The most disgraceful commentary I have ever heard

[Mister Wright]

I've actually been very impressed with the Sky commentators. I don't know if it is just because of fresh commentary, but they are pretty much spot on. Hussain is one of my favourites (probably more to do with his accent than anything else).

 

[Richard]

You like Bob Willis?

EDIT: if so, you're in a minority of 3, with me and my Mum.

 

[Matt79]

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.

Actually I'm certain that they do. There was a very good article in the Australian mag Inside Cricket last issue where the writer spent a whole day in the back of the box with the 9 commentators. A couple of things that came through very clearly is the extent to which the director exercises guidance over the entire tone and agenda of the commentary, and the extent to which the production team guides what the commentators talk about. Obviously they do know their stuff and will comment on things that they want, but they also had a couple of blow by blows where the producers basically suggested to Ia Chappell that he relate a particular anecdote and another where they prompted Slater IIRC to initiate a discussion with Bill about an innings on Lawry's in a similart situation to what they were seeing.

 

[Richard]

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah I think it's pretty much a given that the producers will have some control over things. They don't simply select a bunch of knowledgable cricket people and let them have free reign. Nine would have a very clear idea of exactly what they wanted out of the cricket in terms of the commentary and presentation style, the atmosphere of the games and the audience they wanted to direct the program at. In such a competitive industry it is only natural.

Certainly in the early days when Packer was in charge at Nine he was very hands-on in terms of designing the way cricket would be covered on television, and most other networks around the world have followed on from what he set up. He was very successful in making cricket a more marketable sport, both on the field and on TV, but it's one of the clear reasons for the difference in presentation between the radio and television today.

 

[Jono]

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.

I understand your point, and do agree, but wasn't the Sky coverage a pay-TV option, whereas C4 was free-to-air? Hence wouldn't one think that the C4 coverage would more than likely attempt to appeal to a wider audience?

 

[Mister Wright]

You like Bob Willis?

EDIT: if so, you're in a minority of 3, with me and my Mum.

Yeah, I do actually. I find it funny how he never has anything interesting to say, but continually feeds the other commentators with questions.

 

[Richard]

Yeah I think it's pretty much a given that the producers will have some control over things. They don't simply select a bunch of knowledgable cricket people and let them have free reign. Nine would have a very clear idea of exactly what they wanted out of the cricket in terms of the commentary and presentation style, the atmosphere of the games and the audience they wanted to direct the program at. In such a competitive industry it is only natural.

Certainly in the early days when Packer was in charge at Nine he was very hands-on in terms of designing the way cricket would be covered on television, and most other networks around the world have followed on from what he set up. He was very successful in making cricket a more marketable sport, both on the field and on TV, but it's one of the clear reasons for the difference in presentation between the radio and television today.

Yet another thing Kerry Packer was to blame for.

 

[Richard]

I understand your point, and do agree, but wasn't the Sky coverage a pay-TV option, whereas C4 was free-to-air? Hence wouldn't one think that the C4 coverage would more than likely attempt to appeal to a wider audience?

Sky's feed was picked-up on Fox Sports, C4's was on SBS.

 

[GIMH]

You like Bob Willis?

EDIT: if so, you're in a minority of 3, with me and my Mum.

There's a letter in this month's Wisden absolutely worshipping at the feet at Bob.

My missus finds him hilarious, when asked on the day 3 highlights of the SCG Test if England had any way back, he started into the screen and said, very sternly, "NO!" 'Twas hilarious

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yet another thing Kerry Packer was to blame for.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here or not. I wasn't attempting to "blame" Packer for anything, merely point out that his desire to make cricket more marketable for his television network led to a change in the presentation of the sport that was entirely intentional.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I understand your point, and do agree, but wasn't the Sky coverage a pay-TV option, whereas C4 was free-to-air? Hence wouldn't one think that the C4 coverage would more than likely attempt to appeal to a wider audience?

Yeah, that's right I think. I couldn't explain the intent really, that's just the way it seemed to me. Incidentally, Sky this time around in the SL and Pakistan tests seemed a bit less low brow, but that might just be due to the lack of a comparison.

 

[Richard]

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here or not. I wasn't attempting to "blame" Packer for anything, merely point out that his desire to make cricket more marketable for his television network led to a change in the presentation of the sport that was entirely intentional.

You are amongst the vast majority who dislike the large majority of TV coms.

I was pointing-out that the reasons you give for this being so are as a result of broadcasting tactics initially brought in by Kerry Packer. So it's yet another thing that's his fault.

 

[Richard]

There's a letter in this month's Wisden absolutely worshipping at the feet at Bob.

My missus finds him hilarious, when asked on the day 3 highlights of the SCG Test if England had any way back, he started into the screen and said, very sternly, "NO!" 'Twas hilarious

Blimey, there is reason for his retention after all.

I personally like best his ability to denounce bowling as "rubbish" once a series.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Bob Willis is great tbh. I love opinionated people like him, Boycott and Greig. I do understand why people hate/dislike him though.

 

[Richard]

TBF, more commentators than not are opinionated... and it's not neccessarily an invariable-negative, either - JP Agnew doesn't suffer too much criticism (except from the Oborne types) and he's perfectly opinionated enough.

 

[luffy]

booo whoo!

I had a wet dream over you last night. You got hit by a bus and i pissed myself laughing

 

[pasag]

I had a wet dream over you last night. You got hit by a bus and i pissed myself laughing

Haha Luffy, you might want to go see someone about that.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I had a wet dream over you last night. You got hit by a bus and i pissed myself laughing

That sort of posting isn't needed.

 

[Prince EWS]

That sort of posting isn't needed.

Really though, no sort of posting is actually needed.