The Open 2016 - TV Coverage

[upsidedown]

Have enjoyed both Sky's and BBC's coverage, I mean with the golf what was not to like. I believe it just comes down to the production teams and the way they present the golf, pictures come from ETP for them both .

 

[sawtooth]

Garbage, have a look at social media, players from all over the world and many ex Open champions saying it could possibly be the greatest Open ever, I suppose they are all paid by Sky.
Or is it because you stated Henson would crumble?

Thats true I did think that Stenson could buckle a bit under the pressure. He hadn't won a major and he was up against a 5 time major champion going into the final round. Fair play to Stenson he has clearly got what it takes to get the job done.

My beef with Sky has nothing to do with Stenson, it's just the way they behave is tiresome and predictable. Talksport as well are forever having digs at 5live. Even taking a pop at SPOTY because it's something they don't have. Maybe I see something that isn't there but that's how they come across to me.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Sky got fortunate with the golf on show, it doesn't change the fact their coverage was superb though

Spot on Val.

I thought they'd over analyse everything like they have done with the football coverage but it's been the opposite. The part on the range with Claude Harmon and the pro's was superb.

I don't believe the coverage would've been better on BBC had they'd had the coverage.

 

[Blue in Munich]

What makes the duel in the sun better than today's last round do you think?

That it was 2 absolute legends of the game, rather than two very good players. That they provided that level of golf over 36 holes, rather than the 18 holes of today. That Jack Nicklaus managed on the last hole to make Tom Watson's short putt essential to avoid a play off, rather than the luxury of the three putts Stenson could have taken. And that they did it with wooden headed drivers, steel shafts, butter knives and balls that, if they were lucky were almost round, rather than the much more forgiving equipment of today.

 

[richy]

Thats true I did think that Stenson could buckle a bit under the pressure. He hadn't won a major and he was up against a 5 time major champion going into the final round. Fair play to Stenson he has clearly got what it takes to get the job done.

My beef with Sky has nothing to do with Stenson, it's just the way they behave is tiresome and predictable. Talksport as well are forever having digs at 5live. Even taking a pop at SPOTY because it's something they don't have. Maybe I see something that isn't there but that's how they come across to me.

I actually know what you mean. They do the same with the boxing. Any fighter who isn't Matchroom or fighting someone from Matchroom simply doesn't exist.

There was a true all time great fighting on Saturday in Wales and wasn't mentioned at all on Sky.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Spot on Val.

I thought they'd over analyse everything like they have done with the football coverage but it's been the opposite. The part on the range with Claude Harmon and the pro's was superb.

I don't believe the coverage would've been better on BBC had they'd had the coverage.

The live golf coverage is the same regardless of the broadcaster - all the pictures and cameramen etc are all down by European Tour Productions alongside outside broadcast companies ( one of the ones I work for ) - those pictures are then fed to the various broadcast companies around the world for them to commentate too etc and then they broadcast out what they seem fit - some countries just take the home broadcast ( sky ) some have their own.

So what it will come down to will be how each broadcaster produces the show - for me Sky didn't focus enough on all the players and the live golf so wasn't my preference plus I'm not a fan of their commentators - other will be and will prefer what they did with the shot zone etc - that doesn't mean others are right or wrong just have a different way they want to see the golf

 

[Val]

The live golf coverage is the same regardless of the broadcaster - all the pictures and cameramen etc are all down by European Tour Productions alongside outside broadcast companies ( one of the ones I work for ) - those pictures are then fed to the various broadcast companies around the world for them to commentate too etc and then they broadcast out what they seem fit - some countries just take the home broadcast ( sky ) some have their own.

So what it will come down to will be how each broadcaster produces the show - for me Sky didn't focus enough on all the players and the live golf so wasn't my preference plus I'm not a fan of their commentators - other will be and will prefer what they did with the shot zone etc - that doesn't mean others are right or wrong just have a different way they want to see the golf

How can they focus on live golf and all the players if the coverage is outwith their control?

 

[Deleted member 1740]

The live golf coverage is the same regardless of the broadcaster - all the pictures and cameramen etc are all down by European Tour Productions alongside outside broadcast companies ( one of the ones I work for ) - those pictures are then fed to the various broadcast companies around the world for them to commentate too etc and then they broadcast out what they seem fit - some countries just take the home broadcast ( sky ) some have their own.

So what it will come down to will be how each broadcaster produces the show - for me Sky didn't focus enough on all the players and the live golf so wasn't my preference plus I'm not a fan of their commentators - other will be and will prefer what they did with the shot zone etc - that doesn't mean others are right or wrong just have a different way they want to see the golf

Maybe the issue is the ET and their own broadcasters if they control the pictures. Do they have enough cameras to get the amount of livegolfthats actually being played?

I very rarely listen to what commentators say tbh, I don't get the dislike of certain ones. The mute button comes in very handy:thup:

 

[Canary_Yellow]

How can they focus on live golf and all the players if the coverage is outwith their control?

Because the producers decide what to show. They all receive the same pictures from the camera feeds but it is up to the producers to decide how it will be shown.

If I've understood correctly.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

That it was 2 absolute legends of the game,

At the time they were not known as legends

rather than two very good players. That they provided that level of golf over 36 holes, rather than the 18 holes of today.

Stenson and Mickleson also played last 36 holes together and created the gap for today, yesterday.

