Sports Commentators - Professional Mouths

[Retsum]

What do you think of the present collection of sports presenters and commentators? Have you a favourite commentating team? Perhaps there are some you don't like?

Good commentators know when to talk and what to say: bad commentators don't know when to shut up and instead fill the space with meaningless statistics. I heard a gem at the recent French Open (tennis). The guy said, "X has never ever beaten Y." A little later he informed us: "X and Y have only ever met once before." Both ststements true but what are we supposed to conclude? I deduced what I already knew - the guy is an idiot. This fixation with meaningless statistics permeates nearly all sports despite the fact that active participants are not interested and I don't believe that we, the viewers, are either.

Another fixation with many commentators is age. Federer was again scrutinized at Wimbledon. He is 32 going on 33 - how much longer can he last!? Of course age is a factor in determining the active lifetime of an athlete but it is not the most important (Stanley Mathews was turning out for Blackpool at 50). A little thought would show that it is either serious injury or the cumulative effect of minor injuries that is the dominant factor. Federer has been injury free. They should be speculating (if they must) about Murray (back surgery) and Nadal (knee surgery).

My favourite commentating team is that of Formula 1 - Suzi Perry, David Coulthard and Eddie Jordan. Their conversations while walking down the pit lane and their interviews with drivers are interesting, informative and often amusing. Suzi is an excellent anchor without being intrusive or assertive.

Contrast that with my least favourite presenter - Claire Baulding. She crops up at all sorts of sports about which she knows very little but I am thinking particularly of her handling of horse racing. There she is accompanied by Willie Carson - a former champion jockey - who knows more about horse racing than she will ever learn. She contemptuously cuts him off in mid sentence if he becomes too technical for her of too interesting for the viewers and sticks her face in front of the camera (I often mistake it for a horse) to show us all that she is the top dog running the show. If I was Willie I would let her did a hole and leave her in it but he is too much a gentleman to let that happen. She clearly has ambitions to go to the top. Hazel Irvine and Sue Barker better watch their backs!

Commentators and experts I particularly enjoy listening to are Boycott (Test cricket) - a worthy successor to Richie Benaud, McEnroe (Tennis) and Peter Alliss (Golf).

Boycott knows cricket inside out and is equally forthright in his condemnation of poor cricket and his praise of good cricket. He is also a mine of interesting information. At the recent Test Match against Sri Lanka at Headingly he dismissed the English bowling as rubbish. He went on to explain that there is an invisible ridge across the pitch at one end just fuller than a length. If bowlers pitch it up to the ridge the ball will move laterally and bounce unevenly. The English bowlers were pitching it too short and he was scathing.

I could go on but I have probably said enough for now. What are your thoughts?

[michaelm]

Watching the last round of the "Open" on tv today .. Peter Aliss accused Sergio Garcia of going off the course to remonstrate with a spectator, when in fact Garcia had simply gone off for a pee.

Aliss is a biased dinosaur.

[morag]

I don't watch sports much, or T.V. in general for that matter, but I did follow the World cup. Mostly here it was on ESPN, a Spanish speaking prog. The final was on ch 7, in English, and I thought the commentators were right on the ball.

[morag]

And I did predict the winner;)

[chriso]

Watching the last round of the "Open" on tv today .. Peter Aliss accused Sergio Garcia of going off the course to remonstrate with a spectator, when in fact Garcia had simply gone off for a pee.

Aliss is a biased dinosaur.

It was Maureen Madill the lady commentator that I heard making those comments about Sergio. Rory Mcilroy was pointing someone in the stand out to the stewards.

[Retsum]

Aliss is a biased dinosaur.

I agree that he is getting on - now 83 - but he has a distinguished career as a golfer and course designer and as a commentator he has never been afraid to tell it as he sees it and to criticize a poor stroke but I don't see how he is biased.
It is true that equipment has changed and players can now hit the ball much further and put various spins on it. I think he is right when he says it is becoming silly when par 5 holes are regared as (almost) birdie guarantees. But the basic guiding principle is still the same: stay on the fairways and hit the greens. Tom Watson demonstrated the validity of that by shooting 68 in his final round (he does not use spin and he is no longer a long hitter but he nearly won a sixth Open two years ago).

So I reject 'biased' and 'dinosaur'.

[michaelm]

It was Maureen Madill the lady commentator that I heard making those comments about Sergio. Rory Mcilroy was pointing someone in the stand out to the stewards.

If that's the case then I must have mistook Madills' dulcet tones for those of Aliss. Easy enough for me as they're both very boring commentators. From what I read in the papers this morning, Mcilroy says he was being heckled by a certain spectator on almost every hole, eventually the stewards and police stepped in and chucked the guy out.

