The BBC Commentary team needs to be gagged

First topic message reminder :

...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.

bogbrush wrote:

Calder106 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Calder106 wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Lydian - brilliant description. Same with their coverage of snooker and the golf.  Some of the old school - Coleman, Carpenter, Benaud - must be/would have been in despair.

I'm afraid I found it quite elitist and insulting.

I'd like to hear why you think that. I disagree profoundly.

"Wimbledon coverage is designed to appeal to your common or garden Sun-reading brickie who takes a fortnightly interest in the sport every June."

You don't find that sort of stereotyping insulting. I'm afraid I do. One of the reasons I've seen on these boards regarding why there are so few top GB players is that people see it as being quite elitist in this country. So if I drop in from one of the other forums on this site and see a comment like that is it going to persuade me differently.  

First - why did you not quote that comment in your reply? You implied Benaud etc were elitist.

Secondly, facts are facts. If they do target the lowest common denominator that's just how it is. The 'man of the people' thing,complaining at this being pointed out is excessively self-conscious.

On the first I'll apologise I should have been more specific on what I was referring to.

On the second your just proving my point and compounding it by using more insults.

I'm proving your point by stating that facts are facts?

Some of the BBC's stuff had been cringe worthy. Did anyone see the Dimitrov heart-throb stuff on Today at Wimbledon one night? Just awful.
The constant switching from BBC2 to BBC1 plays havoc if you are trying to record anything.
There have been some good moments/people. Davenport I like. Yes, Sue Barker gushes, but does a difficult anchor/presenter job well.

Fundamental problem is its based on chumminess, and that drags people I like and who could do a good job (Henman, for one) down. It's the formula that has made Match of the Day almost unwatchable.

I'd get rid of Barker, Inverdale, Castle, Becker etc and get professional commentators in (guys who made a career through journalism or commentating) in the box. Let them have guest ex-pro input, but let it be based on informing the viewer, not pretending to sit next to them chewing nails together.

It's insulting and pathetic. Thank God I'm in Canada now and will get sensible commentary.

B-Brush. Could not agree more about ditching the ex-players. Alas, the BBC have this idea - and it's sadly not a new idea - that if you've played the game then you can talk about.
This has led to some of the worst commentaries ever heard. Some might recall, with horror, the Ann Jones years. Virginia Wade has been fairly bland for ages, but did redeem herself in some eyes with her "drama queen" remark recently concerning Andy Murray.
Barry Davies , although well past his best, is still better than most.

bogbrush wrote:I'm proving your point by stating that facts are facts?

So my in-laws (and I suspect many other people) who don't have Sky and quite enjoy watching Wimbledon are in your view 'the lowest common denominator' at that's a fact. Oh well each to their own.

Calder106 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I'm proving your point by stating that facts are facts?

So my in-laws (and I suspect many other people) who don't have Sky and quite enjoy watching Wimbledon are in your view 'the lowest common denominator' at that's a fact. Oh well each to their own.

That's just ridiculous, you're too mired in class thinking to have a sensible conversation with.

bogbrush wrote:Fundamental problem is its based on chumminess, and that drags people I like and who could do a good job (Henman, for one) down. It's the formula that has made Match of the Day almost unwatchable.

I'd get rid of Barker, Inverdale, Castle, Becker etc and get professional commentators in (guys who made a career through journalism or commentating) in the box. Let them have guest ex-pro input, but let it be based on informing the viewer, not pretending to sit next to them chewing nails together.

It's insulting and pathetic. Thank God I'm in Canada now and will get sensible commentary.

Completely agree.

bogbrush wrote:

Calder106 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I'm proving your point by stating that facts are facts?

So my in-laws (and I suspect many other people) who don't have Sky and quite enjoy watching Wimbledon are in your view 'the lowest common denominator' at that's a fact. Oh well each to their own.

That's just ridiculous, you're too mired in class thinking to have a sensible conversation with.

That's fine with me. At least I can debate a point without repeatedly throwing insults at the person I'm debating with. So I'll leave it at that.

during the Verdasco Murray match Castle was saying the crowd making a noise was sending a signal to Verdasco that he was in enemy territory - last two words were his exact words.

i have seen cricket matches between India and Pakistan on the Indian subcontinent and a more partisan crowd and commentry team you will never find anywhere else. but even then i never heard of a commentry team, one whose commentry was picked up by a global audience, refer to the home crowd as enemy territory wrt to the opposing player.

the same day Inverdale was going on for about 45 mins about the women's screeching. now i dont like it as much as most other people, but its not that big a deal in my opinion.

i usually watch by turning off the volume,

That's what appealing to lowest common denominator means, pixel.

