Fantastically scathing article about Channel Nine

[The Falcon Strike]

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/feb/13/channel-nine-destroying-cricket-legacy

Simply couldn't agree more!

Among many highlights is this gem:
Michael Slater plays the daft little brother who bounces around after the big kids until they let him have a go. James Brayshaw has the emotional depth of a sock puppet during a button shortage. Between them they offer insights like “Whey-hey!” and “Look out!” and “Turn it up!”.

All I can say is thank you for that link!

It ever so eloquently highlights the inadequacy of the commentary team. I don't mind Taylor as he does talk some cricket.

ABC callers such as Bhogle, Maxwell, Agnew all go off on tangents at time, but the balance is right. O'keefe was particularly astute when talking cricket even being the comedian on set.

Heals, Slater, Brayshaw are bloody woeful. Nicholas is so overly gushing it is sickening. Which is a shame because when he doesn't commentate for CH 9 - he is far more astute.

Brayshaw is fine for T20 - hell they are all fine for T20 - but when we have 5 days of cricket - some technical analysis would be welcome. Even if they do mention their time and experiences they had and how it might compare to what we are watching.

 

[sherb]

Gus Worland's counterpoints on Triple M are nonsensical.

Basically says "their ratings are pretty good" and that he loves 'the stories'. Seems like a superficial response to a pretty detailed critique.

A few thoughts on that interview.

1. The question to Geoff Lemon if he had any personal grudges against any of the commentators, implying of course that that could have influenced the article. Well, if you are going to go down that road boys, disclose your own interests and let us know who of you is friends with who in the C9 comm box, if at all.
2. "Who makes you the judge of what's good and what is bad". Excuse me? He's not offering himself as the judge, he's written an opinion piece. Based on feedback from many, many people. And backed up by many, many more people since the article was written. What a juvenile question. And brilliantly rebuffed by Geoff Lemon might I add.
3. "And they throw back to when they were playing good". Good? What a stunning command of the language.
4. There seemed to be a bit of lecturing of Geoff Lemon going on, which is an odd way to conduct an interview with a guest. I was more interested in what he had to say, which is the point of an interview. They could have offered any further commentary afterwards.

I'm not familiar with the show, but maybe having one person basically acting as the devil's advocate (in this case sounding like McNamara's PR man) is how they work.

I wasn't overly impressed with it though.

Must write to Mr Lemon and thank him for such a sweet article, which has obviously left a sour taste in certain people at Channel 9.

 

[Kram]

Brayshaw is fine for T20 - hell they are all fine for T20 - but when we have 5 days of cricket - some technical analysis would be welcome. Even if they do mention their time and experiences they had and how it might compare to what we are watching.

Only part I disagree with is this, just because it's the shortest format doesn't mean it deserves to be smothered with complete stupidity as well.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Only part I disagree with is this, just because it's the shortest format doesn't mean it deserves to be smothered with complete stupidity as well.

That is how the game is pitched though

Dancing Girls, Fireworks, Music between balls, announcers saying "cooeee" - it is a different game.

Test cricket has nuance, deep strategy, changing conditions. I mean in how may other sports are there times when scoring less increases your chance of winning?

T20 is bash/crash and deliberately overly excitable. Channel 10's commentary of the big bash was even more self absorbed than Channel 9 - there was just as much footage of the commentators as the play on field. Brayshaw's style of lightweight hyperbole commentary suits that format.

 

[King Elvis]

Gus Worland's counterpoints on Triple M are nonsensical.

Basically says "their ratings are pretty good" and that he loves 'the stories'. Seems like a superficial response to a pretty detailed critique.

Most of the Big Bash commentary shat on the 9 one; because the stories were fresh, not forced, and weren't the focus. The guys on there also aren't afraid of disagreeing and arguing with ech other.

 

[Dennis Cricket]

Not sure if this has already been shared, but here's Geoff Lemon talking about his piece.

I noticed some hits on my site from BF and thought I'd come investigate. Thanks for the link mate.

Funny thing about Brad McNamara is that he was a member of '6 and Out'. We use the band's song as the intro music to my cricket podcast 'Can't Bowl Can't Throw'.

He's blocked me after I interviewed Geoff Lemon.

I found it funny

 

[King Elvis]

Sup Dennis?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

2. "Who makes you the judge of what's good and what is bad". Excuse me? He's not offering himself as the judge, he's written an opinion piece. Based on feedback from many, many people. And backed up by many, many more people since the article was written. What a juvenile question. And brilliantly rebuffed by Geoff Lemon might I add.

