±«Óătv

Basically, what you are saying is that the British TV-watching public is so lazy that either they can't be bothered to turn the channel to ±«Óătv2 to watch the Tennis from the start, or they can't be bothered to turn ±«Óătv1 off when the Tennis comes onto that channel.

Why else would the programme suddenly gain millions of viewers just by being broadcast on ±«Óătv1?

Oh, and pity those who set a video/DVD to record the match to watch later, and added extra time in case it ran over on ±«Óătv2, only to find that they still didn't get it because you'd swapped channels without warning.

@ batsnumbereleven

I guess it depends on your perspective.

People will watch ±«Óătv 1 out of habit, knowing that something watchable will be on and also knowing that the ±«Óătv puts the more important shows to the public on its flagship station. Most people sit in front of the TV at night not knowing what they will watch. So they flick over to ±«Óătv1, see Andy Murray playing, and watch that.

I would go with familiarity rather than, as you crudely put it, laziness.

Seem amazing to me that pre-recorded out of date quiz shows like Weakest Link get shown when Rafa Nadal's game was on! They didn't even have it on the Interactive channel!! Sort your priorities out ±«Óătv!

Make me thank God for Sky Sports... No stupid interruptions there!

1 and 2 are spot on. Anyone who wants to watch is perfectly capable of switching to the correct chanel. Furthermore, in the year 2008 i suspect the majority of television sets are if not HD compatible, at least ±«Óătv 2 compatible. The ±«Óătv switch over to ±«Óătv 1 in order to bolster ratings, full stop. Why they feel its necesary to do this when they don't recieve advertising revenue i'm don't know.

"But going forward we aim to offer our audiences the best of both worlds." Tut tut, Roger. You really ought to read the ±«Óătv site a little more assiduously...

my one complaint is why isnt there a short 15 minute highlight clip of the matches on the website, like there was for Queens?

I was incensed last night to be quite honest! I was out until 10.30 and so had set my video to record Criminal Justice between 9-10pm. This is a major new drama which has been previewed numerous times in recent weeks. Obviously when I came to watch my video last night, I discovered that I had about 30 mins of tennis and only about 30 mins of Criminal Justice. Thanks Roger! I probably won't bother watching the rest of this drama now as a result of missing the ending yesterday! Why couldn't you have just left the tennis on ±«Óătv2. Do you honestly believe that people wouldn't have watched the climax to the match if it stayed on ±«Óătv2?! It's just ridiculous! I think the real reason was that you feared the viewing figures for Criminal Justice would suffer if it was left in competition with the tennis and you feared losing viewers for that drama for the rest of the week. It's on occasions like this when I wonder why I bother paying my licence fee! Any comments Roger?!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I agree with Kenny above:
"Seem amazing to me that pre-recorded out of date quiz shows like Weakest Link get shown when Rafa Nadal's game was on! They didn't even have it on the Interactive channel!! Sort your priorities out ±«Óătv!"

I'd rather watch Rafa over Murray anyway. Best of both worlds tomorrow then when they play each other.

I'm not a Tennis fan, but I appreciate that some people are and I don't get all annoyed that "my schedule is messed up". I think a little more tolerance from all sides would go down well - remember that those of us who pay the License fee may enjoy sport more than period dramas like those who enjoy period dramas may enjoy them more than sport.

As an aside, Roger, why am I not allowed to view the embedded clip above (it says that "this content is only availble in the UK"), when I am sitting in an office in Central London?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Why are people complaining to the ±«Óătv because they cannot understand how to record shows off the TV? The time of the show is irrelevent if you have the faintest grasp of video recording and you don't need a new or expensive box to do so.

If you spent as much time reading the manual as you did writing this you would be a lot happier.

I left work with Gasquet serving for the match and assumed Muzza would have lost. Was nice to switch on the TV and catch the last couple of sets, epic epic match.

I think that the ±«Óătv are on a hiding to nothing with this one. There is no way
that they can please everyone.

As for Sky Sports - they have undoubtedly revolutionised sports broadcasting in
this country but they also subject you to interminable build ups and with
things like boxing never tell you what time the main event is on.

