some epic battles.

For lots of shows, BBC and Channel 4 risk some early series and then they get purchased by higher bidders such as Sky!! Remember that the Simpsons was originally on Channel 4 (who are of course part owned by BBC)

Most sports got occasional coverage on Grandstand, but it was potted highlights, not a 3-4 hour special live on a Sunday as we get sometimes now.

[Wheeze]

Mick McManus, Jackie Pallo, Jeff Banks. My heros from childhood. But no broadcasting of their (ig) noble sports now!

[Llani Boy]

Vic Eastwood, Jeff Smith, Dave Bickers, Arthur Lampkin.

[noel]

I used to enjoy falling asleep to the formula one when that was televised. I don't miss that. In fact, other than football, I'm not a great fan of televised sport. Cricket seems better on the radio, as you can do other things at the same time.

[Witton Park]

Jeff Banks.

I was never a fan of the Clothes Show.

[Travs]

Well I watched sections of the women’s semi-final last night (admittedly I did not watch the entire 90 minutes).... and sad to say, what I did watch was poor. And that is both teams, I’m certainly not on a crusade to slate England here. America are supposedly the best team in the World?!

Like a game of pinball at times.... misplaced passes, rash long range shots, balls hoofed out for goal kicks, spells over a minute long where neither team could keep the ball for three passes.

I wouldn’t do either team a dis-service by saying it was Sunday League standard, but I maintain my view that it was poor, and I certainly believe that any decent level Saturday Combination/Alliance side would see them off with no trouble at all.

And there is nothing wrong with that... it is a different game, and the sheer physicality of the men’s game (albeit trying to be turned into a non-contact sport by FIFA) means men will always be better exponents of a game which often depends on strength and speed. However again it’s the will of the media to tell us that it’s been a fantastic high-level spectacle.

I had Radio 5 on in the car last night, and the version of events coming through the speakers was comparable to Italy vs Brazil 1982... so I was rather shocked to see the level of play when I switched on the tv (another reason I watch most games without commentators).

Another thing is that football is unique in it’s passion, heritage, and tribalism. As much as it is a glorified soap-opera and has many problems, it’s the national sport for a reason. If it was only about the football then hundreds of lower league teams would not exist, we'd all watch the “big 4”.... you can’t invent a heritage for the women’s game overnight, just by wall-to-wall coverage... and whilst the level of football will almost certainly rise (and good luck to them), and even feasibly be on a par with the men’s game one day, this is why women’s football will never be able to become the same spectacle...

Ps if that equaliser was offside, then I don’t understand the rules any more!

[Daletownrunner]

Well I watched sections of the women’s semi-final last night (admittedly I did not watch the entire 90 minutes).... and sad to say, what I did watch was poor. And that is both teams, I’m certainly not on a crusade to slate England here. America are supposedly the best team in the World?!

Like a game of pinball at times.... misplaced passes, rash long range shots, balls hoofed out for goal kicks, spells over a minute long where neither team could keep the ball for three passes.

I wouldn’t do either team a dis-service by saying it was Sunday League standard, but I maintain my view that it was poor, and I certainly believe that any decent level Saturday Combination/Alliance side would see them off with no trouble at all.

And there is nothing wrong with that... it is a different game, and the sheer physicality of the men’s game (albeit trying to be turned into a non-contact sport by FIFA) means men will always be better exponents of a game which often depends on strength and speed. However again it’s the will of the media to tell us that it’s been a fantastic high-level spectacle.

I had Radio 5 on in the car last night, and the version of events coming through the speakers was comparable to Italy vs Brazil 1982... so I was rather shocked to see the level of play when I switched on the tv (another reason I watch most games without commentators).

Another thing is that football is unique in it’s passion, heritage, and tribalism. As much as it is a glorified soap-opera and has many problems, it’s the national sport for a reason. If it was only about the football then hundreds of lower league teams would not exist, we'd all watch the “big 4”.... you can’t invent a heritage for the women’s game overnight, just by wall-to-wall coverage... and whilst the level of football will almost certainly rise (and good luck to them), and even feasibly be on a par with the men’s game one day, this is why women’s football will never be able to become the same spectacle...

Ps if that equaliser was offside, then I don’t understand the rules any more!

I don’t think the women are selling it as something it’s not (I do know one of the players and she’s as grassroots and humble as they come), it is a different game and as I’ve said before it’s early days, some of the teams have players who hold down full time jobs, things can only get better.

[noel]

And there is nothing wrong with that... it is a different game, and the sheer physicality of the men’s game (albeit trying to be turned into a non-contact sport by FIFA) means men will always be better exponents of a game which often depends on strength and speed. However again it’s the will of the media to tell us that it’s been a fantastic high-level spectacle.

I agree, the levels of genuine footballing skill are quite low compared with what we're used to watching with the men's game. And I agree, the media overplay the women's game to try to increase its profile.

Shame about the result from an England point of view. Is it only me who doesn't like the whole "lionesses" nonsense?

[Llani Boy]

I agree, that from the players point of view it is a shame that they lost especially as at this world cup only 6 of the countries in it have professional leagues/teams. They have missed their best chance because in 4 years time other countries will have caught up.
I am pleased they lost with regards to the BBC. The coverage was getting ridiculous. News anchors interviewing sports editors, in turn interviewing sports reporters all repeating the same rubbish.

Lots of putting the cart before the horse.One reporter on the radio was even talking about a visit to Buckingham Palace to receive honours when they won it.

There will still probably be an open top bus ride when they come home for being the 3rd or 4th best out of 6.
They think it's all over, thank goodness it soon will be.

[Travs]

Simon Jordan on Talksport just now got it about right (I’m not a particular fan of his, but he always speaks his mind).....

He said that the whole campaign and movement behind women’s football and the England World Cup attempt has been encouraging. Pointed to the 11 million people who tuned in on TV last night (although I hesitate to use tv ratings as a marker of anything.... don’t 5-odd million people tune into crap like Big Brother and that Saturday night talent thing?).

But that the passion just isn’t there... yet.... and possibly never will be.

Compare with BBC (everybody’s favourite scapegoat!) Radio 5 breakfast show this morning, trying to claim that the atmosphere in the stadium in Lyon was “electric”, you could “cut it with a knife” and it “could have boiled over at any moment”..... those kind of superlatives just don’t do anyone any favours... not least the women’s game itself.