Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ssb - snooker the limit for sky

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ssb - snooker the limit for sky

    On Thursday night in the UK, Sky Sports, which has four channels, will put the Premier League snooker behind the red button until 10pm.


    Under 21 football, US Open tennis, US golf and T20 club cricket take precedence.


    Viewers with the right kit can still watch the snooker but it is an illustration of how far the sport has fallen on Sky.


    It is worth reflecting how well Sky has covered snooker over the years.


    With many hours to fill and with snooker a popular sport, in the early days of Sky they showed as much as they could get. They showed it all day long and all night long too.


    In terms of production, they were ahead of the BBC with more cameras and more ideas. In turn, this led to the BBC upping their game.


    Sky was the first to pilot interactive snooker with a choice of, at one point, three tables.


    The problem in the end was that they were left with what were regarded as the lesser tournaments. These were still big events. The Scottish Open was always popular, not least because Stephen Hendry and John Higgins were winning so much, but they weren’t the World or UK Championships.


    Sky bid big for the top events but the WPBSA felt they should remain on the BBC (the fact several WPBSA board members were also BBC commentators surely a coincidence.)


    I think they were right, regardless of financials. If snooker disappeared from the BBC it could disappear in the UK completely.


    Sky’s other problem was that the Scottish Open was played very close to the World Championship.


    I’m told that at the end of the last contract, two WPBSA board members went to a meeting with Sky Sports executives hoping to renew. They were presented with newspaper cuttings in which players were generally reported to be dismissing the Scottish event as unimportant with the Crucible coming up.


    Sky’s response was basically ‘then why should we show it?’


    And they didn’t and haven’t shown a ranking event since.


    Their snooker portfolio, understandably, revolves around ‘different’ events: the Premier League, World Seniors Championship and Shootout.


    These are all entertaining competitions but not majors. A ranking tournament would beef up Sky’s snooker coverage but the truth is they no longer need snooker as they have so much other sport.


    It is also true, as revealed in the Barry Hearn documentary shown on the BBC last May, that Barney Francis, Sky’s head of sport, does not believe snooker is a ratings puller.


    His argument was that, in this day and age, snooker is too slow moving. All of Sky’s events have a shot clock (though this in itself doesn’t guarantee better snooker).


    I think Francis is wrong. Sky shows a lot of Test cricket, which is also slow moving but, to many, is fascinating.


    Snooker still does good business on the BBC, Eurosport and on other channels, so why not Sky?


    Ironically, Francis is the son of Tony Francis, who used to present snooker for ITV.


    Sky has not given up on snooker but it seems unlikely that it will make much of an effort to show any more of it than it does currently.


    Hearn has historically supplied hour upon hour of various sports to Sky and has a very good relationship with them.


    If he can’t persuade them to take more snooker then nobody can.



    More...

  • #2
    How is this possible?! They have shot-clock and everything in PL?

    Comment


    • #3
      No good for us Virgin customers then , no red button faciltiy available

      Now , i wonder if they would have done the same had a certain Ronnie O'Sullivan been playing that night ?
      Still trying to pot as many balls as i can !

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally Posted by neil taperell View Post
        No good for us Virgin customers then , no red button faciltiy available

        Now , i wonder if they would have done the same had a certain Ronnie O'Sullivan been playing that night ?
        sam with people that only have sky go
        Goddess Of All Things Cue Sports And Winner Of The 2012 German Masters and World Open Fantasy Games and the overall 2011-12 Fantasy Game

        Comment


        • #5
          barney francis is a true media professional who knows exactly what he is talking about.

          bbc and eurosport are doing good business with snooker? really? depends whether you consider the glass is half empty or half full. bbc only carries a little over half of the ranking tournaments - in fact, they haven't covered any of the tournaments to date in the 2012/2013 season - and eurosport is not much better. coverage of the paul hunter classic on eurosport international was sporadic - the QF and SF matches were not shown live and they only started showing the final somewhere around the middle of frame 2, all in favor of other programming such as skiing and cycling.

          absolutely respect sky's decision not to show any snooker unless it is shot clock based tournaments. barney francis' assessment about snooker being too slow and not being a ratings puller is right on the dot (and i'm pretty sure the sky team would have done research and studies on this). what barry hearn should do is listen closely to what barney francis has to say and hopefully he will make sweeping changes to the game.

          http://www.dnaindia.com/speakup/repo...to-ipl_1635675

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally Posted by arbitrage View Post
            barney francis is a true media professional who knows exactly what he is talking about.

            bbc and eurosport are doing good business with snooker? really? depends whether you consider the glass is half empty or half full. bbc only carries a little over half of the ranking tournaments - in fact, they haven't covered any of the tournaments to date in the 2012/2013 season - and eurosport is not much better. coverage of the paul hunter classic on eurosport international was sporadic - the QF and SF matches were not shown live and they only started showing the final somewhere around the middle of frame 2, all in favor of other programming such as skiing and cycling.