Any chance we can have an interactive option for Wimbledon where we can have
radio commentary in synch with tv pictures please?

Spot on #1 and #8. Surely you just bring up the channel guide and see what's on then you will know there is tennis on ±«Óătv2? I really cannot beleive people are as dull/lazy as to just switch on ±«Óătv1 and watch whatever is on.

Also, great idea to move tennis to ±«Óătv1 to ensure there is a large 'captive audience' for the new show Criminal Justice. Underhand tricks from ±«Óătv.

"I had about 30 mins of tennis and only about 30 mins of Criminal Justice. Thanks Roger! I probably won't bother watching the rest of this drama now as a result of missing the ending yesterday!"

If only the ±«Óătv had some form of online interactive video playing system that allowed you to view whatever programme you liked at your convenience.

It's outrageous.

"The power of ±«Óătv One is that it is Britain's most-watched channel. It's the ±«Óătv's flagship and as such it offers our best news, drama, comedy, entertainment and sport. It is, to use the jargon, a mixed-genre channel - one which showcases the best of everything."

Well it sounds like you've arrived at the pinnacle of everything that's good about broadcasting. Tell me, does everyone in the ±«Óătv regard "most popular" as being synonymous with "best"? If so, there must be some pretty sorry faces amongst those who work in outlets which receive less popular attention.

Or haven't I quite adapted to the modern ethic which allows supposedly authoritative figures to present heavily biassed positions as balanced observation?

My first attempt at commenting was not accepted, so I'll endeavour again - what is the logic of switching channels and thereby generating a wider audience? It is fairly evident in the age of digital TV that having ±«Óătv1 means you have ±«Óătv2 - so why would it change, and is it not actually a fairly disappointing reflection on the viewing public that these kinds of statistics would be generated?

@ squishington

That's exactly what I mean by lazy. They can't even be bothered to change channel, they just sit in front of ±«Óătv1 assuming whatever the ±«Óătv deems "best" will be on there.

On that note, isn't it time the ±«Óătv started promoting ±«Óătv2 a bit more then, so that viewers are actually encouraged to watch it instead of succumbing to inertia?

Don't like criticising the ±«Óătv as I believe most of the time they do a great job - but I don't buy it that the football and tennis pulled big audiences just because they were on ±«Óătv1.

Top sports events will always create interest and pull in viewers - the ±«Óătv needs to get wise to this.

Wimbledon one of the last major events the ±«Óătv its holding onto. I think we need to see some more commitment. Why can't you dedicate the 2 weeks it is on to ±«Óătv2, so everyone knows where it will be and not screw up any schedule on ±«Óătv1.

I was disappointed that within 5 mins of Murray winning, the program finished. It would have been good to get reaction from pundits and see replays.

Am i alone in thinking that, that was one of the best matches we've seen at wimbledon this year and am just glad the ±«Óătv showed it at all near to 9 30 in the evening. I think the bbc are coming under a lot of stick for what was essentially a good decision. And im not sure how anyone could have watched that game and not enjoyed it regardless of what drama series would have been on in its place.

Re #17 "Iainrwb"

"If only the ±«Óătv had some form of online interactive video playing system that allowed you to view whatever programme you liked at your convenience.

It's outrageous."

Thanks for the sarcasm. I'm sorry if my comments seemed petty to you. I just happen to prefer watching TV programmes on my TV rather than on my laptop. Sorry if that seems rather old-fashioned to some people. My point was merely that I can't see why the Beeb feel the need to switch tennis from ±«Óătv2 to ±«Óătv1.

I had Sky+ set up to record On the Fiddle, with series link. Obviously, this went out of the window with Andy Murray doing better in the tennis.
I stopped the recording, but there is no sign of a reschedule as yet on the listings.

Any ideas when this will be reshown?

I agree niall g - this is a classic case of you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. The fact is that over 10 million people watched the tennis on bbc one, although that's not to everyone's liking the fact that they got that much of the audience share shows that they made a correct decision. As usual there are always people ready to have a pop at something they're not happy with.

Its summer time, the sun's out, can't we all just get along?

To those people saying that you find it difficult to believe that people wouldn't turn off ±«Óătv1 when the tennis came on - well I think the audience of 10.4 million suggests otherwise.

