Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Most of the top radio-coms and columnists here in Britain?
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The most disgraceful commentary I have ever heard
- Thread starter Prince EWS
- Start date
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
With the radio it's in my experience because it's often difficult to tell exactly what's going-on, because on a decent-size playing-field (which numbers pretty much all Australian grounds) you're always going to be a fair way away from the action. I find it helps me spot what's happening much easier.
As for why people listen to the radio with the TV volume down... because they like the radio coms better?
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Well you'd hope the best Australian captain of the modern era might just do.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Well... you can't exactly say he's wrong about Symonds being quite an outfielder... even if the moment was inopportune.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Well... it's been hard to spot any better Englishmen (even Pietersen) in the last 3 months...
archie mac
International Coach
Yes that is why I do it, but maybe the TV commentators should try describing the pictures, may work better then they think
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Why would they know better than me Richard?
BoyBrumby
Englishman
TBF the only reason I'm even aware of Jim Maxwell is that he does the voice on Cricket 2002 & 2004 on my PS2. So dunno where Richard's read him being so talked up.Why would they know better than me Richard?
Just my tuppence worth.
Johnners
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
lol, how dodgy, you get Jim Maxwell, only got some dodgy Pommy fella on my version of cricket 02, and Mark Nicholas on Cricket 07
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Maybe, but I can see why they'd feel foolish trying.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
They wouldn't neccessarily, and did I say they did?Why would they know better than me Richard?
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
What do you think of Neil Manthorp?
Or is he too much of a throwing-water-on-the-fire type?
Langeveldt
Soutie
Neil Manthorp is the best cricket pundit in the world for mine..
McKanga
School Boy/Girl Captain
ABC Grandstand is 1-2 secs ahead which you almost never notice. Commentary is excellent and not forced to be discontinuous/episodic by commercials. Watch the TV, listen to the radio and you will see a significant improvement in your enjoyment of the game.
legglancer12
School Boy/Girl Captain
Worst (most biased) Comms by nation
1) NZ
2) AUS
3) SA
4) Pak
5) Ind
6) SL
7) Eng
1) NZ
2) AUS
3) SA
4) Pak
5) Ind
6) SL
7) Eng
McKanga
School Boy/Girl Captain
I completely acknowledge that after the recent Adelaide Test our Aussie commentators could barely bother with finding virtues in England's efforts. By the second innings of the Melbourne game they no longer tried. The sad part for England is that the BBC staff were little different.
Matt79
Hall of Fame Member
I don't mind the 9 guys, but probably because Richie, Tony, Bill and Chappell have been at it for so long that I've rarely ever watched cricket on telly without them commentating - just used to it I suppose.
Lawry is one-eyed about Australia, and doesn't bother trying to maintain composure. Most of the time you laugh at it because he comes across as a bit of a goose, but nothing complements a big wicket like Bill's "Got Him, YES, Gone" action. (BTW brilliantly taken off, again, in the most recent 12th Man - "Got him, gone" "actually bill, that's nowhere near out". "Well, I thought it looked plumb". "The Australians not even bothering to appeal there actually Bill").
Healy is not a good commentator, apart from when he's talking about wicket-keeping technicalities. Taylor is pretty much a non-entity...
I think Chappelli's actually been much better this year than in recent times - less whining about the captain not doing their job right in his opinion.
Slats is good and so is Nicholas.
A few people have mentioned that they seem to try and hype the action to make it sound more gripping than it is, or that they dumb down the game. My reaction to that would be: "Well, duh!" Their job is not to provide brilliant insightful commentary. It is to get people to keep on watching the program. Now, good commentary is one significant aspect of that job, but it also involves papering over the cracks in otherwise dull or one-sided affairs were people might be tempted to change to the tennis or whatever by keeping the tempo up and the (apparent) excitement coming.
Finally, its a question of target audiences. 9 obviously wants to get in a bigger crowd than just the cricket tragics out there - we're all going to watch anyway - and the tendency towards appealling to "not serious" cricket fans is much more pronounced in the commentary on the ODIs than in the Tests, reflecting the different audiences of the two games. They also want to get in the people who will tune in because they enjoy watching the Poms, Saffies, Kiwis, whoever, being ground into the dirt and want to revel in it, and the people who don't know much about cricket at all, but will watch anything with some colour and movement. The commentary needs to appeal to all these target audiences, so its not surprising that the demographic on this website doesn't enjoy everything they do.