That Jack Nicklaus managed on the last hole to make Tom Watson's short putt essential to avoid a play off,
rather than the luxury of the three putts Stenson could have taken.

That wasn't handed on a plate, it was done with the lowest ever final round score.

And that they did it with wooden headed drivers, steel shafts, butter knives and balls that, if they were lucky were almost round, rather than the much more forgiving equipment of today.

Irrelevant as you can only play with the equipment available at the time

Answers above, only time will tell if it is seen as bigger or not than the Duel in The Sun, but to single out one commentator because he works for Sky when many are agreeing is unfair.

 

[Val]

Because the producers decide what to show. They all receive the same pictures from the camera feeds but it is up to the producers to decide how it will be shown.

If I've understood correctly.

Right, and they get how long to decide? It is live after all.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

Right, and they get how long to decide? It is live after all.

For very obvious reasons (it's happening simultaneously), not everything is shown exactly live. So the producers would have control over which groups to focus on and the order in which things are shown.

I've never noticed any real difference between the BBC and Sky in that regard. Sky do more around analysis and studio time, but I actually really enjoy that element.

 

[Val]

Coverage of the top pairing was no more than seconds behind so I assume producers are picking and choosing the best of the rest?

No surprises really. Do we really want to see mediocre golf when the leaders are turning it on?

 

[Canary_Yellow]

Coverage of the top pairing was no more than seconds behind so I assume producers are picking and choosing the best of the rest?

No surprises really. Do we really want to see mediocre golf when the leaders are turning it on?

Yes, that's right. Harder I guess when the leaders are not in the same group. Also, there was a bit of a habit in the past of showing a lot of tiger woods even when playing badly. I wasn't a fan of that element of production.

 

[Slab]

One of the great final rounds of a major ever. Absolutely spellbinding TV. God I can't wait to hear what the main protagonists think about it, what they are feeling, what they thought they main turning point was. Here comes the interviews and presentation ceremony with a TV audience in the millions and millions watching, come on, let's have it, lets sell golf as exciting, let's hear what the players thought about one of the greatest final rounds ever....

Oh, it's some anonymous bald bloke in a blazer surrounded by other anonymous bald blokes in blazers badly reading a pre-prepared speech and dying on his arse. Nice one, way to go.

Agree, great viewing (with for me, next to no adverts over many hours) but the presentation was the naff part (although mercifully quite short)

After spending so much wonga where was the presenter figure to announce & tie things together rather than an 'administrator'
I'll wager there was plenty celeb golf fans or retired successful golfers there with the skills/respect etc that the viewing public would connect with?

I get that you wouldn't stick Dougie Donnelly out there as 1st choice but Darren Clarke (esp in an RC year), Flado, McGinley, O'Meara, Laura Davis, there must have been dozens more of them there that could do it with a bit of pizzazz without sounding like a speak & spell or going OTT

 

[Slab]

Typo on Faldo in above post of course and too late to edit... but quite liking his new name

 

[Robobum]

That it was 2 absolute legends of the game, rather than two very good players. That they provided that level of golf over 36 holes, rather than the 18 holes of today. That Jack Nicklaus managed on the last hole to make Tom Watson's short putt essential to avoid a play off, rather than the luxury of the three putts Stenson could have taken. And that they did it with wooden headed drivers, steel shafts, butter knives and balls that, if they were lucky were almost round, rather than the much more forgiving equipment of today.

Nostalgia then.

Give it 30years and a catchy title and yesterday's will be right up there too.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Duel in the sun was 1975 (?) and so almost a generation ago and many won't have seen it. That was over the final round where this time around the protagonists slugged it toe to toe for two rounds. Simply put, that puts it right up there with original duel in my opinion and will go down as one of the true classic Open's

Irrespective of who provided the pictures and words it was compelling from the moment Phil hit that approach at the first and it took a record squalling 63 to win it. Can't be many final rounds where the loser hit a 65

If the pictures are from an external source, and I thought Sky also had their own cameras there as well, it's down to the production team to show what they want. I thought there was more than enough coverage of the likes of Beef, Garcia, Hatton etc but it was a straight showdown up front and that rightly got full coverage. I loved the Sky coverage and while we won't get that sort of Open next year, they'll tweak what they did here and come back with something bigger and better

 

[FairwayDodger]

So Mark Roe has just talked this up as eclipsing the Duel In The Sun at Turnberry in 1977. You couldn't make it up.

Jack Nicklaus has said much the same, but what would he know?

 

[Hacker Khan]

Agree, great viewing (with for me, next to no adverts over many hours) but the presentation was the naff part (although mercifully quite short)

After spending so much wonga where was the presenter figure to announce & tie things together rather than an 'administrator'
I'll wager there was plenty celeb golf fans or retired successful golfers there with the skills/respect etc that the viewing public would connect with?

I get that you wouldn't stick Dougie Donnelly out there as 1st choice but Darren Clarke (esp in an RC year), Flado, McGinley, O'Meara, Laura Davis, there must have been dozens more of them there that could do it with a bit of pizzazz without sounding like a speak & spell or going OTT

I know it's a small thing but it's every year, as you say, some dull administrator no one has heard of who can not do a speech. Just copy Wimbledon, they cottoned on to this a few years ago. Get someone in who, to start with, can actually speak in public (there would be plenty of candidates there from Sky to start with) and have a quick interview with the main protagonists if there are 2 of them or just the winner. Not difficult.