John Virgo And Willie Thorne

Does anyone else find them amusing in commentary? I do mainly because of how critical they are at times of players who are MUCH better than they ever were.

sas6789 wrote:Does anyone else find them amusing in commentary? I do mainly because of how critical they are at times of players who are MUCH better than they ever were.

I've slightly mellowed on Virgo. He used to be my least favourite commentator, but either he's got better of I've just realised how bad the rest of the BBC are.

His "Where's the cue ball going?" bit doesn't annoy me as much as it does some people. I've even got it on a T-Shirt. But other than the ability to make a catchphrase popular, not sure what else he particularly brings to the table commentary-wise. If you like people sucking on Ronnie and Judd's nads, he's pretty good. But that's about it. I find him more amusing when he does those bits at Snooker Legends, but that doesn't necessarily mean he'd make a good commentator.

Willie is perhaps worse. I've seen matches where every comment he's made about a player. You'd think they were a Nazi sympathiser, the way he goes on. Every shot his designated players takes on is wrong, and if they pull it off it was an outrageous fluke. (At least in his opinion.)

I think Willie makes it obvious which player he's had a bet on at times, and for once that isn't meant as me poking fun. I think he has a legitimate problem with gambling. Maybe that's something he needs help with.

SnookerFan wrote:

sas6789 wrote:Does anyone else find them amusing in commentary? I do mainly because of how critical they are at times of players who are MUCH better than they ever were.

I've slightly mellowed on Virgo. He used to be my least favourite commentator, but either he's got better of I've just realised how bad the rest of the BBC are.

His "Where's the cue ball going?" bit doesn't annoy me as much as it does some people. I've even got it on a T-Shirt. But other than the ability to make a catchphrase popular, not sure what else he particularly brings to the table commentary-wise. If you like people sucking on Ronnie and Judd's nads, he's pretty good. But that's about it. I find him more amusing when he does those bits at Snooker Legends, but that doesn't necessarily mean he'd make a good commentator.

Willie is perhaps worse. I've seen matches where every comment he's made about a player. You'd think they were a Nazi sympathiser, the way he goes on. Every shot his designated players takes on is wrong, and if they pull it off it was an outrageous fluke. (At least in his opinion.)

I think Willie makes it obvious which player he's had a bet on at times, and for once that isn't meant as me poking fun. I think he has a legitimate problem with gambling. Maybe that's something he needs help with.

It does me considering he says it even when the cue balls about 10 miles away from the pocket!

Saying that, in the BBC's defence, I think the product in general is aimed at people who are more casual fans.

I think they assume there are a lot of people watching who aren't snooker anoraks, who just like to watch the big events. The World Championship especially.

I saw a lot of people on my Twitter feed praising the BBC commentary, and the majority of those were people who only watch snooker when it was on the BBC. Like it or not, the sort of people who watch snooker no matter how big/small the tournament are the minority. Not everybody is passionate about snooker enough to post on snooker forums about it.

If the majority of fans like jokey banter, and don't mind that commentators laugh about what they did in a golf match, the BBC aren't going to step in and ask them to stop it in favour of detail analysis about cueball control.

sas6789 wrote:It does me considering he says it even when the cue balls about 10 miles away from the pocket!

Yes. That's a point.

With all the BBC stats these days, they should do a Virgo success at predicting cue ball potting ratio.

The main problem is that there is no conformity to a tried and tested method of having two different commentators with two different job descriptions and skill sets acting in harmony. All these ex pros like Virgo and Thorne are crammed into the booth; they can give competent technical insight, but they need to be combined with a smooth talking wordsmith as the other commentator. Someone like a Peter Alliss type figure who knows the English language really well, unlike the typical ex pro snooker player with very limited English language skills.

You have to bear in mind that the career of a pro snooker player does not lend itself to being a brilliant verbal communicator!

I've always thought that.

You need a former pro to explain the shot selection and describe the table and a journalist to know about who all the players are and have the ability to discuss them.

Why have two former pros? It make one unnecessary.

I think willie and john have had their time. I hear lots of critisim about virgo in particular on facebook etc. That thing " wheres the cueball going" is getting a bit old now too

Oh and i see he was cursing at the world championships lol

www.snookercentral.com/john-virgo-gets-in-trouble

I give Virgo some smack, for various reasons (Cue ball, balk cushion & Judd Trump fetish), but Willie Thorne is detestable in the box and I just roll my eyes when people say they enjoy him.

To each their own, but the man is in commentary to offer his perspective; problem is, he doesn't have a perspective. Instead of giving his opinion, he's always asking whoever is in comms with him to clarify things: 'Oh Ken, would /you/ play this shot?' 'Oh, John, would you go into the pack here?' 'What do you YOU say Den, go into the bunch?' 'WHAT DO YOU THINK STEVE, INTO THE PACK?'

The only thing he's really useful for is calling how a player should go about developing a pack of reds, because he's Pack-Master Willie, apparently.