The most disgraceful commentary I have ever heard

[vic_orthdox]

Jim Maxwell who's routinely recognised as Australia's best radio commentator...?

When did Tim Lane change his name to "Jim Maxwell"?

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think England's batting wasn't too bad. My only two criticisms would be that Collingwood didn't do quite a good enough job of getting off strike, and that they didn't kick on well enough in the death overs, partly attributable to Pietersen's injury.

Besides that, to Aus commentators, the touring side is always like a cyclops fence... plenty of holes to point out.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

The commentary in the 05 Ashes series was just as bad.

Bill Lawry is a great commentator to listen to, because he gets excited and makes the big moments more exciting.

Slater and Healy are dead****s.

 

[Hodgo7]

To say its the most disgraceful piece of commentary you have heard doesn't show me a whole lot. I take it you haven't listened from different sports commentators around the world (not just in cricket). Having travelled around the world for the last four years and being a HUUUGE sports fan I can tell you that it happens in just about every sport. From Rugby League in the UK (you should listen to a guy named Mike Stephenson), Ice Hockey in Canada to Rugby in NZ. It's unfortunately a part of sporting life and don't think that being a little biased to the home country only happens in Australia.

Mate I do agree that it wasn't great but England have been diabolical this whole summer and it looks like it's going to continue (especially without KP). They offered plenty of praise for certain batters (Freddie and KP in particular) who batted very well in the first innings.

 

[Richard]

Jackman is close to the worst IMO, though Cullinan and Richards probably edge him out. I never heard a direct South African commentary feed until last year, so I can't comment about anything before that.

Well given that stock-in-trade of most people is to criticise 90% of commentary I don't imagine you'd have found it much better.

 

[Richard]

When did Tim Lane change his name to "Jim Maxwell"?

Never 'eard of 'im.

If he's better than Jim Maxwell he must be good, though, and I'm amazed he's never been on TMS (the way JM and Neil Manthorp invariably are when Aus and SA respectively are the opponents).

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well given that stock-in-trade of most people is to criticise 90% of commentary I don't imagine you'd have found it much better.

90%? Not really. I more or less liked every member of the 2005 Ashes commentary team on Channel 4, though most of the guys on Sky were terrible, particularly Botham. I like Benaud and Slater on Nine and I don't mind Nicholas, Chappell or Taylor most of the time, though Taylor's a bit dull and Chappell mixes interesting stuff in with total drivel. The only really terrible ones are Healy and Lawry.

I even like most of the commentary team in New Zealand. Ian Smith was a bit annoying when he was in Australia, but not nearly as bad there. Morrison is terrible, but that's about it. The South African team is just bad, simple as that, much like the Australian domestic commentary team on Fox Sports, which I presume nobody from outside this country has ever heard.

 

[Richard]

I'm not purely talking about you but I notice you've neglected to mention a single Indian or West Indian com-team.

In any case, the fact that you've denounced the entire teams of 3 networks and half that (Smith = good, Morrison = bad) of two others means I wasn't massively wide of the mark.

By-and-large, the feedback in all areas (be it CW threads or CricInfo surveys or whatever) is 90% negative about 90% of commentators... I suppose all you lot think you could do a better job?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm not purely talking about you but I notice you've neglected to mention a single Indian or West Indian com-team.

In any case, the fact that you've denounced the entire teams of 3 networks and half that (Smith = good, Morrison = bad) of two others means I wasn't massively wide of the mark.

By-and-large, the feedback in all areas (be it CW threads or CricInfo surveys or whatever) is 90% negative about 90% of commentators... I suppose all you lot think you could do a better job?

I daresay many people on this forum could do a better job than someone like Healy, including myself. But more to the point, I think a lot of other people who actually have professional cricket experience could as well, which is probably more relevant.

Anyway, we haven't had a West Indian home series on TV since 2003, so I don't have any strong feelings about their commentary team one way or the other. In India we usually get a team put together by Fox Sports rather than a direct feed. And really, given your attitude towards most aspects of cricket, I hardly think you're in any position to criticise people for being negative. You're basically the most negative person on this forum, even to the point that it's hard to tell you actually like cricket at times.

 

[Josh]

Is it just me or does Mark Nicholas appear to be an absolute suck??

 

[Pratters]

I think a major problem is that the cricket commentators do not take the audience as seriously as they should. I am quite sure that if some one like Bill Lawry talked about cricket with a fellow cricketer, he would be far more interesting to listen to. Another problem is that many commentators try to please particular sections of the audiences.

For a genuine cricket fan, it is annoying even when a commentator is being biased or in favour of the country the genuine cricket fan supports.

Now as a producer of a broadcast, there is every chance bias commentary can be clamped down upon to some extent if the producers really want or care. However, I think they like different types of commentators not only in styles but also in how biased, colourful, technically sound people are to cater to various sections of the listening audience.

I popped a question to Tony Greig, a commentator I like listening to, once when I met him - 'how come you are more falmbouyant when you commentate from Sharjah than from Australia' and he answered some where on the lines that the crowds and the audience meant that he did it.

At some level, from being a cricket broadcast, programs try to extend to the larger untapped audiences. We saw the extreme of it in India with Mandira Bedi coming on.

In the end, the cricket is a good enough product and a proper cricket broadcast is the best entertainment. This is why Channel 4 was far superior among other reasons. This is exactly why the mid innings talk show Manjrekar hosted with Imran Khan and Nasser Hussain is still recollected by many fans.

 

[TT Boy]

Same **** goes down on Sky, where most of the guys cheerleading leads them to continually clutch at straws and state that England on paper are a good one day outfit. On paper they are a ****ing worse, bollocks like this from Hussain doesn’t help, “who could looking at that bowling line up (Lewis, Monty, Anderson, half fit Freddie) beat Australia”, under 19’s Nasser, possibly.

 

[Richard]

And really, given your attitude towards most aspects of cricket, I hardly think you're in any position to criticise people for being negative. You're basically the most negative person on this forum, even to the point that it's hard to tell you actually like cricket at times.

Not on the subject of commentary - it's roles-reversed there. When commentary is the subject, most on this board turn into the curmadgeons and I into them.

 

[Richard]

Same **** goes down on Sky, where most of the guys cheerleading leads them to continually clutch at straws and state that England on paper are a good one day outfit. On paper they are a ****ing worse, bollocks like this from Hussain doesn’t help, “who could looking at that bowling line up (Lewis, Monty, Anderson, half fit Freddie) beat Australia”, under 19’s Nasser, possibly.

In all fairness, we've seen worse England ODI batting-line-ups and bowling-attacks of late.

Lewis, Anderson, even-half-fit Freddie, Panesar is better than Harmison, Plunkett, Kabir Ali, Bresnan, Mahmood, Blackwell, Yardy, which we saw a lot of in 2006.

 

[howardj]

No, I'm not talking about a single stuff up based on something simple - I am talking about the whole English innings in the first match of the CB series. The ridiculous bias and preoccupation with bagging the English and praising the Australians from Ian Healy, Bill Lawry and whoever else popped in (except Mark Nicholas who was usually praise-everything self) was horrible and it really made me want to turn the TV down the mute. It has happened before, but never on such a large scale.

Now don't get me wrong, England have been very poor this summer. They have been atrocious in fact - almost as bad as the commentary so far in this match. But the fact that they lost the Ashes 5-0 seems to have given the commentators the idea that they must continually look for faults in the English team and perfections in the Australian team. The English one day batting effort in this match was, IMO, quite good. They won the toss, batted and kept the scoreboard going at between 3 and 4 per over before a blast at the end - they always had intentions of scoring between 240 and 260 and they did so - a target which they should be able to defend if they bowl well. But the middle overs partnership between Collingwood and Pietersen, which really set up the total for England, received much criticism from the "expert" commentary team. The fact that England got towled up in the Ashes 5-0 doesn't give them licence to just bag the team every time they let a maiden over slide by. England did not bat brilliantly but they did the job - they did what they set out to do and the criticism of Collingwood and Bell in particular throughout the innings was highly unjustified.

Other examples of such include the comment "Nixon has to rotate the strike more here" after he had faced just two balls, a masterclass of about 10 replays filled with comments of appraisal at what was the simplest of catches by Matthew Hayden in the slips, repeated complaints about Pietersen not taking enough singles which ironically were followed by complaints about Collingwood not hitting enough boundries, and a failure to mention that the decision to bring on the spinners when Collingwood and Pietersen were still getting set really let them both off the hook. Now as I type this, England are bowling absolute rubbish are will, in all probability, go on to lose this match. But the batting innings, which IMO was a very classical and well-paced one for a side batting first, cannot be blamed.

The batting order received much criticism - the commentators still seem insistant on getting Pietersen (and now Flintoff as well) up the order. But really, the batting order in one day internationals is fine for England. Pietersen may be their best one day batsman but he is not the best option for #3 - powerplays or not. Flintoff may be an explosive hitter, but he is clearly more suited to the slog overs than Paul Collingwood who is a middle-overs-specialist. The suggestion of Pietersen-Bell-Flintoff-Collingwood in the middle order may produce the odd score of 280 but they will be few and far between and scores of about 190 will be frequent. England's current batting lineup looks the best possible one they can muster for mine - and the innings they played today was a very good one which set up the game for their bowlers.

The commentators need to wake up to themselves and realise that while Australia are a very good outfit and that England are struggling at the moment, not everything England do - particularly today - is absolutely rubbish, and that their plan for victory in matches is going to be significantly different to that of Australia's, based on their personnel. The 5-0 Ashes victory seems to have resulted in them looking for the magic answer to why England aren't performing this summer - something that will fix everything like moving Pietersen up to three (where he will be less effective as far as I'm concerned.)

It's standard fare for Channel Nine though. It's like our Current Affairs shows - they dumb it down for a wider audience. With cricket though, I think all that bias and barracking from the commentators does is alienate the true fans who are not necessarily fanatical supporters of either side, but merely want a good game of cricket.

 

[Beleg]

You haven't heard bad commentary till you have heard Pakistani commentators. Trust me.

 

[Fiery]

Is it just me or does Mark Nicholas appear to be an absolute suck??

He appears to be an absolute suck.

From a neutral perspective I haven't noticed the Aussie commentators be particularly biased at all. You'll always get a slight local bias in any country. The English have been poor all tour and most of them just tell it like it is. To call it any differently would be patronising to England? This thread's a bit cry-baby really

 

[sideshowtim]

Yeah...you really need to start listening to some other countries commentary. Quite frankly home fans don't want to hear their home team bagged and that's a fact. Especially when that home team is in remarkable form like Australia is at the moment and has been for the last 10 years. Everywhere you go in the world you will get biased commentators. Everywhere.

Boycott and Botham were terrible in the 05 Ashes and Pakistani and Indian commentators....don't get me started. Anyway, my point is that there is always a slant towards the home team in the commentary box because that's what the TV viewers want.

Also, I think any praise of Australia and any criticism of England in this particular tour is definitely warranted.

 

[Richard]

You haven't heard bad commentary till you have heard Pakistani commentators. Trust me.

Pakistani commentators?

I'd never heard that term used before.

I've only ever heard 1 Pakistani commentator (you can probably guess who he might have been), though there was someone called Waqar Younis who vaguely resembled a commentator not so long ago.

 

[Jono]

How can anyone like Mark Nicholas?

He was an idiot today, and him laughing when Pietersen was clearly in pain sums it up for me. An idiot who tries to make everything extravagant and great viewing. Pietersen obviously going down in pain which looked at the outset immediately like a broken rib resulted in Nicholas laughing.

He's horrible.