Lawry is one-eyed about Australia, and doesn't bother trying to maintain composure. Most of the time you laugh at it because he comes across as a bit of a goose, but nothing complements a big wicket like Bill's "Got Him, YES, Gone" action. (BTW brilliantly taken off, again, in the most recent 12th Man - "Got him, gone" "actually bill, that's nowhere near out". "Well, I thought it looked plumb". "The Australians not even bothering to appeal there actually Bill").
Healy is not a good commentator, apart from when he's talking about wicket-keeping technicalities. Taylor is pretty much a non-entity...
I think Chappelli's actually been much better this year than in recent times - less whining about the captain not doing their job right in his opinion.
Slats is good and so is Nicholas.
A few people have mentioned that they seem to try and hype the action to make it sound more gripping than it is, or that they dumb down the game. My reaction to that would be: "Well, duh!" Their job is not to provide brilliant insightful commentary. It is to get people to keep on watching the program. Now, good commentary is one significant aspect of that job, but it also involves papering over the cracks in otherwise dull or one-sided affairs were people might be tempted to change to the tennis or whatever by keeping the tempo up and the (apparent) excitement coming.
Finally, its a question of target audiences. 9 obviously wants to get in a bigger crowd than just the cricket tragics out there - we're all going to watch anyway - and the tendency towards appealling to "not serious" cricket fans is much more pronounced in the commentary on the ODIs than in the Tests, reflecting the different audiences of the two games. They also want to get in the people who will tune in because they enjoy watching the Poms, Saffies, Kiwis, whoever, being ground into the dirt and want to revel in it, and the people who don't know much about cricket at all, but will watch anything with some colour and movement. The commentary needs to appeal to all these target audiences, so its not surprising that the demographic on this website doesn't enjoy everything they do.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, I think you've got to the basic complaint against Nine and the reason for it. Despite Richard's apparent belief that everyone who isn't keen on television commentary on many networks is simply being negative for the sake of it, there is actually a pretty clear direction in the way the game is marketed to appeal to people who aren't necessarily die hard cricket fans. Few people are going to switch off the cricket merely because the commentary is mindless faux-excitement with minimal analysis if they love the game and watch it religiously, while your average punter isn't going to fall over themselves to listen to Benaud and Chappell debate the correct use of the short-leg position to fast bowlers.
On radio on the other hand, the commentary is generally directed much more at hardcore cricket fans, and so it's natural that most discerning cricket followers will find the commentary more interesting. You saw a similar contrast in England last year with the Channel 4 team compared to the Sky bunch. There was a very different tone to the commentary on the two networks (Nicholas aside), and personally I doubt it was accidental.
On radio on the other hand, the commentary is generally directed much more at hardcore cricket fans, and so it's natural that most discerning cricket followers will find the commentary more interesting. You saw a similar contrast in England last year with the Channel 4 team compared to the Sky bunch. There was a very different tone to the commentary on the two networks (Nicholas aside), and personally I doubt it was accidental.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
The only reason is the difference in personality.
Benaud, Nicholas, Reeve, Greig, Boycott and Atherton are simply different characters to Willis, Allott, Gower, Botham, Lloyd and Hussain.
You think the producers gather them around and give intimate details of the sort of commentary they want to hear?
Clearly TV and radio are aimed at different sections of the cricket-watching fraternity, but if you really think that the fact that 90% of feedback on near enough every TV-commentary personality is negative is justifiable, well... I think you're burying the head in the sand.
Benaud, Nicholas, Reeve, Greig, Boycott and Atherton are simply different characters to Willis, Allott, Gower, Botham, Lloyd and Hussain.
You think the producers gather them around and give intimate details of the sort of commentary they want to hear?
Clearly TV and radio are aimed at different sections of the cricket-watching fraternity, but if you really think that the fact that 90% of feedback on near enough every TV-commentary personality is negative is justifiable, well... I think you're burying the head in the sand.