Aussie TV Coverage suxs

[cric_manic]

It's unfortunately the only coverage we have apart from radio sport. I just get a bit sick of hearing the Aussie commentators go on and on about 'how good this Australian team is' or 'how great Michael Clarke is'. Maybe I'm just still bitter about NZ's pathetic performace.

radio sport had the abc coverage so the comentaters were australians and had the same things to say so both ways we had to listen to australians
(michael clarkes innings ways brilliant)

 

[bryce]

I pity poor Ian Smith over there, he has to put up with those arrogant Channel 9 commentators. At one stage during the match you could tell he was getting very annoyed, he said sometihng like: 'I know, I've been watching too".

They show replay after replay of Michael Clarke and we barely get to see anything of Oram's great innings. The annoying Channel 9 guys constantly talk up the Aussies (rightly so) but then there is hardly anything positive said about our players. You can tell they don't know all that much about the NZ players because of comments like: 'Why isn't Fleming fielding at first slip to Vettori?" Styris often fields there off Vettori and is just as good as Fleming in the slips.

i agree with you about the part that the aussie commentators don't know much about the new zealand players but act like they do, they were saying how they should have an experienced slip fielder in for vettori when perhaps styris may even be a better slip than fleming IMO, he rarely(if at all) makes a mistake, tubby also once called him 'steve styris' which he must of thought was his name because he never corrected himself!
the aussies did compliment oram's innings and did speak very highly of it, but for consistency's sake they blew clarke's out of proportion by showing replay after replay all through the match of him celebrating his century when he only got 8 more runs than oram and oram even ended not out.
i'm not trying tell the aussies how to commentate, infact i don't have any problem with it whatsoever just as long as i get to see some cricket.

 

[howardj]

My thoughts on the commentators:

Lawry - as stale as old cheese. Really, he's like a cracked record and just describes the obvious and nothing else. Offers no insight whatsoever. Also criticises the hell out of the opposition.

Greig - Also makes the Aussies out to be absolute super-heroes, and treats the audience like mugs - as though he thinks he can brain wash people into believing the Aussie players are gods, and therefore we should buy his stinkin' memorabilia. This is odd, because I think he secretely death rides the Aussies.

Benaud - To me, Benaud tries to be too cute in his commentary, too often. Every comment seems to be tongue in cheek and an attempt at being witty. I liked Richie when he wasn't trying to be cute in his commentary, and made the odd NATURALLY witty remark - I think he tries too hard to be witty these days.

Taylor - There is absolutely no inflection in this guy's voice! He is so monotone and totally dull. Like Lawry, I think he's a bit of a 'describer' - ie just specialises in telling everyone what we can already see. Enough to send the kids to sleep.

Healy - This guy is a real star. Taylor should take speech lessons from Heals, as Heals actually changes the tone of his voice and puts some life into things. Heals is very incisive and enthusiastic. He adds heaps to the pictures- gives great insight.

Nicholas - I think he is great. I'm so bored with former players who get into the commentary box on the basis of nothing more than their cricketing ability. Like listening to Robert Craddock or Mike Coward, a professional journalist like Nicholas is far more interesting to listen to than most of the former Aussie captains that make their way to the Commentary Box. He adds intelligence to the commentary, and is not beholden to any former mates/team-mates out on the field.

 

[age_master]

Healy - This guy is a real star. Taylor should take speech lessons for Heals, as Heals actually changes the tone of his voice and puts some life into things. Heals is very incisive and enthusiastic. He adds heaps to the pictures- gives great insight.

yep heals is Tops

 

[Neil Pickup]

Nicholas - I think he is great. I'm so bored with former players who get into the commentary box on the basis of nothing more than their cricketing ability. Like listening to Robert Craddock or Mike Coward, a professional journalist like Nicholas is far more interesting to listen to than most of the former Aussie captains that make their way to the Commentary Box. He adds intelligence to the commentary, and is not beholden to any former mates/team-mates out on the field.

He is a former player, many years at Middlesex. Wouldn't be there otherwise.

 

[howardj]

He is a former player, many years at Middlesex. Wouldn't be there otherwise.

Yeah I was aware that he played county cricket in the past. However, I do feel he is more there on his ability as a commentator and journalist. This contrasts with the other gents in the box, who are there solely because they are former Aussie skippers.