Previously when shows have started on ±«Óătv2, become popular and switched to ±«Óătv1, they have gone on to draw bigger audiences. As 3. says - it's familiarity, not laziness.

Unless you really think you have a more in depth understanding of the scheduler's jobs than they do then you are being short-sighted - as a doctor I find it infuriating that MPs think they know my job better than I do and I'm sure the schedulers feel the same way about your ramblings! I'm sure a lot of thought goes into any changes in the scedule.

Juggling the programming is a difficult task and not one I would like to have to do. Somebody will always be upset by changes and you have to understand that they are done for the good of the majority - otherwise the ±«Óătv would not be allowed to charge for the licence. And of course as pointed out in 14. and 15. you can very easily record programmes in a way that ensures any changes are accounted for, and indeed view any ±«Óătv programmes online.

Tolerence and understanding is called for I think, instead of instant anger and complaining.

The fact that they got much audience share only shows that some 2 million people couldn't find ±«Óătv2 on their remote.

I have to admit, I turned over in the 3rd set when it looked like Murray was on his way out. 10 minutes later, I flicked back to ±«Óătv2 to see the tennis had finished so I assumed it had gone as I expected. After the other program had finished, I hit the EPG button and saw 'Wimbledon 2008' listed on ±«Óătv1 so I had a look and was amazed to find Murray was still playing and had stormed through the 4th set!

I hadn't realised it had moved channels so I missed at least one set which I would otherwise have watched. I can see what the schedulers gain from this but it makes more sense to me to just extend the original program on the original channel then there isn't confusion.

With iPlayer though, I suppose it's less important because you can view it all online now anyway so all these people whingeing about missing this and other programs, just watch them now...

A commonsense decision to switch to ±«Óătv One and I enjoyed the television coverage.

Slightly puzzled by your online treatment though.

The one big talking point after the match was how a revved-up Murray showed off his muscles to the crowd.

Clearly a retort to critics who have questioned his fitness.

Yet strangely no mention of this moment in your reports:



Why?

I completely agree with #17 and iainrwb
he is spot on
What are you all complaining about?
The drama was still shown. What if the tennis had gone on till ten and you completely missed it. This means there was not time for any reaction. Some of you will have VirginMedia which gives you the option of watching it and you can get access to ±«ÓătviPlayer as your complaining on the computer.
Well spoken#17

Response to IainB99,

On Sky+, the re-recording of a series should be automatic, if a recording has failed (it depends on the information contained in the satellite stream), so don't cancel the series.

The ±«Óătv needs to move on, the content is very good to excellent, but the scheduling needs addressing.

Imagine if an Editor/Author wrote a perfectly reasonable well informed piece on a topical subject and people didn't write idiotic, unrelated and innacurate comments at the bottom of it. What a better place this website would be.

I wish there were more of the "some people who can be pleased all of the time" and less of the "people who always find something to moan about".

If you can't find something enjoyable or interesting on any of the ±«Óătv's services at any given moment, you aren't using it correctly. It's a joy to have it and worth every penny.

Why not just make a ±«Óătv Sport channel?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Thanks for the insight, Roger.

I must admit I was a bit frustrated at changing channels on a regular basis, but I can see now it is to a large degree, unavoidable.

However, there was one incident yesterday which really annoyed me. The Ancic v Verdasco match was at its climax, Ancic having come from two sets down to be 6-6 in the final set. The winner plays Federer. I settled in for some great sporting theatre.

Only to be interrupted by Sue Barker telling me that we would be leaving the match to see the start of some other match. What could possibly be more exciting than Ancic v Verdasco at that point in the day?

Fortunately I have digital so I quickly switched back to the exciting finale, but if I didn't have interactive services I'd be getting on my soapbox and writing into Points of View.

That'd show you.

Ade

There's a ±«Óătv 2?

It could have been kept on ±«Óătv Two and there wouldn't have been any need for schedule changes.

'One Show', going out live could have told viewers about the dramatic match on the other side, on-screen graphics alerting viewers to the same would have caused less annoyance.

The kind of schedule changes we saw last night cause all sorts of problems, like loosing regional opt outs during news programmes. It was completely aviodable.

