The BBC Commentary team needs to be gagged

...and then preferably led out of the room, never to be heard from in television again. They add absolutely nothing to the match, & just detract from the experience with a constant stream of sycophantic Murray comments & inane, pointless statements. You can barely understand what Boris Becker is saying 50% of the time! I think overall these guys increase the annoyance factor by about 50% when Murray plays, which for me lifts it unbearable levels.

Andrew Castle is an embarrassment, totally shocking & completely and utterly up Murray's rear end for the entire game. Awful to listen to.

Always the mute button

Chaz

So is it the UK commentary teams support of a UK player that irks you so much or Murray's inability to do anything that float the ball back?

Or both

Hmm so Swiss TV is supremely unbiased for Roger? Spanish TV not biased for Rafa? Serbian TV not right behind Djokovic? Do me a favour eh?

We don't have to listen to those in Spain, Switzerland, etc.

I am an equal opportunity scorner of patriotism.

So perhaps think about moving out of the UK during Wimbledon fortnight. Mind you wherever you go you will find commentators very biased to their own players.

I gagged Sue Barker once. Or was it twice...

I don't really understand why everyone gets so exercised, provided it's not unfair to the other player
 
The Wimbledon crowd were great with Nando, applauding his good shots, but yes giving the greatest noise for their home grown player
 
How utterly despicable of them

I don't see the problem with the British Broadcasting Corporation looking at things from a British perspective, it's naive to think they'd do otherwise. I would be a bit disappointed if they didn't get behind Murray!

Did people think that the Olympics were similarly "too British"?

My problem is the quality of the commentary. Petchy and Mac are far better.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I gagged Sue Barker once. Or was it twice...

Then you woke up. What we need is more advanced digital control of sounds so you turn on and off crowd sounds and commentary. In an ideal word something that could filter out screeching and grunting.

banbrotam wrote:Chaz

So is it the UK commentary teams support of a UK player that irks you so much or Murray's inability to do anything that float the ball back?

Or both

Now that my initial frustration has worn off, I can't really blame Murray - he did what he had to do to beat Verdasco (just about!), but he really doesn't excite me as a player at all. The commentary team annoys me for a few reasons:

- The first, and main, one is the lack of any kind of analysis whatsoever, or insightful statements. Most of what they say could be uttered by anyone with a passing knowledge of tennis, and it irritates me that I feel like I could do a better job than them.

- The second one is that in Murray matches they never shut up. After every point they feel the need to talk, with most of it being focused on Murray and either what he needs to do better, or how incredibly he is playing at that moment. Obviously the BBC are going to support a player from the UK, but with Murray the constant focus on him gets a bit tiresome after a while.

- The third one is Andrew Castle, which I don't think needs an explanation.

Where is Virginia Wade? It sound like someone knowledable, not scared to speak their mind and capable of being unbiased is needed...

Chazfazzer wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Chaz

So is it the UK commentary teams support of a UK player that irks you so much or Murray's inability to do anything that float the ball back?

Or both

Now that my initial frustration has worn off, I can't really blame Murray - he did what he had to do to beat Verdasco (just about!), but he really doesn't excite me as a player at all. The commentary team annoys me for a few reasons:

- The first, and main, one is the lack of any kind of analysis whatsoever, or insightful statements. Most of what they say could be uttered by anyone with a passing knowledge of tennis, and it irritates me that I feel like I could do a better job than them.

- The second one is that in Murray matches they never shut up. After every point they feel the need to talk, with most of it being focused on Murray and either what he needs to do better, or how incredibly he is playing at that moment. Obviously the BBC are going to support a player from the UK, but with Murray the constant focus on him gets a bit tiresome after a while.

- The third one is Andrew Castle, which I don't think needs an explanation.

If you added

- fourth, do we really need the camera to switch to Kim whateverhernameis and Judy looking like a pterodactyl on speed after every point? Plus clenched fists and rictus faces. God, Lendl is a shining beacon of rationality amongst it all. I bet his thoughts would be hilarious to know.

You'd have nailed it all perfectly.

Chazfazzer wrote:Now that my initial frustration has worn off, I can't really blame Murray - he did what he had to do to beat Verdasco (just about!), but he really doesn't excite me as a player at all. The commentary team annoys me for a few reasons:

- The first, and main, one is the lack of any kind of analysis whatsoever, or insightful statements. Most of what they say could be uttered by anyone with a passing knowledge of tennis, and it irritates me that I feel like I could do a better job than them.

They cater for those who have no knowledge of the game, i.e. the vast majority of licence payers. Yes, we could all do a better job, but we are Tennis geeks and are likely to get irked by being told about Verdasco's only victory against Murray. To the outsider, that's of interest


-

The second one is that in Murray matches they never shut up. After every point they feel the need to talk, with most of it being focused on Murray and either what he needs to do better, or how incredibly he is playing at that moment. Obviously the BBC are going to support a player from the UK, but with Murray the constant focus on him gets a bit tiresome after a while.

Actually they get wildly excited about any of the Top 4plus Tsonga and it is annoying

- The third one is Andrew Castle, which I don't think needs an explanation.

He's insufferably smug - but in fairness knows about the game and if you can ignore the guff, I can see why he's seen as good for the Beeb, because he explains the trivia very well. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, it's trivia we already know

bogbrush wrote:[- fourth, do we really need the camera to switch to Kim whateverhernameis and Judy looking like a pterodactyl on speed after every point?

We've never ever panned to the Federer box and seen Mirka looking nervous have we?

Oh sorry!! It's different if it's Novak or Andy

hawkeye wrote:Where is Virginia Wade? It sound like someone knowledable, not scared to speak their mind and capable of being unbiased is needed...

Well at least we've got one - something totaly alien when the Spanish are commentating on Rafa

Well that is the point though bogbrush. The cameraman/director have to be blamed for obsessing over Andy's supporting team, relatives and girlfriend. Have you ever considered that does Andy no favours? By that I mean the camera panning to them on every point is bound to catch more clenched fists and screaming than other players support teams. I mean Mirka has been spotted with clenched fists but less so as the cameras are not so obtrusive with her.

Moaning about commentators / crowds / players boxes is a bit like moaning about the British weather

hawkeye wrote:Where is Virginia Wade? It sound like someone knowledable, not scared to speak their mind and capable of being unbiased is needed...

They should hire you!

One thing that was annoying today was the focus on "What was Alex Ferguson's reaction to that point"

I have always viewed tennis as more of an individual sport, with nationality being very secondary.  That said, I do not mind if the commentators are focusing on the home players - like it or not, that just has to be the case.  Though I have to say I find it a bit annoying when they are trying to present home players in favorable light (as they always are) relative to their opponents.

One good solution to this problem is to move to a country with no tennis players - I live in the US and it works just fine.

banbrotam wrote:

bogbrush wrote:[- fourth, do we really need the camera to switch to Kim whateverhernameis and Judy looking like a pterodactyl on speed after every point?

We've never ever panned to the Federer box and seen Mirka looking nervous have we?

Oh sorry!! It's different if it's Novak or Andy

Not at all, I despise the panning to the box especially at match point. The only saving grace is that with others (1) the Beeb isn't quite as obsessive, and (2) Mirka is dignified throughout, no ridiculous gurning.

Kudos to Uncle Toni for his reactions too, apart from when he's coaching.

Craig - this is an anti-BBC thread, no need to think its an attack on Andy.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Where is Virginia Wade? It sound like someone knowledable, not scared to speak their mind and capable of being unbiased is needed...

They should hire you!

 HE a replacement for Gary Richardson?

Can't be any worse!

I would say it would be good if Beeb brought in options like Sky have for its football.

There you can mute commentary or change to a different commentary.

