They tried the post-watershed thing about 10 years ago, didn't they? I can't quite remember whether it was the same series that they had a comedian/media person on each team, or whether they were two different changes, but it was definitely trialled unsuccessfully (as was the use of non-sports-people on the teams).
I think it's quite hilarious that lots of people are acting as though the current line-up is really very serious, as it's been silly games for ages. For me, it stopped being as good as it was when Ally McCoist left and the real 'jumping the shark' moment was when they made 'What Happened Next' multiple choice!
But it also makes me feel quite old, as I realise that I haven't watched it properly for nearly 10 years now and so this regime still feels quite recent to me, but actually they've been around forever!
I don’t understand why people feel it needs to be edgier or post-watershed? There are already edgy post-watershed shows. There is still an audience for something a bit more family-friendly.
Some people are clearly taking their cue from online streaming services where everything has to be edgy and profanity filled. Even Star Trek. Something's not worth making these days without an f-bomb or sex reference every few minutes.
Surely more continuity would have been better, with Matt leaving at the end of the next series, then Phil at the end of the following one then Sue. That way existing viewers would have a chance to get used to the new line up. As it is at the moment I could see a load of current viewers switching it off when everyone they know has left the show and that they might struggle to find a new audience to replace those.
What are the current ratings like? Still holding up? Or is this a last throw of the dice?
Surely more continuity would have been better, with Matt leaving at the end of the next series, then Phil at the end of the following one then Sue. That way existing viewers would have a chance to get used to the new line up. As it is at the moment I could see a load of current viewers switching it off when everyone they know has left the show and that they might struggle to find a new audience to replace those.
What are the current ratings like? Still holding up? Or is this a last throw of the dice?
Wouldn't be surprised if it's a CHM Top Gear like situation.
Surely more continuity would have been better, with Matt leaving at the end of the next series, then Phil at the end of the following one then Sue. That way existing viewers would have a chance to get used to the new line up. As it is at the moment I could see a load of current viewers switching it off when everyone they know has left the show and that they might struggle to find a new audience to replace those.
I think in this case though a wholesale revamp was needed. Continuity is good if it's at it's peak, and David Coleman stayed on an extra year when Ally and John took over as captains for that reason, though long term whether it made much difference I doubt it. Changing one a year would just at best be seen as tinkering, but at worst be seen as the show panicing in the way The X Factor does with it's almost annual change to the judges line up. One big change is better than three smaller changes, and if it doesn't work just like Top Gear they can tweak it from there until it does.
I'm not sure that Sam Quek would be a good fit as a captain, unless there is to be wider changes to the format in a way that reduces the reliance on questions relating to the sport they participated in and a wider acknowledgement of contributions off the field in which case both captains will need to have a media background covering multiple sports (or have otherwise gained an extremely strong knowledge of other sports), as overly regular hockey questions would put off much of the casual audience that knows nothing about the sport as well as create headaches for the question setters as there simply isn't the same volume of Hockey related questions to ask as there is for the sports the captains have historically been from .
I don't think that is an issue at all. At most in the classic format only one question per show would be purposefully specific to the captains sport, and that is if they take a Home in the Home and Away round. However I think generally in recent years not only does that round not feature in every show but if the captains are asked a question it is often on a different basis - pretty much always an "Away" style question.
Last edited by Brekkie on 17 September 2020 4:39pm
Surely more continuity would have been better, with Matt leaving at the end of the next series, then Phil at the end of the following one then Sue. That way existing viewers would have a chance to get used to the new line up. As it is at the moment I could see a load of current viewers switching it off when everyone they know has left the show and that they might struggle to find a new audience to replace those.
I think in this case though a wholesale revamp was needed. Continuity is good if it's at it's peak, and David Coleman stayed on an extra year when Ally and John took over as captains for that reason, though long term whether it made much difference I doubt it. Changing one a year would just at best be seen as tinkering, but at worst be seen as the show panicing in the way The X Factor does with it's almost annual change to the judges line up. One big change is better than three smaller changes, and if it doesn't work just like Top Gear they can tweak it from there until it does.
