Favourite Commentators

Often there are complaints about the lack of impartiality of commentators, but it must be hard for them to cast aside their allegiances. I find that the best commentators tend to give an unbiased factual account together with a more partial commentary on the team that they would otherwise support.

Take for example a high tackle by a player from Team 1 on a player from Team 2. Biased commentators might have two different versions:

Team 1's commentator - Nothing in that: a penalty at most.

Team 2's commentator - Terrible tackle! He should get a card.

There are many tackles or incidents where this is perfectly possible. Now imagine the unbiased versions:

Team 1's commentator - Poor tackle. Probably doesn't deserve a card but can't complain if he goes to the bin.

Team 2's commentator - Poor tackle. Might see yellow, and couldn't have any complaints.

Both the unbiased commentators are saying more or less the same thing - a card might be the outcome, but it's a close call. However, both are saying it from the perspective of their teams. To me, this is what the best commentators do, especially at international level. They give a good account of the game but focus more on how events affect their team.

In light of this, my favourite commentators are an Irish pair - Ryle Nugent and Tony Ward. Nugent gives an excellent overview of the game and for the most part leaves any comments to Ward, who tends to be very even-handed and even slightly more critical of Irish teams than their opponents. On the other hand, you can tell that they want the Irish team to win, but their professionalism in commentating regardless of the outcome is commendable.

At the end of the day though, a bit of bias is unavoidable, and one of the funniest things I have heard in recent years was Ward screaming "Yeeaah" in a high-pitched squeal (for him) when Ireland won the grand slam against Wales. It certainly added to the viewing experience.

So who are your favourite (and least favourite) commentators and why?

I think a little bias is a good thing in commentators - especially now that we have "pairs" of ex-internationals.

It does seem to take a little while (understandably) for ex-players to open their OTHER eye sufficiently to do the job, but once they have the objectivity that comes from a few years outside of the game at the highest level, they usually work out OK.

As an example, Brian Moore when he first picked up the microphone got SO involved with the game infront of him he was barely capable of remaining coherent, let alone able to add to the spectacle. A few years on however, and he is developing into an excellent commentator/expert.

His bluff no-nonsense style dovetails with Eddie Butlers more "prosaic" style very well, and they are currently my favourite pairing - especially when they commentate on Wales Vs England!

I have always found Moore very irritating. I appreciate that he calls it how he sees it, but he gets too carried away with his pet hates for my liking. Butler though is very good and he gives a very coherent account of a match.

Eddie Butler is probably THE most biased commentator I've ever come across in a rugby broadcast (with Jonathon Davies running him a close second)

Without a doubt, the best and most unbiased was Bill McLaren

And Bill really showed his class by retiring before he lost the plot (something like likes of Murray Walker, Peter Alliss etc never did).

In Bill's final year of commentating there were just very small signs of partiality creeping in, along with other symptoms of old age, and he bowed out gracefully at just the right time.

Possibly the best commentator in ANY sport, not just Rugby

I like Moore and Butler as a team, and Butler and Davies too. That said the Irish commentator who covers the six nations does my head in. He is more one-eyed than the majority of us lot!

Personally I think that a good commentry team requires on level headed (calls it ballenced, even if their side is playing), and one person who cares for the way they thing the game should be played.

I've played Cricket with Eddie Butler and he's actually a really diown to earth bloke and is very aware of the stick he gets!

Bill McLaren definitely is up there. I had Jonah Lomu Rugby for the Playstation a long time ago and his voice is now ingrained in my mind from that. Probably the most memorable line in that game was McLaren saying "Goodness me, that could put him in ward 4", to which the reply is "I hope not Bill; that's a maternity ward!"

Another vote for Bill McLaren from me, who along with Richie Benaud were/are the best commentators of any sport, not just Rugby (or Cricket).

Of the current Rugby commentators Davies can get on my nerves and I find him a bit irritating when Wales are not playing well as he starts getting annoyed with them and begins trying to tell them what to do (they have got to do this or they must stop doing that etc)

Moore is okay as long he doesn't get stuck on one thing and at least he tells it how it is and don't mind Butler too much. Barnes can talk some rubbish from time to time but generally I find him to be not too bad as well.

