Monday, July 09, 2012

Time to watch the game, but first

I briefly tuned in to watch the Wimbledon final, or to be precise the male Wimbledon final as it seems to share that same quirk as most sports in that the female version is of less interest to the mainstream media and I had no idea when that was (or is). BBC coverage started at 12:55 so I was quickly watching the two men bat a ball across a net... no of course not the match proper doesn't start until around 2pm.

In all seriousness is there any one out there thinking - "Gosh they jumped straight into this match a bit quick what I really need is an hour's preparation with interviews, historical footage, large amounts of speculation and (what appeared to be) an elegy on a tennis ball"?

We've been getting it for football for ages and I've seen it for athletics, but what's the point? If you're a fan of the game you probably already know all the stuff they're going on about; if you're not you probably don't care; so who's it all for?


Orphi said...

You realise, of course, that paying two guys to sit in front of a camera and talk about nothing in particular for an hour or two is vastly cheaper than showing the actual live event, right?

FlipC said...

Well yes it would be, if they weren't then showing the event anyway.

Tot up the cost of the studio, plus cameras, plus crew; plus the extra cameras and crew to follow presenters on walkabout; plus all the pre-edit work on the interviews etc. and it'd be far cheaper to stick on a repeat of Bargain Hunt or some such.

Orphi said...

Oh, they do that as well! ;-)