It's the nature of the beast I'm afraid. If a game ends with the home side winning 3-1 and the home side having 12 clear cut chances and 30 shots and the away side having 4 clear shot chances and 6 shots, they'll somewhat even out the opportunities they show due to time constraints and wanting to present a better product. So maybe they'll show every chance of the losing team and maybe a third of the chances of the winning team. It might be infuriating but it is completely understandable and actually makes sense. The hiring of inane pundits and the talking of pure drivel does, however, make absolutely no sense. A streamlined product with fewer minutes talking and more minutes of highlights would be a far better show. Even if they can only show 10 minute highlights, 5 games of 10 minute highlights is about an hour worth of TV when including the Team Lineups and post match interviews. In fact, it would be difficult to limit a 5 game show to an hour if you showed 10 minutes of each game so there is no excuse for having intellectually challenged pundits on to pad the runtime.