 

[Chubb]

I thought Nicholas played for Hampshire and was captain there? He also captained England A for a while.

i watched the day 2 highlights coverage on the test on Sky and I thought the commentary was pretty good, but not as good as TMS or 4.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I thought Nicholas played for Hampshire and was captain there? He also captained England A for a while.

i watched the day 2 highlights coverage on the test on Sky and I thought the commentary was pretty good, but not as good as TMS or 4.

Yes, you're right, no idea where I got Middlesex from.

 

[Langeveldt]

Nicholas - I think he is great. I'm so bored with former players who get into the commentary box on the basis of nothing more than their cricketing ability. Like listening to Robert Craddock or Mike Coward, a professional journalist like Nicholas is far more interesting to listen to than most of the former Aussie captains that make their way to the Commentary Box. He adds intelligence to the commentary, and is not beholden to any former mates/team-mates out on the field.

Im astounded in the difference in opinion across the world regarding mark nicholas... Hopefully he will take note and stay in Aus for good.. We dont want your "YOOOU BEEAUTYY" bullsh** any more...

 

[steds]

I don't know why everyone hates Nicholas. He's about as good a Southern commentator as you'll get.



Nowhere near Bumble, though

 

[Langeveldt]

I don't know why everyone hates Nicholas. He's about as good a Southern commentator as you'll get.



Nowhere near Bumble, though

Just have a listen if you wonder why we all hate Nicholas... Its not hard.. Bumble is the best thing to come out of the north..

 

[Will Scarlet]

Healy and Smith are the best of the bunch. Benaud is a silly old bugger that needs to retire, but does have the occasional valid insight - unlike biased Bill and salesman Grieg.

I believe that when an AUS batsmen is hard done by Channel 9 really overdue the replays, and seem to let it slip when an opposing batsman (and Yes this is the correct term - as opposed to the baseball term) is wrongly adjudged.

I haven't seen much of that hawkeye thing (whatever they call it) this year. Last year in the Indian series, it was being used by the commentators to dispute the unfavourable LBW decisions, when it's not in the least bit reliable.

How many replays were shown of Gilly's lucky LBW let-off when on 7. And we all know he went on to make 140+? I doubt that if circumstances were reversed so little would were made of it by Channel 9.

 

[Mr Casson]

How many replays were shown of Gilly's lucky LBW let-off when on 7. And we all know he went on to make 140+?

Well not all of us. Some of us still think he only made 126!

 

[biased indian]

Healy and Smith are the best of the bunch. Benaud is a silly old bugger that needs to retire, but does have the occasional valid insight - unlike biased Bill and salesman Grieg.

I believe that when an AUS batsmen is hard done by Channel 9 really overdue the replays, and seem to let it slip when an opposing batsman (and Yes this is the correct term - as opposed to the baseball term) is wrongly adjudged.

I haven't seen much of that hawkeye thing (whatever they call it) this year. Last year in the Indian series, it was being used by the commentators to dispute the unfavourable LBW decisions, when it's not in the least bit reliable.

How many replays were shown of Gilly's lucky LBW let-off when on 7. And we all know he went on to make 140+? I doubt that if circumstances were reversed so little would were made of it by Channel 9.

but most of the time they were saying it might have missed the stumps when it was clear that it would hit legstump

 

[Tom Halsey]

Nowhere near Bumble, though

Who is bad, even by Northern standards.

 

[steds]

Who is bad, even by Northern standards.

a) no he isn't. He's a comic genius
b)our standards are a lot higher than Southerners lame arsed efforts

 

[steds]

a) no he isn't. He's a comic genius
b)our standards are a lot higher than Southerners lame arsed efforts

What happened to the censoring thing?

 

[marc71178]

Yes, you're right, no idea where I got Middlesex from.

Because you're a Ginger Muppet?

 

[Langeveldt]

Because you're a Ginger Muppet?

ROFLOL

 

[Smudge]

As to Ian Smith, of all the guest commentators Nine have hosted, none have ever been as belligerently smug as Smith was during the one-day triangular back in '00/01. (Even my wife, who doesn't like the arrogance of the Aussie players, and didn't mind seeing them get taken down a few pegs, wanted to kick his sorry a$$.)

What did you expect? He had to deal with condescending Lawry, one-eyed Greig and the like, and finally his side was beating Australia regularly.

I would have been smug too.