Worst Commentators

[Son Of Coco]

I've always liked Tony Greig. He is insightful, and his passion is very evident and contagious.

As for the worst, I'd give it to Sohail for utterly biased and mindless commentary. He hardly provides any insight, usually ridicules the umpires for most of the decisions that don't go in his team's favour. As far as I'm concerned, Sohail is miles ahead of the entire world, when it comes to crappy commentary.

The thing that gets me a bit about Tony Greig is that his allegiances seem to swap depending on what's happening. If Australia are winning then he's (apparently) quite pleased, yet as soon as anyone looks like giving them a run he's over the fence and into the next paddock. Him and Bill are good value though (or have I been listening to the 12th man too much!?).

 

[Mister Wright]

Is Mark Nicholas the guy that also was involved with the State of Origin this year? He's a complete and utter tool, just another one of Kerry's brown nosers who's been thrown into sport (possibly sports) that he obviously has no idea about. He's up there with the great commentator choices such as Ray Martin and Ken Maxwell calling the cricket.

I don't think so. The only overseas flavour to Origin this year (that I can think of) was using Shrek & Donkey to promote each team.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Mark Waugh only scored at 70-per-100 sometimes.
Ponting is now a rare breed.

haha, if the Aussies are "as ugly as sin" scoring quickly and the other teams score "stylishly" at 50 per 100, then I guess it's time for the other teams to get ugly.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I don't think so. The only overseas flavour to Origin this year (that I can think of) was using Shrek & Donkey to promote each team.

haha, I just realised he wasn't reading th eother posts, which qualifies my first post about him as a "Rant"!

 

[Mister Wright]

haha, I just realised he wasn't reading th eother posts, which qualifies my first post about him as a "Rant"!

Well, you've certainly confused e.

 

[Son Of Coco]

david, come on. Ever heard of a basic fact?
Like the fact that Gough and Stewart announced they wanted a break in August?
If someone doesn't realise that and me and marc correct them at the same time, then agreement is inevitable.
Another basic fact is that Gilchrist's average is inflated...:saint:

Gilchrist's average is inflated? In that he's scored a lot of runs against quite a few different teams?

 

[Mister Wright]

Gilchrist's average is inflated? In that he's scored a lot of runs against quite a few different teams?

Ah...you obviously haven't heard of Richard's 'Second Chance Average' theory...

 

[Son Of Coco]

Ah...you obviously haven't heard of Richard's 'Second Chance Average' theory...

No, I missed that one unfortunately. At first I thought you'd typed "Richie's Second Chance Average Theory", then I came to my senses

What's this theory all about then?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Well, you've certainly confused e.

Sorry mate, I just read what I wrote and can't make any sense of it either. I think I was trying to type that I'd realised it wasn't the same guy when I read the other posts, unfortunately I took a wild slash at one outside off, and it's just ended up trickling down my leg side.......to coin cricketing terminology.

 

[Richard]

No, I missed that one unfortunately. At first I thought you'd typed "Richie's Second Chance Average Theory", then I came to my senses

What's this theory all about then?

It's not actually "second-chance", it's first-chance, don't mind Kyle - he's just one of those who don't understand the complications.
It's a fairly basic concept that, as far as the batsman's ability is concerned, there is no difference between a legitimate dismissal and a let-off.
Some people try to make the complication that it's often hard to tell what should and shouldn't have been out, but personally I don't believe that for a second.
And in the rare case that there is doubt, it's simple - benefit-of-doubt to batsman.

 

[Richard]

Gilchrist's average is inflated? In that he's scored a lot of runs against quite a few different teams?

And this is a good example - Gilchrist might have a lot of runs against his name against different teams, but in 2001 and 2002 especially (not quite so much before and afterwards) he had a hell of a lot of luck, far more than normal and certainly enough to make his average much higher than it deserved to be as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Swervy]

And this is a good example - Gilchrist might have a lot of runs against his name against different teams, but in 2001 and 2002 especially (not quite so much before and afterwards) he had a hell of a lot of luck, far more than normal and certainly enough to make his average much higher than it deserved to be as far as I'm concerned.

but is it luck when he absolutely mashes a ball towards a fielder...if you hit the ball hard then you are going to get away with these things more...its not luck, its the style of play (same goes for someone like Sehwag for example)

 

[Son Of Coco]

but is it luck when he absolutely mashes a ball towards a fielder...if you hit the ball hard then you are going to get away with these things more...its not luck, its the style of play (same goes for someone like Sehwag for example)

Yeah, I agree, if you go at the ball harder it comes off harder. You've also got to be good enough to make the most of this "luck". I've watched a lot of Gilly's innings (obviously) and can't say I've noticed him getting any luckier than any other batsman up to 2002 (I've missed a bit the last two years though as I haven't been home). He's had a lot of catches dropped in the crowd though I've got to admit!

 

[Richard]

but is it luck when he absolutely mashes a ball towards a fielder...if you hit the ball hard then you are going to get away with these things more...its not luck, its the style of play (same goes for someone like Sehwag for example)

And given that this hardly ever happens and most of the time it is simple drops, this is totally irrelevant.

 

[Son Of Coco]

And given that this hardly ever happens and most of the time it is simple drops, this is totally irrelevant.

Gilly hits the ball hard though, so I don't think he hits it any softer when he hits catches. Even catches to slips travel a lot harder if you have a go at them.

 

[Swervy]

Gilly hits the ball hard though, so I don't think he hits it any softer when he hits catches. Even catches to slips travel a lot harder if you have a go at them.

'if ya gonna flash...flash hard' is a perfectly valid theory

 

[Richard]

Oh, it's a perfectly valid theory, yes, but only because you have more chance of evading the fielders the harder you go at it.
It doesn't make simple slip catches into difficult ones or even remotely difficult ones.
Let alone make chances into non-chances.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Oh, it's a perfectly valid theory, yes, but only because you have more chance of evading the fielders the harder you go at it.
It doesn't make simple slip catches into difficult ones or even remotely difficult ones.
Let alone make chances into non-chances.

Well, it can make simple catches into more difficult ones because the ball will come to you a lot quicker. An extreme example would be you pushing forward and the ball simply lobbing to slip versus you slashing at it and it flying off the outside edge at a decent pace to the same fielder.

It doesn't make chances into non-chances, but it can make those chances harder to take.

 

[Richard]

A little bit harder, but not particularly so.
Certainly not such to attach credit to the batsman for it being missed. Indeed, a batsman never deserves that.
Any chance should result in dismissal, and AFAIAC there's no credit a batsman can ever have for a chance being missed.

 

[Dar]

Bob Willis!???????????????????????!!!!?!??!?!?!?!?!
The pompous, miserable, contrary Bob Willis!?!?!?!?!

You're having a laugh. He deserves to be shot

Thats exactly why i like him. The way he brutally blasts players in his monotonous, whining voice always has me cracking up in laughter.