Worst Commentators

[HeathDavisSpeed]

BTW, on Atherton - I much prefer his writing to his commentary TBH. He's OK with the mic, but Hussain is much better IMO.

I did like Hussain as a player, but as a commentator he's just plain dull. He's got the most monotonous commentating voice of all time - more monotonous than Gooch I reckon. Hussain's voice is the ideal for going to sleep to. I also find a lot of his commentary facile, repetitive and devoid of meaning. When I ran the Battle of the Commentators, I was shocked to find Hussain so popular. Atherton (who I detested as a player) is an infinitely more interesting commentator.

Still think Nicholas is more annoying.

 

[Richard]

Atherton's voice is hardly jump-awake stuff, is it?

In any case, I generally try not to judge a commentator by what his voice sounds like. As long as he's good with the mic, his reading of play is the only factor of importance.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Atherton's voice is hardly jump-awake stuff, is it?

In any case, I generally try not to judge a commentator by what his voice sounds like. As long as he's good with the mic, his reading of play is the only factor of importance.

Its not the mosst interesting, but its got at least a couple of tones to it, and the Lancashire accent has a bit of a lilt to it, rather than Robotic Hussain. Atherton tends to make much more interesting points, in general. Don't know whether its just that Hussain knows nothing about New Zealand cricket, but he's really had nothing of value or interest to say during this series.

I think he needs to step his game up a notch or four.

 

[Richard]

As I said - Hussain's game has been far, far down during this NZ series. He's normally infinitely better, IMO.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

As I said - Hussain's game has been far, far down during this NZ series. He's normally infinitely better, IMO.

It does annoy me when a commentator fails to do any research on players on a tour which have been selected well in advance. I've heard Hussain on several times during this tour (and the tour of NZ) say things like, "Well, I've not heard of this guy but..."

I even heard Ian Smith say it about someone - can't remember who. I mean, how much effort would it take to find out a couple of facts about a new player so you don't sound like a complete chump in the commentary box?

 

[NassersKnock]

Atherton also happens to be a somewhat intelligent, coherent human being too. Can actually speak correctly.

Also weighs in his favour. Along with being unbias.

 

[Richard]

It does annoy me when a commentator fails to do any research on players on a tour which have been selected well in advance. I've heard Hussain on several times during this tour (and the tour of NZ) say things like, "Well, I've not heard of this guy but..."

I even heard Ian Smith say it about someone - can't remember who. I mean, how much effort would it take to find out a couple of facts about a new player so you don't sound like a complete chump in the commentary box?

It was Grant Elliott, UIMM.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

It was Grant Elliott, UIMM.

That's just pathetic. The guy's played in a couple of provincial finals over here. Bloody ridiculous that a Kiwi pundit hasn't seen the guy play.

 

[Burgey]

Atherton's voice is hardly jump-awake stuff, is it?

In any case, I generally try not to judge a commentator by what his voice sounds like. As long as he's good with the mic, his reading of play is the only factor of importance.

Was it Atherton who was doing the Ch 4 commentary with Richie on the last morning at Edgbaston in 05? IIRC it was.
I heard Richie use that match as an example of less sometimes being more - I think he said something along the lines of them just counting down the runs, and not saying much else because waxing lyrical at a time like that only detreacts from the game,rather than enhancing it. A lesson many others could learn from.
Disappointing though, that neither mentioned the fact Kaspa wasn't out

 

[Richard]

Equally disappointing that neither mentioned that he was out - lbw 1st ball.

That in addition to later being dropped at third-man of course. Both off the desperately unfortunate Flintoff - no-one whom deserved the winning wicket more.

 

[zaremba]

Usually Hussain and Atherton are the best of the Sky commentators IMHO. They do at least try to analyse the play in a way which the others fail to do.

As for tone of voice, I agree with Richard that usually this is irrelevant. Willis is a special case however because he is so life-sappingly morose.

One reason that it's always fun to play against the Kiwis is that Jeremy Coney provides such excellent value as a commentator. Pure class.

 

[zaremba]

Equally disappointing that neither mentioned that he was out - lbw 1st ball.

You just beat me to it Richard.

To his great credit, Kasprowicz made no fuss about the caught behind decision. Can you imagine, say, Ponting or Warne taking it with such good grace?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

To his great credit, Kasprowicz made no fuss about the caught behind decision. Can you imagine, say, Ponting or Warne taking it with such good grace?

Probably why Kasper got dropped soon after

 

[Richard]

Had already been dropped, ITBT.

 

[Burgey]

Probably why Kasper got dropped soon after

That, and his dire bowling that series.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Surely the damage to his First Chance Average was punishment enough?

 

[Burgey]

Equally disappointing that neither mentioned that he was out - lbw 1st ball.

That in addition to later being dropped at third-man of course. Both off the desperately unfortunate Flintoff - no-one whom deserved the winning wicket more.

Meh - I can't believe an Englishman would complain about lbw decisions from that series .

 

[Richard]

If it'd meant Australia won that match, yes I would. Fortunately it didn't, as another theoretically incorrect decision reversed it.

BTW, I've often wondered what the actual bad-decision count was. I can remember 2, maybe 3, bad lbws against Martyn and 1 against Katich. Doesn't seem too disproportionate TBH.

None of those decisions changed the course of any of the games, it must be noted. England were well on top at the time of all.

 

[Burgey]

If it'd meant Australia won that match, yes I would. Fortunately it didn't, as another theoretically incorrect decision reversed it.

BTW, I've often wondered what the actual bad-decision count was. I can remember 2, maybe 3, bad lbws against Martyn and 1 against Katich. Doesn't seem too disproportionate TBH.

None of those decisions changed the course of any of the games, it must be noted. England were well on top at the time of all.

What, dodgy's vs top order bats don't count? C'mon.....

Which gets me to this: how come you want to bring in a 1st chance average for batsmen, but make no allowance for when bowlers get wickets which weren't out?

 

[Top_Cat]

If it'd meant Australia won that match, yes I would. Fortunately it didn't, as another theoretically incorrect decision reversed it.

BTW, I've often wondered what the actual bad-decision count was. I can remember 2, maybe 3, bad lbws against Martyn and 1 against Katich. Doesn't seem too disproportionate TBH.

Yeah it wouldn't seem to disproportionate unless you were Marto! Generally the bad decisions were even, though.

Langer copped a dodgy to Simon Jones which did look out at full-speed, though. Lee was turned-down against Simon Jones with a ball which was missing leg, missing off and hitting middle half-way up.

None of those decisions changed the course of any of the games, it must be noted. England were well on top at the time of all.

That's more to the point as it shows how well England played; they made it so bad decisions didn't cost them. The best sides do that.