twofootedtackle.com

It’s time for Part Two of my somewhat unfair but hopefully constructive criticism of Match of the Day and my ambitious proposals for reform. In Part One, I tried to cram the perceived (by me) problem into a few hundred words before looking more closely at the presenter and pundits, or, as they’re now known to the BBC’s continuity announcers, “Gary and the two Alans” - if that doesn’t convince you this show needs a kick up the backside then nothing will.

In truth, the previous post was a bit of a red herring all along (I know, I know - I’m sorry). In the present reality it makes little difference which faces are on the screen giving out platitudes and basic opinions, because in my opinion the true value of MOTD is being drowned in its format.

Does it matter which ex-pros are giving analysis and insight that offers nothing above what the modern, plugged-in supporter absorbs literally by osmosis, as Jamie Redknapp would say, on a daily basis? Of course it doesn’t. Does it matter which broadly competent presenter guides them? I don’t think it does. The two possible future formats below would require a more defined, stronger presenter. But in the current set-up it really doesn’t matter, so long as he or she is polished.

With that in mind, I think it’s important that MOTD is gutted and rebuilt. I’m not a creative man, and I don’t have the answers. If you think you do, please leave a comment. But for now, here are some scattergun thoughts of my own.

Format

For me, the very core of Match of the Day‘s image problem goes beyond cosmetic issues like which pundits to employ or what the opening titles look like, although both would be affected by any significant change in approach. It’s that the format is undeniably, putridly, irreparably stale. It’s boring, and in these times of informed football supporters and economic difficulty, licence fee payers’ money finding its way into the pockets of people who add nothing of value is infuriating.

It’s probably worthwhile here drawing a distinction between Match of the Day and Match of the Day 2, the Sunday evening show, presented by Colin Murray since Adrian Chiles’ departure, that takes a more light-hearted view on things. I’ve spoken to a lot of people about MOTD lately and many of them either prefer the Sunday show or think that its format should be adopted on Saturdays. Personally I find MOTD2 to be worse than its sister show. Strip away the stupid cartoony graphics and marginally improved pundits and all you’re left with is the same old format. The BBC undoubtedly missed a trick when replacing Chiles, and it should have been the time to start afresh.

I’d like to propose a couple of possible altered formats, either of which I would enjoy but only one that would appeal to a wider market. Each of them would require different levels and styles of staffing, of course, although I would argue that the BBC could fill the presenter role for either of them with the same man - and he’s already on the payroll.

So, format one - and this will be familiar to almost any MOTD viewer older than myself. Close your eyes for a moment and think about why you watch the show. Is it the razor-sharp analysis? The in-studio banter? Lineker’s puns? Or is it, as is the case with me, just because you want to watch the goals and highlights from the day’s games? There are other ways to do this, of course, either legally on Sky Sports or online, or illegally. But my inner-leftie believes that there is a place on terrestrial, public service television for the major football action of the weekend.

I’m probably in the minority reading this post in not giving a toss about tactics - not one bit. I don’t particularly care whether there is analysis on offer at all, I’d just prefer there not to be rubbish analysis. Some viewers want to be educated and if MOTD is catering for those people then it needs to specialise properly and bring on board someone capable of doing so.

I prefer getting into the rhythm and swing of matches and the stories around them, so I don’t need arrows and annotations telling me what to think. One option available to the people behind the scenes is to strip MOTD down to what actually matters: the football. It’s a basic format, comprising (lengthened) highlights, one presenter to do the introduction and links, and no sofa full of chattering human life-suckers. I think Jake Humphrey would do a very good job on such a show. The benefits? Longer highlights, less stupidity and a crisper, faster moving product.

However, given that not everybody is a cynical, joyless sod like me, that model doesn’t really stack up in 2010. All of the distractions, additions and shiny things I’ve moaned about in this post are modern-day necessities. The second proposal reflects that, and hinges on the idea that if you want MOTD to be a magazine show with loads of fluff around the action, just make it a magazine show with loads of fluff around the action. It’s a workable format if the BBC trusts its ability to hold the audience’s attention for what would have to be a two-hour running time.

What it does mean is that the quality of the presenter and the panel would need to be more creative and of a better calibre. Let’s assume for the purposes of this argument that Humphrey could capably step into the presenter’s chair, figuratively speaking of course - standing on the furniture is not BBC etiquette. For me, the guest roster should be widened out to three, with two permanent pundits (my personal view is that guest turnover is detrimental, for the most part) and one rotating.

Guest number one is the archetypal television ex-pro. As I hinted at in Part One, I think Lee Dixon would be an ideal fit for this position. He offers good screen presence, personability and limited brain-chaos, unlike his current cohorts. In chair number two, a change in direction for MOTD: a journalist. The show would benefit greatly from an informed outsider and a journalist would fit the bill perfectly. Gabriel Marcotti is demonstrating elsewhere that this is a useful addition, and the BBC would do well do adopt a similar approach. While Sunday Supplement takes on the self-important, self-loving hacks of this world, the BBC could snare someone brighter and more down to earth.

And finally, there’s room for ‘the manager’. Taking into account their workload and travel arrangements, it’s only fair to allow the managers to rotate here and I would have a selection of, say, four. They don’t need to be top-notch bosses in payslip terms but should be vetted for insight (in other words, ‘motivators’ need not apply) and sturdiness of opinion.

The format could be tweaked to allow the panel to delve deeper into the game where appropriate. With a knowledgeable journalist and a tactically astute manager in place, analysis would be much improved from its current level and tactics could even be a dedicated weekly feature. A more enlightened line-up offers knowledge and flexibility, and could establish a marked improvement on MOTD in its current form.

Of course any discussion of this type nowadays must at least pay lip service to ‘involving the viewers’ through social media, vox pops and so on. Suffice to say that I think this can be done in a sensible and mature way as long as MOTD is committed to doing so properly and Robbie Effing Savage isn’t allowed anywhere near it.

To close this little mini-series, I want to drop a hint as to a conversation I had with Terry Duffelen from the Football Fairground a few months ago. I won’t tell you what his idea is - that’s for him to share should he wish to do so, because it’s an absolute belter and I don’t want any misunderstandings at all as to its originator - but I will pose this question: in this day and age, does the Premier League really need the BBC to do this job for it, finances notwithstanding?

twofootedtackle.com is trying to raise £1,000 for Cardiac Risk in the Young, which works to raise awareness of heart conditions that lead to sudden cardiac death and sudden death syndrome. You can help by donating just £2 at justgiving.com/twofootedtackle.

Tags: BBC, Match of the Day, TV Coverage