Team GB obsession spoiling it for me.

[throckenholt]

Am i the only one ? The constant obsession with British competitors to the almost total exclusion of everyone else is driving me mad ! I taped last nights athletics. So far there has been a lot of talk in the studio with the pundits, pole vault just showing the British girl knocking the bar off, and two heats on the track with no line up to show who was running, cameras zoomed in on the brits, and interviews immediately afterwards saying you went out in the first round how does that feel ? In between that we have had a life history of the brit pole vault girl, a hark back to great british hurdlers. And just once of twice they mention other people who are taking part.

It is driving me mad - the Olympics is supposed to be a celebration of the best in the world. I want to see the best, and if they happen to be British, then great - I will cheer with the best of them, but for gods sake please show us the best. If there is time left over then, ok a bit of British focus is fine, but only after they have told us about the best !

Thank god for the fast forward. I have just given up watching what I recorded because it is annoying mt so much. Will try again later, finger poised over the fast forward button.

Do you have red button? Generally you can get more comprehensive coverage of most sports that way or, to an extent, the dedicated Olympic channels. I think the availability of that technology to provide direct coverage has pushed them into making the flagship shows more magazine-format in style.

But they can't show everyone doing everything when so many of the events (even athletic events in the same stadium) run concurrently. The coverage of people like Phelps, Lochte, Bolt, Blake and even virtual nobodies like Chad le Clos has been fairly extensive. I think the reason the post-event interviews are mostly with British athletes is because the competitors probably head for the TV stations they recognise first - US athletes probably head for CNN/NBC, etc.

Yes I have red button - but only freeview so it is limited. The problem is I wanted to record it so can't record red button options. Can't watch on line either because not enough bandwidth on our internet connection. Also you can't fast forward online so you still get all the rubbish !

Usually I think GB sports coverage is reasonably objective, showing us the best and reporting it all. But this time round I have noticed it is so GB centric. You know full well there is a lot else going on but they aren't showing it. Pole vault for example - why only show the GB girl knocking it off, why not show us those who manage to get over it, and in to the top spots ?!

I have noticed it a lot in the gymnastics too - concentrating more on the gb ones (who admittedly are doing much better than in previous years) and not showing all of the rest of the good stuff that is going on. In the bit I taped (before the athletics started) there was a bit about Beth Tweddle winning bronze, no mention of the other winners, or events - who won those ?!

I think what is really winding me up in the athletics in particular (but also in the swimming) is all the biopics - lots of background to gb athletes who then don't do that well (in absolute terms - probably did brilliantly in their own pbs etc). If we are going to have those, can we at least have it about the ones who are likely to win - a bit of back history about those might at least be interesting. But I would much rather have much less of that and much more of the actual stuff that is going on. I want to see the competition evolve, especially in the field (jumping, throwing etc) - I really don't want to just see the brits, and then the final best jump. It is BORING.

But they can't show everyone doing everything when so many of the events

no - I know - it is always like that. But in the past they did try much harder, and didn't waste so much limited coverage time on non-action. If I want all those interviews then I could find them on the red button or on the web. They are relatively short (each one, not when all combined into one program) so most people should be able to access them. If someone is interested enough in x athlete, then great - they can go look them up and find the back story. DON'T waste the limited TV coverage on it.

One more thing while I am ranting. Why don't they keep to the listings on the TV broadcasts. I happily taped the Murray Federer match because I knew I would not be able to watch it live. I carefully avoided the results through the day. Sat down to watch it and found they had changed the bloody channel, I got boxing, volley ball, cycling, badminton, and 3 whole games of the tennis !!.

BBC has 24 channels where they have live video with simple commentary.

If you watch BBC1 or 2, expect the interviews. I imagine that most viewers are happy to watch these interviews, and that most athletes are willing to give them to just their national broadcasters.

I think you are right about the coverage in general. At the same time as technology has allowed broader and deeper coverage of all sports for those who can access it (through streaming, dedicated channels, etc.) the free broadcast coverage has started to look the way US Olympics coverage looked twenty years ago ("Such-and-such an event took place; the American came fourth"). In the past the main broadcast coverage would have been far more comprehensive.

Yes, I would have liked more balanced coverage at times - including better information about other nationality competitors (which is available/used sometimes).

