Do you prefer radio or television?

[ozone]

The out-of-syncness, is a major problem. Used to love the old days when the radio and tv were exactly the same time, and I used to do both. Now it's just TV, I don't mind Nasser, Atherton, Gower and Bumble, and I just put it to mute when ****ing Bothams on.

Bumble makes listening to the Sky commentary bareable, (along with Atherton, of course).

 

[Richard]

When thinking about commentators and coverage it's easy to forget how poor things used to be in the past. Sky's footage is a million times better than the BBC's used to be (it took the BBC some decades to realise that you need a camera directly in line with the pitch, and another couple of decades to realise that you should always use the camera from behind the bowler's arm rather than from behind the batsman - see eg the footgage of Bob Massie's 16 wickets at Lord's, where the main camera used was the one from the wrong end). And we are spared the misery these days of having to put up with the likes of Peter West, Tony Lewis, Fred Trueman and Jim Laker, and we escape with mercifully reduced doses of Jack Bloody Bannister.

Although I'm fully in agreement about how diabolical it was that the BBC took as long as they did to realise basic camera-related things like the examples you name, I'm amazed that you'd dislike Jim Laker as a commentator. Viewing with hindsight, it feels as if for years he was what to me Richie Benaud has always been. Had he lived longer, the BBC's coverage's likeness in 1972 to 1998 might've been almost complete.

Watching highlights of cricket in England from the '70s to the mid-'80s just wouldn't feel as good as it does, to me, without Laker's voice being a regularity, alongside Benaud's.

I often wonder what might've happened had the BBC realised in the '30s that a camera right behind the pitch, at both ends, was a good idea. Then the only difference in any cricket footage might just have been the change from B&W to colour, added to the addition of commentators.

 

[zaremba]

I'm amazed that you'd dislike Jim Laker as a commentator. Viewing with hindsight, it feels as if for years he was what to me Richie Benaud has always been. Had he lived longer, the BBC's coverage's likeness in 1972 to 1998 might've been almost complete.

Watching highlights of cricket in England from the '70s to the mid-'80s just wouldn't feel as good as it does, to me, without Laker's voice being a regularity, alongside Benaud's.

Jim Laker was dreadful. Dreary, dull, monotonous. Lugubrious would be the kindest possible way of putting it. His greatest line was his epic "What a marvellous way to go to a six" when trying to commentate on Botham reaching one of his 100s in 1981.

 

[Richard]

Thought it was "what a terrific way to go to a six" TBH, but I've heard commentators muddle words plenty of times before now. Most of them just don't happen to come on the delivery where one of the most famous innings' in history reached the most notable milestone within it.

As I say, I've heard Laker only in hindsight and on highlights packages, but he's just seemed to be one of those always-there-and-always-essentials to me. Maybe my view would be different had I been there at the time. Remember, though, that I can tolerate the Willises, Allotts, Bothams, Lloyds, etc. that so many people hate. I don't even mind Charles Colville so long as he sticks to "welcome along" and doesn't start trying to venture into which players are good and which players aren't.

For me, TV commentary is just something in which there's very little mileage. Precious rare is the situation where your words can offer viewers something they haven't just seen. "Great shot, it was full, and he was right onto it" - yep, we've just seen that, you don't actually have to tell us. But you're paid to do so, so I kinda understand your plight. Just sitting there saying nothing isn't quite justifying your producers' outgoings.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

His greatest line was his epic "What a marvellous way to go to a six" when trying to commentate on Botham .

Thought it was "what a terrific way to go to a six" TBH

The word used was "magnificent."

 

[zaremba]

The word used was "magnificent."

I had a feeling you might leap in with the definitive answer, LT!

In retrospect, the only appropriate word is "dire".

 

[Pothas]

As I am without Sky (something I will have to rectify by this summer) the radio is my only option and it is simply fantastic. I especially enjoy the overseas series, it sounds different for some reason.

Obviously nothing beats being at the ground and I am lucky enough to see at least one days test cricket a year as well as Hampshire matches.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Commentary is generally much better on the radio, but obviously you get a better experience of the game if you actually watch it.

I use both personally, but I'll watch a game on TV if I have an easy choice between the two and nothing else to do.

 

[Jigga988]

I tend to like the format of sky. I think the third man feature is a good way to teach younger viewers how to learn from the game, also, I like the way in which there is always one commentator from the opposing side in the commentary team, e.g. pollock when SA were down here.

The commentators it self can be slightly annoying, bar Bumble who is an absolute legend. I can understand there's only so much you can say, but the constant mentioning of line and length, infuriate me greatly. It's not bad when they really analyse bowling, i.e. show where the seam is heading respectively when Jimmy is bowing his out-swingers and in-swingers. Also, the grips that leg-spinners use to bowl certain balls, e.g. the top spinner googly etc.

