Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Trent Boult would like a word.Never trust a man who has no chin
Trent Boult would like a word.Never trust a man who has no chin
More cricketers are closer to Beefy and Selvey on average too....even in England. Especially if they're Northerners.Remember when he greeted someone with a head butting?
The notion that some very good cricketers are also not the sharpest and that’s okay still catches a lot of the Oxbridge press off guard I think. We still insist that these blokes sit down in front of the media and respond to every question with considered, insightful analysis. But not every cricketer is Mike Selvey. Some of them are Ian Botham.
Interesting article in today's Guardian from Ali Martin.
He baldly states Johnny Red's statement to the press didn't go down too well with the England squad:
And that last sentence is one of a few passages where, if not actually implying it, the author certainly allows his reader to infer that YJB isn't perhaps the deepest thinker:
He strikes me as being somewhat of a narcissist, and the hair transplant is testament to that (ala Shane Warne).Vaughan is, and always has been, a turd.
Good player on his day. Very good at his best in fact. But as a bloke, has always come across as a right dickhead. And pretty dense as well. .
The media encourages it. Believe it not, Michael Slater is actually capable of being a decently insightful commentator. So is Ian Hea....nah sorry, bad example. But you get me. The media turns them into sound bytes, speaking for moments of controversy and things to gain reaction (ie negative reaction, given our negativity bias as humans) rather than reasoned, well thought out reflection which might get a nod of the head but doesn't get bloods boiling and nor does it cater to Joe Average fan (this is a thing moreso in some countries over others).Vaughan was by far the biggest heel turn post retirement imo
he doesn't even talk cricket with any great depth and this from a guy who was undoubtedly a superb captain who seemed to have a strong understanding of the game
on slats i agree. on channel 4 in the uk in the 00s he was a perfectly decent comm.The media encourages it. Believe it not, Michael Slater is actually capable of being a decently insightful commentator. So is Ian Hea....nah sorry, bad example. But you get me. The media turns them into sound bytes, speaking for moments of controversy and things to gain reaction (ie negative reaction, given our negativity bias as humans) rather than reasoned, well thought out reflection which might get a nod of the head but doesn't get bloods boiling and nor does it cater to Joe Average fan (this is a thing moreso in some countries over others).
Radio commentators don't have to do this, their audience is different. Therefore they are generally better to listen to for the cricket purist.
No doubt, but you know given how outstanding he was as a captain, he must have it in him. But he's got that pesky, I'm perfectly comfortably being annoying and saying intentionally mischievous things to rile people up and get reaction sort of personality that lends to the type of commentary he does. Mark Richardson also has this affliction. It's often insufferable.on slats i agree. on channel 4 in the uk in the 00s he was a perfectly decent comm.
vaughan though has never been anything of the sort. even on tms he is dreary at best.
Yeah, wonder why Channel 9 used to mandate that you had to be a Test captain before you could join the commentary teamYour captaincy instincts on the field of your ability to lead a cohesive team on and off the field doesn't necessarily transfer across into being able to be an analytical commentator either.
The standard of radio commentary (over here anyway) has declined noticeably over the last ten years or so imo.The media encourages it. Believe it not, Michael Slater is actually capable of being a decently insightful commentator. So is Ian Hea....nah sorry, bad example. But you get me. The media turns them into sound bytes, speaking for moments of controversy and things to gain reaction (ie negative reaction, given our negativity bias as humans) rather than reasoned, well thought out reflection which might get a nod of the head but doesn't get bloods boiling and nor does it cater to Joe Average fan (this is a thing moreso in some countries over others).
Radio commentators don't have to do this, their audience is different. Therefore they are generally better to listen to for the cricket purist.
He's always been a smug and arrogant git. His performances in the media have always been pretty dubious even pre-commentary as well.Vaughan was by far the biggest heel turn post retirement imo
he doesn't even talk cricket with any great depth and this from a guy who was undoubtedly a superb captain who seemed to have a strong understanding of the game
Ain't that the sad truth. Talksport, Gough, Irani, ****, ****, wankety, ****.The standard of radio commentary (over here anyway) has declined noticeably over the last ten years or so imo.
Radio commentators here tend to be less obnoxious in terms of crap opinions and so on, but the way some now just ramble on about any old ****, only referencing what is happening on the field every 3-4 deliveries can make it really awful at times.