Worth the Money??

While we have this dreaded rain delay in Rome.....here's something for a bit of fun!

I've read in today Daily Mail (so it must be true!!) that the BBC are paying Tim Henman £200,000 for 2 weeks work at this year's Wimbledon.

Who do you think is worth his/her money for commentary work.....and who would you fire immediately!

Henman's boring monotone voice isn't worth £2, let alone £200k.

I like Andrew Castle.........I think he's worth his money <runsforcover>

Solerina

Considering Rooney Gets £250k a week (for kicking a ball for an hour and a half)

That figure is no big deal - after all Tim was one of Englands finest

Yeah, sportslover but I never pegged Tim as an entertaining tv personality. Mac is the best tennis announcer ever, and i don't mean patrick.

"Don't touch the water bottles" is about as fine a commentator as Henman gets.

socal1976 wrote:Yeah, sportslover but I never pegged Tim as an entertaining tv personality. Mac is the best tennis announcer ever, and i don't mean patrick.

Anyone but Boris B, Greg R or Pat Cash.

Yes John Mac would also be my first choice.

As for fire immediately, the Sky mob except Peter Fleming and only occasionally Mark Petchy would miss my bullet.

I wish Sky Marcus wouldn't keep saying "The Serbinator" and he tells Rafa fans to lose their bias and send in emails when he ought to learn to lose some of his.

Don't even get me started on Leif Shiras .......

sportslover wrote:Considering Rooney Gets £250k a week (for kicking a ball for an hour and a half)

That figure is no big deal - after all Tim was one of Englands finest

Yea, but Rooney isn't getting paid out of my licence fee. The BBC simply squanders money......I'd do it for £2000 and would be able to state the obvious just as well as Henman.

michael_o wrote:Yea, but Rooney isn't getting paid out of my licence fee. The BBC simply squanders money......I'd do it for £2000 and would be able to state the obvious just as well as Henman.

Great point, Michael

I'll be predictable, but John McEnroe by far and away is the best commentator. He has the personality for it, but unlike Henman, he has the experience of actually doing it ... so he can tell viewers just what it really feels like having played at the very top of the game.

I would rather the BBC spent their money on an hour's special of him and Bjorn Borg just talking over tennis and their old times to each other. That's the kind of thing I'd like to listen to.

I don't need any commentary so I'd keep the money.

Tim Henman is not fit for the job: nothing much to say, safe, bland, waste of time.

Peter Fleming is the best tennis commentator about at the moment.

Mac is great as well as he is not afraid to be blunt.

Cannot understand why the BBC with all the 'cuts' to it's funding can justify such an outlay. The BBC already have Becker and Mac when they can. Andrew Castle is under-rated for me. I hope Sky can nab him and rid of Barry Cowan!

I'm afraid a lot of you are out of touch with Market pressures, not so much here, but around the world.

Strangely enough Tim Henman is a renowned tennis pundit in many other countries ( he has a multi-country commentary portfolio)and it makes sense for the beeb to try to keep him on and let it sell the programme in the World Media market.

It makes more money that way.

That seems an awful lot of money for a commentator who is certainly not one of the best.

However I think he is a popular player and the British public likes him and are probably keen to listen to him.

Still I much prefer this Robbie koening who probably gets £5k at best for 2 weeks work.

I can't see that Tim Henman being in the BBC coverage of Wimbledon entices more people to watch. Question is that do they need so many pundits if they are outlaying that much on Tim?

You have John Lloyd, Boris Becker, John McEnroe, Andrew Castle, Mark Cox, Peter Fleming.

Think it is about time they thought about Sky maybe taking the rights.

legendkillar wrote:

Think it is about time they thought about Sky maybe taking the rights.

What about people without Sky?

sonic_boom10 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Think it is about time they thought about Sky maybe taking the rights.

What about people without Sky?

This is the difficulty with the BBC being a generic channel. ITV want football and not a lot else and Channel 4 virtually has no sport.

If the BBC had it's own sports channel it could improve things. I don't know.

Putting Wimbledon on Sky would just be another nail in the coffin of British tennis. It gives them more money, yes, but as the LTA have consistently proven, money does not equal increased interest or success if you cannot manage the sport efficiently.

So you basically end up with richer fat cats and less people watching Wimbledon, which just means less people getting into the sport in the end. Lose-lose.

michael_o wrote:

sportslover wrote:Considering Rooney Gets £250k a week (for kicking a ball for an hour and a half)

That figure is no big deal - after all Tim was one of Englands finest

Yea, but Rooney isn't getting paid out of my licence fee. The BBC simply squanders money......I'd do it for £2000 and would be able to state the obvious just as well as Henman.

WRONG WRONG WRONG!

Rooney earns his £250k in sponsorship deals; United pay him just over half that amount!

Still too much though.

My favourite is McEnroe, he calls it as he sees it, isn't afraid to speak his mind about anything and is very knowledgeable so actually adds something to the commentary. Not a great fan of Henman TBH

I like McEnroe but I can't remember the last time any of them said something during a match that actually enlightened me. I've lost count of the number of times that they say stuff about a trend or switch of play 20 minutes after I've told Mrs Bogbrush.

I like those channel selection matches where you can get the crowd noise but no commentary.

Yes McEnroe has sincerely entered a mould of commentator and is not speaking nearly as freely as he used to on the court.

I like Robbie Koening commenting (spl..).

Robbie Koening is top shelf, a real professional. Have to agree with tenez, he has that silky smooth voice and he knows how to make his points in an understated fashion.

Boris and Sue are rude - they worship Federer and many times said "even federer likes that" when Fed's opponent hit a good point. No respect for Fed's opponents. They are also very boring - esp Sue and always have to be politically correct.

Greg R - his accent is the problem

Mac - better than most

My pick - Tim and Fleming.

Best choice - not to have any no comments is best

I actually like commentators...bad and good ones alike. The bad ones so I can insult them and moke them (quite relaxing when watching a tensed match) and
the good ones of course to comfort my thoughts.

I miss them when I watch tennis live for instance.

Bring back Dan Maskell !!!!

Why can't we have sensible commentators like him any more, we don't really need a technical breakdown of every shot, just some bloke who can talk tennis to us laymen and make the whole thing magical.

Jubbahey wrote:Bring back Dan Maskell !!!!

Why can't we have sensible commentators like him any more, we don't really need a technical breakdown of every shot, just some bloke who can talk tennis to us laymen and make the whole thing magical.

Yes, but what we REALLY don't need is the pathetic amateur psychology after every other point, the dissection of every rally, or the absurd adoration and celebration after a good shot. "Too Good" makes me sick.

"Oh I say!", a few times a match was fine.

I like McEnroe too, also used to quite like Pam Shriver's insight, although her voice and insistence on mentioning, year after year, her 1978 Centre Court match with Sue Barker (a match she LOST?? ) both used to grate with me somewhat.

Henman can be bland but I feel his comments about life at the top level of tennis carry far more weight than those of some of our other commentators. I have a problem with the way guys like Cowan, and Chris Bailey in the past, have been made into TV pundits when all they achieved of note in their playing careers was one glorious defeat at Wimbledon.

Just realised that Henman's salary is considerably more than those players reaching 1/4F. So more money than a top 8 player....without the sweat.

Frankly I do not think it is fair....except that it seems to be the market trend I guess with Sky probably offering as much.