Which is better - Listening to TMS or watching Cricket on Sky Sports?

Given a choice between these 2 media platforms for following test match cricket, which one would you guys choose? The free service provided by the great Test Match Special Team or being able to watch the action live on Sky Sports? With not being able to follow the action live on Sky during this test match as I no longer want to pay for a Sky Sports subscription, I have followed the live action of this Lords test match through the TMS service live on the BBC Sport Website. With such excellent commentary together with their very humourous chat provided by the likes of Henry Blofield (calling Shannon Gabriel the Archangel!), Geoff Boycott, Aggers, Michael Vaughan etc, I actually now prefer to follow a day's cricket on TMS than by watching the action through Sky Sports as the commentary there provided by the likes of Gower, Botham, Hussain, Atherton etc is extremely dull and very often at times sleep inducing in comparison. What does everyone else think?

Sky Sports.

One because they don't have that dipstick Boycott who thinks he could bat with a stick of rhubarb on every type of pitch.

Two because Sky have Bumble who is by far the best commentator for laughs on commentary. Hussain is a very knowledgable contributor and he actually makes better comments than any of the others on TMS.

Three Botham for taking urine out of all the others. Sky have a much better line up.

Four for the legend that is Bob Willis and how Charles Colville continually winds him up! Cracking viewing.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Sky Sports.

One because they don't have that dipstick Boycott who thinks he could bat with a stick of rhubarb on every type of pitch.

Two because Sky have Bumble who is by far the best commentator for laughs on commentary. Hussain is a very knowledgable contributor and he actually makes better comments than any of the others on TMS.

Three Botham for taking urine out of all the others. Sky have a much better line up.

Four for the legend that is Bob Willis and how Charles Colville continually winds him up! Cracking viewing.

But Bumble isn't always commentating. And I find that there just isn't the continuous and humourous chat live there is by the TMS Team.

Sky Sports. For analysis and because you can actually see the action, so no matter how good TMS is, you can never replace live action.

On that note, why has Nick Knight been 'promoted' to do home Tests now? His Test record is underwhelming to say the least and his voice is really grating!

liverbnz wrote:Sky Sports. For analysis and because you can actually see the action, so no matter how good TMS is, you can never replace live action.

On that note, why has Nick Knight been 'promoted' to do home Tests now? His Test record is underwhelming to say the least and his voice is really grating!

Nick Knight is the most annoying cricket commentator as he seems to think that he knows everything there is about batting and bowling.

The two are different, and both are market leaders in what they do.

Nick Knight can be annoying, and I don't really think they need him on the home Tests, but Atherton and Holding more than make up for that.

Shelsey93 wrote:The two are different, and both are market leaders in what they do.

Nick Knight can be annoying, and I don't really think they need him on the home Tests, but Atherton and Holding more than make up for that.

What I really miss is listening to the great Richie Benaud. Following Test Match Cricket during the summer somehow just isn't the same without listening to Benaud's commentary.

easily watching sky sports.

if the commentary isn't up to scratch ignore it, but seeing brilliant fielding, great catches, awsome shots, wickets tumbling is much better than hearing about it.

Sky Sports, is this even a debate?

In general, TV is the better option, and I think Sky's tem is not bad att all.
Howevr, TMS is absolutely great, and I generally work on my PC I' prefer TMS. If it was All India Radio, I'd have some live streaming sites opened, but TMS is absolute quality.

I don't really like them alter between CMJ and Henry in alternate test matches. CMJ should also be there on all matches, he has a series cricketing sense, and he is always focused on the game. Henry on the other hand is allways such good funn, not the most focused commentator, bungles up with a name or 2 every now and then, but has some original funny moments of his own, such as the designation of Shannon Gabriel as 'The Archangel'!.

msp83 wrote:I don't really like them alter between CMJ and Henry in alternate test matches. CMJ should also be there on all matches, he has a series cricketing sense, and he is always focused on the game. Henry on the other hand is allways such good funn, not the most focused commentator, bungles up with a name or 2 every now and then, but has some original funny moments of his own, such as the designation of Shannon Gabriel as 'The Archangel'!.

Well Mark Nicholas on the Channel 5 highlights made a howler on the first day when he called Darren Bravo as Dwayne Bravo. As for CMJ, apparently he has had to miss this test match as he is unwell currently in his home in Sussex.

There is one guy on TMS who has the most obnoxious voice (he really seems so pretentious), though I like Tuffers and Agnew, but I'm fine just watching 5's highlights

When working, I listen to TMS but have Sky in the background on my laptop. As Sky tends to be about 3 balls behind, it means if anything good has happened I can pop over and take a look.

