Post a reply

Re: Opinions On The Current BBC Commentators

Postby davisfan » 10 May 2015 Read

The problem with commentary is the sheer amount of it, rather than any individual. It's an incessant stream; everything is overanalysed. Bingham's victory was made almost unwatchable by the constant stating of the bucking obvious. Obtrusive commentary suffocates the moment because e.g. Dennis Taylor interposes himself between you and the events you're witnessing and tells you what you should be thinking, like some old drunk sat next to you who won't shut up. (He's taking a deep breath... shows you what the moment means to him... chalks his cue... continues breathing... looks at the ball... gets back up off the shot again... it's an important shot... this thing you're watching is called snooker... he must be feeling so good right now... his family are delighted... there they are... he's going over to them... he's using his legs to walk...)

It's television, not radio.

Wildey wrote:
sas6789 wrote:Davis: is good In the studio but doesn't cut it in the commentary box for me


as a commentator he is pretty clueless hes outdated in a lot of ways because he thinks like he used to play which was pretty conservative and the game has moved on from the way he was taught back in the day.

hes trying to be modern but it comes across as my mam trying to understand the internet but she hasent a clue.


You don't half talk some crap.

Re: Opinions On The Current BBC Commentators

Postby Wildey » 10 May 2015 Read

davisfan wrote:The problem with commentary is the sheer amount of it, rather than any individual. It's an incessant stream; everything is overanalysed. Bingham's victory was made almost unwatchable by the constant stating of the bucking obvious. Obtrusive commentary suffocates the moment because e.g. Dennis Taylor interposes himself between you and the events you're witnessing and tells you what you should be thinking, like some old drunk sat next to you who won't shut up. (He's taking a deep breath... shows you what the moment means to him... chalks his cue... continues breathing... looks at the ball... gets back up off the shot again... it's an important shot... this thing you're watching is called snooker... he must be feeling so good right now... his family are delighted... there they are... he's going over to them... he's using his legs to walk...)

It's television, not radio.

Wildey wrote:
sas6789 wrote:Davis: is good In the studio but doesn't cut it in the commentary box for me


as a commentator he is pretty clueless hes outdated in a lot of ways because he thinks like he used to play which was pretty conservative and the game has moved on from the way he was taught back in the day.

hes trying to be modern but it comes across as my mam trying to understand the internet but she hasent a clue.


You don't half talk some crap.

if you think Davis is a good commentator by definition you talk Crap by the bucket loads


Davis is better suited in the Studio where his knowledge of the game comes out instead of constant bullocks of his commentary..

in your post you virtually described Steve Davis commentary style to the letter.

Re: Opinions On The Current BBC Commentators

Postby Andy Spark » 10 May 2015 Read

Now that most people agree that the standard of BBC commentary is pretty awful, who (like me) prefers to watch the snooker with the sound off?

Re: Opinions On The Current BBC Commentators

Postby SnookerFan » 11 May 2015 Read

davisfan wrote:The problem with commentary is the sheer amount of it, rather than any individual. It's an incessant stream; everything is overanalysed. Bingham's victory was made almost unwatchable by the constant stating of the bucking obvious. Obtrusive commentary suffocates the moment because e.g. Dennis Taylor interposes himself between you and the events you're witnessing and tells you what you should be thinking, like some old drunk sat next to you who won't shut up. (He's taking a deep breath... shows you what the moment means to him... chalks his cue... continues breathing... looks at the ball... gets back up off the shot again... it's an important shot... this thing you're watching is called snooker... he must be feeling so good right now... his family are delighted... there they are... he's going over to them... he's using his legs to walk...)



rofl rofl rofl

Re: Opinions On The Current BBC Commentators

Postby Skullman » 13 May 2015 Read

Andy Spark wrote:Now that most people agree that the standard of BBC commentary is pretty awful, who (like me) prefers to watch the snooker with the sound off?


It's tempting. must snooker just seems weird completely silent, i.e no sound when balls are hit etc. I've just learned to zone them out.

Re: Opinions On The Current BBC Commentators

Postby _Harry_Potter_ » 04 Sep 2015 Read

I found Taylor to be most insightful and his knowledge of the game and experience is really good!
He literally predicts what the player is going to do before the player does it himself.
I have seen it many times when Dennis draws his line on the screen where he predicts the player will play or should play the ideal shot and am not surprised to see when exactly the same happens as predicted by him.

Re: Opinions On The Current BBC Commentators

Postby Dan-cat » 04 Sep 2015 Read

_Harry_Potter_ wrote:I found Taylor to be most insightful and his knowledge of the game and experience is really good!
He literally predicts what the player is going to do before the player does it himself.
I have seen it many times when Dennis draws his line on the screen where he predicts the player will play or should play the ideal shot and am not surprised to see when exactly the same happens as predicted by him.


I've met Dennis, and I can confirm he has got a big bottom.

Re: Opinions On The Current BBC Commentators

Postby SnookerFan » 04 Sep 2015 Read

GreenRiver wrote:If I was in charge at the BBC, I would have a clear out.

My new, improved commentary team would be:

Vodkadiet
Cloud Strife
Andre147
Wildey
Snooker Fan
Roland
Holden Chinaski
Paddpotter


But slow on the uptake, but I just noticed this. rofl

Couldn't be worse than Taylor.

Re: Opinions On The Current BBC Commentators

Postby elnino » 11 Sep 2015 Read

Tennis and Snooker Commentators should take a leaf out of the late Dan Maskell's and Richie Benaud's book. They enhanced the action unfolding on the screen by saying nothing at all. One admired their subtly different but equally eloquent habit to lead with a well-timed "Oh! I say" in Dan Maskell's case; and, "Well, well… " in Richie's case.

At their best, their pauses helped the spectators crystallize the moment unfolding on screen. Sadly, this technique doesn't appear to have rubbed off on the newer breed of commentators. Neither gave the impression of over stating their own or of the games importance as the current tennis and cricket commentators do.

Richie Benaud once said "Viewers observe for themselves what has happened, then, if necessary, have the commentator add something which will be of value." The key words there are "if necessary". Someone should tattoo that on the back of current commentators microphone-holding hand, especially John McEnroe's and John Virgo's.

Re: Opinions On The Current BBC Commentators

Postby SnookerFan » 14 Sep 2015 Read

I think part of the problem is that the BBC treat snooker as a way of filling daytime television schedules first, and a sporting event second. Which is why the commentary team has become a bit of an old boy's club.

The BBC often don't act like The Masters, or The World Championships, are important additions to the snooker calendar. If they can't be bothered to stay with a match that's gone to a deciding frame, because there's a repeat of Dad's Army or the Hairy Biker's on, then we can't really expect them to care that much who commentates.

Might as well get people in who are remembered from when the sport was popular in the 1980s, or because they appeared on Big Break. Think about it. Apart from maybe Ken Doherty, most of the commentators are probably fairly well known even to people who aren't massive snooker fans. I dare say the BBC choose commentators because they think people will have heard of them, rather than put any real thought into whether potential commentators are any good.
Post a reply