Skip to main content

Sky coverage

Sky coverage

P

Pilot

Joined
Oct 18, 2004
Messages
1,414
Having watched the game again over the weekend the coverage from Sky really leaves a sour taste, it is so unbalanced. They flogged the Gally incident to death even though every one was in agreement it should have been a red. They must have shown the replay at least a dozen times. Compare this to the foul on Clarke by Crouch, he grabbed him round the neck and pulled him to the ground. That’s a clear red card offence yet Sky just showed the one replay and laughed it off as Good Old Crouchy, who apparently ‘completely changed the game’.
There was no mention of either Allen or Shawcross who both deserved second yellows and the clear foul by Pieters on Barky which should have resulted in a penalty was ignored with not even a replay shown.
Both Davies and Rosenior in the studio sounded reasonably well informed and articulate but Prutton just asked them repeatedly to talk about Gally and Crouch, ignoring every other incident in the game.
 
It's a double-edged sword. Yes we don't get attention like the big clubs. And biased coverage like this isn't fair.

It stinks.

But, most other managers and teams know literally nothing about us or our players. Just ask Steve Maclaren. (Old and wiley?!!)

We are way way better than most think. And that's a good thing.
 
Prutton, to be fair, talked about Pearson both before and after the game and also, he'll be told via his earpiece from the producer what to say and ask regards questions.
 
I was happy to see Prutton has been upped to presenter rather than pundit. Not sure if this happened before this season and I've just missed it. He is the only person that springs to mind when I think of pundits Sky usually have on that knows anything about teams below the premier league.
 
Pilot said:
Having watched the game again over the weekend the coverage from Sky really leaves a sour taste, it is so unbalanced. They flogged the Gally incident to death even though every one was in agreement it should have been a red. They must have shown the replay at least a dozen times. Compare this to the foul on Clarke by Crouch, he grabbed him round the neck and pulled him to the ground. That’s a clear red card offence yet Sky just showed the one replay and laughed it off as Good Old Crouchy, who apparently ‘completely changed the game’.
There was no mention of either Allen or Shawcross who both deserved second yellows and the clear foul by Pieters on Barky which should have resulted in a penalty was ignored with not even a replay shown.
Both Davies and Rosenior in the studio sounded reasonably well informed and articulate but Prutton just asked them repeatedly to talk about Gally and Crouch, ignoring every other incident in the game.
Click to expand...

So according to you Stoke could/should have finished with maybe 7 players on the pitch?
 
"Bigger" teams will always get the 50:50 decisions by refs. As for Sky commentators - who cares. Let them go on about #teams like Preston. We know how good we are and so do the players and that's all that counts
 
WADSH said:
So according to you Stoke could/should have finished with maybe 7 players on the pitch?
Click to expand...

Your arithmetic is a bit dodgy but Allen should clearly have gone. Shawcross may not have committed those fouls had he been already booked. Crouch’s was clearly violent conduct, guidance to refs says any contact above chest height is classed as violent conduct. My point is that all those incidents were ignored by Sky
 
Pilot said:
They flogged the Gally incident to death even though every one was in agreement it should have been a red. They must have shown the replay at least a dozen times. Compare this to the foul on Clarke by Crouch, he grabbed him round the neck and pulled him to the ground. That’s a clear red card offence yet Sky just showed the one replay and laughed it off as Good Old Crouchy, who apparently ‘completely changed the game’.
Click to expand...

No way those 2 incidents are comparable. Gally's was a red, Crouch's a yellow.
 
Must admit, I picked up on this, hence why I literally only watch the match itself and pay no attention to the presenters/commentators. As the second half wore on, it was as if it went from Sky to Stoke City TV/iFollow - even more so after Crouch scored. It is good to get the coverage, however we only get the coverage because of who we play and the bias is always on the opposition team. At the end of the match it was all about Stoke and how they have the 'mental toughness' to fight back etc. not the fact they were out-played for the majority of the match, twice went behind and do not look like a team that will compete for the playoffs, let alone automatics.

From what I saw, although I didn't think it was intentional from Gallagher, he should have gone - but so should Allen for the second challenge in the middle of the pitch that was waved on as advantage. Any other time its a yellow card, so I fully agree with the inconsistent comments about the officiating. The one big thing that is annoying is that we now seem to have this view/tag from other teams that we are a crap team that plays shit football and kicks teams about. From what I've seen we play some good football and try to go out and win. The areas we lack in are being able to put chances away and the frustrating need to waste time when ahead etc.
 
One thing that the Sky commentators said was that they'd overheard a conversation between Rowett and the ref, as they came out after half-time. Can't remember the exact wording... but something like this:-

Rowett: "Ref, we just witnessed the worst elbow in the history of the game"
Ref: "Well I didn't witness it because I didn't see it".


I guess I'm over-dramatizing it a bit.... but not by much. If anyone remembers it better, let me know. I reckon this helped Rowett/Stoke to get into the ref's head.
 
Pretty much words to that effect, I remember the Sky team discussing it. The man really is a belm, can't and won't take any responsibility for his teams short comings. He has pretty much leaned on the Gallagher incident as the reason that they did not win and believed they were the better team over the course of the match!
 
Regardless said:
One thing that the Sky commentators said was that they'd overheard a conversation between Rowett and the ref, as they came out after half-time. Can't remember the exact wording... but something like this:-

Rowett: "Ref, we just witnessed the worst elbow in the history of the game"
Ref: "Well I didn't witness it because I didn't see it".


I guess I'm over-dramatizing it a bit.... but not by much. If anyone remembers it better, let me know. I reckon this helped Rowett/Stoke to get into the ref's head.
Click to expand...

This is the exact conversation, maybe ‘one of’ the worst, but that’s exactly what the ref said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I notice how they showed Stoke’s next 5 fixtures and not ours too, as if our games don’t matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
As elbows go, it genuinely was at the softest end (as you'd expect from Gally!).

I've not seen it replayed much but I'm sure he just drove his forearm into Allen's jaw... Not being biased, but that is a LOT less dangerous / aggressive to jagging a pointed elbow into someone's face.
 
Yeah it's nowhere near as bad as Rowett makes out, hardly on the Ben Thatcher scale. Was one of the more blatant ones you will ever see though.
 
Back
Top