Absolutely BB, we're not talking about elitism in the LTA which is a different topic entirely but the requirement for some degree of incisive BBC tennis coverage that inspires people to understand the game more deeply and kids to pick up a racquet out of dynamic theming that appeals to the age of people who actively play (or could play) the sport, not those who trot round car boot sales for old trinkets and doilies.

Calder, I make no apologies for my analogy. The BBC coverage actually appeals to a non-tennis playing stereotype, hence the type of low rent analysis we see wrapped up in Antique Roadshow theming. Similarly The Sun newspaper dumbs everything down...if you want incisive foreign affairs or economic analysis then look elsewhere. So who buys The Sun? Who does The Sun target? ABC1's? I think not.

If like The Sun you want dumbed down analysis and theming then the BBC coverage that appeals to the very essence of stereotyping you have an issue with must be your cup of tea. It isn't mine, and as BB says we should not apologise for wanting standards raised in an elite sense...after all we're watching elite players out there doing battle and they deserve better coverage and theming than the Royal Wedding summer chintz approach the BBC trots out very year for the fortnightly equivalent of tyre kickers.

Too harsh overall for me, the commentary is reasonable. It is not meant for semi experts and somewhat knowledgeable like us, since 90% of the audience is general public or general sports fans and some of them are learning something from commentary that seems inane to us.

If I was going to have a go I would take aim at some of the silly features on Today at Wimbledon.

Watching Djok-Del Potro on the Beeb today and I will say that John Lloyd made some decent points but Boris was absolutely appalling. His commentary mainly consisted of:

1. Stating the absolute obvious
2. Making no sense whatsoever and consistently contradicting himself
3. Being plainly incorrect - past results conjured up from nowhere
4. Repeating what Lloyd had just said.

Throw in a few lame attempts at humour and it truly was a painful experience catered for no particular viewing group.

Yep, Boris sadly doesn't cut it I think. It's almost as if he's trying to find something he knows how to say it English. Now, I know that commentating in a language that isn't your mother tongue is difficult, but well, you are getting paid to do a professional job so you should be able to do it. For instance Richard Krajicek on the radio I have had no such problems. His grasp of English is superior to Boris and hasn't been cliched. The Italian-American coach whose name escapes me at the moment, but the BBC team seem to love is another one that grates.

In a rare agreeing with bogbrush moment , I do agree that part of the problem is this chuminess that has came into some of the sports punditry.

summerblues wrote:

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.

It is completely made up.

So every sing fan that cheers a point are feral?

This is such a non story.

They cheer Andy winning a point and usually the camers go to them when it is a Big point

sad some people try to make out people cheering their son or boyfriend and this makes them evil tyrants

ryan86 wrote:Yep, Boris sadly doesn't cut it I think. It's almost as if he's trying to find something he knows how to say it English. Now, I know that commentating in a language that isn't your mother tongue is difficult, but well, you are getting paid to do a professional job so you should be able to do it. For instance Richard Krajicek on the radio I have had no such problems. His grasp of English is superior to Boris and hasn't been cliched. The Italian-American coach whose name escapes me at the moment, but the BBC team seem to love is another one that grates.

In a rare agreeing with bogbrush moment , I do agree that part of the problem is this chuminess that has came into some of the sports punditry.

"God loves a sinner, come to his understanding."

Mr Witt.

Riskysports wrote:

summerblues wrote:

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.

It is completely made up.

So every sing fan that cheers a point are feral?

This is such a non story.

They cheer Andy winning a point and usually the camers go to them when it is a Big point

sad some people try to make out people cheering their son or boyfriend and this makes them evil tyrants

"Evil tyrants"

Yes, I think that's what was meant.  

I did find Petchey's commentary yesterday afternoon very wearing ... hyperbole piled on exaggeration coupled with the memory of a goldfish (please don't tell me that goldfish have long memories) so that each point was the greatest, most amazing ...

They were utterly cringe worthy yesterday. Some good tennis though, the first semi especially and Jerzy didn't make it easy for Murray either, hopefully he learns and kicks on from that loss

Is the commentary the same for tv and radio? Because if so I can understand what they are trying to do. If not then the commentators literally just tell you what you just witnessed again along with an inane platitude about the favourite and a patronising comment about their opponent. I could do that, you don't need to be a grand slam winner to do that!

I wish Andy M had rammed that brainless moron Gary Richardson's microphone up his erse the other day.

Good news for today, bad news for tomorrow....

"Mark Petchey will be calling the women’s game alongside John McEnroe and Lindsay Davenport, while Andrew Castle, Boris Becker and Tim Henman will be in the booth for the men’s showpiece. "

Danny_1982 wrote:Good news for today, bad news for tomorrow....

"Mark Petchey will be calling the women’s game alongside John McEnroe and Lindsay Davenport, while Andrew Castle, Boris Becker and Tim Henman will be in the booth for the men’s showpiece. "

Bad news indeed. I would sooner have seen Tim Henman, John Lloyd and John McEnroe in the commentary box tomorrow.

