Match of the Day

[Trav Le Bleu]

4 hours ago, davieG said:

Am I the only one out of sync with this view.

 

Less analysis and more of the action please

 

Match of the Day should show fewer Premier League highlights and more analysis, says BBC chairman Samir Shah.

The BBC has a deal to show highlights of top-flight matches until the end of the 2028-29 season, with Match of the Day broadcast on Saturday evenings and MOTD2 on Sunday evenings.

Shah told the Sunday Times, external that many fans had watched Premier League goals and action before Match of the Day is broadcast.

Shah said the show "should not be built around highlights".

He added: "It should be built around analysis and examination of the match to give viewers a deeper insight."

Although the BBC is politically independent, its chairperson is appointed by the government.

In his role as chair of the BBC's board Shah is charge of upholding and protecting the BBC's independence and ensuring the BBC fulfils its mission to inform, educate and entertain.

Match of the Day celebrated its 60th anniversary in 2024.

It is hosted by former England striker Gary Lineker, who will step down at the end of this season.

 

Should Match of the Day...

Select one choice below

Show more analysis and less action

8%

Show more action and less analysis

46%

Stay the same as it is

46%

 

Cast your vote here - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cjw29g426nvo

Good that only 8% agree  I bet Mr Shah has never been to a game in his life.

 

He's right that it shouldn't be just highlights. But if you're going to have extensive analysis, then surely the only thing you've got time to show IS the highlights.

 

Muppet.

[Fazzer 7]

Cloughy was right all along. 

[Pliskin]

Doesn’t anyone even watch it anymore? I don’t think I’ve actually watched a single MOTD for about four years…..

[Pita]

Most of the presenters don’t analysis they just love certain teams they like and butcher all the rest 

[fox_up_north]

Cut it down to a highlights show of about 45 minutes and bin the expensive presenters. In the age of youtube when you can see highlights and analysis within 2 hours after a game is done, often by half decent amateurs, MOTD feels like a pointless endeavour.

 

Expensive one, too. 

[sphericalfox]

This is a 2026 problem. 

[RonnieTodger]

Shame that Lineker’s last year will end with us having an R next to our name 

[sylofox]

Surely that only works if you don't have a bunch of biased cvnts doing it.

 

That's the bit of the show I least like.

[Wink84]

17 hours ago, Finnegan said:

Yeah, I just read that. Spectacularly out of touch.

 

I'm someone that actually likes a lot of statistical and tactical analysis and I'd happily watch a show that went in to a decent amount of (accurate) detail on both.

 

But not only do I fully accept I'm in the minority but BBC's pundit team just isn't qualified or cut out to do it and they'd need a complete overhaul of their approach to pundits. There's quite a lot of good content creators out there who aren't former players doing solid analysis with both data and video and it'd be interesting to see a mainstream TV show go in that direction.

 

But if more analysis means more of Micah Richards and Alan Shearer pretending to have a clue then I'd watch it even less than I do now.

 

Extended highlights is the best thing they offer and even that's under threat by the SkySports youtube channel now.

 

I do think they need to shake the MOTD formula up a bit but this definitely isn't it.

 

Can you name some of those content creators please?

[The Horse's Mouth]

 I’m confused with the reaction to this, it’s actually kind of what they should be going for. MOTD USP of being a free channel to watch highlights of the premier league doesn’t hold water today. If you want highlights without analysis you can pretty much get that about an hour after games. Nobody is waiting for 10:30 on a Saturday to see the highlights of games in this day and age

 

I imagine the majority of the viewership which is still really strong for terrestrial tv watch it because of either nostalgia/routine or genuinely liking the presenters and pundits. 

[The boy Linacre]

13 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Good that only 8% agree  I bet Mr Shah has never been to a game in his life.

 

He's right that it shouldn't be just highlights. But if you're going to have extensive analysis, then surely the only thing you've got time to show IS the highlights.

 

Muppet.

I'm with the 46%, Just right, AND its generally my means of watching what happened.

Game length is about right 7-8 mins, manager interview, watch the ones I don't mind or have got the hump, FF thru the ones don't want to hear about.  Watch some analysis but again FF thru the waffle.  Perfect.  done in 45m to an hour instead of 70-80m.

Mr Shah hasn't got a clue, viewing figures are small compared to back in the day, it gets way more press than it deserves, nobody was bothered about MOTD for years & years.  I would suspect that the focus on Lineker's salary, public comments & activity on social is why this guy thinks its a vehicle to make comment about.

It does the job for those that want to watch, its changing anyway with new presenters, leave it primarily as is.

[Super_horns]

I remember occasionally they did have a Sunday lunchtime program where they did discuss the games .

I guess it didn’t rate well so soon dropped that show .

[Blueman1967]

Less chat, and more action

Edited 11 March by Blueman1967
spelling

[StanSP]

8 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

 I’m confused with the reaction to this, it’s actually kind of what they should be going for. MOTD USP of being a free channel to watch highlights of the premier league doesn’t hold water today. If you want highlights without analysis you can pretty much get that about an hour after games. Nobody is waiting for 10:30 on a Saturday to see the highlights of games in this day and age

 

I imagine the majority of the viewership which is still really strong for terrestrial tv watch it because of either nostalgia/routine or genuinely liking the presenters and pundits. 

I saw the other day that MOTD's ratings have pretty much held firm despite other highlights and coverage available. It surprised me as I thought figures were dropping significantly. 

[Fish]

The Analysis is full of cliche and stating the obvious. Rarely entertaining . No real insight just sanctimonious rubbish . In the words of Ally “it really is “. BBC well out of touch so much football on tv now motd should be resigned to history when football was entertaining .

Edited 11 March by Fish

[Super_horns]

2 hours ago, StanSP said:

I saw the other day that MOTD's ratings have pretty much held firm despite other highlights and coverage available. It surprised me as I thought figures were dropping significantly. 

 

48 minutes ago, Fish said:

The Analysis is full of cliche and stating the obvious. Rarely entertaining . No real insight just sanctimonious rubbish . In the words of Ally “it really is “. BBC well out of touch so much football on tv now motd should be resigned to history when football was entertaining .

Apparently the guy who said this isn’t to do with BBC sport as such but as head of the organisation must have some sway?

 

 

[Royston.]

The show is obsolete and i dont watch it

 

These days i have a quick look through the premier league results on livescore mainly to see how my fantasy team players did.

[The Horse's Mouth]

12 hours ago, StanSP said:

I saw the other day that MOTD's ratings have pretty much held firm despite other highlights and coverage available. It surprised me as I thought figures were dropping significantly. 

Exactly and it’s all down to presentation, people don’t get nostalgiac over the football league show for example because of the teams of the time, it was manish and Claridge breaking it down.