There are a lot of retrospectives of British achievement (including multiple showings - they're showing right now the men's C2 canoeing for at least the third time. If those repeats were replaced with less parochial coverage, then the overall standards would be so much better.

What I have appreciated this time round are the explanations of what the key points of a particular sport are, especially for the gymnastics. I'd like to see more of that.

I don't want to watch dedicated blow by blow coverage of every event. I do however want more than just here are the 5 attempts by the british person, and here is the winning effort. I would like to see say the best 5 jumps as the competition develops, get a feel for the way the thing played out, without all the waiting around of the live event.

I think it is a shame if the advent of better technology means a lowering of standards of the main coverage.

Many years ago I was in France during an olympics - they only showed coverage of events where the French were winning in - if I remember rightly I saw a lot of fencing and judo, and next to no swimming, or gymnastics. I think our coverage seems in danger of going that way (as CaseyShraeger says for the US coverage).

I want to a return of our old style coverage, where our commentators talked about what was happening, about the people taking part and who was likely to do well, they showed most of the action highlights, and didn't concentrate on GB to the exclusion of all others.

It is a bit like news coverage - 50 000 people died in an earthquake. No-one was british - end of story. Or 1 was british - here are the in depth stories of his neighbours, who he used to work with etc etc etc.

The problem of showing what is happening at any given event is that for a lot of the time, nothing is happening!

There may be 10 minutes between races on the track, which can mean more than five minutes of officials fussing around, or the athletes adjusting their starting blocks. It is similar with jumping and throwing events - the do their bit, but it might be 2 - 3 minutes before the next jumper/thrower comes along.

You would be very frustrated if you were watching just what was on, which is why I prefer, in general, to watch BBC 1 with its editorial than one of the dedicated channels.

My point is they know the schedules. They know the times when there are gaps in the action. They used to fill the gaps with the highlights of the field events which are on going. You used to get the marrative of the field events (for example).

Now they seem to fill the gaps with endless interviews with british competitors who just went out, glossy background montages of british competitors who will do their thing later in the sessions. Or wil endles replays of said brit from lots of different angles. Sometimes if we are lucky they will show us the winners, or the ones who are likely to feature in the finals.

They used to always give you a good line-up with names of everyone who is competing - but I have noticed quite a few now where they don't bother, so you don't know who the others are. And the results too so that you could keep track. They still do sometimes, but not as often (or so it seems to me).

And while I am ranting - what they hell was all that playing up to the cameras by the athletes before the start of the 100m final ?! They were all pratting about when the camera was on them - what happened to the good old days when they would stare fixedly down the track, getting in the zone.

Even if you are in the stadium, you don't get a full start list.

I think it is reasonable to have a quick interview with the British athletes, or any other that wants to present themselves to the BBC.

Do we really need to see every red flag performance on the field (believe me, there are lots of them)?

The 'hark back to great British hurdlers' was because the men's 400m hurdles was on. We have the world champion, Dai Green. They were expecting him to take a medal - quite possibly the gold. That's why they had David Hemery in the studio (who won the gold in '68.)

The 'British girl knocking the bar off' was Holly Bleasdale. In January 2012, she improved the British indoor record by clearing 4.87m. This puts her third on the world all-time list, behind Yelena Isinbayeva and Jenn Suhr. Who took the silver and gold respetively. It was a very big deal that she struggled to clear her start height, which should have been simple for her, and then went out at her next height.

HTH

And Beth Tweddle messed up her landing which cost her a .3 deduction. Without that she would have had gold. If she'd only wobbled and had a .1 deduction she'd have won silver. She's a 3 time world champion, the most recent being her 2010 title on the uneven bars, which is what she was competing in.

narked - they were just examples from what I had seen. Yes I am interested in past successes in a big event, and current improvement in people, but I don't want it to take the place of the current action. I want to know about the ones who are best now (not just the brits).

I just feel that the content balance at this year's event has been far to biased and I would like a return to the old more even handed coverage.

Basically, you'd find it less annoying if you could identify when you are seeing the best.

I am not saying don't celebrate the brits when they do well (I am even happy to hear Fred did brilliantly - he beat his personal best - even if he came last). What I don't like is not seeing so much about those who actually did best. Yes you get to see a bit more of that in the live coverage during the day - but if you are working and only get to see the evening coverage it would be better to be more even handed.

It must be very hard for the Brits to live up to the hype, especially if they are not extroverts. I don't think it helps all that many of them.