Aliss is a biased dinosaur.

I agree that he is getting on - now 83 - but he has a distinguished career as a golfer and course designer and as a commentator he has never been afraid to tell it as he sees it and to criticize a poor stroke but I don't see how he is biased.
It is true that equipment has changed and players can now hit the ball much further and put various spins on it. I think he is right when he says it is becoming silly when par 5 holes are regared as (almost) birdie guarantees. But the basic guiding principle is still the same: stay on the fairways and hit the greens. Tom Watson demonstrated the validity of that by shooting 68 in his final round (he does not use spin and he is no longer a long hitter but he nearly won a sixth Open two years ago).

So I reject 'biased' and 'dinosaur'.

You're welcome to reject whatever you want retsum as it's your topic.

[Retsum]

Come on Michaelm, its not my topic. I introduced it hoping others would have views on the subject and we could have a debate. I rejected your assessment of Alliss because you did not provide any evidence that he was out of touch with the modern game or was biased.

[michaelm]

Hi Retsum, my attempts at humour don't seem to have gone down too well with yourself, though on the internet words on a screen can often be misconstrued.

I'm only offering an opinion about Mr Aliss as a Commentator. If, for instance, he was a football Referee and I accused him of bias that would be entirely different yes?

Incidentally, I don't think we'd have heard our Pete complaining about the length of modern courses or indeed advances in golf equipment if he was a big hitting youngster these days with a short game to die for. Make no mistake, he'd have been lapping it all up. Adds to the old bank balance and that.

Tom Watson was/is/ a fantastic golfer from a bygone age who almost made the fairy tale come true. I can't argue with that but his lack of length off the tee was probably his downfall in that final round. Your point about him not using spin? I doubt if there's a golfer anywhere on the planet who doesn't spin the ball. Even if you hit the ball dead straight - unusual- it will have some sort of spin on it. When the chips are down on the back nine on a Sunday, the guy who's hitting a wedge or short iron into the green will always have the advantage over someone with say a 5 iron in their hand because it's a lot easier to generate backspin and therefore control the distance the ball travels.

[Retsum]

As Morag says, I thought the commentators did a good job at the World Cup although I question whether it is necessary to start the programme an hour before kick off and hear experts tell us what could, should and would happen. At international matches it is useful to learn about the players but when they speculate about the outcome, I switch off.

There are two things about the game I don't like - the acceptance of the professional fowl and diving. I have heard commentators say: "The guy was about to get past him so he had no option but to bring him down" or "He has WON a free kick or a penalty" (often by diving), Do you remember George Best flying down the wing, hurdling player after player as they slid in to try and bring him down. They had no interest in the ball. He ended up playing games with the keeper before planting the ball in the back of the net.

[John Donnelly]

Ah, Retsum,

what's wrong with football !! Professional fouls, diving, etc., etc.

A subject dear to my heart. Your descriptions of George Best on the wing; now that's what football is all about.

What have we got today ?? Sliding tackles starting from 10 to 15 feet away, and the offside law.

If there are two things that are ruining, sorry, HAVE RUINED, our beautiful game, it is these two aspects.

What the heck is the difference between a sliding tackle as described above, and a Rugby tackle? Absolutely nothing; the result is the same; some great football spoiled, opponent on the deck and the game at a dead halt.

The same thing happens with the stupid offside law, with the only difference being that the player is not lying on the grass clutching his legs.

Outlaw the sliding tackle. Players should at all times, remain upright on their feet, unless there has been an accidental collision which is inevitable in a contact-game.

Offside was introduced to avoid what we called 'poaching' when we were kids; ie the centre forward standing chatting to the goalie, till the ball came down the park and then the CF tapping it past the goalie.

Nowadays, the only reason for having a linesman, is to monitor offside. They are always level with the last defender. Some absolutely wonderful play is stopped dead because the forward was a half millimeter beyond the last defender. It's crazy, and has nothing to do with the principle of counteracting any unfair advantage which is why the rule was introduced.

Football should take a long hard look at how the rules of golf are applied; BY THE PLAYERS THEMSELVES !!! How the professional footballers abuse the rules blatantly to gain an advantage is downright disgraceful.

I used to follow football avidly, but for a good number of years now, I can't be bothered.

Dear God !! Did I just write that? Jeezo, ah'm no' deid efter a'

JD.

[brian f]

The best commentator of all time must be the late Bill Mclaren ,Watching rugby was no the same if he was not at the microphone.

Remember- Arthur Montford and Archie Macpherson, the football commentators.
I can recall some choice words said about them.
Orange b Green b etc