I love the ±«Óătv. I support just about everything it does. Switching coverage to ±«Óătv One when it is already billed on ±«Óătv Two is the one thing it does which I think is wrong. I hoped it had ended with the retirement of Tim Henman.

I wonder what viewing figures will be like for 'Criminal Justice' this week, given that lots of viewers won't have watched the 1st episode last night?

I know it's not east for the scheduling people, imagine what its like for the complaints people.

At the end of the day I believe the winner here is tennis. The fact of the matter is that a lot of sports, tennis included, don't get a lot of mainstream airtime in the UK and if there is a chance it can shown on a channel that happens to have a large amount of viewers then it's all the better for the sport.
My only regret here is that it wasn't continued on ±«Óătv2 for all the tennis fans who don't have digital and wanted to record it.
I have been a fan of the WRC since 2004. It moved to ITV in a prime-time afternoon slot. One of the reasons I started watching was because it was on at an accessible hour and was something I couldn't have gotten away of if I was channel-hopping. Now - 4 and a half years down the line - I am trying to get involved in rallying. If it hadn't been for it "being on" when I was hopping channels I might never have started getting involved. It's the same for the tennis. I hope that there were some kids watching because at the end of the day it is moments like last night that help to inspire dreams and careers in sport - something we need greatly in this country.

Come off it ±«Óătv, of course the ±«Óătv1 viewing figures for Murray were high. There were the tennis followers watching, but also several million "other" viewers, who had absolutely no interest in this boring sport, who had tuned in to watch the much vaunted new drama series. The ±«Óătv knows very well that Tennis is NOT overly popular, otherwise Wimbledon wouldn't be one of the very rare times the sport is aired! Go watch it on ±«Óătv player you say, well thanks, thats possible if you have a PC. Why didn't you just put a notice at the bottom of the ±«Óătv1 screen last night saying "Sorry this is not what you tuned in for, but WE like tennis, so that's what you are going to get". After all, you do it with other sports programmes at random. I think the ±«Óătv is becoming "unfit for purpose".

I find the decisions to change the match back to ±«Óătv1 at 8.30 pm strange.

On Saturday, at a similar time of day and stage of the match, Murray's match with Tommy Haas was left on ±«Óătv1. The News and the Weakest Link was transferred over to ±«Óătv2 in place of the scheduled Wimbledon coverage. Would Dr Who have been moved or delayed had that match carried on past 7.10pm?

Two days later, Murray's next match is transferred over to ±«Óătv2 as scheduled because people expect the News at Six at 6 o'clock and EastEnders cannot be moved from its normal times.

Strange because we have had a month when EastEnders was moved at various times to accommodate Euro 2008. It would only be switched to ±«Óătv2, not delayed or postponed. The News was moved on Saturday as it was on a few occassions when Henman was in his pomp.

I would be very interested to find out the thinking behind the inconstistencies I have highlighted above.

It seemed an odd decision to move it at such a late stage in the match, and considering the ±«Óătv isn't supposed to be ratings obsessed not really justified on that basis.


I understand now that issues with the regional news prevent you carrying on uninterupted from 6pm, but really if the aim was to switch to ±«Óătv1 at some point it should have been at 7pm, with EastEnders delayed until after the tennis.

Sky+ usually pretty good at coping with overrunning sporting events. However the one thing it can’t deal with is the ±«Óătv doing an unscheduled switching of channels halfway through a game, like last night.

We started watching the game after putting our son to bed and saw Andy Murray clinch the 3rd set in thrilling fashion at about 9.40 at which point the Sky+ recording ran out, the game itself had finished, there’s no ±«Óătv1+1 and we were left to find out the result from ±«Óătvi.

I was interested to read this morning Paul Davies, ±«Óătv Sport's executive producer at Wimbledon, saying "It's fantastic that such a great sporting event was brought to a wider audience. The decision to switch it to ±«Óătv One was vindicated by so many viewers watching the climax of the match." Maybe he would like to have been in our house last night where Mrs H would happily have vindicated his decision, probably in rather painful fashion.