All in all, sky commentary is not that bad and you can't really ask for much more from them.

 

[aussie]

In the halcyon days of radio commentary in the Uk a large section of the cricket loving population listened to TMS whilst watching TV with the sound turned down. These days the commentators are such a pile of bat droppings that it doesn't make much difference. The radio commentary now is so poor that you need to see the action for yourself to have a proper idea of what's taking place.

. This is why i love England. The phrases u elders use are brilliant.

On topic, listen to both ..

 

[Rant0r]

bahaha @ bat droppings

you cant go past watching the game on the box, obviously for those who like the atmosphere being at the ground with the abc radio on is the go, but i like the tv

unfortunately the commentary team is up the ****, bar a few (taylor, griegy, lawry) i simply have to listen to abc and put up with the delay, especially when chappelli is spouting some bullcrap. I have to unmute it occassionally to make sure i'm doing the right thing, and to see what they're on about when they are showing 4 replays of some super slow mo of someone's foot.

 

[cricman]

Cricket Commentators in the TV Box are the worst in the Subcontient

 

[Richard]

The word used was "magnificent."

Should've remembered - my favourite Laker piece of commentary has him using that. Sure anyone familiar with the occasion will know where it comes from:
"Magnificent hook shot out of the ground, superb shot there by Lloyd, the West Indian contingent on their feet".

 

[_Ed_]

I might be in the minority, but I actually prefer NZ's TV commentators to radio commentators. So it's really no contest for me.

 

[zaremba]

I tend to like the format of sky. I think the third man feature is a good way to teach younger viewers how to learn from the game, also, I like the way in which there is always one commentator from the opposing side in the commentary team, e.g. pollock when SA were down here.

The commentators it self can be slightly annoying, bar Bumble who is an absolute legend. I can understand there's only so much you can say, but the constant mentioning of line and length, infuriate me greatly. It's not bad when they really analyse bowling, i.e. show where the seam is heading respectively when Jimmy is bowing his out-swingers and in-swingers. Also, the grips that leg-spinners use to bowl certain balls, e.g. the top spinner googly etc.

All in all, sky commentary is not that bad and you can't really ask for much more from them.

I can't begin to tell you how fundamentally I disagree with this.

 

[Arjun]

I'd say both. I'd like to see and hear stuff, so television is a preferred medium- I trust the camera more than a commentator. Then again, I can't be watching television all the time, so I turn on my portable FM radio and listen. With radio, however, I don't get any more than the current India match, while I have a larger range to catch with television- not just international, but also domestic cricket in most countries.

 

[Jigga988]

I can't begin to tell you how fundamentally I disagree with this.

Yes, he may be slightly over-exuberent (is that a word?) but he is a reason for bringing in lots of new viewers of cricket, he clearly loves the game and adds some comedic value to younger viewers. Also, he knows he can get away with anything because he is a cricketing English treasure just like Bruce Forsyth is England's T.V treasure.

When actually talking about the game the stuff he comes up with can be slightly inaccurate, hence his roll as English coach ending, but everything mentioned prior to this makes up for it.

 

[zaremba]

Yes, he may be slightly over-exuberent (is that a word?) but he is a reason for bringing in lots of new viewers of cricket, he clearly loves the game and adds some comedic value to younger viewers. Also, he knows he can get away with anything because he is a cricketing English treasure just like Bruce Forsyth is England's T.V treasure.

When actually talking about the game the stuff he comes up with can be slightly inaccurate, hence his roll as English coach ending, but everything mentioned prior to this makes up for it.

I know that a lot of people like him. I just find him incredibly irritating. I don't think he's funny as a rule, and often he's just embarassing. You may be right that he thinks he can get away with anything because he's an English cricketing treasure - this may be part of the problem. Your comparison with Bruce Forsyth is a good one too: national treasure Brucey may be, but someone I want to listen to while I'm trying to watch the cricket he ain't.

The thought of Bumble ever having been in charge of the England team sends a shiver down my spine.

 

[Uppercut]

I know that a lot of people like him. I just find him incredibly irritating. I don't think he's funny as a rule, and often he's just embarassing. You may be right that he thinks he can get away with anything because he's an English cricketing treasure - this may be part of the problem. Your comparison with Bruce Forsyth is a good one too: national treasure Brucey may be, but someone I want to listen to while I'm trying to watch the cricket he ain't.

The thought of Bumble ever having been in charge of the England team sends a shiver down my spine.

AWTA. How come when Lloyd spouts inane bias it's "Loveable Bumble is so Loveable " but when Botham does it it's "****ing Botham, what a ****ing ****er"?

 

[GIMH]

Am I the only one who doesn't mind Beefy's commentary?