Yeah. The best I've heard was at the US on a less popular match, there the commentators are unknown but do a solid analytical job and don't say "Too good!!" or talk vacuous nonsense every few points.

banbrotam wrote:

Chazfazzer wrote:Now that my initial frustration has worn off, I can't really blame Murray - he did what he had to do to beat Verdasco (just about!), but he really doesn't excite me as a player at all. The commentary team annoys me for a few reasons:

- The first, and main, one is the lack of any kind of analysis whatsoever, or insightful statements. Most of what they say could be uttered by anyone with a passing knowledge of tennis, and it irritates me that I feel like I could do a better job than them.

They cater for those who have no knowledge of the game, i.e. the vast majority of licence payers. Yes, we could all do a better job, but we are Tennis geeks and are likely to get irked by being told about Verdasco's only victory against Murray. To the outsider, that's of interest


-

The second one is that in Murray matches they never shut up. After every point they feel the need to talk, with most of it being focused on Murray and either what he needs to do better, or how incredibly he is playing at that moment. Obviously the BBC are going to support a player from the UK, but with Murray the constant focus on him gets a bit tiresome after a while.

Actually they get wildly excited about any of the Top 4plus Tsonga and it is annoying

- The third one is Andrew Castle, which I don't think needs an explanation.

He's insufferably smug - but in fairness knows about the game and if you can ignore the guff, I can see why he's seen as good for the Beeb, because he explains the trivia very well. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, it's trivia we already know

I mostly agree with what Banbro says as wimbledon is tennis for the masses as far as BBC is concerned. It's not an excuse for poor analysis quality and BBC is widely known as a provider of quality programs around the world. You can be very excited about one player and still give a decent insight analysis in my opinion.

Boris was utter pathetic in the commentry he gave the title "Nerves of Steel" to Verdasco for 1 big 2nd serve. , nerves of steel from the Spaniard was his exact comment. 

A few other complaints about BBC coverage...

Today at Wimbledon - highlights package goes out too early at 8pm.  It used to go out at more sensible time of 9pm, but the BBC powers that be moved it to 8pm a few years ago.  Its stupid - on at least 2 days this year whilst they've been on air supposedly showing us highlights the biggest match of the day has still been going on (e.g. Federer v Stakhovsky).  On the highlights package they also spend half of the programme going on about Andy Murray/Laura Robson and show v little of the matches.  Yesterday they finally showed a decent amount of Del Potro, against Ferrer, but we hardly saw any of the Kubot/Jankowicz match.

The TV commentators - Castle panders too much to the lowest denominator and Boris is just incoherent.  Meanwhile, the radio 5 commentary team is generally excellent - I'm particularly impressed with Richard Krajicek and Goran Ivanisevic - the former is always very insightful and tells it like it is, whilst Goran is great at giving an insight into what's going on inside a player's head and v funny.

Finally, I really hope the BBC changes their narrative a bit - all the focus has been on Murray but Djokovic has been playing out of his skin and will take some beating - for me, that's the story.

banbrotam wrote:We've never ever panned to the Federer box and seen Mirka looking nervous have we?

Oh sorry!! It's different if it's Novak or Andy

The difference between Mirka's reactions and that of Andy's box is that Mirka generally behaves with a bit of decorum.

Andy's box, and in particular Judy and Jez Green, just act like rottweilers. Even on an opponents unforced error, it's fist pumping, lips curled into a snarl. It's not joy or relief coming off them, it's pleasure at an enemy's demise.

And that's not me being partisan. Novak's brother's often behave the same way and I feel the same when they do it.

Anyway, on the subject of poor quality from the BBC, making a big feature of the fact Sir Alex Ferguson was in the crowd was so vapid. It's one thing to let us know he's there but constantly cutting to him for his reaction and then basing an idiotic post-match question on him, pretty much sums their level up.

HM Murdoch wrote:

banbrotam wrote:We've never ever panned to the Federer box and seen Mirka looking nervous have we?

Oh sorry!! It's different if it's Novak or Andy

The difference between Mirka's reactions and that of Andy's box is that Mirka generally behaves with a bit of decorum.

