Anyone else really like Jim Couriers commentating?

Bit of an aside to the main event but what does everyone think of Jims commentating, I think hes quite good. I like his views on tennis and his poker analogies and he has a good voice for it. Of course this only really applies to everyone watching ITV 4

I haven't heard him this year but I remember listening to him on the Beeb a few years ago (?W07) and he had the most annoying habit of saying 'mm' after a good shot. He wasn't very articulate either.

Duh

Just realised this is about Courier and not Connors.

Courier is excellent.

For me, along with the evergreen Frew, he's the best out there

I like Courier.

He got a bee in his bonnet about one of the line judges keep missing foot faults on Tuesday, was quite amusing.

He seems to have a decent rapport with the players too.

Was pumped 2 watch nadal berdych but barry cowans commentating has killed match 5 games in..poor guy has no idea what's happening #clueless

Murray isn't a fan of Cowan obviously (that was at Rome) I can never make my mind up on him myself

Courier, Goodall, and Frew are my favs

Mark Petchy's a little hit and miss for me. He's usually quite good, but especially in Federer matches, he constantly praises him, like every point , not realizing that if you only praise someone, it begins to lose its meaning and get annoying.

AND just saw you said Cowan, not Petchey, sorry

haha, I do agree about Petchey I think he is a very good commentator but he loves over exaggerating "thats the best point I have ever seen" "have you ever seen anything like that?!"

I like Courier. McEnroe started great but he's got a little tiresome.

Petchey - awful

Cowan - nowhere near as good as Petchey.

Rusedski - comedy material for Peter Fleming to do his sideways glances at.

Courier is my all time favorite player and he is witty at on court interviews but haven't listened to him on commentry, but I guess he should do a good job given his in depth knowledge in sport as well as sense of humor.

Btw Sock is the Baby Courier, so lets focus on him for the moment.

its the other itv guy who is awful, nick mullins just shut up you mong!
He knows nothing about any of the sports he commentates on!

But courier for me is deffo one of the better ones, knows what he is talking about!

Courier is a good all rounder. Articulate, technically savvy, amusing, not too sycophantic.

Cowan is one of my least favourites. Courts controversy and annoying.

Petchy is not bad. Bit too effusive in his praise of the top 4 (we know how good they are, don't need reminding of it every other point) but he's articulate and knows his stuff for me.

Fleming has a good balance of humour, balance and technical knowledge. I like him.

John Mac is good but can be OTT. By far the best on BBC though.

Grinning Greg is bizarrely bad for someone who was in the top 4 once upon a time. Seems far less technical than Petch.

Henman is a bit dull, and like Greg doesn't bring much technical analysis to the table for someone who reached the level he did.

I just wish he would learn how to pronounce some players names... I find that soooooooo irritating.

The grinning monster.. I hates it, I hates it



emancipator

I disagree re henman, i think he is a very astute commentator!

Becker is just meh, but he means well :P

Boris is a comedy German. Goes down great with the Brits - I hear he's wearing lederhosen and a spiky helmet for Wimbedon coverage this year.

Apparently Lleyton Hewitt is really good but he only works on Australian TV, might here more of him as his career comes closer to an end

Courier also does Channel 7 at AO and on-court interviews. Darren Cahill is also pretty good.

I like Wilander as well.

Lindsay Davenport is absolutely excellent, particularly when commentating on Serena Williams.

I think Henman shows potential, he's not got an ego and his analysis is pretty OK.

The following habits disappoint in a commentator:

a. Commentators who simply describe what I can see with my own eyes

b. Commentators who say the same thing again and again

c. Commentators who say the first thing that comes into their head which you know they'll have to disagree with in a few minutes because it's ill-thought out rubbish (see f. below)

d. Commentators who see everything through the prism of the successes or failures of their own careers

e. Commentators who put what they are seeing down to mental strength rather than taking the trouble to analyse what is making the difference

f. Commentators who jump from one bandwagon to the next (see c. above)

g. Commentators with a vocabulary of about 52 words

h. Commentators who think that they are liked because of a certain characteristic or tic or because of some past success and who think that emphasising or talking about it will do instead of commentating

i. Commentators who listen to what John Inverdale asks them, repeat it, and agree with him by repeating it a second time

j. Commentators who can't shut up and let a passage of play take on its own life from time to time before saying their bit

k. Commentators who have no tonal variety in their voice (overlookable if the analysis is good)

I think that Greg Rusdedski falls into pretty much every elephant trap up there, and a few more besides. He is execrable as a commentator, and as for an expert(!) summariser.......

