Jump to content

Commentators


Recommended Posts

I saw that the TRL question was about who people think is the best commentator and I think Mark Wilson won the poll?

I know the SKY team have received a lot of criticism over the last few years for it's perceived laziness in it's commentary, but how do the various commentary teams compare, what's good and bad in all of them?

Listening to Mark Wilson on C4 I feel he is a proper commentator, he calls the game as you'd expect, he doesn't get involved in aimless waffle with his co commentators, he just commentates on what's happening, I always feel that you can turn away from the game but still get a feel of what's happening, Wilson's commentary is almost radio like in it's nature where you have a good idea of exactly what's happening, Andrew Voss was really good in the 2013 RLWC, which shows how long the commentating has been an issue here.

SKY seem to wander away from commentating from the game too easily and get involved in personal debates, the commentator seems to get talked over by the co commentators, how many times do Barrie and Terry interrupt with "sorry Bill" to waffle about something that happened earlier in the game? there seems to be a lack of focus on what's happening on the field, and it almost becomes a discussion panel, especially where refereeing decisions are concerned, their constant use of replays while the game is in play is really annoying.

The BBC seem to be in a rut between the two, Woods is a good commentator, but, does seem to be easily distracted by discussions among the team, although he does move on quite quickly, but they do seem to be also falling into the trap of showing replays over the live action too.

I can't comment on premier as I don't subscribe to it, and ouRLeague games seem to have a fair bit of waffling and discussion during the course of it.

 

Football commentating seems to be going the same way, but there's periods of football games where not a lot happens to they're not missing much.

I much prefer Mark Wilson's clear, crisp, no nonsense commentating and the co commentator chiming in every so often compared to SKY's constant talking.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Wilson is great. Also a fan of Matt Newsum, that similar style of just talking about the game. I think the standard of "expert" alongside as well helps. Some want to talk and talk and talk, and not let the main person do their job. C4 just having Wilson + one helps a lot.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Wilson, Amor and Brown are good on Premier and C4- although I think they perhaps have a tendency to describe things as ''great'' too often.

Definitely my favourite team on British TV at the moment.

I quite like Ben Proe and think he should be Sky's main caller. I struggle to see Bill Arthur as a lead commentator and amn't all that keen on Stuart Pyke.

Edited by StandOffHalf
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mentioned earlier in the thread, but agree that Matt Newsum is an excellent commentator.

Listened to Salford v Cas on radio on Friday. Noble was summarising. He used to be really good but now is too full of clichés, trying too hard to be funny and talking over Newsum at key moments.

  • Like 3

Twitter: @TrylineUK
Latest Blog: The Mid-Season Conundrum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Arthur is the worst in any sport. Massive moments he makes sound as if your neighbour is taking the bins out, no enthusiasm, no excitement and just a load of word vomit. 

Makinson’s tackle on Wrench on Thursday and he’s saying it was Percival, the Welsby try in the Grand Final was the games Aguero moment but he was barely in time with what was happening and he spent three years calling any non-white Saints player Kevin Naiqama. 

Commentary is a massive part of the game, we get it so badly wrong. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a top organisation like Sky who like to see themselves at the cutting edge of all things broadcasting I’ve never ceased to be amazed how utterly rubbish their commentary and presentation of the game is . It just looks poor having three guys on who are literally embarrassing 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Beauty is in the ear of the listener.

Most of those named are fine and varied enough to make life interesting.

I think it's all very well having experts but a variety of accents would if you'll pardon the expression accentuate the positive.

Martin Offiah would be good if he could stop mentioning his feats and Wigan's triumphs.

I think a competition amongst present players and coaches with differing accents and judged by the fans might help.

11 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Commentary is a massive part of the game, we get it so badly wrong. 

I think you  might've gone a bit overboard on the relative failings of certain commentators there.

None of them are that bad and the real difference is always more a matter of taste than any true weaknesses.

The difference bewteen  callers and say politicians is the former have to go through a process of quality and accountability as well as their work being constantly on show and not hidden or nonexistent.

Edited by Oxford
  • Like 1

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DavidM said:

For a top organisation like Sky who like to see themselves at the cutting edge of all things broadcasting I’ve never ceased to be amazed how utterly rubbish their commentary and presentation of the game is . It just looks poor having three guys on who are literally embarrassing 

 

3 minutes ago, Oxford said:

I think you  might've gone a bit overboard on the relative failings of certain commentators there.

😆

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Oxford said:

Beauty is in the ear of the listener.

Most of those named are fine and varied enough to make life interesting.

I think it's all very well having experts but a variety of accents would if you'll pardon the expression accentuate the positive.

Martin Offiah would be good if he could stop mentioning his feats and Wigan's triumphs.

I think a competition amongst present players and coaches with differing accents and judged by the fans might help.

I think you  might've gone a bit overboard on the relative failings of certain commentators there.

None of them are that bad and the real difference is always more a matter of taste than any true weaknesses.