And also - “Last night ±«Óătv Sport had agreed with the TV channels that the tennis would move from ±«Óătv Two to ±«Óătv One if the match was still going strongly at 2030 BST.” Anyone watching it like we were has got no chance have they ? Are you planning to do this again tomorrow ?

“So it was a relief that the gamble paid off and ±«Óătv One viewers got to see the climax of the match.” I’m thrilled for you. Really I am.

And yes – I know that the replay was on ±«Óătv Interactive within minutes but we can’t wind through this to get to the bits we’ve missed, meaning that if we want to watch it, we’ve got to watch the whole thing and we’re looking at finishing in the early hours of the morning.

Rant over, carry on, keep up the good work.

Clearly they were trying to capture the Eastenders audience at 8.30 and it seems to have worked as the ratings for the tennis went up. I suppose the hope was to maintain the audience until the start of the new drama, even if that meant delaying the start of the drama.

Mr. Mosey:
Do you have any idea, please, how many people across the world watched the Murray-Gasquet match on television? ESPN has given excellent coverage to Wimbledon this year, presumably using the ±«Óătv's feeds.

I have no problem with the match switching from BBc1 to ±«Óătv2 but if, as one conspiracy theorist suggests, this was a ploy to get a larger audience for Criminal Justice then, in my case, it failed miserably! I had intended to watch the drama but got so excited by the tennis that as soon as it had finished I switched off the TV and called my daughter to have a yack about it:-)

Where the scheduling does fall down, IMO, is in the handling of matches shown on ±«Óătvi Freeview - we don't all have Sky or Virgin. Frequently enthralling matching have been cut off short to show the start of another. Even more often, matches on a main channel are replaced by one showing on ±«Óătvi which also remains on ±«Óătvi for up to 30 minutes before the one bounced from the main channel makes an appearance. Hence two of the paltry three or four interactive feeds are showing the same match and the one we (well, I) were previously watching disappears.

Are we Freeview viewers ever going to get the same choice of ±«Óătvi feeds that cable/satellite viewers do? We all pay the same licence fees after all.

I was always under the impression that switching channels was to catch potential views that wouldn't, ordinarily, watch the tennis.

I for one was far more interested in the game when it entered the 4th and 5th sets than when it seemed Murray was destined for an early bath!

Most of the comments I've read are aimed specifically at tennis "fans" rather than the casual viewer who would, quite possibly, be interested in a game if it was an epic, much like Monday night.

Sports fans have to put up with 2 hours of soaps every night.

Soap fans have no room for complaint when one of their pants tv programmes are shifted for sport which provides audiences with genuine and thrilling entertainment.

Soaps should be banned full stop. Is it just me or are they all the same? Scene 1 - argument between 2 people, cut to scene 2 - argument between 3 people, cut to scene 3 - argument between another 2 people, cut back to scene 1 - continuation of argument between original 2 people.

It's stupid peoples television! More documentary's please.

Thanks for all those patronising clips of great Scottish sporting events, following the Murray victory. Why dont you just let him be a tennis player first?

@ i c shapes

Of course the comments are aimed at "Tennis fans" - they are the people who missed out when the coverage was switched.

Are you saying that the ±«Óătv should be targeting their coverage at the casual viewer INSTEAD of Tennis fans? In that case, don't bother showing the first two sets at all!

I am neither a tennis or football fan, and I can't receive any other ±«Óătv channels except ±«Óătv1 and ±«Óătv2, nor any radio broadcasts (except via the Internet), so all these schedule changes really annoy me. I'm paying a huge sum for my license; it;s definitely not value for money. Why not change channel names to ±«Óătv Sport and ±«Óătv What We Have Determined Is Less Important Sport?

This interruption of ±«Óătv1, despite the tennis being scheduled for ±«Óătv1, is completely unacceptable.

I've only just managed to start "Celebrity Masterchef" recording on ±«Óătv2 because it was switched and Sky+ couldn't handle it...of course, my having a Sky+ box is by-the-by: no method of timer-set recording would cope, whether it be Sky+, V+ or a humble VCR.

I would complain, but what's the point? I'll be fobbed off with platitudes about how Wimbledon is so popular blah, blah, Andy Murray, waffle waffle. And not mention the infamous "audience log" that is apparently seen by ±«Óătv management (AKA "the bin").