Anyway - time for me to retire from this discussion for now. I can see most of you are happy with the current coverage, so maybe it is just me out of step, and maybe I will have to learn go grin and bear it, or give up watching.

You are absolutely right, I tried to make the same point the other day (much less eloquently) on here and was given pretty short shrift.

People seem touchy about it.

Narked - if Holly Bleasdale goes out early on then it's worthy of comment, yes. BUT, on the day, she wasn't the best. There were five women ahead of her who were better on the day and, in particular, the battle for gold and silver between Suhr and Yarisley Silva was very close (Isinbayeva got the bronze).

There was a time when "nailbiting finale to the pole vault competition" would have been the main thrust of the BBC coverage, with "British contender underperforms" the also-ran story. What they've done now seems to be to reverse that order of priority.

Even you, clearly something of a fan, managed to make a mistake in your 12:09 post about who'd finished first and second -- which presumably you could never have done if the Suhr/Silva battle, and Isinbayeva's being bumped down into bronze medal position, had been given proper weight in the coverage.

Which shows are you recording?

I think the evening shows are very GB centric as they seem to review the GB highlights of the day in the gaps.

The daytime coverage that I have seen has been broader imo. Yes they show the sports where we are expecting to get a medal but in many cases have not restricted that to GB athletes. For example the gymnastics that I have seen live has shown a range of competitors (usually medal hopes and GB) throughout.

In some sports, like tennis - if there is a brit playing you are going to exclusively concentrate on the brit cos it isn't ammenable to keep switching to other matches and maintain continuity.

Swimming I thought was reasonably broad coverage - even in the evenings. Lots of focus on the team GB background stories etc. But also quite a lot of discussion and debate about other athletes.

So whilst I agree with you that there is more focus on team GB I don't think its been that bad.

What I have missed tho is the medal ceremonies. We only seem to see those if they involve a brit or a really significant athelete from another country.

Oh and as an aside...I personally would have loved to see jess Ennis' intro to the 800m and the reaction she got. Apparently the place went wild...but they were on a pre-recorded video clip so we didn't see it!

I'm not a fan . Never had much time for the pole vault since Bubka retired.

Now Bubka was outstanding -- could time his record-breaking jumps to maximise his bonus payments. What it must be to have that degree of ability and confidence...

It's all a matter of degree.

Most - probably all - countries will tend to give greater attention to their own athletes, especially if the competition is being held in their countries. BBC isn't unusual in that.

However, I do agree that it's been a bit "over the top". But,given the emotional high of the 6 golds last Saturday, ending in the quite remarkable Ennis-Rutherford-Farah athletics session, I can understand why.

Perhaps the media (the BBC is far from the worst in this) could just tone it down slightly now. After all, one of the supposed features of the Olympics is to increase international respect and understanding - not jingoistic proclamation of national superiority. Somebody ought to remind the Daily Mail, for one, about that.

If however national pride leads to inspiration, and greater national unity, then surely it's all for the better.

One of the right-wing MPs complained about a mixed-race couple being featured in the supposedly leftie PC etc.etc. opening ceremony. One of the most publicised gold medal winners - Jessica Ennis, daughter of precisely such a couple.

To be honest, the athletics coverage did improve quite a bit when I went back and watched it again. It was really the first hour that was GB obsessed, but it reinforced a feeling that has been building over the last week.

I did enjoy seeing the rest of the pole vault competition later (after the earlier rounds when I noticed they said something like 29 jumps so far today - and we had been shown about 3 of Holly and no-one else).

One thing was annoying when Holly whatshername was waiting to vault, and they said, oh she has to wait for a medal ceremony. Didn't cut to the ceremony, or even say which one it was !

Lots of GB people have done really well, but a lot have also under performed and I wonder if the over hyping of it all is not helping them. The expectations are so high it must be a nightmare trying to live up to it.

I think the lack of coverage of medal ceremonies has been really bad. These athletes are amongst the very best in the world and their achievements are just being brushed aside. I'm totally with you throckenholt, coverage this time has been extremely partisan.

And another thing that I think has been lacking...the VT's which you usually get to explain the basic rules and tactics of each sport. I have not been massively happy with the amount of actually sports coverage but some of the life history clips could have been more usefully replaced with a basic explaination of WTF is going on in some sports.