I'm not sure that Sam Quek would be a good fit as a captain, unless there is to be wider changes to the format in a way that reduces the reliance on questions relating to the sport they participated in and a wider acknowledgement of contributions off the field in which case both captains will need to have a media background covering multiple sports (or have otherwise gained an extremely strong knowledge of other sports), as overly regular hockey questions would put off much of the casual audience that knows nothing about the sport as well as create headaches for the question setters as there simply isn't the same volume of Hockey related questions to ask as there is for the sports the captains have historically been from .
I don't think that is an issue at all. At most in the classic format only one question per show would be purposefully specific to the captains sport, and that is if they take a Home in the Home and Away round. However I think generally in recent years not only does that round not feature in every show but if the captains are asked a question it is often on a different basis - pretty much always an "Away" style question.
The reality is that a lot of sportspeople's knowledge of other sports is not exactly great so they do end up asking more about the sport they were involved in. If they could find another captain with a decent knowledge of multiple sports to be opposite Sam it could work well, but it would look kind of odd to have Sam's team get loads of questions on just about any sport while A.n Other's team largely gets asked about cricket (for example) (which would seemingly rule out Jermaine Jenas or Peter Crouch as neither of those have ever displayed much knowledge beyond football).
Surely more continuity would have been better, with Matt leaving at the end of the next series, then Phil at the end of the following one then Sue. That way existing viewers would have a chance to get used to the new line up. As it is at the moment I could see a load of current viewers switching it off when everyone they know has left the show and that they might struggle to find a new audience to replace those.
I think in this case though a wholesale revamp was needed. Continuity is good if it's at it's peak, and David Coleman stayed on an extra year when Ally and John took over as captains for that reason, though long term whether it made much difference I doubt it. Changing one a year would just at best be seen as tinkering, but at worst be seen as the show panicing in the way The X Factor does with it's almost annual change to the judges line up. One big change is better than three smaller changes, and if it doesn't work just like Top Gear they can tweak it from there until it does.
I'm not sure that Sam Quek would be a good fit as a captain, unless there is to be wider changes to the format in a way that reduces the reliance on questions relating to the sport they participated in and a wider acknowledgement of contributions off the field in which case both captains will need to have a media background covering multiple sports (or have otherwise gained an extremely strong knowledge of other sports), as overly regular hockey questions would put off much of the casual audience that knows nothing about the sport as well as create headaches for the question setters as there simply isn't the same volume of Hockey related questions to ask as there is for the sports the captains have historically been from .
I don't think that is an issue at all. At most in the classic format only one question per show would be purposefully specific to the captains sport, and that is if they take a Home in the Home and Away round. However I think generally in recent years not only does that round not feature in every show but if the captains are asked a question it is often on a different basis - pretty much always an "Away" style question.
The reality is that a lot of sportspeople's knowledge of other sports is not exactly great so they do end up asking more about the sport they were involved in. If they could find another captain with a decent knowledge of multiple sports to be opposite Sam it could work well, but it would look kind of odd to have Sam's team get loads of questions on just about any sport while A.n Other's team largely gets asked about cricket (for example) (which would seemingly rule out Jermaine Jenas or Peter Crouch as neither of those have ever displayed much knowledge beyond football).
Lineker did present BBC's golf coverage (it was a pastime of his but he had to give it up due to injury) and also presented Grandstand including that superb impromptu performance when the 1997 Grand National was abandoned due to what I believe was an IRA bomb threat and to which Nick Hancock rightfully congratulated him on the following week's edition of They Think It's All Over:
I don’t understand why people feel it needs to be edgier or post-watershed? There are already edgy post-watershed shows. There is still an audience for something a bit more family-friendly.
I think the eagerness for QOS to be different stems from a feeling that it doesn't do enough to justify being recommissioned in its current guise as it performs poorly in its timeslot. Whether that's true or not I don't know but it has been referred to as "filler" because it can be - and has been - shunted around the schedules, which perhaps adds to the thinking that it is unfairly accommodated and spared the axe by the BBC because it has been around for so long.
Surely more continuity would have been better, with Matt leaving at the end of the next series, then Phil at the end of the following one then Sue. That way existing viewers would have a chance to get used to the new line up. As it is at the moment I could see a load of current viewers switching it off when everyone they know has left the show and that they might struggle to find a new audience to replace those.