Funny how different people perceive different commentators.

Hussain for me is easily the best on TV - he is articulate but more importantly knowledgeable, and understands the modern game very well, having played until recently but not so well that he now thinks he knows everything (which is what irritates me about Vaughan).

Bumble is good fun, but only if on air with a technical analyst, because otherwise you won't learn much about the cricket.

Willis annoys me because he is incredibly negative about everything.

Botham is the one who annoys me the most: he is negative to the extreme, always has at least 15 fielders, and has no understanding of how the game has evolved since he retired - his commentary now is exactly the same as 8 years ago. It is frustrating to hear endless criticisms of the deep-point fielder, the lack of third-man and the ammount of backroom staff employed for example. I remember him moaning about a deep backward point employed to Jayasuriya, saying "he's set a field for the short wide long-hop" (I paraphrase possibly) and Harmison pitched it up, Jayasuriya did what he always did and gave himself room to slash over the off-side and promptly hit it straight down that fielder's throat - Hussain was p*ssing himself (actually I've found the video - at about 56 seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDQLVJ04Ic0)

Holding was excellent but has also somewhat failed to move with the times. He is however less arrogant than Botham, and really knows his stuff about fast bowling.

Knight I really like, and I think he gets criticism because he wasn't such a good player. But his points are clear, precise and generally right. He also understands the way the game has evolved and doesn't hark back to some previous era.

TMS is incredibly funny and entertaining in it's own way, but Sky Sports is just brilliant. Fantastic coverage, extremely knowledgeable and funny commentators (Bumble being the king!) and so professional.

Nasser Hussain is a fine commentator for me, he knows his stuff, and has no problem speaking his mind. Had some fine moments in the India series last year, where he and Sourav Ganguly shared the commentary space.

Hussain is brilliant. Never forget in the Ashes 2010 when he wanted the 'leave' brought back and low and behold Cook played the leave to perfection in that series. Knight has his moments. The 3rd man on Sky for me highlights who actually pays attention to the minute details.

it comes down to whether you would rather watch cricket or listen to cricket..

watching cricket is the obvious answer!

Nasser's great. As Mike says he's very knowledgeable about the game, and more importantly as he retired quite recently he's more up-to-date with the way it's played today. Not afraid to speak his mind either, and comes up with some great spots when he's the "3rd man".

Beefy I don't like that much, I find him very arrogant, and when you consider his record as captain I don't think he should really be handing out lessons on field placement...

the only issue i have with botham is, he has admitted in the past he dosent watch much county cricket at all, so when these new guys come along, he dosent know much about them...whereas all the others tend to know their stuff.

Sky for me, because of the reasons stated, you can't beat watching it live. TMS is very good, when I go up my Grampa's I listen to it as he doesn't have Sky and it really is a good group. Sky for me though is just class.

Hussein-Knowledgeable and articulate as previously said.

Bumble-Crackers but actually comes out with some good info and opinions. Just funny though full stop.

Gower-Anchor and holds it all together nicely, don't like him commentating.

Botham-A legend of the games and although sometimes negative I actually agree with him most of the time, mainly because although it has worked so far, I do occasionally think like him that England could attack more. Nowt wrong with that.

Atherton-I really like Athers, think he does a real good job. He's got a bit of everything. Knowledge, good humour and does a good third man imo.

Holding-Attack, Attack, Attack! get those slips in there, ruffle the batsmen up then one right up at his feet. The complain about the WI cricket board.

Knight-Good for the county games when on, no where near Test match standard, as proven with his batting ironically. Don't understand how he's on there, hasn't the experience of Test match cricket unlike the others.

I think the issue with Botham is that he is such a firm believer of being able to turn around any situation in the match no matter how drastic. Plus the upside is that he had the ability to back that mentality up. He can be very harsh, and can be annoying when he criticises a field setting and it yields a wicket he doesn't like to praise as it makes his judgment weaker. He just needs to be fairer.

CF wrote:it comes down to whether you would rather watch cricket or listen to cricket..

watching cricket is the obvious answer!

Hit the nail on the head there, CF.

martyr_94 wrote:
Knight-Good for the county games when on, no where near Test match standard, as proven with his batting ironically. Don't understand how he's on there, hasn't the experience of Test match cricket unlike the others.

I don't think that's fair at all: what was Duncan Fletcher's test record? I think he understood test cricket fairly well...

Interloping from the rugby board I much prefer TMS.

I can't say there are any commentators that really irk me. My favourite commentator though is bumble.