**Offical** Commentary complaints thread

[Starfighter]

I'd prefer it if Mark Nicholas never sings again.

I'm sort of both relieved and disappointed I didn't hear this.

 

[91Jmay]

Slats calling Akram 'Wazz' is getting disproportionately on my nerves.

Nothing compares to Rameez Raja being ****ing Rambo

 

[Zinzan]

In case anyone's wondering, here's the full commentators guide.

Send your complaints there.

https://www.cricketworldcup.com/video/1221581

 

[harsh.ag]

"Babar Azam... very rhythmic player" - Ramiz Raza

 

[wrongun]

I am a total Bandra snob from Bombay (Won't even call it Mum...) but I have surprisingly enjoyed Hindi commentary on Hotstar

 

[Burgey]

I think the commentators for the most apart (apart from the cringe Viv stint) have been decent, then I see the Aus game has Michael Clarke and Russell Arnold. Groan.

EDIT: It's Sanjay Manjrekar actually. That's even worse.

Russel Arnold a terrific bloke and well known Parramatta batting coach. But an awful commentator

 

[Zinzan]

Meanwhile, I can't be the only one who quite enjoys Michael Clarke's commentary, or can I?

 

[Zinzan]

Russel Arnold a terrific bloke and well known Parramatta batting coach. But an awful commentator

Indeed, seems like a good chap, but is the epitome of the 'tell us exactly what we can already see' type commentator, who most definitely does not have a voice for broadcasting.

 

[morgieb]

Meanwhile, I can't be the only one who quite enjoys Michael Clarke's commentary, or can I?

He started out OK, and I think he's over-criticised because he's not a likable personality, but I can't take him seriously with that voice and he doesn't know when to shut up either.

 

[Neil Young]

Meanwhile, I can't be the only one who quite enjoys Michael Clarke's commentary, or can I?

I like Clarke, too.

Sanga is way, way too wordy. But maybe he'll warm to the task and shut up a bit.

Like Bish, Hussain, Pollock and Atherton. Don't mind Doull, and alas Graeme Smith & Mel Jones.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Clarke is a fair bit better than he was on 9 I reckon.

Low bar, I know

 

[cnerd123]

I am a total Bandra snob from Bombay (Won't even call it Mum...) but I have surprisingly enjoyed Hindi commentary on Hotstar

Yea recently I find myself picking Hindi comms over the English ones just because they're actually a lot better. Not just this WC, but since before the IPL. Less sensationalizing, less forced banter, more actual tactical discussion and insights. And some of the English comm guys actually express themselves a lot better when they come over to Hindi. I think over the last few months I've heard VVS, Parthiv, Irfan Pathan, Gavaskar, Bhogle and maybe even Bhajji? Can't remember. But they're all actually pretty good in Hindi.

 

[morgieb]

Yea recently I find myself picking Hindi comms over the English ones just because they're actually a lot better. Not just this WC, but since before the IPL. Less sensationalizing, less forced banter, more actual tactical discussion and insights. And some of the English comm guys actually express themselves a lot better when they come over to Hindi. I think over the last few months I've heard VVS, Parthiv, Irfan Pathan, Gavaskar, Bhogle and maybe even Bhajji? Can't remember. But they're all actually pretty good in Hindi.

Someone is better in their native tongue than their second language? Colour me shocked.

Which makes the standard of certain Australian commentators so much worse.

 

[cnerd123]

Someone is better in their native tongue than their second language? Colour me shocked.

Which makes the standard of certain Australian commentators so much worse.

Haha I don't think it's the language tho. It's not that they're expressing their ideas better, it's that they're making the commentary less about them, and more about the cricket.

Problem with English language commentary these days is that the ex-cricketers in the booth think we're tuning in to to hear them speak, and not to watch the cricket. They can't help hijacking the broadcast to make it about them - their history, their banter, their ill-formed views on various topics. It's annoying and hard to listen to. Add to that their need to fill every single moment in a game with their voice, to sensationalise the most trivial of things...

You still have good commentators, mind. It just seems the culture inside a Hindi commentary booth is better. It's less annoying somehow.

 

[trundler]

Stop referring to Ian Bishop as bish

 

[vcs]

Haha I don't think it's the language tho. It's not that they're expressing their ideas better, it's that they're making the commentary less about them, and more about the cricket.

Problem with English language commentary these days is that the ex-cricketers in the booth think we're tuning in to to hear them speak, and not to watch the cricket. They can't help hijacking the broadcast to make it about them - their history, their banter, their ill-formed views on various topics. It's annoying and hard to listen to. Add to that their need to fill every single moment in a game with their voice, to sensationalise the most trivial of things...

You still have good commentators, mind. It just seems the culture inside a Hindi commentary booth is better. It's less annoying somehow.

Think Laxman and Bhogle are far more comfortable in English than Hindi, especially Laxman

Hindi commentary is alright, I prefer North Indians though. But if you have someone like Sehwag, you'll get lots of nonsense banter either way. Depends on what you prefer.

I must be one of the few people who find it very hard to tell the difference between good/bad/insightful/terrible commentary (unless it's egregiously bad), it just doesn't bother me at all when I'm watching sports.

 

[Neil Young]

Stop referring to Ian Bishop as bish

Bish is great. All hail Bish.

Bish

Bish

Bosh

 

[morgieb]

Think Laxman and Bhogle are far more comfortable in English than Hindi, especially Laxman

Hindi commentary is alright, I prefer North Indians though. But if you have someone like Sehwag, you'll get lots of nonsense banter either way. Depends on what you prefer.

I must be one of the few people who find it very hard to tell the difference between good/bad/insightful/terrible commentary (unless it's egregiously bad), it just doesn't bother me at all when I'm watching sports.

I can tell the difference between good and bad commentary, but some of the commentary I get is bad enough that it makes mediocre commentary actually seem pretty decent.

 

[Neil Young]

I can tell the difference between good and bad commentary, but some of the commentary I get is bad enough that it makes mediocre commentary actually seem pretty decent.

Yeah, I don't understand a word of Hindi but I can clearly tell all of them are better than Michael Slater.

 

[cnerd123]

To me good commentary enhances the viewing experience. Insights into players techniques, strategical discussion, bringing up relevant stats, highlighting pattern occuring during the game. Good commentary guides the viewer, tells them what to look out for, explains why what we are seeing is compelling.

Poor commentary is banter, hyperbole, bad analysis and arguments, or completely ignoring the cricket to talk about the best pizza place in the neighborhood (looking at you Shane Warns)