MurraysWorld  >  Andy Talk  >  BBC pundits don't even mention Murray now...
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 ... 15 Reply

BBC pundits don't even mention Murray now...

Quote

Good posting!
IP Logged
Quote

Snooker, in the Andy board? Seriously?

Anyway, I have an English media pressure example. It actually annoys me just a little. The current Wimbledon advert. Andy pictures from 06 twice, followed by many pictures of past champions, Mac, Virginia Wade and Agassi for a start, then finally a picture of Andy with 'Greatness Awaits...'

Yet you say there's no pressure from the English media Yamor? Jonathan Ross asking him if he'll win Wimbledon or beat Federer? Sue asking absolutely anyone that'll speak to her if he has a shot? Same questions being asked of him in his couple of little Queens videos? This is pressure.  
IP Logged
Quote

Nope, I don't see major pressure in that. Its normal to ask a player himself or other experts how well he thinks he'll do, and if he has a good chance. Why shouldn't you?
IP Logged
Quote

If anyone was watching BBC Points of View yesterday morning they will have heard that the BBC had been criticised about the coverage of mainly the London area in their national news etc.  This is going to be reviewed by the BBC as it is basically not fair on the rest of Britain and TV licence payers who expect more for their money.  This in reply to some of the previous posts in this thread not the snooker etc.  I didn't see all of the programme but this is the jist of it.
IP Logged
Quote


Snooker, in the Andy board? Seriously?


I was wondering that confused  We went from one of Fuzzy's rants to snooker in 6/7 pages - whole new word association thread nearly Very Happy
IP Logged
Quote


If anyone was watching BBC Points of View yesterday morning they will have heard that the BBC had been criticised about the coverage of mainly the London area in their national news etc.  This is going to be reviewed by the BBC as it is basically not fair on the rest of Britain and TV licence payers who expect more for their money.  This in reply to some of the previous posts in this thread not the snooker etc.  I didn't see all of the programme but this is the jist of it.


Clydey will be over the moon when he sees this.  There's your evidence.   cmon yeah
IP Logged
Quote


I think Sullivan is the most naturally talented and amazing player, ever. I mean the guy has won frames against the top guys playing lefthanded only. He's the only player who can play top level with both hands.

Hendry of course is the most successful (in snooker synonym with 'consistent'), the stats can't be denied. And of course Hendry is credited with 'inventing' the modern game, introducing long shot entries and consistent centuries.

Who is the 'best' depends on what angle you come from.


He's the most talented for sure.  He needs to transfer that to success, though.  I mean, he's had success, but not nearly as much as Hendry.  Some could argue that Andy is more naturally talented than anyone out there.  Until he turns it into titles, it doesn't mean much.
IP Logged
Quote




Clydey will be over the moon when he sees this.  There's your evidence.   cmon yeah


 yay
IP Logged
Quote

I thought that news was quite old? I swear hearing about it a couple of weeks ago yet I still put out my argument. That story doesn't backup either our argument or Clydey's. It's simply about a minority of people who are not getting a service that they are being forced to pay due to the BBC serving the majority. It's not about whether it's right or wrong to give more coverage to bigger populations, it's specific to the BBC due to the license fee.
[ Last edit by Mark June 16, 2008, 02:45 pm ] IP Logged
Quote


I thought that news was quite old? I swear hearing about it a couple of weeks ago. It actually doesn't backup either our argument or Clydey's. It's simply about people paying for a service which they are not getting rather than whether it's right or wrong generally to give more coverage to bigger populations etc.


I have the evidence.  Cease and desist before I punish you with yet more reason and logic.  What say you?
IP Logged
Quote

There doesn't need to be any evidence because when I left last night, you were basically talking morals and principles, whether it's right or wrong to judge a country's worth by it's population size. I don't care about that, in fact I support you in that opinion that it's wrong. My only argument was that regardless of morals, it is the right thing to do as a television company because it makes the majority of viewers happy.

The BBC is a different matter because people are essentially being forced to pay for a service so the BBC have an obligation to cater for everyone fairly.
IP Logged
Quote


Previously when top players were being discussed, his name was always thrown in the mix by the BBC pundits. Now they can barely bring themselves to mention his name. I think they have finally accepted that Murray isn't going to turn into the player they had hoped.


At the Artois Final yesterday his name was mentioned by John Lloyd when he said that he did not believe that Andy could beat any of the top three players at Wimbledon - at least not this year.
IP Logged
Quote


A players in any sport can have a period of one or two years where he's the best ever - he still won't win as much as someone else who might win more, but was never as good.


Quote of the week contender clap roflmao

I think it's great that Fuzzy's thread has turned into a full-blown discussion as to who's the best snooker player ever cmon yeah
IP Logged
Quote

Why does that deserve 'quote of the week'? Eyebrow raise.
IP Logged
Quote

 roflmao  If that player is the best ever, why doesnt he win more, than someone who does win more but was never as good?  If that player is the best ever, why does he lose more?

You're basically saying, the best player ever (in any sport) has won nothing but is still better than someone who has won alot more.    Think

At the moment, thats like saying Andy Murray is the best ever.  He has all the shots, no real weaknesses/flaws, but when on form no-one can beat him.  But its his consistency that stops him from being good rather than great.

In an individual sport, players are considered how good they are based on what they have won in their game, not just particular matches or fights etc
[ Last edit by Seany-Bhoy June 16, 2008, 11:25 pm ] IP Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 ... 15 Reply