Mikes co-host this season - Page 2 - NFL UK Forums
NFL UK Mobile Logo
Go Back   NFL UK Forums > National Football League > NFL TV coverage

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 13.12.2007, 02:46 PM
ringsoft's Avatar
ringsoft ringsoft is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 02.08.2007
Posts: 253
Default Re:Mikes co-host this season

It's all live, they have a limited amount of time to say what they have to say, they have highlights to squeeze in, they need to keep one eye on when the game coverage is coming back... all in all, it's a tricky job. Not rocket science, I grant you, but tricky, and I think they do a decent job.

The occasional interrupting of each other is an annoyance, but I expect that will improve if/when Nat returns next year.

The relaxed setting is a real contrast to Sky's stiff collar and tie approach (granted, this is the bosses' idea, not Nick and Kev's) and I know which I prefer.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 13.12.2007, 04:02 PM
Nick_M's Avatar
Nick_M Nick_M is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 06.06.2005
Posts: 1,550
Default Re:Mikes co-host this season

Mike and Nat>>>>>>>>>>>&gt ;>>>>>>>>Everyone on Sky.

Sky's coverage is an unwatchable mess unfortunatley.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 13.12.2007, 04:59 PM
mwhite's Avatar
mwhite mwhite is offline
Pro Bowler
 
Join Date: 06.10.2003
Posts: 517
Default Re:Mikes co-host this season

[quote author=Nick_M link=board=2;threadid=30853;start=0#msg804994 date=1197561741]
Sky's coverage is an unwatchable mess unfortunatley.
[/quote]

Everyone's entitled to an opinion but I'd love you to quantify your statement. What exactly makes it, in your eyes, 'an unwatchable mess'? Is it the professional camera work, high-quality lighting, smartly-dressed presenters (not meant as a slight on Mike & Nat btw) or the fact that they can keep going for 10 hours plus every Sunday night and then for a further 4 hours the next night?

I find it almost comical how so many people think they could do it better than the pro's but I'm guessing a lot of these 'experts' would fold under the pressure before the 'on-air' light had a chance to be turned on.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 14.12.2007, 12:55 AM
droach75 droach75 is offline
Rookie
 
Join Date: 13.09.2006
Posts: 20
Default Re:Mikes co-host this season

Thanks for brninging up Jeff Reinbold's name,,,a name i had forgotten, but not his face and enthusiasum for the game. I totally aggree he was one of best guests Sky Sports have had,,he was insightful and diffrent to guests before and since as he came at it from a coachs perspective
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 14.12.2007, 11:59 AM
Nick_M's Avatar
Nick_M Nick_M is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 06.06.2005
Posts: 1,550
Default Re:Mikes co-host this season

[quote author=mwhite link=board=2;threadid=30853;start=0#msg805034 date=1197565152]
[quote author=Nick_M link=board=2;threadid=30853;start=0#msg804994 date=1197561741]
Sky's coverage is an unwatchable mess unfortunatley.
[/quote]

Everyone's entitled to an opinion but I'd love you to quantify your statement. What exactly makes it, in your eyes, 'an unwatchable mess'? Is it the professional camera work, high-quality lighting, smartly-dressed presenters (not meant as a slight on Mike & Nat btw) or the fact that they can keep going for 10 hours plus every Sunday night and then for a further 4 hours the next night?

I find it almost comical how so many people think they could do it better than the pro's but I'm guessing a lot of these 'experts' would fold under the pressure before the 'on-air' light had a chance to be turned on.
[/quote]

1. The studio is garish and cold.

2. The analysis is non existent.

3. The pundits they have on are mainly terrible.

4. Kev asks the most cliche and pointless questions imaginable.

5. They rarely talk about the game they are actually showing.

6. Too many adverts.

7. Forced humour

8. Show the Dolphins every week.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 14.12.2007, 09:44 PM
mwhite's Avatar
mwhite mwhite is offline
Pro Bowler
 
Join Date: 06.10.2003
Posts: 517
Default Re:Mikes co-host this season

[quote author=Nick_M link=board=2;threadid=30853;start=0#msg805391 date=1197633564]
[quote author=mwhite link=board=2;threadid=30853;start=0#msg805034 date=1197565152]
[quote author=Nick_M link=board=2;threadid=30853;start=0#msg804994 date=1197561741]
Sky's coverage is an unwatchable mess unfortunatley.
[/quote]

Everyone's entitled to an opinion but I'd love you to quantify your statement. What exactly makes it, in your eyes, 'an unwatchable mess'? Is it the professional camera work, high-quality lighting, smartly-dressed presenters (not meant as a slight on Mike & Nat btw) or the fact that they can keep going for 10 hours plus every Sunday night and then for a further 4 hours the next night?