Agreed. That was ridiculous.

3. "And they throw back to when they were playing good". Good? What a stunning command of the language.

Toward the end, Worland also mentions the importance of having 'tactical nonce' in the commentary box.

4. There seemed to be a bit of lecturing of Geoff Lemon going on, which is an odd way to conduct an interview with a guest. I was more interested in what he had to say, which is the point of an interview. They could have offered any further commentary afterwards.

The reality is that Lemon's argument is far more cogent and articulate than any of the counterpoints.

His observations about the inane banter and overall dumbed-down tone; the contrived, over-the-top blokeyness, in-jokes and back-slapping. He nails Brayshaw perfectly. And the way this is dressed up as being 'engaging' and now accepted as the new one-size-fits-all default for sports broadcasting in Australia. I think a lot of people read that and immediately recognised it as an accurate characterisation of what's so irritating about the coverage.

In reply, Worland offers: 'Nah, I like it. It's good.'

 

[holybishop]

Now that's funny. Mates have each others back I guess

 

[Illinois Nazi]

I just wonder how the guy managed to have any sort of cricket career at all if he is totally unable to accept criticism.

 

[sherb]

I just wonder how the guy managed to have any sort of cricket career at all if he is totally unable to accept criticism.

Or a career of any type.

 

[Borry]

Worland's just another typical dumbarse Roosters fan anyway.

 

[Dennis Cricket]

Sup Dennis?

The sky?

 

[Starburns_]

I just wonder how the guy managed to have any sort of cricket career at all if he is totally unable to accept criticism.

Maybe that's what held him back...




...that and a talent defiency.

 

[Borry]

Surrounded by too many self-absorbed equally thin skinned yes men most of his life me thinks.

 

[King Elvis]

Now that's funny. Mates have each others back I guess

Twitter bros on here are piling on, I hope?

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Maybe that's what held him back...




...that and a talent defiency.

Even a Sheffield Shield career is a successful cricket career, so at some point he must have had people telling him things he was doing badly and correcting him.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Only part I disagree with is this, just because it's the shortest format doesn't mean it deserves to be smothered with complete stupidity as well.

The point is that T20 is over quickly. With Test cricket, there are five days to be padded out with blokey banter and 'colour'. And after five days, that's guaranteed to wear thin.

 

[King Elvis]

The point is that T20 is over quickly. With Test cricket, there are five days to be padded out with blokey banter and 'colour'. And after five days, that's guaranteed to wear thin.

Benaud and Co didn't need to use blokey banter and colour to pad it out.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Benaud and Co didn't need to use blokey banter and colour to pad it out.

Agreed. But this lot aren't as sophisticated as Benaud, hence the criticism.

They can conceal it amid the crash, bang, wallop of T20. But it sticks out like a sore thumb over five days of Test cricket.

 

[drummond2fevola]

Twitter bros on here are piling on, I hope?

I'm sure everyone has been blocked by now.

 

[ManWithNoName]

I'm sure everyone has been blocked by now.

I've had two cracks at him and have somehow avoided the banhammer.

 

[Starburns_]

Even a Sheffield Shield career is a successful cricket career, so at some point he must have had people telling him things he was doing badly and correcting him.

Doesn't mean he was listening though. Probably thought he was top s**t by the time he was a senior player in the NSW system too.

 

[Belnakor]

Benaud and Co didn't need to use blokey banter and colour to pad it out.

I'd like a words per minute metric for commentators

 

[western royboy]

My thinking is that Triple M style of footy commentary, blokey, jokey, nick names called as if we're all in a pub trying to get the one up on each other has pervaded into the CCP. At times I don't mind that type of commentary for footy, but usually I have a minimum of at least another 1-2 options that I can change to if it starts to grate on me. Obviously with the cricket we don't have that option and that's why we have the backlash.

The article has resonated with all types of cricket fans. I hear people pretty high up in the food chain had sore necks from nodding in agreement with what was written. Channel 9 and the Buzzard would be foolish if they ignored the feedback, but based on his childish response via Twitter, we probably have the answer.

The Channel 10 has shown up the 9 stuff as being jingoistic and second rate. Billy Birmingham has more ammo for a new round of 12th Man recordings. Get to it Billy.