            absolutely respect sky's decision not to show any snooker unless it is shot clock based tournaments. barney francis' assessment about snooker being too slow and not being a ratings puller is right on the dot (and i'm pretty sure the sky team would have done research and studies on this). what barry hearn should do is listen closely to what barney francis has to say and hopefully he will make sweeping changes to the game.

            http://www.dnaindia.com/speakup/repo...to-ipl_1635675
            try the eurosport player
            Goddess Of All Things Cue Sports And Winner Of The 2012 German Masters and World Open Fantasy Games and the overall 2011-12 Fantasy Game

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally Posted by arbitrage View Post
              barney francis is a true media professional who knows exactly what he is talking about.

              bbc and eurosport are doing good business with snooker? really? depends whether you consider the glass is half empty or half full. bbc only carries a little over half of the ranking tournaments - in fact, they haven't covered any of the tournaments to date in the 2012/2013 season - and eurosport is not much better. coverage of the paul hunter classic on eurosport international was sporadic - the QF and SF matches were not shown live and they only started showing the final somewhere around the middle of frame 2, all in favor of other programming such as skiing and cycling.

              absolutely respect sky's decision not to show any snooker unless it is shot clock based tournaments. barney francis' assessment about snooker being too slow and not being a ratings puller is right on the dot (and i'm pretty sure the sky team would have done research and studies on this). what barry hearn should do is listen closely to what barney francis has to say and hopefully he will make sweeping changes to the game.

              http://www.dnaindia.com/speakup/repo...to-ipl_1635675
              Spot on there really. A non-snooker fan can't really turn over to the snooker and get hooked on the drama unless they given it time and it is one of those special finals, it's just too slow to draw in viewers.

              Darts for example is very fast paced and seeing back to back 180s and 9 darters along with the crowds reactions can make you keep watching that bit longer. I can think of various times I've flicked over to a sport I don't like and keep watching for the drama, one being the Nadal vs Federer Wimbledon final a few years back and ever since I've always watched Wimbledon. Snooker just doesn't have the pace for the 'channel-flicking' viewer to get hooked unless it is one of those special moments. Mostly only snooker fans can really appreciate the tension and drama in the big tournaments in my opinion.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally Posted by arbitrage View Post
                coverage of the paul hunter classic on eurosport international was sporadic - the QF and SF matches were not shown live and they only started showing the final somewhere around the middle of frame 2, all in favor of other programming such as skiing and cycling.[/url]
                Hmm... I wached the other semifinal live and the whole final live from Eurosport on Sunday evening and they had a coverage earlier in the afternoon. Oh and erm they had two coverages on Saturday 25th, first one 4 hours, second one was over 3 hours. On TV.

                Sporadic?

                Eurosport has a very good coverage on TV and complete coverage on Eurosport Player.

                Is the shot-clock so important to you, personally, that you have to fabricate things constanly? And you're supposed to be a man of fair play...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally Posted by NorthWestJunior View Post
                  Darts for example is very fast paced and seeing back to back 180s and 9 darters along with the crowds reactions can make you keep watching that bit longer. I can think of various times I've flicked over to a sport I don't like and keep watching for the drama, one being the Nadal vs Federer Wimbledon final a few years back and ever since I've always watched Wimbledon. Snooker just doesn't have the pace for the 'channel-flicking' viewer to get hooked unless it is one of those special moments. Mostly only snooker fans can really appreciate the tension and drama in the big tournaments in my opinion.
                  I disagree. Thinking back to how I got hooked on snooker, "channel-flicking" was pretty much it. When you come across snooker, you are always likely to get a "static" situation, because it's the kind of game where balls only move for a couple of seconds every half minute or so. The rest of the time they are still, and the only thing to see is the player contemplating their next shot. I guess that's what some viewers like, that opportunity to think along with the player. Yeah, if you can't be bothered with that, I guess snooker won't appeal to you. But taking what is essentially a very slow-paced game and making it slightly less slow paced won't do much good either. It only puts snooker in competition with faster games, rather than leaving it for the people who have a predisposition to like slow-paced entertainment.

                  Personally, I've never understood the appeal of darts. To be honest, I've never given it much chance. There is no buildup whatsoever, the players just get on with it until someone wins, and it's exactly the kind of sport that starts to bore me after two minutes. It's interesting, I like any type of snooker, but whenever I have someone watching it with me, it's always the frames decided on the final colours that grab the most attention. People always stop for a minute when walking past the TV for frames like that. On the other hand, I've often had people urging me to change the channel when a player was in the closing stages of a total clearance, because the frame was supposedly "over". I guess no two people are alike, and if we all appreciated the same things, we wouldn't be having this argument so often. :wink:

                  It's not all about pace either. Snooker just has something about it that's hard to describe, a certain grandness that you don't get in any other cue sport, at least not the ones I've seen. It could be the sheer size of the table, could be the hushed atmosphere in which it's played, could be the dress code and the gentlemanly demeanor of the players and officials, could be its tactical complexity, or it could be a bit of everything. I loved it immediately, for some it's an acquired taste, and others will never like it, shot clock or not. :wink:


                  But anyway, I'm not sure what the point of this thread actually is... It's not like there are major events without a broadcaster...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally Posted by LittleMissAlexa View Post
                    try the eurosport player
                    i'm not in a geo-zone which has the eurosport player service nor british eurosport (i only have access to eurosport RO and coverage there is sporadic). in any case - for the stalker who doesn't understand rejection, that is not the important issue here. the key point is barney francis is the head of a very popular sports media channel which is refusing to carry non shot clock events because they don't believe it will pull ratings and that traditional snooker is too slow for audiences.

                    and barney francis is infinitely more qualified to comment on the subject than all the stalkers and dinos on this forum combined.
                    Last edited by arbitrage; 4 September 2012, 11:58 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally Posted by arbitrage View Post

                      and barney francis is infinitely more qualified to comment on the subject than all the stalkers and dinos on this forum combined.

                      Really? Reputation by association? If he's fired tomorrow, does his credibility go out the window? Rodney Walker was the chairman of the WPBSA for god knows how many years and look at how useful his "expertise" was in helping promote the game.

                      Just because a guy is head of a TV channel doesn't mean he's incapable of being wrong, but then I don't want Sky to get their hands on the snooker for fear that they'll try to add a shot clock to everything in the name of excitement.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally Posted by gavpowell View Post
                        Really? Reputation by association? If he's fired tomorrow, does his credibility go out the window? Rodney Walker was the chairman of the WPBSA for god knows how many years and look at how useful his "expertise" was in helping promote the game.

                        Just because a guy is head of a TV channel doesn't mean he's incapable of being wrong, but then I don't want Sky to get their hands on the snooker for fear that they'll try to add a shot clock to everything in the name of excitement.

                        then prove him wrong with facts, not conjecture about what might be or not be. he is the head of an organization which does a lot of research and has a lot of data on what shows pull ratings or don't. sky is a successful commercial business and is a cash cow, which means they pick the right programs to air as opposed to rod walker / wpbsa which is an association and not a very successful one at that. barney francis is an expert (and even if he is fired today it won't change that status) and has an informed opinion, do you?
                        Last edited by arbitrage; 5 September 2012, 04:53 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally Posted by arbitrage View Post
                          i'm not in a geo-zone which has the eurosport player service nor british eurosport (i only have access to eurosport RO and coverage there is sporadic). in any case - for the stalker who doesn't understand rejection, that is not the important issue here. the key point is barney francis is the head of a very popular sports media channel which is refusing to carry non shot clock events because they don't believe it will pull ratings and that traditional snooker is too slow for audiences.

                          and barney francis is infinitely more qualified to comment on the subject than all the stalkers and dinos on this forum combined.
                          If they choose not to show trad snooker, fair enough. But why Barney Francis - the carrier of wisdom - puts shot-clock snooker behind red button? How much the game must change to answer the purpose for Sky?

                          If Eurosport coverage (which is great btw and audiences are good) is not the issue why do you bring it up in your petty argumentation. What comes to stalking, this is an open discussion forum. I'm free to comment against your reasoning and I don't give a toss to your childish ignoring. It's not conversation that we'd all run to kiss your ass when you come up with a rule change which even Sky doesn't seem to believe in.

                          How do you make it faster or more popular? Turn all tournament to shoot-outs? It doesn't come much faster and shorter than PL is. And they still put it behind red button.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Whether Barney Francis is an oracle of wisdom, or a muppet figurehead for an over-rated broadcasting company owned by a narcissistic ego-maniac is debatable. Whatever side you come down on, sweeping changes to a sport because of one persons opinion is a questionable recommendation.

                            SKY sports news trumpet breaking news as if reporting 9/11, while showing 2 different scores for the same football match. I can't swear this is a fact, but we're talking about SKY, so who cares? One Saturday I tuned in for live scoring, I'm sure there were 3 different scores for the same match!
                            I often use large words I don't really understand in an attempt to appear more photosynthesis.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              In my opinion satellite broadcasting has ruined British sport completely. As someone with the financial means to pay for it but the personal morality not to stump up money for Murdoch I feel I have lost contact with many sports that I used to follow, like boxing, cricket, motorcycle racing etc.
                              Too much money has gone into football through satellite broadcasting turning what was once played by men for glory into nothing more that a business where anything goes in order to stay at the top and keep coining it.
                              If people who pay for Sky put that money instead into a personal pension investing in British industry or a savings fund then not only will they and this country be better off but these sports will return to the terrestial networks where we can all enjoy them once again and Sky and Murdoch will just go away. We have the power.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X