Sunil Gavaskar v Ian Healy

[Craig]

Which one of these two is the worst commentator? Ian Healy is a country hick, but listening to Gavasakar last night just showed how terrible he is. If he wasn't a great player, then I doubt he would even still have a job.

I'm probably going for Gavaskar.

[Burgey]

Healy's fanboyism is horrible, mind you Sunny's isn't much better.

Gavaskar seems to hate a lot - think it's short man's syndrome tbh. Hard to separate them tbh.

[Sir Alex]

To quote myself from another thread

Originally Posted by Sir Alex

Healy would be a better option to commentate with Gavaskar. I wish they strangle each other till boht break their voice chords and the world of cricket would be better for it.

I wish to see both of them in action in a tight ODI.

As for the poll, while Gavaskar sometimes is as unbearable as a donkey's fart, he is not as "consistent" as Ian "verbal diarrohea" Healy as far as output goes. Gavaskar irritates Saffers, Aussies and the English while Healy irritates just about anything that walks, talks but is not Aussie.

[L Trumper]

Healy is a fanboy, while gavaskar is a man to find out conspiracies. But healy got lot better with in a year. While sunny stayed the same for an almost a decade. So I think healy has lot of catch up to do to be as worse as sunny.

[Richard]

Gavaskar can actually offer some interesting insights. Believe it or not, so actually can Healy - provided the subject is very narrow, ie, wicketkeeping technique.

Gavaskar isn't someone I regard as a terrible commentator, merely a below-average one; where Gavaskar is someone I regard as terrible is in his propensity to express ridiculous, needless, inflammatory opinions. Healy is just a poor commentator, full-stop. Gavaskar generally has a reasonable amount of time where he's, as I say, perfectly ordinary - most of his ridiculously inflammatory comments tend to come not in commentary but in penned or dictated pieces. Healy says the odd utterly stupid inflammatory thing on commentary too (none worse than Pinkbatgripgate '08) but mostly he just comes accross as a relatively uninformed fanboy.

They can both be terrible, but for utterly different reasons, and the amount of relation to commentary is not coherant between the two. As commentators, I'd have Gavaskar a fair way ahead; as far as ability to comment on the game of cricket regardless of the medium, I'd have both in the cricket gutter.

[L Trumper]

Yeah you are right. My dislike for sunny as a commentator grown because of his inflammatory columns rather than his commentary. He does offer some insight.

[Sir Alex]

Originally Posted by Richard

Gavaskar can actually offer some interesting insights. Believe it or not, so actually can Healy - provided the subject is very narrow, ie, wicketkeeping technique.

Gavaskar isn't someone I regard as a terrible commentator, merely a below-average one; where Gavaskar is someone I regard as terrible is in his propensity to express ridiculous, needless, inflammatory opinions. Healy is just a poor commentator, full-stop. Gavaskar generally has a reasonable amount of time where he's, as I say, perfectly ordinary - most of his ridiculously inflammatory comments tend to come not in commentary but in penned or dictated pieces. Healy says the odd utterly stupid inflammatory thing on commentary too (none worse than Pinkbatgripgate '08) but mostly he just comes accross as a relatively uninformed fanboy.

They can both be terrible, but for utterly different reasons, and the amount of relation to commentary is not coherant between the two. As commentators, I'd have Gavaskar a fair way ahead; as far as ability to comment on the game of cricket regardless of the medium, I'd have both in the cricket gutter.

I agree with this. Gavaskar is intelligent but deliberately chooses to "troll". Healy is mostly an "idiot" and his "trolling" happens much without him really understanding that he is.

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Was it Healy who played a sad violin when Glenn McGrath talked about his dead wife? If so, him.

[silentstriker]

Thankfully, I watch Sky so I have little experience with Healy or Sunny, but what little I have - I don't want. Sunny does offer some insight, but is such a tool for so much of the time, especially in his columns, that I can't listen to him at all.

So overall, Gavaskar is worse for me.

Originally Posted by Shaggy Alfresco

Was it Healy who played a sad violin when Glenn McGrath talked about his dead wife? If so, him.

If that's true, he goes to the top of the list for biggest ****ing tools of all time. That's just disgusting.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Shaggy Alfresco

Was it Healy who played a sad violin when Glenn McGrath talked about his dead wife? If so, him.

Might've been, and I think that might've been related to Pinkbatgripgate - pink bat grips after all are the brainchild of the Jane McGrath Foundation, UIMM. Or at worst they're related to the same thing that the Jane McGrath Foundation is set-up to fight - breast-cancer.

BTW one of the first articles I read offering critique of Gavaskar's post-retirement comments on the game can be found here - I rated it fine musings at the time and still do now, 8 years later.

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

If that's true, he goes to the top of the list for biggest ****ing tools of all time. That's just disgusting.

I googled it, and it was when Andrew Symonds was talking about the brest cancer charity. Still pretty awful though tbh.

[slowfinger]

Richie Benaud<<<<<<Sunny<<<<Healy

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Shaggy Alfresco

I googled it, and it was when Andrew Symonds was talking about the brest cancer charity. Still pretty awful though tbh.

Yeah, that was Pinkbatgripgate.

[Streetwise]

I dont think I have ever known a person filled with so much hatred as Gavaskar. Healy is just plain ole try hard dimwit,

[Spikey]

Sachin Tendulkar.