The Ashes Commentary Thread

[vic_orthdox]

Really do miss that touch of token Australian. The other annoying thing is how every time you have new commentators talking about Mitchell Johnson, they keep on talking about the same thing over and over. The guy has proven that he can take wickets without swinging it back in. Sick of people harping on it.

[fredfertang]

Disappointed Vaughan isn't commentating - was convinced he would be - had to pay up on a few ill-advised wagers to that effect yesterday

[chalky]

Originally Posted by Redbacks

Where is the analyser this series?

That was channel 4 coverage mate they lost rights after the 2005 series.

IMO channel 4's coverage, especially the 2005 series, was the pinnacle of cricket presentation that I have seen. Sky although not bad are no where near for me.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Surely the Sky commentators blaming the scoreline at stumps yesterday on England's choice of ball will take some topping.

I take it you're not a bowler then?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

Really do miss that touch of token Australian. The other annoying thing is how every time you have new commentators talking about Mitchell Johnson, they keep on talking about the same thing over and over. The guy has proven that he can take wickets without swinging it back in. Sick of people harping on it.

He's also proven that he's useful sans-inswinger and deadly with it.

What is annoying - as I mentioned in the in-match thread - is people commenting, puzzled, on the fact that the off-cutter is his stock-ball. A little bit of research would've discovered that. I've known it for over a year now.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Burgey

I think you're right about swing. There's been a love affair with it since 05. It's great to get it, but the ball doesn't swing much in a lot of places around the world.

It hasn't been since '05 (not in this country anyway) - swing has always, rightly, been seen as incredibly important over here, all the time I've been watching cricket.

In my experience also swing has become harder to get in places like South Africa and New Zealand in recent times - maybe to do with them using Kookaburra rather than Duke balls. And also in Australia, though no-one seems able to explain that. It was certainly incredibly difficult to get in England between 2001 and 2006, though in the last 3 seasons it's been back to normal. When, of course, the bowlers bowl properly.

And for the enfatuation with swing of which you talk, England's bowlers evidently did a pretty poor in-love impression with their constant whacking it in halfway down with the first new-ball.

[Matt79]

Sky is soooooooo much better than C9 that it makes me cry thinking about having to listen to Bill, Tony and Healy.

[GIMH]

"Eventful seven overs for Australia, not so for England," says Bumble

Hmm, I'd say seeing two of our batsmen back in the pavillion when we're trying to save an Ashes Test is pretty eventful tbh

[/grim pedant]

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by Richard

I take it you're not a bowler then?

Well they must be crap at it mate, they had 3 chances to get the choice of ball right.

[Richard]

The last two swung juuuuuuuust fine - whether the first didn't much because it was a bad ball or because they bowled in the worst way possible to engender swing I don't know, but it certainly didn't swing that much.

However, the notion that it's not possible to get a ball that, for no apparent reason, doesn't swing, is plain wrong and to support it suggests one isn't a bowler. I've had it several times and I've not played that many games compared to those in the Sky box. It may or may not have happened with the first new-ball England used, but it certainly can happen.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

"Eventful seven overs for Australia, not so for England," says Bumble

Hmm, I'd say seeing two of our batsmen back in the pavillion when we're trying to save an Ashes Test is pretty eventful tbh

[/grim pedant]

Funnily enough, it's not unusual for commentators to use the "such-and-such [one team]... not so [other team]" when something's gone right for one team and obviously by implication wrong for the other - whether it's appropriate or not.

[Redbacks]

Stuart McGill has progress from awkward to just slightly awkward on the SBS coverage. I thought Simon Hill did a top job last time round, even if he did support the wrong team!

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by Richard

The last two swung juuuuuuuust fine - whether the first didn't much because it was a bad ball or because they bowled in the worst way possible to engender swing I don't know, but it certainly didn't swing that much.

However, the notion that it's not possible to get a ball that, for no apparent reason, doesn't swing, is plain wrong and to support it suggests one isn't a bowler. I've had it several times and I've not played that many games compared to those in the Sky box. It may or may not have happened with the first new-ball England used, but it certainly can happen.

I think Swann was whinging about it at the preser as wel, FWIW.

Anyway, loving Boycs on TMS pre-lunch absolutely launching into the England batting.

[GIMH]

Any special quotes in there?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Burgey

I think Swann was whinging about it at the preser as wel, FWIW.

Preser?

Anyway, loving Boycs on TMS pre-lunch absolutely launching into the England batting.

I suppose, monotonous as it is, if you're going to have commentators at all then you've got to expect criticism for abysmal performances such as England's this Test, never mind second-innings.