BroadstairsR 2,272 Posted April 20 (edited) I like Goreham, he is always quite moderate and avoids sensationalism as I see it. Motty was exceptional and a character, but grew increasingly sensationalist: "And they've kicked off!" Those South American commentators have always been a scream "go .............................................................................................................................. al." Edited April 20 by BroadstairsR Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conrad 223 Posted April 20 Commentator's very rarely commentate anymore, they now all want to be pundits. I would rather not listen to their opinion, but have a factual report on the game instead. Particularly on TV as then I can decide for myself. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Worthy Nigelton 1,277 Posted April 20 We're so lucky with Goreham. He's way better than loads of Sky and BBC commentators. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Robert N. LiM 5,944 Posted April 20 Yeah, Goreham is absolutely excellent. You really notice the difference when your dodgy stream gives you the other team's commentators. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ulfotto 773 Posted April 20 Barry Davies by a mile 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conrad 223 Posted April 20 The 'mute' button often provides the best commentary. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Commonsense 798 Posted April 21 18 hours ago, Conrad said: Commentator's very rarely commentate anymore, they now all want to be pundits. I would rather not listen to their opinion, but have a factual report on the game instead. Particularly on TV as then I can decide for myself. This absolutely. What I find particularly annoying is the ones on national radio, who seem to think that their job is to chat amongst each other about general football related issues rather than commentating on the actual match, often missing the build up to goals. 5 Live has a particularly annoying habit of repeating about every 10 minutes the games they have ‘coming up’ instead of focussing on the one which is actually taking place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,529 Posted April 21 3 minutes ago, Commonsense said: This absolutely. What I find particularly annoying is the ones on national radio, who seem to think that their job is to chat amongst each other about general football related issues rather than commentating on the actual match, often missing the build up to goals. 5 Live has a particularly annoying habit of repeating about every 10 minutes the games they have ‘coming up’ instead of focussing on the one which is actually taking place. I hardly ever listen to radio commentary personally, but I quite enjoy that style of commentary on the TV. We've got eyes to see what's happening for ourselves, so a little background chat makes it more interesting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conrad 223 Posted April 21 1 hour ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said: I hardly ever listen to radio commentary personally, but I quite enjoy that style of commentary on the TV. We've got eyes to see what's happening for ourselves, so a little background chat makes it more interesting. Each to their own, I guess, as that is the part that I often dislike. However, I feel that you may be missing my point. I don't object to the pundit offering an insight based on their experience (I often welcome it as it helps my understanding). What I don't like is the commentator offering their opinion, based on what they have just seen and without the benefit of the pundits experience. I can see for myself, thank you. What a commentator says can have an impact on a person's perception and I would therefore rather that they stuck to commenting on the action on the pitch. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt. Pants 4,882 Posted April 21 Goreham and Radio Norfolk are OK except I don't want to hear about Kings Lynn in the middle of a Norwich game. Having a pundit on co-comms can actually dilute the primary commentary particularly if they are bias or have the same old agenda everytime. Barry Davies and Motty were past masters as they were focused on what they were watching. It's a bit too much double act now. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CANARYKING 703 Posted April 21 Can’t stand that bloke on THT who spends the first ten minutes spouting every stat possible. Also, bit controversial, female commentators screaming down the microphone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,529 Posted April 21 2 hours ago, Conrad said: Each to their own, I guess, as that is the part that I often dislike. However, I feel that you may be missing my point. I don't object to the pundit offering an insight based on their experience (I often welcome it as it helps my understanding). What I don't like is the commentator offering their opinion, based on what they have just seen and without the benefit of the pundits experience. I can see for myself, thank you. What a commentator says can have an impact on a person's perception and I would therefore rather that they stuck to commenting on the action on the pitch. Yeah, I agree that the co-commentator, analyst, or whatever you want to call him should be the one to give tactical insights. But the 'main' commentator should also provide background information, facts and stats, which often lead to a little bit of chit-chat, and I quite like that, personally. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites