Marion Bartoli breath of fresh air

I have caught one match that she has commentated on, it was a match on the opening day.

To begin with I was slightly annoyed by a commentator who was laughing so much and found it unprofessional. However rather quickly I found myself smiling whenever she got into a fit of giggles and her obvious enthusiasm over a low seeded match won me over in no time. I wouldn't like it during a semi or final so much (or maybe I would) but for an early round match I found her adding a huge amount to an otherwise uninteresting match.

Long may she remain!

Bartoli? Dreadful. Barely comprehensible English and talks all through the rallies. Trust the BBC, with their propensity to go for difficult-to-understand foreign commentators, won't let Marion loose on us at Wimbledon. Am watching the French with the sound down.

Even allowing for the fact that she is new to commentary, I have to say that Ms. Bartoli is quite possibly the worst I have encountered in many many years of TV tennis viewing.

It's pretty clear that, before she was given a microphone, nobody bothered explaining exactly what is - and, just as importantly, what is NOT - expected of her in this role.

I share sfp's fears re Wimbledon, but hopefully the Beeb will not inflict her upon us.

englishborn: you seem to be lacking a breath of fresh air a lot, to like her!

Lags72. If you think Bartoli is bad, Ann Jones was worse. Great player and Wimbledon champion (I was there !) but comfortably the most useless sports commentator I've heard.
To think that the BBC inflicted her on us for....years.

Bah you are all a bunch of humbugs

Sfp : I agree that Ann Jones was really bad, in fact as far as female Brit commentators/pundits are concerned, I think we have been for the most part been pretty unfortunate.

For far too long, BBC Radio used Christine Janes (nee Truman) and she was truly dreadful. But if you wanted to keep up to date with Wimbledon happenings on long car journeys (or at the office   ) there was simply no alternative. I'm pretty certain she was eventually ditched - mercifully.

I also find Sue Barker a very poor TV 'anchorwoman' - too much girly giggling, with virtually nothing to add by way of useful/informed/technical contribution.

More positively, I like Sam Smith's commentary a lot, and Annabel Croft is a decent interviewer (and dare I say, easy on the eye of course .....)

Yes, Croft easy on the eye, but quite dis-coordinated on Live commenting.

Barker, IMHO, opinion, does a difficult job - anchoring, keeping everything together, getting the prog wrapped up before the Nine O'Clock news etc - well.
Yeah, she gushes. But considering her background is playing, not broadcasting, she's OK.
Sam Smith has an awful drony voice. No stress, no ability to convey excitement. She should take lessons on ...just...HOW..to make-your-voice a BIT more interesting.

Jahu wrote:Yes, Croft easy on the eye, but quite dis-coordinated on Live commenting.

Uncoordinated, surely?

Virginia Wade is another wretched commentator, not so much what she has to say, her face is suited to being heard on radio, but not her voice. Ghastly.

Takes an awful lot for a commentator to get any credit from a lot of the armchairs, because they often think a) they're far more knowledgeable and b) they could do a far better job.

I think the fact that sports commentating and punditry is something people would simply love to do as a day job, there is an aspect of jealously in a lot of the comments. It's fairly understandable. Especially as most of the people criticised are mere women doing what many people see as being a man's job.

Well I do understand the points you're making djlovesyou, but in all honesty I don't have that perspective myself when I'm watching (or just listening, in the case of radio).

As an armchair (or occasional stadium-) viewer, I am more than happy to acknowledge that all the commentators I have criticised know way more about what it takes to play at the highest level than I do, or ever will .....hardly surprising when most of them are former Slam champions ...... !!

No, my problem with them is that they so often fail to add anything useful to the match because they make little effort to convey their knowledge/expertise in a constructive manner. The other issue IMO is their lack of preparation, coupled with a casual 'all-I-need-to-do-is-turn-up' sort of approach.

And whilst I'm busy slagging people off, I must add Pat Cash to my list of undesirables.

Lags72. Contrast today's approach with, say (or should that be "Oooh, I say?) Dan Maskell.
OK, Dan was of another age. But there were two things he always did, and did well. One, he prepared meticulously for the matches he would be covering, and two, he didn't say too much.
Story goes that he, for some reason, did not do his usual pre-match mugging up before one particular match, thinking he'd be OK, only to get into a terrible muddle once he took to the mic.
One of the best of the modern commentators to let the pics tell the story? Barry Davies, who is still going strong.