I think in this case though a wholesale revamp was needed. Continuity is good if it's at it's peak, and David Coleman stayed on an extra year when Ally and John took over as captains for that reason, though long term whether it made much difference I doubt it. Changing one a year would just at best be seen as tinkering, but at worst be seen as the show panicing in the way The X Factor does with it's almost annual change to the judges line up. One big change is better than three smaller changes, and if it doesn't work just like Top Gear they can tweak it from there until it does.
I'm not sure that Sam Quek would be a good fit as a captain, unless there is to be wider changes to the format in a way that reduces the reliance on questions relating to the sport they participated in and a wider acknowledgement of contributions off the field in which case both captains will need to have a media background covering multiple sports (or have otherwise gained an extremely strong knowledge of other sports), as overly regular hockey questions would put off much of the casual audience that knows nothing about the sport as well as create headaches for the question setters as there simply isn't the same volume of Hockey related questions to ask as there is for the sports the captains have historically been from .
I don't think that is an issue at all. At most in the classic format only one question per show would be purposefully specific to the captains sport, and that is if they take a Home in the Home and Away round. However I think generally in recent years not only does that round not feature in every show but if the captains are asked a question it is often on a different basis - pretty much always an "Away" style question.
The reality is that a lot of sportspeople's knowledge of other sports is not exactly great so they do end up asking more about the sport they were involved in. If they could find another captain with a decent knowledge of multiple sports to be opposite Sam it could work well, but it would look kind of odd to have Sam's team get loads of questions on just about any sport while A.n Other's team largely gets asked about cricket (for example) (which would seemingly rule out Jermaine Jenas or Peter Crouch as neither of those have ever displayed much knowledge beyond football).
It's a bit dismissive of Sam to say she only knows about hockey. She has been working consistently across multiple sports broadcasters over recent years so will have a wide enough knowledge for the show. Indeed even if she knew nothing that could turn into her thing - it's worked for others.
Remember too sports people are naturally competitive - they'll swot up as well.
I think in this case though a wholesale revamp was needed. Continuity is good if it's at it's peak, and David Coleman stayed on an extra year when Ally and John took over as captains for that reason, though long term whether it made much difference I doubt it. Changing one a year would just at best be seen as tinkering, but at worst be seen as the show panicing in the way The X Factor does with it's almost annual change to the judges line up. One big change is better than three smaller changes, and if it doesn't work just like Top Gear they can tweak it from there until it does.
I don't think that is an issue at all. At most in the classic format only one question per show would be purposefully specific to the captains sport, and that is if they take a Home in the Home and Away round. However I think generally in recent years not only does that round not feature in every show but if the captains are asked a question it is often on a different basis - pretty much always an "Away" style question.
The reality is that a lot of sportspeople's knowledge of other sports is not exactly great so they do end up asking more about the sport they were involved in. If they could find another captain with a decent knowledge of multiple sports to be opposite Sam it could work well, but it would look kind of odd to have Sam's team get loads of questions on just about any sport while A.n Other's team largely gets asked about cricket (for example) (which would seemingly rule out Jermaine Jenas or Peter Crouch as neither of those have ever displayed much knowledge beyond football).
It's a bit dismissive of Sam to say she only knows about hockey. She has been working consistently across multiple sports broadcasters over recent years so will have a wide enough knowledge for the show. Indeed even if she knew nothing that could turn into her thing - it's worked for others.
Remember too sports people are naturally competitive - they'll swot up as well.
To be fair, he was suggesting Sam would get questions on all sports whilst the other captain would only probably know about their own sport.
I don’t understand why people feel it needs to be edgier or post-watershed? There are already edgy post-watershed shows. There is still an audience for something a bit more family-friendly.
I think the eagerness for QOS to be different stems from a feeling that it doesn't do enough to justify being recommissioned in its current guise as it performs poorly in its timeslot. Whether that's true or not I don't know but it has been referred to as "filler" because it can be - and has been - shunted around the schedules, which perhaps adds to the thinking that it is unfairly accommodated and spared the axe by the BBC because it has been around for so long.
It's in a death slot - at the same time as Coronation Street.