Thought Ben Kay has been pretty good on his debut year on ESPN, certainly better than Austin Healy who comes out with stupid childish comments all the time trying to funny, which is a shame as when he bothers to be serious he can be pretty good.

Bill McLaren was obviously one of the greats so that goes without saying. In terms of personal favourites of the moment, I actually like Jiffy sometimes. I know he can be terribly one eyed, but I find him quite entertaining, and he can occassionally come out with some good one-liners such as "He's got hands like a digital watch!". For other entertainment value, I enjoy the pairing of Eddie Butler and Brian Moore.

I'm really not keen on the chap they've got on Sky - Barnes is it? Fortunately I don't have Sky so I only have to put up with him on the odd Heino match. I love listening to Scott Quinnell and Ieuan Evans on there though, they know their stuff as well.....and just cause he has a very sexy voice - Frankie Sheehan

I'm a bit young for Bill McLaren but all the games I've heard he has commentated on have been really good. In temrs of ones I've heard it would have to be Eddie Butler, but I also think that Andy Cotter is a great commentator.

For me the worst has to be Johnathon Davies, he is unbearably biased to listen and I really don't think he is very interesting to listen to, Whatsmore I find even his voice very annoying.

1st = Bill McLaren, no argument

Agree J Davies is annoying & biased - terrific player - but don't like his commentating

Eddie B seems to fawn over random players each week - is he welsh/english ??

Brian Moore - well where to start ? As a scots fan my default mode is clearly to hate him. However, I think he's about the best of the current commentators. Says things how he sees them - slags engerland off when deserved - had the balls to qualify as a ref & so probably better placed to commentate on decisions than the others.....

Cat - in the opening post you make a great point about our own motives biasing what we see. This is quite robust and when studied it appears our perceptual systems are incredibly susceptible to biases. This isn't concious and we can't help it! We literally see what we want/need to.

So ignoring the bias, as it's par for the course I appreciate commentators that make me laugh. The double act of Moore and Butler certainly do that. Intentionally or not is a matter for debate though !

I actually think JD is wasted on Rugby Union commentary. I prefer him on commentary for Rugby League, where he gets to show his knowledge. Davies is is not on his own for slightly impartial commentary on the Beeb's union coverage. Andy Nicol is bad too.

I don't enjoy games when Mark Robson commentates on Sky. I don't really like Stuart Barnes either (especially in games with his favourites like SBW play)

Modern day, I guess Butler and Moore are my favourites.

Loki - Thanks for taking up the body of the original post and not just the last line! You are absolutely right about seeing what we want to. It's especially true in rugby where there can be many infringements in the same ruck so that when penalties are awarded (or not) there is nearly always something for the other side to gripe about.

Light or moderate bias is fine. Extreme bias quickly becomes very irritating, especially if you have to listen to a commentator go on and on about a couple of players. Neutral commentators can be good for a change if you really get sick of it.

Cat - I thought re body of the post was insightful and broaches a topic rarely discussed in sport: the fallability of our perception (particularly vision).

The ruck is a great example of us seeing what we want to (subconciously).
Another example might be a kick that on a dark, wet night looks ambiguous,
Fan A says it's good, Fan B it's a miss - two different percepts of the same event. But both are genuine in their own way. The fans truly "saw" the ball miss/on target.

Now this is not a conciously controlled thing, so being truly objective is almost impossible! Thank God for TMOs as they allow the objective study from different angles.

With regards to commentators, extreme bias is infuriating. Personally I find the New Zealand commentators in the Tri nations exceptionally biased. They hardly mention the other team at all! It's reminiscent of the Australian sports press who like to deride and belittle opponents before a match.

Loki - There are times when I honestly can't say from the camera angle if a kick is over or not, but generally if I take a pause and consider it I manage not to convince myself of an outcome either way.

Similarly with ordinary decisions, if I can see the one the referee has picked up on, I normally get annoyed with the player who gave away the penalty. I think that provided I don't feel the referee is being completely incompetent I am able to more or less tally with his view of things. Of course, if he seems useless, or there's an obvious mistake, that can change. So based on that I would say that it is possible to be objective some of the time, but when you the tension gets to you, you begin to lose the rational, conscious, high-level brain function and tend to slip to a more primitive and instinctive low-level brain function which is to be protective of your interests (a survival trait if you like). That would be the subconscious level you referred to.

