BBC World Cup Cover Criticised Despite Sending 272 Staff

[Teddy Bear]

As if it wasn't bad enough that the BBC felt it necessary to send a staff of 272 to Brazil to cover the World Cup, it appears that they quality of some of them is being called into question for a variety of reasons.

BBC and ITV under fire after World Cup pundits appear to struggle to speak and understand English during live broadcasts

• Brazilian Juninho and Italian Fabio Cannavaro criticised for poor English
• Viewers complain that their punditry has bordered on incomprehensible
• Criticism comes after goal-line technology farce by Jonathan Pearce
• Veteran commentator was confused by France's goal against Honduras
• BBC has also attracted 445 complaints over Phil Neville's 'boring' coverage
• Ex-footballer criticised for commentary during England and Italy match

By John Hall

The BBC and ITV face a fresh wave of anger over their World Cup coverage, after viewers attacked pundits for struggling to speak and understand English during broadcasts.

Former Brazil midfielder Juninho and Italian defender Fabio Cannavaro were singled out for presenting styles which bordered on the incomprehensible, and for a failure to understand their co-presenters' analysis.

The fury comes after the BBC received 445 complaints over Phil Neville's 'boring' commentary style during Saturday night's match between England and Italy, which averaged 14.4 million viewers.

Both the BBC and ITV have come under attack for employing presenters with an apparently limited grasp of the English language, with Juninho, 41, and Cannavaro, 40, taking much of the blame.

During the BBC's coverage of last night's match between Argentina and Bosnia, one Twitter user wrote: 'I'm sorry but why is Juninho on the panel? His English just isn't up to scratch.'

During an earlier appearance by Cannavaro, another user said: 'They should provide English speaking courses and tests for the pundits before allowing them on ITV or even BBC. Cannavaro is struggling.'

'Incredible defender, but Cannavaro sounds like he's put 'conversational English' on his CV and ITV took him at his word,' another added.

The complaints emerged just hours after the BBC's lead match commentator Jonathan Pearce was ridiculed for a farcical display during yesterday's match between France and Honduras.

Failing to understand the way goal-line technology was being used during the tournament, Pearce's commentary descended into chaos when he appeared confused by a computer animation that first showed 'no goal' when the football hit the post, before changing to 'goal' when it crossed the line.

It wasn't until co-presenter Martin Keown pointed out the final decision to award a goal that Pearce realised what was going on, setting him off on a rant about the quality of the technology.

The bizarre exchange saw well-known figures users mock the veteran commentator on Twitter.

Screenwriter Dave Turner said: 'Jonathan Pearce apparently confused by the concept of events happening in linear time.'

Comedian Dara O’Brien added: 'Not sure who that commentator is but somebody should explain the goal-line technology to him and calm him down.'

The complaints over BBC commentators and pundits raises wider concerns about the broadcaster's coverage of the World Cup.

Questions are now being asked over who will be involved in coverage of England matches should the team progress beyond the group stage.

Following his shambolic display, the BBC insisted that Pearce remained a 'important, well respected' member of its team.

But The Telegraph quoted a spokesperson as saying: 'Everything for the final 16 [round of the tournament] will be decided much closer to the time.'

[Teddy Bear]

Peter Oborne at the Telegraph makes some pertinent observations about what we used to enjoy in our sports commentators, and what the BBC provides us with now. He also notices a rather surprising award given to the BBC's director of sport, Barbara Slater, inasmuch as while she might fit the gender balance that the BBC feels is so important, she's taken the entertainment that sport used to provide backwards.

World Cup 2014: Farewell to the magic of the mic
The BBC’s World Cup coverage shows it has turned its back on the art and craft of the professional commentator

By Peter Oborne

There were some well-deserved awards in last weekend’s Queen’s Birthday Honours, such as those for Hilary Mantel and for Stephen Sutton, whose fight against cancer was so moving and inspirational.

However, there were also some very mysterious recipients, the oddest of all being the BBC’s director of sport, Barbara Slater.
Mrs Slater has overseen the near-extinction of cricket and horseracing as serious BBC sports, while allowing the once prized art of radio and TV sporting commentary to all but disappear.

She appears to suffer from the disastrous misconception that all sports commentators should be former sportsmen and women. The latest example of this misguided methodology is the choice of Phil Neville, a former England full-back, as commentator for the England versus Italy World Cup match last Saturday.

It doesn’t matter to Mrs Slater that Mr Neville speaks in a monotone, comes across as inarticulate, seems incapable of coming up with an original thought and bores viewers to death. He is a former professional footballer, and people have heard of him – and that is, to her, what counts.

To be fair to Mrs Slater, the BBC is not the only channel that suffers from this misapprehension. Sir Ian Botham, for instance, was a great cricketer, but for Sky TV he has long been a boorish commentator.

There is, of course, a role for the ex-sportsman who uses his experience to bring special insight into the game. Jimmy Armfield – the former England football captain from the Fifties – was until very recently providing a glorious example of how a professional sportsman can convert into a superb pundit, despite being well into his seventies. Geoffrey Boycott, one of England’s finest opening batsmen, is if anything even more distinguished as a summariser on Test Match Special.

But these are the exceptions. The Neville fiasco shows that the modern BBC has turned its back on the great 20th-century tradition of sports broadcasting.

