Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
Damien Fleming, on Channel 7, is so self-centred and opinionated he is totally cringeworthy.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
commentary complaints thread
- Thread starter Spark
- Start date
Hurricane2
U19 Cricketer
I like this thread.
RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
He literally calls himself a bowlologist.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Commentary is way too pro-English. They need to hype up Australia a lot more.
morgieb
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think I took one look at the team and said "**** that". Just sounded like trash without even listening to it.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
I believe this to be an objectively false statement.
So what's the reason TV commentary is so dreadfully abysmal, but radio (barring Triple M) is so much better? If you talk about the great commentators, you talk about Jim Maxwell on ABC, CMJ and Jonathan Agnew on BBC, Jeremy Coney and Brian Waddle on Radio Sport etc. Is it because the egos take the TV roles and carry on with their self importance? Or radio requires more skill without pictures?
I mean, I listened to Warne say Australia didn't have to bat again with scores level then someone, Brett Lee I think, say 'that's true' straight after, then another plonker say that Mark Wood got bowled with a doosra because the ball beat the outside of the bat (neither of which were true). And I only watched the highlights.
I mean, I listened to Warne say Australia didn't have to bat again with scores level then someone, Brett Lee I think, say 'that's true' straight after, then another plonker say that Mark Wood got bowled with a doosra because the ball beat the outside of the bat (neither of which were true). And I only watched the highlights.
Adders
Cricketer Of The Year
That is so true.....I always thought heaven was being able to mute a TV broadcast and watch the cricket listening to the ABC or TMS.......sadly I've tried and the time lapse is a killer.
I had no idea who tripple m had in their team but I eagerly downloaded the app so I could listen to the cricket on my 4 hr drive to Melbourne......**** me was I shocked and dissapointed. We all know how bad Brayshaw was on TV, imagine that x10 in order to entertain a radio audience........mix him up with the likes of Brad Haddin and Merv Hughes and it's not going to be pretty, and it wasn't.
I had no idea who tripple m had in their team but I eagerly downloaded the app so I could listen to the cricket on my 4 hr drive to Melbourne......**** me was I shocked and dissapointed. We all know how bad Brayshaw was on TV, imagine that x10 in order to entertain a radio audience........mix him up with the likes of Brad Haddin and Merv Hughes and it's not going to be pretty, and it wasn't.
Spark
Global Moderator
I'm really glad this is now a common opinion here. Never ever been able to stand his commentary; the only worse thing than a bloke who spouts nothing but cliches is someone who spouts cliches he came up with himself and he thinks are cool.
I think it's more just the different format. TV commentary constantly has to strike a balance between describing the action and just letting the pictures speak for themselves, i.e. commentating, whereas radio obviously always has to be filling the space with descriptions which allows a lot more freedom for the commentator to just talk about the game. Also I find the digressions into random topics and stories about past cricket (or not-at-all-cricket) infinitely more engaging on the radio than on TV where it's just annoying as ****.
Having said that it may just be that most TV commentary just isn't very good. The gap between Fox cricket and Channel 7 most of the time is pretty big, and you'd think the former has a huge advantage being a dedicated sports channel without ads so has less need to appeal to casuals, and yet you get way more cogent and intelligent cricket discussion on C7. I genuinely think that most of Fox's problem is that they think "famous past player" = good commentator. With a few exceptions (Ponting) that's really not how it works, and that's how we end up with the Warne-Waugh duopoly of dire which is 80% of what's wrong with Fox's coverage IMO.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
See also Scott Morrison, who made up his own nick name.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Seconding. He's abysmal. Also he has a reputation as a fast bowling guru but coming from someone who's actually read published research articles a good proportion of what he spouts is absolute bull****.
Last edited:
Right on. A unique collection of numbskulls who don't have the faintest ability to analyze the game objectively (except AB I suppose)
To me, I think it's the egos and the environment. The big dogs don't want to be on radio. They want their faces on TV, it probably pays better, and when they get on there they go full testosterone and bull****. Can think of plenty of examples (Vaughan, Mark Richardson, Mark Nicholas, Michael Slater) where they started as insightful, charming commentators but over time morphed into parodies and guys who would say something just for a reaction. Indulge in inside joke BS and generally lose that insight that made them enjoyable. They seem to get around a bunch of guys, generally old team mates or similar, and get really jocular and stupid on it. I have no doubt if you put Warne in the right environment, he'd be enjoyable - but when he's playing the TV alpha dog, he's bloody painful.
Pup Clarke
Cricketer Of The Year
In part its because most modern commentators are petrified of 'dead air' imo and so aim to convey as much as possible to the audience to keep them 'engaged'. Paradoxically, this comes across as forced and is often peppered with cliched-ridden 'bants', which any viewer/listener with any semblance of intelligence can detect a mile away and tune out
That's why, for example, Warne and Swann are such atrocious commentators. Their so full of their own self-importance that they can't just let the pictures tell the story - they have to be front and centre at all times
That's why, for example, Warne and Swann are such atrocious commentators. Their so full of their own self-importance that they can't just let the pictures tell the story - they have to be front and centre at all times
Spark
Global Moderator
Yeah there's a lot to this I think, the radio commentators tend to be a lot more self effacing. But it's worth noting that my experience is that even most TV commentators seem more tolerable on radio, at least on ABC/BBC