I find it almost comical how so many people think they could do it better than the pro's but I'm guessing a lot of these 'experts' would fold under the pressure before the 'on-air' light had a chance to be turned on.
[/quote]

1. The studio is garish and cold.
This is about personal taste and is not a plausible reason for calling something 'an unwatchable mess'

2. The analysis is non existent.
To say the analysis is non-existent would suggest NO analysis takes place. As with your thoughts on the studio, I can only assume you feel the analysis isn't as detailed as you would like. As many on here have explained before, they do not go too in-depth as it would turn off the casual viewer. They instead choose to take emails/texts as people want to hear their name and/or question read out which keeps them tuned in, thereby generating viewing figures.

3. The pundits they have on are mainly terrible.
Again, I ask you to quantify your statement. What makes them terrible in your eyes. And as someone who broadcasts for a living, I can assure you what they do isn't easy and they are by no means terrible. They might have nuances that aren't to your taste, but that doesn't make them terrible.

4. Kev asks the most cliche and pointless questions imaginable.
One of the first things I learned when I started out in professional sports broadcasting, you have to ask the cliched and seemingly 'pointless' questions. You shouldn't try to look like the expert if you're interviewing someone who knows more than you do or are there for the purpose of providing an insight into the subject matter. I heard an interviewer give an opinion rather than ask a question of a football manager the other day, only to get the answer of 'well, why do you need to ask me as you seem to have answered it yourself'.

5. They rarely talk about the game they are actually showing.
I fail to see where you think they don't talk about the game they're showing but if they are not talking about it, it could be because it's a dull and/or meaningless game (i.e. Bears/Redskins last Thursday). It's also because they are trying to make sure all the major talking points are covered about any of the 32 NFL teams so as not to alienate the fans of teams NOT playing in the game they are showing.

6. Too many adverts.
We are lucky to have so many NFL games in this country and I for one am not bothered by a couple of adverts. Face facts, adverts pay the bills and ensure we get the quality programming/content we all demand. And have you stopped to think that whenever we get ad breaks here, it's because the US audience are also seeing commercials. The only difference is, we are sometimes lucky enough to get a 'studio segment' as opposed to ads whereas our American friends get yet another ad break.

7. Forced humour
Name me a show that doesn't include some kind of forced humour. And it's hardly as if Nick, Kev and co take themselves deadly serious....I think they're well aware they're being cheesy and aren't on the edge of their seat waiting from a call from The Comedy Store.

8. Show the Dolphins every week.
Huh? I don't think we've seen them more than once since the Wembley game and the amount of times they were shown before that is surely obvious. Isn't it?
[/quote]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion as I said before. However, many of your arguments seem flawed or lacking in any real substance.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 15.12.2007, 11:41 AM
RavenTD's Avatar
RavenTD RavenTD is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 10.03.2007
Posts: 2,409
Default Re:Mikes co-host this season

Nat has grown on me,and surprises me with his knowledge.

I think they are both working well together,and I don't fast forward the video anymore during timeouts.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 15.12.2007, 06:44 PM
philipwainwright philipwainwright is offline
Starter
 
Join Date: 05.10.2003
Posts: 101
Default Re:Mikes co-host this season

[quote author=mwhite link=board=2;threadid=30853;start=15#msg805634 date=1197668682]
[quote author=Nick_M link=board=2;threadid=30853;start=0#msg805391 date=1197633564]
[quote author=mwhite link=board=2;threadid=30853;start=0#msg805034 date=1197565152]
[quote author=Nick_M link=board=2;threadid=30853;start=0#msg804994 date=1197561741]
Sky's coverage is an unwatchable mess unfortunatley.
[/quote]

Everyone's entitled to an opinion but I'd love you to quantify your statement. What exactly makes it, in your eyes, 'an unwatchable mess'? Is it the professional camera work, high-quality lighting, smartly-dressed presenters (not meant as a slight on Mike & Nat btw) or the fact that they can keep going for 10 hours plus every Sunday night and then for a further 4 hours the next night?