I can't stand these people. Here I am siding with Murray in the final, but being persuaded that him losing would be worth it just to shut them up.

Fortunately I'm not watching BBC coverage so I can be free of their direct influence.

bogbrush wrote:I can't stand these people. Here I am siding with Murray in the final, but being persuaded that him losing would be worth it just to shut them up.

Fortunately I'm not watching BBC coverage so I can be free of their direct influence.

Anyone in particular that you cannot stand BB? John Lloyd is a decent analyst as is Johnnie Mac.

Castle, Barker, Lloyd, Petchey and the arch criminal Inverdale.

Becker has been dragged to their level. Richardson is just a bit playing sap, the Gang of Five are the ones who must be brought to justice.

Henman is fine, he showed early promise (including that hilarious moment when he referenced a particularly striking ball girls rack) but is mired in the mess all around him, and McEnroe of course is a giant amongst pygmies.

I personally find Petchy and Mac quite interesting. Yes Petch is a bit sycophantic with Andy but his eye for detail is good.

Davenport has grown into an excellent analyst. I wish she was on tomorrow. Basically, the best the BBC can offer is commentating today. Tomorrows commentary will be poor. Castle's smugness will drive me crazy!

Sycophancy can't be excused, it's not a necessary part of detail. Indeed it obscures it.

To be fair, I think they're all a bit sycophantic towards any of Andy, Novak, Roger and Rafa.

Petchy for me is the best British commentator. He isn't restricted to the high level generic statements like "he needs to be more aggressive" or "he's getting tight".

lydian wrote:Absolutely BB, we're not talking about elitism in the LTA which is a different topic entirely but the requirement for some degree of incisive BBC tennis coverage that inspires people to understand the game more deeply and kids to pick up a racquet out of dynamic theming that appeals to the age of people who actively play (or could play) the sport, not those who trot round car boot sales for old trinkets and doilies.

Calder, I make no apologies for my analogy. The BBC coverage actually appeals to a non-tennis playing stereotype, hence the type of low rent analysis we see wrapped up in Antique Roadshow theming. Similarly The Sun newspaper dumbs everything down...if you want incisive foreign affairs or economic analysis then look elsewhere. So who buys The Sun? Who does The Sun target? ABC1's? I think not.

If like The Sun you want dumbed down analysis and theming then the BBC coverage that appeals to the very essence of stereotyping you have an issue with must be your cup of tea. It isn't mine, and as BB says we should not apologise for wanting standards raised in an elite sense...after all we're watching elite players out there doing battle and they deserve better coverage and theming than the Royal Wedding summer chintz approach the BBC trots out very year for the fortnightly equivalent of tyre kickers.

I'm glad someone realises what the Beeb is all about. Expecting the licence players broadcaster to cater for us "elite" fans is a wonderful idea, but pointless to get exercised about.

Everything that is wrong, from our point of view, with the Beeb coverage is summarised with their 'marquee signing' fawning of Boris. I mean he turns up only for the SF's onwards and never mind about John Lloyd using the same word - does Boris no any other than "passive" or "aggressive". His Tennis knowledge is easily the laziest of all the former players

But he's on there, because people like my mother in law remembers him winning Wimbledon and loves to see him on TV. The same person who apparantly was shouting at the TV, during the Verdasco match, asking Murray when he was going to win anything of importance. Apparantly (because he's not won Wimbledon) he's never won "owt of note"  

Bless her, because at the age of nearly 80 she's still passionate about everything (and tipped me off that "Luther" that I missed the start of is repeated tommorow  ) but is typical of 75% of the Beeb audience watching yesterday's matches

But that doesn't mean the Beeb have to be submissive. They could get Courier, with his actual knowledge of the current game, rather than concentrate on the part time celebrities.

It can be done. For F1 the beeb have a guy called Gary Anderson - easily the best F1 contributor of any or their's or Sky's, other than perhaps Martin Brundle

Danny_1982 wrote:To be fair, I think they're all a bit sycophantic towards any of Andy, Novak, Roger and Rafa.

Petchy for me is the best British commentator. He isn't restricted to the high level generic statements like "he needs to be more aggressive" or "he's getting tight".

100% correct. The amount of praise the four get is vomit inducing sometimes. But then again the go OTT about Tsonga, with Rudseski memorably stating at the O2 11' that he was the next Nadal    

I like Petchey. Yes we can all point to errors, but so we could with David Coleman. The reason why he is good, is because Tennis is his career and like say Martin Brundle he's continued through since retiring which means he has vast knowledge etc

Djokovic was shown today in a press conference and asked an important question by a Scottish journalist about his his holiday in Scotland last year The journalist said "After WINNING the French last year you had a holiday in Scotland" Ha ha! Nole didn't miss a beat and went on to talk about his holiday. I'm not sure if the Scottish journalist was from the BBC but what he said wasn't corrected. So for all the two week tennis fans in the UK Nole has a FO title on his CV. He must be delighted.