Cat - most researchers indicate an evolutionary basis for this trait, just as you do. It sounds eminently plausible to me. From my own research in this area I sincerely doubt our ability to make truly objective appraisals.

However as long as refs (and we) strive for objectivity I don't think you can ask for any more!

Good thread by the way Cat.

Cheers Loki.

I can't disagree with that. If we try to be objective I suppose that equates to noting our preference or bias and then looking at things from a different perspective before deciding if our original stance is reasonable. So from that point of view we can't be objective, but can attempt to rationalise our opinion.

For me, what I tend to look for in commentators is:

a) a good knowledge of the game, so they can tell me things about the game that I couldn't have worked out for myself (Miles Harrison on Sky is rubbish at this, it tends to be the ex-pros who know the most - obviously)

b) the ability to be entertaining, which is why I don't have a problem with Brian Moore getting so angry (although I am English, it must be said). The best commentators for entertainment value, I find, are the Aussie commentators in the Super however-many-it-is-now (and Aussie commentators in general), I find it makes the game more exciting to watch as a neutral when the commentators show their excitement. French commentators are also excellent for entertainment value, though with my limited French I don't really know what they're saying most of the time.

c) not to be so completely biased that it skews their commentary on the game. The worst I've experienced for this has been when England play Australia, with Aussie commentators. The commentators at the '03 World Cup were noticeably anti-England even in games which Australia had no interest in.

So to conclude, I heavily dislike the Sky team of Stuart Barnes and Miles Harrison, because they don't really give me any insight into the game (often Barnes will wax lyrical about how stupid it was for such-and-such to have come in from the side and given that penalty away, when I can clearly see the ref signalling that he's given the penalty for something completely different), they aren't entertaining to listen to, and Barnes is generally biased against my team (Tigers), though he has been better recently. They also talk over the ref a lot, which really annoys me - why give the man a mike if you aren't going to listen to what he says?

I like Brian Moore and Eddie Butler, Aussie commentators when England aren't playing, and French commentators

I also agree with what Loki and Erwin were saying about perception, and seeing what we want to see. From my understanding, our perception can be greatly affected by emotion, which obviously leads to clashes in sport. Every England fan you ever meet will swear blind Cueto scored in the final, but every SA fan will equally honestly tell you he was clearly in touch.

Sorry about the long post by the way, I was thinking about doing an article on this myself

Desert_Tiger wrote:Sorry about the long post by the way, I was thinking about doing an article on this myself

Absolutely welcome by the way

good to see some keen posters!

If you like the old school, you've got to give some love for Jim Neilly on BBC Northern Ireland. He's actually relatively unbiased despite being a real dyed in the wool Ulster rugby man. But he does make up for it by confusing almost every players name and often announcing something has happened that is just completely wrong.

(My personal favourite is when Ulster scored a try this season and a player on the other side was binned for trying to kill the ball at the preceding ruck- he announced the referee was going for the TMO and became increasingly confused as to why the replays weren't coming through)

Anyway here he is;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqqH8ZmbIlg&feature=related

Great confusion when he mistakes our hooker for Simon Danielli (?) and the rest is just classic Neilly.

Get in you rascal!

No problem Desert_Tiger - well thought out posts are very welcome.

I really can't stand Aussie commentators, primarily from watching cricket. They seem to have to exaggerate everything. What really annoys me is when they get ridiculously excited when someone hits a six in 20-20 cricket, and all I can think is "that's the point of the short game!", or even better when they getting excited about a massive six...when it's just cleared the rope.

I don't think I'll ever come to like Moore's brand of commentary.

My lasting commentary moment was by Nigel Starmer-Smith who said of an England flanker,"Peter Dixon,mustachioed but happy".I still have no idea what the dickens Nigel was on about!Not a bad commentator though.

Maybe there is a relationship between moustaches and happiness - or not. Perhaps it was an in joke, or maybe he just made a really bad joke.