We don’t know how lucky we are
19Criticising television commentators is an enjoyable and honourable pastime. And Test Match cricket provides lots of time to indulge in it, and that is what a lot of people have been doing in the last couple of days.
But we should look around the world and realise that the commentary team in New Zealand is by international standards pretty good, and second only to what comes out of the UK.
For a start, there are no commentators that drive you to the mute button in the way that Healy, Brayshaw, Shastri, Morrison and many others do. Some of the team have slightly
One of the alter-egos
annoying idiosyncrasies, but they do not even come close to those of the list above.
Part of the problem with New Zealand viewers is the fact that a few of the commentators are overexposed here. The obvious example here, Mark Richardson, does have some pretty annoying alter-egos in other areas of the media. However, if you can ignore those he can analyse a cricket game. This is probably why those watching from overseas are surprised at the criticism the SKYNZ team receives.
The new boys are good too. Craig Cumming adds a sound head to proceedings, and Scott Styris often seems to bring up a different angle. Contrast that with the recent additions over the Tasman. And let’s not even think about the IPL coverage.
The other thing we can be grateful for it that in almost every series there is a representative from the touring country. Earlier in the year it was Gavaskar, now it is Arnold. They provide insight into the background of the touring players, and remind us there are two teams playing; an angle Channel 9 would do well to remember.
So, while picking apart the inane bits is all good fun, we should remember it could be worse. Or as Simon Doull would say “It could be worse; it could be much worse.”
Channel 9 has Mark Nicholas for balance, right?
Mark Nicholas as balance, and that’s how they sell it, is a piece of irony that will never be topped
I remember one pundit describing him as ‘The greatest Australian jock-strap sniffer of all-time’
He’s certainly very different when he’s on ‘strayan soil. Probably part of his contract along with his Ch9-issued pom poms
Mark Nicholas began as insightful, balanced and passionate and has been swept up in the blind hysteria/euphoria that is the 9 team. I can’t stand him any more. Healy is by far the worst from over the ditch.
And Nocholas was fantastic when he started out on Ch4 in the UK.
Which shows how they now lead the way. Channel 9 did once, but those days are long gone. I’m comfortable with being second behind them.
Channel 4 was a breath of fresh air in the cricket market, but it’s 9 years since they lost the live rights. Sky UK rather dull by comparison,
On a different note, WTF is up with Doul’s hair?? Looks like a nest of angry rat tails!
This is right on the money.
I also noticed significant stylistic difference between Australian and NZ radio commentary the last few days. ABC radio commentators surprisingly shouty, especially Jim Maxwell who I must admit gets right on my nerves, particularly when he continually refers to “Watto”.
Mind you, very poor commentary on Radio Sport for Sangakkara’s dismissal today. Commentator never once mentioned where Southee was fielding when he took the catch. Gotta paint a picture for the listener: I had no idea whether he was caught at mid-off or in the slips.
Quite how Paul Rutledge ever got a job commentating a cricket test would be the subject of a blog in itself. And Malcolm Jordan….
Yes, both are hopeless.
Also need to train Harris and Latham to stop saying “we” when referring to New Zealand.
Loved Bob Cunis years ago….. constantly refered to the ‘Paki’s’ then always without fail corrected himself to ‘Pakistanis’
Bob Cunis.
As John Arlott once said. “Cunis. A strange name. Neither one thing nor the other”.
leg Break’s Cunis quote doesn’t have a reply button against it so I’ll reply here.
Apologies for pedantry but the famous Cunis “neither one thing nor the other” quote was attributed to Alan Gibson, not Arlott.
The standard of commentary will always be down to peoples individual preferences and remain a hoary chestnut. This piece focused on Mark Richardson who as stated is woefully over-exposed these days, however the person I’d am more interested in seeking a view on is Ian Smith who doesn’t seem to be enjoying himself much these days.
Thoughts?
Smith certainly seems more crabby lately to me.
Somebody asked me today which commentators I liked, and I realised that although I don’t actually like many of them individually, they do come together to produce a good result. I suppose that is down to production values really – a deliberate decision to make commentary secondary to the pictures in front of the viewer, which is how it was done in the past and still produces the best result.
Styris is a valuable addition because he adds character without too much ego.
Things I’d change: still think they need only two on air at a time. It was 9 who instigated three-handed commentary teams, mainly I think because they simply had too many bodies at the time, but no reason for other broadcasters to blindly copy. Two is plenty. Other main gripe is the continual refusal to look beyond the cricket playing community, which means there is no room for others with decent broadcasting skills.
I find Richardson as painful as Morrison, drop the twat & we’d have a pretty good Sky team… not only does Richardson waffle on like a pork chop his analysing is very average.
The commentary team over the ditch are ridiculously biased, like one on their players will do some top fielding & they’ll go on and on saying how great it was, then someone in the other team would do a similar piece of fielding & they either don’t comment or just say it was ok… one of the very best commentators ever was Richie Benaud, his analysing was excellent, got straight to the point, also his comments were always fair to both teams during a test, which is the ultimate for what we’re looking for in a commentator.
“Waffle on like a Pork Chop”…..
Elaborate ?
Pie Chucker said :
Styris is a valuable addition because he adds character without too much ego.
Things I’d change: still think they need only two on air at a time. It was 9 who instigated three-handed commentary teams, mainly I think because they simply had too many bodies at the time, but no reason for other broadcasters to blindly copy. Two is plenty. Other main gripe is the continual refusal to look beyond the cricket playing community, which means there is no room for others with decent broadcasting skills.
signman said :
Very good points on Styris & only having only two on air at a time, having 3 commentators on at the same time just overcomplicates things & makes it into a bit of a circus… yeah, it would be good to have more of them with better broadcasting skills, but if they don’t have the cricket nous to go with it won’t really work.