Give me a match commentated by Goodall any day of the week, by far the best in the business. Courier is pretty good, a thinking man's tennis player and highly underappreciated as a player and commentator. The fact that he is ginger kind of throws me off though.

Greg seems to only like contradicting Ginny Wade these days.
I'm surprised he doesn't ask for his comfort towel mid-sentence too.

Still think Petchey talks the best analysis and common-sense on UK TV. Although his oft used "how good was that?!" smacks of unnecessary commentators hyperbole. Otherwise agree about Wilander, or Cahill.

Barry Cowen talks the greatest game ever played. If he (or anyone for that matter) could effect his strategic & tactical nouse said individual would never ever ever be beaten, as they would never be caught out by what the other guy is doing.

Now, do not get me wrong, you do not need to have been a great player to be a good analyst, indeed it is often said that the average player who makes it as a Pro in any sport is usually better at the strat/tactical side of things because they have to make up the gap in talent with a sharper mind. But Cowen was, at best, a journey-man on tour and if he was remotely as good at effecting the 'correct' shot choices he'd have been 10 times as successful and it is the delivery of the analysis or "advice" that comes across as "what I would have done" to which my mind reacts with " Yes, Barry, you tell yourself you'd have done that in that position, because you were there SO often in your career".

Saucer of milk for me please.......

Courier - pretty pleased with himself. talks all through the rallies

Judy Murray - also talks all the way thru the rallies

Sam Smith - just awful. Ghastly speaking voice. Should not be allowed anywhere near a TV studio

I don't mind Wilander, but prefer to listen to Frew - neither of them 'take over' the action.

Courier okay too, and love Fleming's laconic delivery.

Just wish they would all try and say something else other than 'too good' ad infinitum - please take note Mark Petchey!

Yes Frew has a certain gentle charm about him. Almost like Bill Threlfall although Bill got a bit overheated at times with hyperbole, especially when Agassi was playing.

I think Jim does well both in the commentary box and in the studio as he really knows his stuff, especially about racquets. Peter Fleming is also a good commentator (IMO of course). I haven't got a clue what Fabrice is saying but I'm sure it makes sense. Andrew Castle divides opinion but I really like him, provided you can get over his tendency to talk to you like it's the first match you've ever watched. Like most sports however, I think tennis could use a journalist/full-time commentator - ex-player pairing more often.

In commentary, less is more. Just speak when we need to be informed of something, or offer special expert insight. Orgasming over shots isn't helpful, it upsets the dog. At least I don't get to see Petcheys face when he's doing it, that's just an image too far.

The Special Juan wrote:Andrew Castle divides opinion but I really like him, provided you can get over his tendency to talk to you like it's the first match you've ever watched.

In fairness, I think that's what he's assuming. A large chunk of the audience watching, say, the Wimbledon final on BBC, probably don't have much idea what a deuce court is or how a forehand can be inside out!

(the one that puzzled me when I was getting into tennis was "half volley". In football, a half volley is hitting a ball that has bounced.... and on that basis, almost every shot in tennis is a half volley!)

I like Castle, he just goes a bit overboard on how brilliant whichever member of the top 4 he is watching is.

Jimmy is a real lad. I like him.

I never want to listen to Tracy Austin or Ginny Wade.

I like Courier a lot, seems to have a rapport with the players too. Cahill, Goodall, Wilander are all good as mentioned by others. Wilander in particular has a lot to say on tactics when he lets loose, which is valuable. Frew and Fleming are both good, though as with anything it's how you pair all of them up that counts in many instances. Koenig's decent too?

Strangely, although I don't like Andrew Castle, I enjoy listening to him and Wilander together.

I'd not seen this before

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nDdtvbu8hw

And Courier still calls him Joke - ovitch

I do like Jim's commentary though

He's a good guy...quite incisive with his questions.
Very smooth, almost cheesy, for an ex-player though.
You can almost imagine him hosting "ESPN Liiiiiiiiiiive" in that grandiose OTT American fashion.
For such an outspoken guy it was weird when he started reading books at the change of ends in his tennis matches

It reminds of the Umpire who couldn't say Navratilova

You might remember it was priceless. Martina had always been quite cool about it and pretty patient with people. But this Umpire kept announcing her name wrong and you could see it starting to annoy her - I think she even had a word with him

Think it was around 1980, i.e. before world domination

I remember that, and several newsreaders of the time who couldn't cope either including Richard Baker and Kenneth "Treasure Hunt" Kendall!