You'd just better not be considering keeping Saturday's play on ±«Óătv1 should it overrun because if you think you're getting a hard time now, just wait until 10m or so Doctor Who fans go on the warpath.

The ±«Óătv need to seriously think about how they handle sports that have highly unpredictable finish times. And if that means not being able to show them at all, then so be it.

Problem: We have two popular shows that we want to watch and we are out on the night when they are on.

Solution: quite obviously one (the live sportcast) gets recorded on the telly or similar. that enthralling drama that is shunted to a later slot can be downloaded via iplayer for you to watch, at your complete leisure, over the next week.

I watched the tennis into the wee small hours of tuesday and I couldnt have pulled myself away from it. Having now just watched criminal justice (a very good program that has grown on me) I would like to point out that pretty much anyone can do similar, presumably.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

What is it that makes anything "worthy" of being on ±«Óătv1? What is unworthy about being on ±«Óătv2?

Schedulers appear to have a completely different view of the world to us - the audience.

There are several streams of programs being pumped out. I can choose which program by selecting the stream it is on. The name, number or other channel id applied to that stream matters not. So your bothering to shift something from one stream to another seems a mind-boggling waste of effort.

Two factors were wrongly handled. First, the failure to allocate sufficient time to the tennis such that all possibilities were allowed for. (You could always show Coast again if there were no tennis. Or archives of Wimbledon if you really want.) Second, the failure to retain the advertised programs at their scheduled times. The actual channel did not matter on Monday, doesn't matter today and will not matter tomorrow.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

It is really irritating for those of us who have Sky+ or PVR's to find that nothing has been taped.

Cancel shows and reschedule, buit please do not move them to ±«Óătv2. My Sky+ box cannot cope with this. On Saturday night I was treated to 5 minutes of tennis and 50 minutes of interviews with Sir Terry Wogan, etc. Yes, I wanted to watch Weakest Link. But as I had set Sky+ to record it on ±«Óătv1 at 18:10, I got tennis.


Tonight, I wanted to watch the first two episodes of Celebrity Masterchef, and thought I was being clever by programming ±«Óătv1 between 8 and 9 and also the scheduled programme on ±«Óătv2 - Today at Wimbledon. Thos eprogrammes were entered at about 19:20 this evening.

Neither recorded.

This really isn't good enough, I expect better from the ±«Óătv. Oncxe again tonight, there was five minutes of tennis and we were treated to twenty five minutes of interviews and then My Family.

Do people above just like to moan? I saw the tennis was on last night when I got home and whilst my first thought was "oh well, let's see what's on the other side", my second was "Roger's going to get a bashing on the blog".

A few days ago (post 11) I said a bit of tolerance would go a long way - it seems to be many people here are all "me, me, me": if you don't get what you want, then everyone else is wrong. Here's the flip argument - you're a tennis fan and you are watching a match and the ±«Óătv cuts the coverage to go to "scheduled programming". You'd get annoyed, wouldn't you? Change the word 'tennis' for 'golf' or 'snooker' in the above sentence and you see the argument holds true.

It's not easy to provide programming to everyone's taste, but there are 40m odd people who watch the TV out there, so a little bit of something for everybody is the best way forward, and some of the posters above would do well to remember that.

Re comment #47

"It's stupid peoples television! More documentary's please."

I think that is one of the strangest comments I have seen. Stupid people? Documentary's? Come on, if you are going to talk about "stupid people", at least get your spelling and grammar right.

Incidentally, I think the ±«Óătv did the right thing in shifting channels. I don't watch soaps, so the decision was fine by me, although I agree that it could have caused some angst amongst those who do. And to those who say ±«Óătv iPlayer is the solution, many people still don't have broadband. I myself used to have a slow connection until 2 months ago, and it was just pointless trying to watch even 10 seconds, so I know for a fact iPlayer is useless for them.

"Well, quite a range of views... It proves the old thing about not being able to please all the people all the time - though we do try to meet the needs of as many as possible. And a number of posts are right to point out that iPlayer solves many of the problems. If you miss something because of a change of channel, in most cases it should still be there on-demand for the next 7 days."