They sure don't make 'em like Dan Maskell any more ......!

IIRC, he was often joined for Wimbledon commentary by the equally restrained Jack Kramer.

lags72 wrote:Well I do understand the points you're making djlovesyou, but in all honesty I don't have that perspective myself when I'm watching (or just listening, in the case of radio).

As an armchair (or occasional stadium-) viewer, I am more than happy to acknowledge that all the commentators I have criticised know way more about what it takes to play at the highest level than I do, or ever will .....hardly surprising when most of them are former Slam champions ...... !!

No, my problem with them is that they so often fail to add anything useful to the match because they make little effort to convey their knowledge/expertise in a constructive manner. The other issue IMO is their lack of preparation, coupled with a casual 'all-I-need-to-do-is-turn-up' sort of approach.

And whilst I'm busy slagging people off, I must add Pat Cash to my list of undesirables.

They disappoint us tennis geeks, simply because very few of them have as encyclopedic knowledge as the game as we do. If you think about it, it's quote logical - why one earth would you quit the game as a top player and then spend the rest of your time studying every stat

Hence there are only really a couple of exceptions, i.e ex-players who give us something. Petchey is one, simply because I reckon he decided that if he couldn't become a top player or coach he was going to make sure that he excelled at commenting on the game (and largely does IMHO)

Courier is arguably THE exception. A top ex player who studies the small aspects of the game and then explains them to the viewer. I honestly always wondered how he ever competed with Sampras and Agassi - it's obvious that he has a very good attention to detail and probably used that to compensate for other areas he lacked. Consequently, he's best placed out of any commentator to get this across in the best way. Similarly, I bet Murray would make an excellent commentator

Most, like Becker are on the box for star quality and attracting the viewers - not for their tennis knowledge. I mean out of all them Becker talks the most tosh by a country mile

Murray would make a good commentator in terms of his research but imagine listening to him for a 4 hour BO5 epic? I can barely survive his interviews!!

I think co-commentator is a no-win job. It's acceptable that in most sports there's the play-by-play commentator who purely describes what's going on (e.g. Motty, Martin Tyler, Guy Mowbray in football) and isn't normally an ex-player. As for the co-commentator(s) who usually is an ex-player, I think that's a difficult job. Unless you are superb at it (Courier, Petchey will be my tennis examples, Neville in football) then viewers will continue to criticise. As far as I'm concerned, we need studio pundits of course, but do we really need co-commentators? How many matches in any sport have you ever thought "the commentary here today is excellent"? Admittedly, everyone is a football "expert" so the role of co-commentator is much harder there compared to tennis.

I got to listen to her today and shes fantastic, loads of energy, the best female commentator ive heard for sure.
Courier for me is still the commentator holy grail, great voice, witty, good delivery and great knowledge, watching some old videos of him playing, and yeah how on earth DID he compete with that backhand swing?

djlovesyou wrote:Takes an awful lot for a commentator to get any credit from a lot of the armchairs, because they often think a) they're far more knowledgeable and b) they could do a far better job.

I think the fact that sports commentating and punditry is something people would simply love to do as a day job, there is an aspect of jealously in a lot of the comments. It's fairly understandable. Especially as most of the people criticised are mere women doing what many people see as being a man's job.

We probably are all tough critics. I don't mind most commentators but I certainly prefer the ones who say things I don't know - tactical or physiological insight for example. With the internet, keen fans already have so much information at their fingertips through official sites, blogs and forums that it's pretty tough to impress them by simply reading out a few facts from the ATP/WTA media guide.

Have altered my mind a bit about Marion B. She's actually quite good, and quite charming, in the studio, as is Santoro. Becker - pretty awful during matches - is another who is OK in pre-match and post-match situations but lacks the language, or the instant analysis, required to be a match co-commentator.

I'm gonna bump this because she's at Wimbledon. I think Bartoli comes across really well on the TV. She seems like a completely normal lady who just happened to win Wimbledon!! I love her banter with the others too.