I find it almost comical how so many people think they could do it better than the pro's but I'm guessing a lot of these 'experts' would fold under the pressure before the 'on-air' light had a chance to be turned on.
[/quote]

1. The studio is garish and cold.
This is about personal taste and is not a plausible reason for calling something 'an unwatchable mess'

2. The analysis is non existent.
To say the analysis is non-existent would suggest NO analysis takes place. As with your thoughts on the studio, I can only assume you feel the analysis isn't as detailed as you would like. As many on here have explained before, they do not go too in-depth as it would turn off the casual viewer. They instead choose to take emails/texts as people want to hear their name and/or question read out which keeps them tuned in, thereby generating viewing figures.

3. The pundits they have on are mainly terrible.
Again, I ask you to quantify your statement. What makes them terrible in your eyes. And as someone who broadcasts for a living, I can assure you what they do isn't easy and they are by no means terrible. They might have nuances that aren't to your taste, but that doesn't make them terrible.

4. Kev asks the most cliche and pointless questions imaginable.
One of the first things I learned when I started out in professional sports broadcasting, you have to ask the cliched and seemingly 'pointless' questions. You shouldn't try to look like the expert if you're interviewing someone who knows more than you do or are there for the purpose of providing an insight into the subject matter. I heard an interviewer give an opinion rather than ask a question of a football manager the other day, only to get the answer of 'well, why do you need to ask me as you seem to have answered it yourself'.

5. They rarely talk about the game they are actually showing.
I fail to see where you think they don't talk about the game they're showing but if they are not talking about it, it could be because it's a dull and/or meaningless game (i.e. Bears/Redskins last Thursday). It's also because they are trying to make sure all the major talking points are covered about any of the 32 NFL teams so as not to alienate the fans of teams NOT playing in the game they are showing.

6. Too many adverts.
We are lucky to have so many NFL games in this country and I for one am not bothered by a couple of adverts. Face facts, adverts pay the bills and ensure we get the quality programming/content we all demand. And have you stopped to think that whenever we get ad breaks here, it's because the US audience are also seeing commercials. The only difference is, we are sometimes lucky enough to get a 'studio segment' as opposed to ads whereas our American friends get yet another ad break.

7. Forced humour
Name me a show that doesn't include some kind of forced humour. And it's hardly as if Nick, Kev and co take themselves deadly serious....I think they're well aware they're being cheesy and aren't on the edge of their seat waiting from a call from The Comedy Store.

8. Show the Dolphins every week.
Huh? I don't think we've seen them more than once since the Wembley game and the amount of times they were shown before that is surely obvious. Isn't it?
[/quote]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion as I said before. However, many of your arguments seem flawed or lacking in any real substance.
[/quote]

For years now people have argued about Skys poor or excellent coverage. It never goes away, and where there is smoke there is fire. Fact is they provide excelllent coverage but the Sky Studio analysts are not very proffessional. I actually like Nick Halling and Kevin Cadle, they are in IMO very er comforting, but the guests they get are usually awful (including the current crowd).
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 15.12.2007, 06:50 PM
philipwainwright philipwainwright is offline
Starter
 
Join Date: 05.10.2003
Posts: 101
Default Re:Mikes co-host this season

[quote author=payton3434 link=board=2;threadid=30853;start=0#msg804353 date=1197461177]
He seems like a nice chap, but...

Practically every joke Carlson makes goes right over the top of his head! It is actually quite painful to watch at times. He is one of those people who answers a question before thinking!

If his mum is reading, feel free to leap to his defence!!!!
[/quote]

Yeah but they are so relaxing to watch. It comes across as just two blokes having a chat on the sofa about the game, which is great. I really do enjoy fives coverage, a TV weekly highlight for me.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 15.12.2007, 09:56 PM
drzm's Avatar
drzm drzm is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 14.12.2003
Posts: 1,321
Default Re:Mikes co-host this season

five's coverage is amazingly superior to sky's

better presenters - biggest difference
nicer studio
no ads
mike carlsons genius
nat represents those who dont know much about the nfl so he asks questions a lot of people will want to know which is helpful

what he said :

Quote:
Yeah but they are so relaxing to watch. It comes across as just two blokes having a chat on the sofa about the game, which is great. I really do enjoy fives coverage, a TV weekly highlight for me.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +0. The time now is 12:13 PM.