He's Scottish. You have to expect that sort of thing from them, they only see golf up there.

The three worst commentators for the Men's Final. Boris 'he needs to be more agressive' Becker, Tim 'more in hope than expectation' Henman, and the insufferably smug Andrew 'its all about Murray' Castle. The best commentators are Mcenroe, Llyod, Petchey and Davenport.

bogbrush wrote:He's Scottish. You have to expect that sort of thing from them, they only see golf up there.

Then again there is quite a good tennis player that comes from there.

Who can forget Sue Barker's cringe worthy interview of Roger after he beat Andy last year

Tim is the only one I don't mute when talking

Watched a repeat of the final on ESPN with the Mac brothers commentating.

Infinitely better than the Beeb. Patrick actually bothered to explain why he made Murray slight favourite, i.e. because of the grass / conditions

It was a good watch and I might have to join up!!

Oh no. So they were praiseworthy of Murray? Gag them.

I liked the moment when Murray was making his way back down from the player's box and he passed the commentary box and you see Johnnie Mac reach out and shake his hand. Nice.

banbrotam wrote:Watched a repeat of the final on ESPN with the Mac brothers commentating.

Infinitely better than the Beeb. Patrick actually bothered to explain why he made Murray slight favourite, i.e. because of the grass / conditions

It was a good watch and I might have to join up!!

Where did you watch it banbro, on youtube?

I'd love a link if its watchable from the UK. The ESPN commentary was miles better for the US open final last year.

I'll get back to you in the next few days - out and about with my team

Working for once  

I saw the two men's semis, part of the ladies final and the men's final with the ESPN commentary and on top of being better commentators, they had studio guests who knew what they were on about in Brad Gilbert and Darren Cahill. Sam Smith they are not. However, the final just wasn't the same for me when it wasn't in British commentary. I can't quite put my finger on why though.

I had the final on mute for a lot of the match, that is how painful i find the BBC commentary. I actually quite like Becker but Andrew Castle drove me mad. I couldnt bear it !

I wish McEnroe was doing more of the commentary, always find him good

Yes I enjoy McEnroe.

I think the former champions are the best certainly for the finals - McEnroe commentating that Lisicki had nowhere to hide on CC had added poignancy, especially when you look back at the 1980 men's final and the young Mac's tears at the end, and the long walk to the Duke of Kent when he clearly wanted to disappear.

I don't think Castle describing how near the crowd feels in that moment and how conscious the player is of the hush of Wimbledon and the world looking in has quite the same impact.

Ideally it would have been great to have John McEnroe commentating on the final on BBC. However, and I may be wrong here, but I get the impression he is contracted out to US television for the men's final. I say this as I cannot remember him ever commentating on the men's final on the BBC before. You always seem to see him in the commentary box (under the player's box) during the final which is where the US commentary team is positioned.

You're right CC - he is contracted to NBS (is that the correct acronym?) for the men's final.

I quite like Boris I must say - yes what he says is largely irrelevant, but then if you are watching tennis live it is perfectly possibly to enjoy it without a running commentary, and at least Boris doesn't feel the need to talk incessantly.

Less is more sometimes, and definitely so in Castle's case.  The worst punishment for me though is the Eeyore like tones of John Lloyd!

I like listening to Peter Fleming and Frew McMillan on Sky. Jimmy Connors is always good to listen to as well but doesn'y go in-depth like Mac does.

I've noticed John McEnroe starting to do that "Hmmmm" thing that Jimmy Connors did all the way through the Wimbledon 2007 final.

CC, you are dead right on that. Peter Fleming is excellent, along with McEnroe (coincidentally they were doubles partners) are by far the best commentators. Frew McMillan is pretty good too if a little more old hat at times. For me the ideal three would be McEnroe, Fleming and Becker (also like Jim Courier but he doesnt cover Wimbledon).

Wimbledon on BBC in an ideal situation would lose Castle and Sue Barker. I used to like Sue Barker but she is annoying me over the past couple of years. The two of them never let up in their constant praise and bias towards Murray. This is nothing against Murray as he has achieved so much in the game. I just wish they would tone it down and be a bit more impartial.

Fleming is fantastic, he always says the right things and knows when not to talk. You also never get a sense that he is leaning towards any one player regardless of who is playing. For me, he is as close to the perfect commentator / analyst that you will find

The thing is though that Fleming (I'd guess) is contracted out to Sky and I'd hazard a guess the money need to be paid for the BBC to prize him away means they choose the cheaper option ie Sue Barker, Andrew Castle and John Lloyd.