There's a lot of talk about the production of SLS and RL coverage on the BBC, but I actually really like what we get now. I much prefer it to Sky coverage nowadays, particularly with match coverage.
With Sky I sometimes feel like I'm getting motion sickness with all the rapidly cut, swopping shots and grotesque rubber-necking coverage of injuries where he have to see it from every angle possible at at every imaginable speed of slow motion. Then you have the bizarre sci-fi graphics of the imaginary hydraulic big screen superimposed above the mainstand. Not to mention the terrible commentators, with the exception of Barrie Mac.
With the BBC you have simple cuts between wide and close up shots during play and none of the swooping graphics threatening to collide with the glass surface of your TV screen. The commentators are also generally better; Dave Woods is terrific, Davis, when he gets into it, can be cracking and Clare Balding, for some baffling reason loves RL. Then you get the likes of Kear getting involved who far surpasses Sky regulars Cullen, Millward and McRae.
For me SLS has had some great articles of late now that it has stopped being simply about highlights. Robbie Paul interviewing Naylor about the pit falls for players when their career is over in particular sticks out in my mind. Granted, there does need to be a better variety of guest experts who deal with the studio better. Also, the credits do need sprucing up; more creative images, better song. And yes, Gration needs to go. I do like Jon Wilkin, but I give Dave Woods a go. However, if the lovely Tanya Arnold were to continue presenting full time I would be a very, VERY pleased man.
Cheap the BBC coverage may be, but all you really need for sport is two main camera angles and someone who can articulate the action and mood well. SLS does need improving in certain areas, but there's a good foundation there and is worth more than the ridiculous time slots it is given.
