O/T:- So who prefers MOTD without pundits etc now?

[Magpies1959]

It makes me wonder why people think commentary is necessary, as when you go to watch a footie match there is no commentary. I watched MOTD last night for the first time in years, and they obviously just showed the same amount of highlights that you would have got with the 'look at me' pundits. Twenty minutes in total, which just shows how much inane chat makes up the usual programme. A cop out by the BBC to show more of each game, obviously afraid that fans would not be able to understand the football without lots of unnecessary stats, and so turn off.
500,000 is a good number of extra viewers. I t will be interesting to see how long the slap on the hand goes on for Big Ears.

[keldsyke]

Just because 500 thousand extra watched it doesnt mean they preferred it. It was car crash TV. The proof will be if the numbers continue at that level in that format...

I’m guessing Lineker + probably expected it to drop, let’s hope it comes to bite them in the arse!

[DaveSmithRules]

I'm surprised it wasn't higher tbh. Only half a million extra viewers despite dominating the weekends national news.

I watched it for the first time in a few months. As others have said it was car crash TV. I noticed they didn't even call it Match of The Day - it was retitled 'Premier League Highlights'.

[laddo]

The 500,000 is an impressive number and no doubt down to curiosity. It shouldn't be a surprise I can't recall a time when MOTD and it's well known presenter has been on the front pages for 3/4 days, the lead story on all news outlets on TV, radio. Basically everywhere.

It couldn't have gone much better for Linekar since the initial (faux) outrage, I don't think that even he would expected to get this much widespread support from colleagues. It's really has gone his way over the weekend.

[crazyfists]

I liked it better, crowd noise, no messing about, 20 mins job done.

[Magpies1959]

^^
Not just me then

[i961pie]

I've noticed that every time a poster expresses a view that doesn't fit with your stereotype of who you think they are and what you think they should think, you tell them "that's not what you really think", then you replace it with your opinion of what they think, and then you argue with that rather than what they actually said. I must say, it's an ingenious way of only ever engaging with the world on your own terms!

😂

[BigFatPie]

I've noticed that every time a poster expresses a view that doesn't fit with your stereotype of who you think they are and what you think they should think, you tell them "that's not what you really think", then you replace it with your opinion of what they think, and then you argue with that rather than what they actually said. I must say, it's an ingenious way of only ever engaging with the world on your own terms!

Nonsense. You perceive it like that because you and others of a similar mindset repeatedly obfuscate, bloviate and indulge in bad faith arguments designed to hide your views on a awkward subject like the one that got Lineker into trouble. The government does it as well when it tries to pretend that this bill is aimed at stopping people traffickers. It’s perfectly understandable I suppose, if I supported a policy that’s designed to stop most brown people from seeking refuge in the UK, aimed to traffick women and kids to Rwanda, and blocked help for people thrown into modern slavery I’d want to keep it quiet as well.

[upthemaggies]

Nonsense. You perceive it like that because you and others of a similar mindset repeatedly obfuscate, bloviate and indulge in bad faith arguments designed to hide your views on a awkward subject like the one that got Lineker into trouble. The government does it as well when it tries to pretend that this bill is aimed at stopping people traffickers. It’s perfectly understandable I suppose, if I supported a policy that’s designed to stop most brown people from seeking refuge in the UK, aimed to traffick women and kids to Rwanda, and blocked help for people thrown into modern slavery I’d want to keep it quiet as well.

Genuine question, why would they not want to remain in the EU and instead take a high risk crossing to Brexitland? I thought the left believed this country was a far worse and less welcoming place to live than the European Union, hence it being the cornerstone issue that's polarised politics ever since. Why wouldn't you be encouraging refugees to enjoy a better life and future in France, rather than in Nazi Britain?
If France etc. doesn't want them, why were the left so keen to remain in bed with those countries? Wouldn't that make the EU just as right wing and Nazi as us?

[Elite_Pie]

I thought the left believed this country was a far worse and less welcoming place to live than the European Union?

Hopefully that's only temporary. Once we bin this corrupt government we can start to improve things.