Worst Commentators

[Richard]

Nothing wrong with Bish, and I'm not sure if the West Indian writer who isn't Tony Cozia in the 20-20 stint has been said, but he was absolutely shocking, annoyed the HELL out of me, was biased, but at the same time kept repeating everything being said about how the Windies have had so little success over the past 10 years and are finally enjoying some now and turning it all around too, couldn't stand him!

Was really surprised to hear Fazeer Mohammed on commentary, didn't even realise who they were talking about first. Then saw his name on the commentary-team thingy and was like "... WoW".

Not really got that strong an opinion on his commentary either way, but I've always liked him as a writer. Guess he's a fair few years younger than I'd always thought, too - had always pictured him as 60-odd, reckon he can't be too far beyond 40 unless he's young for his years.

 

[Cricket_God]

Holding just keeps on praising england just because he works for skysports which is a pity.
The westindian commentators in the sky sports commentators panel in the test series was
awful they were meant to give a westindian view of things but they turned up giving english
views.English commentators think that their team is a great team while the fact is they are
a poor side in all formats,some comments before tours are awful and after they have lost
they seem more frustrated than the players.

 

[zaremba]

The westindian commentators in the sky sports commentators panel in the test series was awful they were meant to give a westindian view of things but they turned up giving english views.

If by "West Indian view of things" you mean that West Indian commentators should give the audience the benefit of their in-depth knowledge of West Indian players / cricket, I agree. If you mean they should be supporting the West Indies, I think you're wrong. What I like to see is impartial commentary, wherever the commentator is from.

 

[Langeveldt]

Mark Nicholas I've realized is the only person alive who can ruin my day just by speaking, without even trying to be nasty

 

[stumpski]

Why is Jackers a racist?

Not that I agree with that opinion, but I guess because he played in South Africa in the 70s?

Hardly unique in that regard though.

 

[thierry henry]

Ian Smith and Simon Doull

Doull in particular just comes across as a mean-spirited douche-bag.

 

[zaremba]

Mark Nicholas I've realized is the only person alive who can ruin my day just by speaking, without even trying to be nasty

I know how you feel.

There are so many reasons to dislike him. One of the subtler ones is that he has no apparent ability to take the mickey out of himself. He really thinks he is the dog's bollocks. And in fact, as we all know, he is just bollocks.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Ian Smith and Simon Doull

Doull in particular just comes across as a mean-spirited douche-bag.

Don't mind Smithy too much. Bit of a cheerleader for NZ, but does it with a certain wry self-awareness.

 

[thierry henry]

Don't mind Smithy too much. Bit of a cheerleader for NZ, but does it with a certain wry self-awareness.

I think when he's in the Aussie or English comm-box, he fills the role of the jaunty, chubby little New Zealand bloke who's just there to cheerlead and pick light-hearted fights with the other commentators.

Unfortunately, in the NZ comm box he is the "senior commentator" and as such takes himself rather seriously as he talks an endless stream of unmitigated drivel

 

[Richard]

I've had Ian Smith on commentary in series which have involved England and not New Zealand and he's always been pretty first-rate, to me. Knows the game and doesn't go OTT in any respect.

When NZ are involved he's obviously sometimes a bit of a fanboy, but in nowhere near so bad a manner as some from other places.

 

[thierry henry]

knows the game

dwta

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm a bit funny with Smith. Despite the fact that I disagree with what he says more than I do with most commentators, I actually don't mind listening to him. He always speaks his mind, brings up relevant points and rarely ever says anything I totally dismiss as crap. When I do disagree with him (which as I said, is often) I can always see where he's coming from and understand his point despite taking a contrary stance.. I'll often find myself disagreeing with other commentators and just coming to the conclusion that they have no idea.

He actually makes me re-evaluate my own opinions on things which commentators rarely do. He's someone I think I'd really enjoy watching a day's play with, actually - we'd argue constantly but they'd be absorbing arguments rather than frustrating ones.

 

[Smudge]

Doull in particular just comes across as a mean-spirited douche-bag.

And, this may sound petty but, the way he says "reeeeeallly" annoys me. A lot.

 

[Krishna_j]

find Mikey Holding's rolling drawl very jarring - with Tony Cozier as a benchmark and an institution from the windies makes it worse

 

[Evermind]

Holding is a very serious commentator, but he's good enough. Cozier's pretty dull.

 

[Langeveldt]

I know how you feel.

There are so many reasons to dislike him. One of the subtler ones is that he has no apparent ability to take the mickey out of himself. He really thinks he is the dog's bollocks. And in fact, as we all know, he is just bollocks.

This

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

find Mikey Holding's rolling drawl very jarring - with Tony Cozier as a benchmark and an institution from the windies makes it worse

Cozier's senile and terrible.

Holding > Cozier.

 

[oitoitoi]

Mark Nicholas I've realized is the only person alive who can ruin my day just by speaking, without even trying to be nasty

I feel your pain.

I think Jackman's racist because of his attitude towards players from the subcontinent, he never ever rates them and it's the dismissive, condescending tone of his voice that in my experience belies a subconscious racist. It's probably just the way he was raised.

Ian Harvey and Merv Hughes are really starting to piss me off. Could they be more biased?

Please someone tell me who the hell is Charles Colville? He's escaped shockingly unscathed in this discussion, the man knows less than nothing, I love it when Nasser lays into him.

 

[Richard]

I think Jackman's racist because of his attitude towards players from the subcontinent, he never ever rates them and it's the dismissive, condescending tone of his voice that in my experience belies a subconscious racist. It's probably just the way he was raised.

You are aware Jackman was born in India, aren't you?

And I don't think people raised in southern England in the 1950s and 1960s are generally thought of as being a racist class as a bunch. There are some who are\were, obviously, same way there are from later generations. But I've not heard any serious contention that it's produced more racists than other places.

In any case, the subcontinent isn't actually a race - it's a geographic region. If someone has an attitude which is dismissive of players from the subcontinent their bias is geographical, not race-based.

The race most common in the subcontinent - brown-skinned - is also perfectly common in both South Africa (where he now lives) and England (where he grew-up).

 

[fredfertang]

There seems to be a widespread assumption a quarter of a century on that because of the actions of the Guyanese government in 1981 in serving a deportation order on Jackman that he was racist. Not even the Guyanese government accused him of that - all that happened was that they took the view that that the fact that Jackman had represented Rhodesia in the Currie Cup breached the Gleneagles agreement - whether his actions did, in fact, breach the agreement was just about open to that interpretation but a cynic would no doubt suggest that the reality was that the then Guyanese Foreign Minister, Comrade Rashleigh Jackson, simply wanted to make a name for himself