Andy's box, and in particular Judy and Jez Green, just act like rottweilers. Even on an opponents unforced error, it's fist pumping, lips curled into a snarl. It's not joy or relief coming off them, it's pleasure at an enemy's demise.
And that's not me being partisan. Novak's brother's often behave the same way and I feel the same when they do it.

Anyway, on the subject of poor quality from the BBC, making a big feature of the fact Sir Alex Ferguson was in the crowd was so vapid. It's one thing to let us know he's there but constantly cutting to him for his reaction and then basing an idiotic post-match question on him, pretty much sums their level up.

Don't agree with a lot of this especially the bit highlighted. Yes, his box is very vociferous but so are others. Verdasco's were hardly sitting on their hands yesterday (no problem with that). Are you aware that any of them have been asked to tone it down or have been asked to leave ? They are not doing anything wrong during points as far as I am aware. They cheer on the player they live and work with is that a crime. Different people will do it in different ways as long as they are not breaking any rules what's the problem. They don't ask the cameras to be focussed on them.

As for the bit in bold I just think that is just plain wrong. You say they cheer opponents 'unforced errors' but then again are they really 'unforced errors' have they not often come around by Murray getting the opponent frustrated and going for a shot they get wrong.

Calder, I'm not suggesting they are in breach of any rules. I'm saying that I don't like their behaviour.

Regarding the unforced errors, if someone dumps a regulation shot into the net, that goes in the match stats as an unforced error. Jez and Judy's reactions to these wouldn't have been out of place in a Roman amphitheatre. They could hardly contain their glee that an opponent had made a mistake. Actually glee is the wrong word as that suggests happiness. This was just aggression.

Seems like Garry Richardson later apologised to Andy and the BBC edited the question out on the iPlayer footage!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/wimbledon/10159079/Wimbledon-2013-BBCs-Garry-Richardson-tests-Andy-Murrays-patience-and-apologies-for-hairdryer-question.html

Each to their own, but I personally couldn't give a rats ass about how the people in a players box react to points won or lost.

When people used to complain about Novak's team being loud and putting people off (Federer in particular if I remember rightly) I thought much ado over nothing.

Murray's Mum, girlfriend or team reacting to points won by aggressive fist pumps is the same, inconsequential and irrelevant. What do we want, polite applause and a tip of the hat? Perhaps in this politically correct world we live in now they should react the same when his opponent wins a point. That would be more British of them wouldn't it.

I have said this kind of thing before and I'll wheel it out again... This is professional sport and we're dealing with elite athletes. I would expect my team to be visciforously behind me and wouldn't really care how it was interpreted.

Murray's team did nothing wrong anyway, but even if they had... Even if the support was overly aggressive, who cares? It's sport. It's cut throat. And so it should be.

If the BBC is going to show images like this, they should give us a warning. I have a young child, pets and sometimes a full stomach.

(I believe in the below picture, an opponent has just had a first serve called out)

Maclaghan looks embarrassed to be there. Maybe that's why he got dumped. Lendls just a bit too big to handle I guess.

Calder, you're missing all the points. They look feral and absurd. Pretty much all the other top guy boxes look like normal people, even Novaks younger brothers have a excuse, being...... young. Good behaviour isn't PC, it's just grown up. Look at Lendl.

What I'd love to know is how the opposing players feel about Andy's team? In short I'd guess they don't give a s***. People need and crave and want reasons to have a pop at Murray and now he is a slam winner and his tennis does the talking people now have their pop over anything they can find. Sad really. Rant over.

Do they get to watch their antics between every point?

I think in your need to stick up for all things Andy you're getting confused.

CaledonianCraig wrote:What I'd love to know is how the opposing players feel about Andy's team? In short I'd guess they don't give a s***. People need and crave and want reasons to have a pop at Murray and now he is a slam winner and his tennis does the talking people now have their pop over anything they can find. Sad really. Rant over.

