Yeah. I've always viewed them in a similar way to how I view rugby league and rugby union. They're a bit more similar to each other than that but not much, and league and union are regarded as totally different sports. Now obviously this has a lot to do with the fact that they have totally seperate boards, players, fixtures, fans etc, but the general point remains IMO. If someone asked me who was a better rugby league player out of Daniel Holdsworth and Matt Giteau, I'd answer with Holdsworth as Giteau has done nothing in rugby league at all despite being potentially much, much better than Holdsworth. I wouldn't consider Mat Rogers's rugby union exploits for example when asked how good a rugby league player he was.I doubt you'll find too many Olympic athletes who'd make good Grand Slam tennis players either.
(Just in case anyone doesn't understand what I'm saying there - the point is that limited-overs and two-innings limitless-over cricket are different things, and no amount of similarity will make them the same)
Nail on the head.He is the ultimate commentary-box poser. I don't mean in terms of his natty dress sense, I mean in terms of his smug self-satisfaction in his commentary. The content of what he's saying is actually relatively perceptive and thoughtful. But his operatic delivery and his oh-so affected language make him the ultimate ponce among pundits.
"Sixer!"
"HO HO Freddie!"
"By heaven!"
As I may have mentioned already on this thread, someone once summed it up brilliantly by saying that Nicholas is "laminated in a veneer of self-regard".
His drooling over the skills and muscles of the Australian team is also more than a little embarrassing.
I certainly do.The commentator i do like however is Nick Knight IMO. People may disagree with me. .
I certainly do.
Knight's terrible.
Did anyone else instinctively think TIT was another exclusively-cricketweb abbreviation?Nail on the head.
I enjoy listening to most Cricket Commentators. But Nicholas just makes me cringe.
Coalville is just a TIT, cant stand the guy. Dont rate Botham either, he just cant seem to get his words out. Willis just needs to cheer up!
Ha ha. Does it really matter?Did anyone else instinctively think TIT was another exclusively-cricketweb abbreviation?
He's no where near as bad as Ian Ward or Paul Allot, they're just boring.I certainly do.
Knight's terrible.
Bhogle has to rival Gavaskar in being one of the most biased commentators around. Hes great to listen to as a presentator because he has an excellent command of the English language and he knows how to involve the experts but as a commentator hes a joke.i thought this was interesting..
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/360351.html
no surprise's why shasteri and bhogle were voted more cuz they are indian and alot of indians visit espn star sport website.. at least i am happy to see tony graig being on the top of the one catagary..
also sanjay manjerkar is ten times better than both bhogle and shasteri and i wonder why he didn't get to many votes. ian beshop and roben jackman are other under rated once..
I prefer Knight when he is in studio discussions more than I like him in the booth.I certainly do.
Knight's terrible.
Mark Nicholas - Stop trying to annotate the game as if it's a 1970s children's comic!!!!
Fully in agreement with this. Particularly your summary of Gower. Anodyne is the perfect word to describe him.On my bad list are:
Ian Healy - Just all round dreadful and so completely biased it borders on the absurd
Bill Lawry - At least with him I think the top one-eyed Aussie is a big pantomime act he puts on. Doesn't mean it still isn't awful though.
Mark Nicholas - Stop trying to annotate the game as if it's a 1970s children's comic!!!!
Bob Willis - He'd make winning the lottery sound less appealing than a colostomy.
David Gower - So anodyne I am surprised he remembers to breathe.