Has the want/need for 'insight' ruined commentary?

[Hate]

Reading through a few threads lately about commentary and all I seem to see is posters (including myself here and there) bagging out individuals on the way they work the mic while broadcasting.

To me it seems as though when I am watching a footy match (whether it be on Fox or Channel 7), it is just a constant of the tools up in the box talking about something that relates to the player who has just got the ball.

For example:
'x is not usually one to do that, usually you'll see him pushing up the field, but being strong in a contest.'

By the time the nob has finished saying something along the lines of that, the team has almost kicked a goal or it's been turned over and the other team is about to kick a goal. I'm one for enjoying a nice stat or piece of information, but come on, at least leave it for when a team has just kicked a goal or there is a long stoppage for whatever reason. Maybe I'm the only one who feels like this, but I'd like someone else opinion. Feel free to post your thoughts, would love to read them.

Sandy Roberts seems to be the only one who actually calls the game and doesn't bang on about stupid crap. I'm not sure about radio commentary so I can't exactly comment on it.

Now, I'm not sure but it seems every year this happens more and more, as more 'insight' shows appear. Maybe it's because of the internet and social media where EVERYTHING is seen growing at such a rapid rate, they feel the need to keep up with everything, therefore having to do so in the game. No idea if it's the networks behind it or these commentators are actually spuds and do not know what is actually going in in front of them.

 

[Hate]

For another example.. The ball went out 3 TIMES IN A ROW, and if I were listening without watching, I'd have no idea how it got there? Instead the commentary team were somehow talking about Shane Mumford, who has no damn relation to a Melbourne vs. Carlton game.

 

[ibra]

too many players lookin for easy $$$

 

[AtomicBlonde]

TV commentators should be aware that their audience is actually watching what they are seeing too. It can get frustrating when they bang on with the incidentals whilst the ball is in play but we still see the action taking place. I know, I have had an absolute gut-full of BT and his bloody football factories. It has become self-indulgent rot and never does it stand out more than if you chuck on a match from the 90's, that's how footy should be called.

Radio is much better to listen to and the medium allows for the more extroverted personalities to shine through. If you have a crack calling team on the radio, calling a great close match it is the absolute best.

 

[Pecker]

TV commentators should be aware that their audience is actually watching what they are seeing too. It can get frustrating when they bang on with the incidentals whilst the ball is in play but we still see the action taking place. I know, I have had an absolute gut-full of BT and his bloody football factories. It has become self-indulgent rot and never does it stand out more than if you chuck on a match from the 90's, that's how footy should be called.

Radio is much better to listen to and the medium allows for the more extroverted personalities to shine through. If you have a crack calling team on the radio, calling a great close match it is the absolute best.

I disagree. Have you listened to Rex Hunt and Billy Brownless lately? At least with the TV, you can turn the sound off.

 

[Hate]

Going to give the Swans/Norf game a listen via radio, while watching on TV. See how that pans out and how much I miss, because they aren't calling it.

 

[Docker Alyssa]

Sometimes yes. The fox footy coverage suffers the most from "special comments" people talking over plays with bloated stink. Dermott is the prime offender.

When it's talking over Dwayne Russel and Matty Campbell? So be it. Bring it on.

However, the reason I favour 7's two main crews is because Darce, Richo, Harley and Lethal actually keep their comments well timed. They play off the calling much better than foxtel broadcasts.

I can't wait for a day that everyone is just "AFL commentators" and there is a standardisation and also commentators can be paired up better rather than based on what channel they are contracted on.

Perhaps one day there can be phantom calling too for big games that get replayed. Choose your favourite for a download.

 

[General Soreness]

Commentators are very good at providing detail, but they lack the ability to make those details fit into a broader picture or story about the specific game they are talking about, or that of the game in general. it may be that commentators are trying to hide a lack of knowledge about the latter with an obsession over the former, but I think it more likely that the producers of the telecasts think that a barrage of facts makes their presentation look more authoritative and comprehensive. I'd go for structure over detail almost every time, and I can't help but think that a flurry of detail is a great way to cover over an inability to present a comprehensive picture. I don't want to suggest that there is necessarily anything malicious about the poverty of commentary in this regard. I think there are constraints of time and resources and an overcompensation, or hypercorrection, is only natural. What is a shame then is that there is so little done to correct that where they might, at least in the free-to-air market, as I percieve it. Extremely happy to be corrected on that final point.