The difference bewteen  callers and say politicians is the former have to go through a process of quality and accountability as well as their work being constantly on show and not hidden or nonexistent.

Listening to lazy racism is not for me and neither is the continual errors in naming who has the ball or is being tackled, as Arthur gets it wrong multiple times a game every single week. 

Edited by Jughead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RigbyLuger said:

Wilson is great. Also a fan of Matt Newsum, that similar style of just talking about the game. I think the standard of "expert" alongside as well helps. Some want to talk and talk and talk, and not let the main person do their job. C4 just having Wilson + one helps a lot.

Matt Newsum is good too yes, although does have a tendency to get a bit screamy and incoherent at times, but does do a good job of commentating though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Bill Arthur is the worst in any sport. Massive moments he makes sound as if your neighbour is taking the bins out, no enthusiasm, no excitement and just a load of word vomit. 

Makinson’s tackle on Wrench on Thursday and he’s saying it was Percival, the Welsby try in the Grand Final was the games Aguero moment but he was barely in time with what was happening and he spent three years calling any non-white Saints player Kevin Naiqama. 

Commentary is a massive part of the game, we get it so badly wrong. 

I think part of Bill's problem, and of all of those on Sky is that they tend to lose focus on what's going on due to all the waffling and debating going on, they get drawn into it all to easily and get distracted by it.

Eddie Hemmings always used to get McGillvary and Lawrence mixed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind Barry and Terry so much if they didn;t say the same things every week. Surely there must be an English player Barry hasn't worked with.

Sky summarisers are poor with Carke now just trying to be controversial.

Matt Newsum is good and so are the 4 summarisers and commentator. As everyone else has said Bill Aurther is the equivalent to watching paint dry except nowadays he keeps saying uff to a good tackle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to be in the minority in that I actually quite like Clarke.

He is dapper and has a take that is more worldly than some.

On the Sky coverage of the Warrington-Saints game, he was the first to opine that, with a bit more experience, the Warrington youngster would hope to put in a grubber for Williams. He didn't say it in a condescending or critical way, but just summed up the situation in a sentence.

I enjoy listening to him.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jughead said:

Listening to lazy racism is not for me and neither is the continual errors in naming who has the ball or is being tackled, as Arthur gets it wrong multiple times a game every single week. 

Now racism is never lazy it's racism or it's not.

Getting names wrong however annoying is just a mistake and hardly the stuff of capital punishment.

The two things are very different: one is a serious charge and the other is a marginal and minor aggravation.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Oxford said:

Now racism is never lazy it's racism or it's not.

Getting names wrong however annoying is just a mistake and hardly the stuff of capital punishment.

The two things are very different: one is a serious charge and the other is a marginal and minor aggravation.

Continually calling any non-white person a specific name is not “just a mistake” when it happens time and again, like over a three year period, for example. It’s lazy and shows no signs of improvement or education. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

I seem to be in the minority in that I actually quite like Clarke.

You're not alone if that's any help.

But the truth is there's a queue to bash for more or less every pundit, expert and commentator.

You imagine that other sports have wonderful people that would make everyone happy if they moved to RL but withing 5 minutes at most we'd be right here once again.

TOOHS

 

  • Like 1

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Continually calling any non-white person a specific name is not “just a mistake” when it happens time and again, like over a three year period, for example. It’s lazy and shows no signs of improvement or education. 

 

Firstly which player are you talking about?

One of my pet hates is saying Tony Gigot's name as geejo but I don't want to ban them from commentating for life or to hang draw and quarter them. I just want them to get it right.

Edited by Oxford

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Oxford said:

Firstly which player are you talking about?

One of my pet hates is saying Tony Gigot's name as geejo but I don't want to ban them from commentating for life or to hang draw and quarter them. I just want them to get it right.

Bill Arthur throughout the three years Kevin Naiqama was at St Helens called the other non-white players in the St Helens team “Kevin Naiqama” every week, without fail. 

It cites a lack of improvement or education, IMO and become quite uncomfortable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Bill Arthur throughout the three years Kevin Naiqama was at St Helens called the other non-white players in the St Helens team “Kevin Naiqama” every week, without fail. 

It cites a lack of improvement or education, IMO and become quite uncomfortable. 

That could just be a mental block.

But I do appreciate you replying.

Ray French's "I tort it wos Gary Jack" would be a very similar problem.

TOOHS! O H S 🎶

Edited by Oxford

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, #sky's fundamental issue is twofold. Primarily, there are too many people in the commentary box. One commentating, one analysing is more than enough. Secondly, there appears to be a morbid fear of silence in game. If nothing is happening, don't fill the time with cliches and soundbites. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree - that and having people with nothing interesting to say 

Get an ex player who understands the game (and can talk in sentences) like they have on the NRL coverage. Having an expert who can talk you through the game is so much better than 'great player' 'shot' 'disappointed with that' etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...