Oh well that decides it then - let's watch a small, 3-inch wide pixelated recording on a computer screen when I had expected to be able to sit back on my sofa and enjoy the programme I wanted to see in glorious widescreen and with the convenience of a remote control.

It's not good enough, ±«Óătv. And I must say, the arrogance of the sport department when it comes to Wimbledon is nothing short of disgraceful.

"And a number of posts are right to point out that iPlayer solves many of the problems. If you miss something because of a change of channel, in most cases it should still be there on-demand for the next 7 days."

People already pay for a TV license. They shouldn't also have to pay for an internet connection in order to watch the re-scheduled programmes. And what about those who don't have a computer with the appropriate operating system to run ±«Óătv iPlayer?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Surely what matters isn't the ±«Óătv's total viewing figures but that viewers watch what they want to. People not generally interested in tennis would probably have been quite happy sticking to whatever had been scheduled for ±«Óătv1. So why not keep the tennis on ±«Óătv2 and then not mess up the schedules and confuse everyone?

I agree with most of the comments already posted.
Why change channels, with the tennis sceduled to be on ±«Óătv2 it should have stayed there.
The viewing figures peaked in the last hour because people tuned in to watch Criminal Justice, does take much to work that one out.
LEAVE THE SCHEDULES ALONE !!

This is the first year I have listened to Wimbledon on Five Live and watched on ±«Óătv TV with the sound down.It has been wonderful, fresh air.The commentary from the 5Live team - excellent.Clare Balding is superb , she does not pretend to be all knowing and asks the questions we would ask.Her professionalism,humour,timing and commentary on the matches all great, well done,great job.I really enjoy the banter between everyone, the guests, all far less formal, and"±«Óătv"than TV.
Thank you all,

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

What you are saying is that YOU decide what we watch and can change it as and when YOU decide.
AS for your viewing figures, now to make it easy for you to understand........................
PEOPLE WERE WAITING FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did you get that or do you want it in another language,braille or large print?

The rescheduling of the tennis not only screwed up the first part of Criminal Justice, which I had set up to record on a TiVo box, it also did the same the next night to the first part of the new Celebrity Masterchef series. This was set to record on series link on my Sky + box. Unfortunately, if a programme does not start within about a half hour of when it should, the planner drops it from itself. Not only this, it also drops the series link, so it disappears completely from the planner.

To reschedule the tennis such that it conflicted with not one, but two 'special case' programmes, in that they were set to run on each night for the rest of the week, is an inexcusable and wrong decision by the ±«Óătv. The nonsense that Roger speaks about audiences on ±«Óătv1 or ±«Óătv2, just doesn't hold water. Everyone has ±«Óătv2 as well as ±«Óătv1, so the tennis should have just been left where it was. If people were watching it anyway, then they just were. It wouldn't have mattered to them if it was on 1 or 2.

As far as the comments made by the doctor in 26 goes, has he seriously never come across people that *he* considers are not as good at their job as he might be if given a go at it? Just because someone at the ±«Óătv has a responsibility for programme scheduling as their job, it doesn't mean that they are competent at it.

No matter how you look at it, in this particular case, the reshedule was wrong, and no amount of flannel from sports editors or whomever, will change that, or make the decision a better one ...

Arfa

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Roger - as mentioned above I'm not a tennis fan, but well done on putting on an excellent show for the 8hrs of live coverage you had from Wimbledon. Especially well done for the excellent montage at the end - please make it available on the website.

No doubt many of the comments that are currently awaiting moderation will be bashing you for keeping the coverage on ±«Óătv1 when the schedules said ±«Óătv2, and yet further will complain that George Gently was postponed by a week. All I can say to you, is well done for sticking with it and to those above complaining, just enjoy the spectacle.

My opinion is that your decision to switch this match to ±«Óătv1 and in the process not broadcast one scheduled program and delay another by half an hour was in no way based on doing the best for your viewing public but was done solely for ratings purposes. No amount of 'spin' regarding this decision will alter that.

The viewing public is still surely able to both read a schedule and determine which button to press on their remote control.

To those who find it strange that people would complain or be mildly upset about this I can only assume that the affected programs were of no interest to you.