A little over-sensitive here, Craig, perhaps? Why is a comment on the behavior of some people in his box a pop at Andy?

And if you really think winning a slam will stop people having a pop at a player, you're in for a disappointment. Nadal's won 12 of them and is constantly criticised!

Oh please leave off BB and yes I have seen fist pumps from Mirka as well. Unless I openly see a player march up to an umpire and complain about those in the box then I presume the opposing players have no problem with it. The only people that do are those with a vested interest in other tennis players in my honest opinion.

In the US open final Novak's dad was unhappy that Novak got a time warning, and for the next ten minutes the camera focussed on him and he was stood up after every point fist clenched and glaring angrily at the umpire, shouting stuff (which I couldn't understand).

Now, I don't think there's anything wrong with that personally, he's Novak's father and who's to tell him he shouldn't show passion when his son is playing?

But I've never seen anyone from Murray's team do anything remotely like that. Again, nothing wrong with it in my view..... Just pointing out that we seem to be having a collective "selective memory" on this article right now.

The opposing player does not care about what's going on in the stands as they are busy playing and not watching. On the other hand, viewers have the right to be annoyed I guess. Blame the TV companies I say.

Is that Sean Lock in the picture above?

I didn't see the incident with Novak's dad but I'd feel exactly the same way. It's idiotic.

I don't equate passion with acting feral. You think Lendl isn't passionate?

I really don't get why a comment on the behaviour of Andy's box has become so tribal. Is a comment on any of clan Murray a comment on them all?

[quote="bogbrush"]Do they get to watch their antics between every point?

bogbrush wrote:ss, that on Swiss TV, at the peak of Roger's career (i.e. 2005) when it was the Basel Open, the infamous Swiss reserve would have been busted wide open just like the British reserve is now


[quote="bogbrush"]I think in your need to stick up for all things Andy you're getting confused.

I think given your amazing lack of understanding about how crowds work and always have worked, you're the confused one. To me and some others on this thread, you don't seem to realise that simply because you wouldn't jump up and down looking like you'd like to kill someone  it doesn't mean it is wrong for others to do it and they shouldn't be condemned for it

HmM I take your point but aren't you and others being atad contradictory. I am being called overly sensitive but it isn't me getting in a huff about Andy's mum etc getting excited and showing joy when her son is completing a great comeback. Oh and please spare me the poor sportsmanship thing about 'celebrating' unforced errors as that myth was dispelled a long time ago as even Saint Roger does a fist pump and a 'Come on' following an opponent's error.

HM Murdoch wrote:I really don't get why a comment on the behaviour of Andy's box has become so tribal. Is a comment on any of clan Murray a comment on them all?

Unfortunately, not all contributors are like you or BB - reasoned enough to seperate the two

What I mean by that, is I wish I had a quid for every time some contributor (on any message board) had stated they didn't like Murray and then used the most words telling writing how they hated his Mum / girlfriend etc becasue they are all jumping up and down in the box - before going on to say that they think he's quite a good player

Indeed, other than these boards (and it shows the good cerebral quality of the contributors) I've yet to see someone state that they don't like Murray and not mention something negative about his Mum or the players box

Banbro - don't forget that he hates England too!

What on Earth are you rambling on about bantroban?

This is a thread about how awful the BBC coverage is, and how irritating it is that they switch to the feral behaviour of the Murray box. Not Andy, not the opponent, not the rules.

Honestly, you guys are so protective of your man that you feel the need to run to any lengths to deflect any perceived slight. What next, the weather in Dunblane is great?

The Murray box is absurd, Lendl excepted. The Federer and Nadal boxes are exemplary in decorum and general behaviour. The Djokovic box has had bad moments and is a bit strident for my tastes, but Judy etc go mental all the time including yesterday standing up after every point.

It's just not classy at all. Not illegal, just a bit shabby.

HM Murdoch wrote:(I believe in the below picture, an opponent has just had a first serve called out)

Is this comment for real or in jest? If true, then it is hilarious.