***Official*** India in Australia 2014-5

[smash84]

Generally speaking, there will always be some bias if you're commentating for the side you used to play for; at best it might be superior knowledge of home players/ lack of knowledge of OS players, at worst its overt cheerleading for the home team.

I think CW, because of the nature of the site, is pretty astute at sorting **** from shinola when it comes to commentary, but we are also collectively pretty fussy about it.

I have to say though, I've not seen so much overt general public hostility towards the channel nine commentary team as I have in the past 12 months. People are really expressing how ****ty they are very openly via FB, Twitter, on radio etc. I mean, if Bill Lawry of all people is pulling someone up for bias....

There's no doubt in my mind the cheerleading and dumbing down is largely a directive from management, but how much of it comes from complacency on the comms part and longevity? I recall when Healy and Slater first went into the commentary box, and tbh they were ****ing excellent. They knew their OS contemporaries and had interesting views on them, Healy's analysis of keeping and of IDing weaknesses in batsmen was amazing; Slater called it as he saw it and his nervousness actually worked for him because he took his time to get things right before popping off at the mouth. Likewise, when you hear Mark Nicholas analyse a batsman during a ODD game, he's superb - the bloke clearly knows his ****. Yet come the first international game of the year and it's all rah rah. ****ing annoying. And they've all been there ages now - they're in a secure job. I think there's a bit of laziness creeps in.

Everyone has their biases. Generally the biases of the commentators annoy you more when they are biases in favour of the team your side is playing against. But the current lot are the pits.

I've always loved Bill Lawry - just his sheer enthusiasm for the game shines through even after years of commentary. And he's biased - massively so. But he's also not afraid to call it as he sees it. I flat out nearly shed a tear yesterday when I heard him say of Marsh "There he goes; he breaks the shackles". Just vintage stuff. You won't remember many of the current lot for their signature lines, will you?

/rant

Lawry, Greig, Benaud, Chappell, (of the good old days) are probably my favorite commentary team of all time. Even Taylor is pretty good (and was awesome when he first joined 9). Just that of late 9 has become ****ty. I think the change started happening when they started bringing 3 people into the commentary box. Became awful

 

[dognutz]

Lawry, Greig, Benaud, Chappell, (of the good old days) are probably my favorite commentary team of all time. Even Taylor is pretty good (and was awesome when he first joined 9). Just that of late 9 has become ****ty. I think the change started happening when they started bringing 3 people into the commentary box. Became awful

yeah it stifles the one-on-one good cop/bad cop routine exemplified by Lawry and Greig

two's company, three's a crowd?

 

[smash84]

yeah it stifles the one-on-one good cop/bad cop routine exemplified by Lawry and Greig

two's company, three's a crowd?

yeah, the above probably holds best for cricket commentary.

We need a conversation between two knowledgeable or entertaining people who comment on the game. We don't want a whole platoon coming in and shouting out their views on the game FFS.

 

[GotSpin]

yeah, the above probably holds best for cricket commentary.

We need a conversation between two knowledgeable or entertaining people who comment on the game. We don't want a whole platoon coming in and shouting out their views on the game FFS.

So bad when they talk over each other as the bowler is running in.

Obviously a balance needs to be struck. You cant have them crapping on about 1st change average or something absurd. They have obviously lent too far in the opposite direction though.

Any excuse to borrow something from the 12th man, but it is incredibly important and entertaining when the commentators can establish a partnership between themselves. The viewers love it!

 

[dognutz]

So bad when they talk over each other as the bowler is running in.

Obviously a balance needs to be struck. You cant have them crapping on about 1st change average or something absurd. They have obviously lent too far in the opposite direction though.

Any excuse to borrow something from the 12th man, but it is incredibly important and entertaining when the commentators can establish a partnership between themselves. The viewers love it!

I also get the feeling that if the third wheel in a given argument is losing he may tend to back down a little - when did Tony or Bill ever take a backward step. God I miss those two

 

[morgieb]

The problem with Channel 9 is Brad McNamara. If you've heard him commentate, you can understand why.

 

[dognutz]

The problem with Channel 9 is Brad McNamara. If you've heard him commentate, you can understand why.

who's he? Ex-player?

 

[morgieb]

who's he? Ex-player?

Yeah played for the Blues back in the day, and IIRC is the director of cricket for Channel 9.

 

[Burgey]

The problem with Channel 9 is Brad McNamara. If you've heard him commentate, you can understand why.

Nail. Head.

 

[the big bambino]

Yep Healy was whingeing about Kohli talking to the umpires when he's not even the captain, and Lawry called him on it and said Warne used to do it all the time.

That's not fair of Lawry bcos Warne's a bowler not, a lippy dickhead dropping half his catches at slip, and has reason to chat to an ump "all the time". Heals is just annoying and I hear him coming down on the Aussies as well so I don't think he's biased. Getting stuck into Kohli is fair game though. He did snivel to the media so its only fair after being used like that, some in the media point out his hypocrisy about the conduct of his opponents while hardly being a paragon himself.