It is just six months since the death of the magnificent David Coleman. As a young man, Coleman was a decent cross-country runner. However, his relevant experience was gained as a reporter in local newspapers. It’s hard to imagine a proper journalist such as Coleman breaking through to the top of sports reporting today. Gary Lineker, the former England striker, performs Coleman’s front-man role now. His pointless charm makes him the ultimate safe broadcaster; Lineker never has an interesting thought.

But let’s look back at the BBC in the post-war period. The BBC’s Sir Peter O’Sullevan made himself synonymous with racing, even though he had never been a jockey or a trainer. O’Sullevan’s greatness derived from mastery of his craft and from his rich, authoritative voice, tinged with Home Counties drawl and Irish brogue.

He endured many disadvantages, including a stutter and terrible acne, on his road to broadcasting immortality. He cared passionately for racing and always retained the boundless enthusiasm of the amateur. He dedicated hours to memorising the racing colours of the horses, and making sure he was prepared for his job.

I suppose it is conceivable that today’s monochrome BBC could find a slot for Sir Peter. It is impossible to imagine, however, that either John Arlott or Brian Johnston, those two giants of 20th-century cricket commentary, would ever find their way on to Test Match Special.

Arlott was a former policeman, poet and a drinker on the scale of Dylan Thomas, capable of producing phrases that live in the language. To take one example, the Pakistan medium fast bowler, Asif Masood, had a kink in his run-up. Arlott compared him to “Groucho Marx chasing a pretty waitress”. His soft Hampshire burr will never be forgotten by anyone who heard it.

He made the perfect foil to the Old Etonian Brian Johnston, who brought the humour of the public school lower sixth form into the commentary box. Mrs Slater would probably have looked at someone like Johnston with bemusement and contempt.

The nearest thing Test Match Special has to Johnston is Henry Blofeld, who was first engaged in the Seventies. He presents an appalling parody of the worst type of upper-class Englishman, but the effect comes off very well and he knows his stuff backwards.

Today’s BBC would never hire a Blofeld. Indeed several years ago (under the previous TMS producer, Peter Baxter) it tried to get rid of him. I am proud to say that I played a minor role in saving Blofeld for the nation. I launched the BBBBB (Bugger Baxter Bring Back Blofeld) campaign, and the men in suits were seen off. There is a happy ending to this story: the two men have made friends again and their double act plays to packed houses in regional theatres.

Before he died in 1994, Johnston wrote down his advice to young people seeking to learn the craft of a commentator. His words remain as important to sports commentary as Leonardo’s sketches were to developing perspective.
He stressed the importance of a commentator being able “to put into words what he is seeing, which means that besides being observant he must have a varied and colourful vocabulary and a sound use of good English”.
He urged commentators to have both “light and shade in your voice”.

In another crucial insight, he said you should “always think of yourself as speaking to one person, not to millions. You are that person’s friend and guide. Tell him or her what you would want to hear if you were not at that match.”

Finally, he stressed that the commentator needs to have – and to describe – a mental image of the players and the game. For example: “He has red, curly hair, wears size 14 boots, scratches his nose before every ball…” These are qualities that lie far beyond the scope of a Botham or a Neville. To be fair, they are no worse than most of their colleagues. Thierry Henry is well-groomed and has the priceless advantage of a French accent. It is a pity he has nothing to say.

Modern sports producers do not value broadcasting or communication skills any longer. In this debauched age of celebrity journalism, all they want is that recognisable name.

This is a terrible betrayal by BBC executives of the corporation’s famous sporting tradition. Compare and contrast the prominence given to Neville with the neglect shown to the one outstanding reporter to have emerged so far during this World Cup.

Many listeners and viewers will not have heard of him because the BBC prefers to stick him on in the middle of the night, normally between the hours of 2am and 4am. But I have no doubt he is the nearest thing that modern football has to a truly gifted commentator.
The freelance journalist Tim Vickery has a deep knowledge of South American football, acquired over a long period. Like Arlott, he enjoyed a mixed early career.
He worked in any number of jobs, from being an assistant in a menswear shop, to being a casual labourer, to working in a box office, before eventually embarking for Brazil to indulge his passion for football.

As everybody who has heard him will grasp, Vickery has two great gifts. First, detailed knowledge. There are no Latin American players with whom Vickery is not completely familiar, and he knows the political ins and outs of every single club.
Second – and even more important – Vickery radiates boundless enthusiasm. Yet the BBC would rather inflict the mediocrity of the Phil Nevilles and Gary Linekers on viewers and listeners.

British broadcasters need to relearn the essential truth that broadcasting is every bit as complex and difficult as top-level professional sport. In their different ways, O’Sullevan, Arlott and the superlative Vickery prove this.

The ability to kick a football is a priceless gift. So is the ability to communicate. The BBC has made the fatal error of thinking that the two are the same. It urgently needs to wake up.

[charmbrights]

Cricket (especially TMS) and soccer (which I never watch, so I take your word for it) are not the only games to suffer from this problem. Rugby has its share of "wonderful on the pitch but woeful on the microphone" commentators.

[Teddy Bear]

To be honest Charm, I don't watch football either, so I'm taking the word of these journalists and the people who complained that do.
I long ago felt that many sports, and especially football, stopped supporting the desired values of our society.
I think it's not by chance that the words - sport and support are closely linked.