The Euro 2004 Thread

Absolutely agree, why do people always diss the ITV coverage, mainly (if they're anything like my friends) it's because of the adverts that they hate ITV coverage!

so, p_c_u_k, how do you argue that our disallowed goal was a foul?

I clearly couldn't see how; both Campbell and Terry kept their eye's on the ball in the air and campbell pushed terry down, i just don't understand how it could have been disallowed. If the keeper had wanted to jump he could have. there was no way terry was putting any weight on him!

The only thing that was poor about the BBC coverage was Joe Royle.

I don't even understand how the hell you are so "happy" after that.

Both Wrighty and Hanson, along with Garth Crooks, were right. We were totally robbed of that game.

I think their "Garath Southgate; let's look at the team" was enough to convince me how dreadful they were this year.

If there's any justice...

Oh What A Game!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I suppose Portugal were deemed the better side with a lack-lustre preformance by Beckham and Co. But it was touch and go throughout the whole three hours where either side could've won it! England just didnt seem as hungary enough as Portugal to win it!

Im sure all the headlines in tomorrow's news papers will sight Rooney, Beckham, Campbell and the penalty spot as reasons why England lost but - cmon it was a fair game with some poor decisions by the ref to BOTH sides.

Presentation-wise most people I was watching the football with couldnt decide which channel they were watching on regardless of the BBC logo in the corner and didnt seem to have any preference between ITV or BBC. The only comments I managed to drag out of them was that the first few matches in Euro 2004 werent covered in a traditional way (like we are used to in UK) with too many replays (over important action) and also too many close-ups of players when we want to see the overall picture!

Ian Wright IS a poor choice of panellist for BBC and they need to get rid as he doesnt actually add anything to the coverage apart from that they probably get him for 'free' due to his deal with the BBC in general!

Lets hope Wales meet England in World Cup 2006

And Ian Wright's lack of intelligence and erudition tonight was enough to convince me of how distinctly average the BBC have been this year. They've had some great pundits in the past - now we have pub chat.

a) I'm in a bad mood

b) I don't recall too many people saying that in the first place
c) When England won on ITV, people stopped saying that anyway
d) Nobody ever said that England didn't lose on the BBC
e) Shut up (refer back to point (a))

The only thing that was poor about the BBC coverage was Joe Royle.

I don't even understand how the hell you are so "happy" after that.

Both Wrighty and Hanson, along with Garth Crooks, were right. We were totally robbed of that game.[/quote]

Sorry, I was saying I was 'happy' about Eurosport's coverage of the game, which to my mind was far more measured, far more analytical and far superior to the BBC's fans with typewriters nonsense.

If you read my previous post you'll see I take no great pleasure at the result, and I do feel you were unfortunate to lose in that fashion. However I did think it was a foul, and at least one of the studio guests on Eurosport conceded that the player had 'impeded' the goalkeeper. IMHO it was not a clear-cut decision, and a different ref would have called it differently, but that's my opinion - it may not be right. It's very easy for the BBC to join the "England was robbed" bandwagon - I'd prefer some commentators who were able to take their red and white specs off for a second and tell me what they genuinely thought.

Lack of intelligence?

At least the guy read the game correctly at both half time and full time - and we didn't have to listen to him read out the team in a monotone voice.

Although Ian Wright does get on my nerves a little, he was just fine tonight.

"Pub chat" sums it up perfectly - the BBC and ITV have offered the sort of analysis you'd get from three blokes in a pub in London. Eurosport has tried to avoid the hype, concentrate on the game, and also manage to mention more than one team as well.

Sorry, I was saying I was 'happy' about Eurosport's coverage of the game, which to my mind was far more measured, far more analytical and far superior to the BBC's fans with typewriters nonsense.

If you read my previous post you'll see I take no great pleasure at the result, and I do feel you were unfortunate to lose in that fashion. However I did think it was a foul, and at least one of the studio guests on Eurosport conceded that the player had 'impeded' the goalkeeper. IMHO it was not a clear-cut decision, and a different ref would have called it differently, but that's my opinion - it may not be right. It's very easy for the BBC to join the "England was robbed" bandwagon - I'd prefer some commentators who were able to take their red and white specs off for a second and tell me what they genuinely thought.[/quote]

Oh look at me, I'm different, I watch the game on EEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeuuurosport.

Well done, you've proved your point that you are different.

Now, since you clearly didn't watch the game on the BBC tonight (and, flicking over occasionally doesn't count) perhaps you'll just stick to making comment about Eurosport's coverage?

Just because one of the panalists, by the way, "conceeds" it "might have been" a foul doesn't make their coverage better.

Ugh, puh-lease.

I do love the way everybody here misses out "I think" and "my view is".

It's almost like a catfight to make each person's views look like the truth.

I *think* the BBC's coverage was good tonight. I didn't watch Eurosport, so I shant comment on them.

PHUK *thinks* Eurosport was better, despite it being deeply unclear how much of the BBC's coverage he actually watched.

Rant, rant, rant.