I've not heard many comms from OS but would find it hard to believe some aren't as biased as the nine team are accused of being. Gavaskar, for eg was awful and fighting old wars like he was the only casualty. Those who remember his career have the perspective on it to be sceptical of his selective whinging. I like Harsha Bogle though some think him too chatty. My only concern is that he can seem an albeit unwilling mouthpiece for the BCCI. He was asked to explain India's resistance to the DRS and in reply he wasn't his usual affable self. He seemed to be reading out a response prepared in his memory for just such a question and delivered in an irritated tone. Now I'm only guessing at this but he seemed caught btwn giving his opinion and deferring to a powerful institution he might offend by disagreeing with its policy. He was even cautious enough to state that this was India's position. So I get the impression India's commentators have to be careful about what they say.

 

[Tangles]

I grew up with the classic Bill, Tony, Ritchie, Ian crew. I left in 2000 so it's been a mixture of ppv or streams since then. So I missed the change over to the current line up. I liked them as players but I had also been wondering about the 3 commentator change also and if that was a factor. Just so much talking.

Maybe it is the intended audience slant. The sky coverage hasn't dumbed it down for the t20 numpties yet. So Warne on Sky is just so much better. He has his moments but nothing like when he's with Slats or Healy. I think that's why I enjoy Chappelli and Bill. They just talk more cricket and speak their mind.

 

[Flem274*]

Gavaskar is really good when he's overseas sometimes.

 

[Contra]

The thing that annoys me the most about commentators (in general, not specific to any nations commentary team) is the lack of knowledge and research about opposition teams. The majority of them they just read off statistics presented to them and only at that point they realize where the batsmen or bowler stand. I don't expect them to know everything about each player, but at least spend 30 mins to an hour just even looking at the stats and scores of players they will be commenting on ffs.

 

[Burgey]

Gavaskar is really good when he's overseas sometimes.

I prefer him when he's not in Australia too.

 

[Tangles]

I miss the guest commentator on 9. They would have a different pov or be knowledgeable about the visiting team. Too expensive with 3 in the box all the time now I guess? Cheap bastards.

 

[Burgey]

The thing that annoys me the most about commentators (in general, not specific to any nations commentary team) is the lack of knowledge and research about opposition teams. The majority of them they just read off statistics presented to them and only at that point they realize where the batsmen or bowler stand. I don't expect them to know everything about each player, but at least spend 30 mins to an hour just even looking at the stats and scores of players they will be commenting on ffs.

Excellent post. Completely true.

 

[morgieb]

I miss the guest commentator on 9. They would have a different pov or be knowledgeable about the visiting team. Too expensive with 3 in the box all the time now I guess? Cheap bastards.

They can roll guest commentators out for the Ashes and use Ian Smith when New Zealand's touring but never anyone else from memory (though IIRC Holding's done commentary for 9 in the past). Why?

 

[Johnners]

Generally speaking, there will always be some bias if you're commentating for the side you used to play for; at best it might be superior knowledge of home players/ lack of knowledge of OS players, at worst its overt cheerleading for the home team.

I think CW, because of the nature of the site, is pretty astute at sorting **** from shinola when it comes to commentary, but we are also collectively pretty fussy about it.

I have to say though, I've not seen so much overt general public hostility towards the channel nine commentary team as I have in the past 12 months. People are really expressing how ****ty they are very openly via FB, Twitter, on radio etc. I mean, if Bill Lawry of all people is pulling someone up for bias....

There's no doubt in my mind the cheerleading and dumbing down is largely a directive from management, but how much of it comes from complacency on the comms part and longevity? I recall when Healy and Slater first went into the commentary box, and tbh they were ****ing excellent. They knew their OS contemporaries and had interesting views on them, Healy's analysis of keeping and of IDing weaknesses in batsmen was amazing; Slater called it as he saw it and his nervousness actually worked for him because he took his time to get things right before popping off at the mouth. Likewise, when you hear Mark Nicholas analyse a batsman during a ODD game, he's superb - the bloke clearly knows his ****. Yet come the first international game of the year and it's all rah rah. ****ing annoying. And they've all been there ages now - they're in a secure job. I think there's a bit of laziness creeps in.

Everyone has their biases. Generally the biases of the commentators annoy you more when they are biases in favour of the team your side is playing against. But the current lot are the pits.

I've always loved Bill Lawry - just his sheer enthusiasm for the game shines through even after years of commentary. And he's biased - massively so. But he's also not afraid to call it as he sees it. I flat out nearly shed a tear yesterday when I heard him say of Marsh "There he goes; he breaks the shackles". Just vintage stuff. You won't remember many of the current lot for their signature lines, will you?

/rant

Well said (y)

On The bold point in particular, it was so evident yesterday how out of touch they are during the rain delay. They were trying to name a current world XI, and ended up with Sanga as a the keeper and opening batsmen. Was so ironic as well given how moments earlier when they were talking about Benaud, and how he was a real student of the game still watching overseas games etc.

 

[dognutz]

Geez...

 

[Neil Pickup]

Well this buggers things up.