Certified Legendary Thread The absolute brilliance that is the C9 commentary team. CC: Brad McNamara

Remove this Banner Ad

It's a strange one for me with Brayshaw. I can't really fault what he says, he has a very sound knowledge of the game, but there's just something in his manner that annoys me. I found him the same when I had to deal with him in the SA grade system. Appreciated his knowledge, didn't care much for him as a person.

He tries way too hard to come across as "hip" or "one of the boys". Too many stupid words/phrases like "dukes", "levers", "wheels" etc. Too much hyperbole - everything is "superb", "magnificent", "enormous" etc.

He needs to tone down the histrionics and just call the game. When he does that, he isn't too bad.
 
He tries way too hard to come across as "hip" or "one of the boys". Too many stupid words/phrases like "dukes", "levers", "wheels" etc. Too much hyperbole - everything is "superb", "magnificent", "enormous" etc.

He needs to tone down the histrionics and just call the game. When he does that, he isn't too bad.

He's a T20 commentator who is calling Test matches. And he's just like Maxwell, whose T20 technique just doesn't work in Test matches either.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Brayshaw is not used to commentating Tests.

I'm not sure he ever will be. The vast majority of his commentary has been footy on MMM.

He knows his stuff, but he just talks far too much.

He should never be a cricketing commentator fullstop. Stick to the AFL.
 
The 3aw commentary is a few seconds ahead of the tv, which is handy in the way that it obviously gives you time to look at the telly if something happens.

While I'm here: Ian Chappell is also commentating on 3aw/Fairfax (along with other stations around the country, I gather), and he's noticeably different; more casual, and tells more of the grouse old stories. I realise that radio is more loose, but still....,

That's a good thing? o_O
 
The 3aw commentary is a few seconds ahead of the tv, which is handy in the way that it obviously gives you time to look at the telly if something happens.

While I'm here: Ian Chappell is also commentating on 3aw/Fairfax (along with other stations around the country, I gather), and he's noticeably different; more casual, and tells more of the grouse old stories. I realise that radio is more loose, but still....,

Ian Chappell cops a lot of stick on here because of telling "old stories", but for mine, Chappell is still the only commentator who can make me stop and think about what he just said. All the others just roll out cliche comments whereas Chappell is always offering food for people who like to think about their cricket. He has a unique way of looking at the game and it's easy to see why he was such an innovative leader.
 
Ian Chappell cops a lot of stick on here because of telling "old stories", but for mine, Chappell is still the only commentator who can make me stop and think about what he just said. All the others just roll out cliche comments whereas Chappell is always offering food for people who like to think about their cricket. He has a unique way of looking at the game and it's easy to see why he was such an innovative leader.
The main problem with Chappelli I find is that his views are a little bit too predictable. You can pick it a mile off - stuff like "The best thing India can do is to take it up to the Australians", "The batsman has put the hook shot away. That's a concession of defeat", "What's the point in having that man on the fence? You need a more attacking field or it sends the wrong message", "The best way to keep the scoring rate down is to take wickets" etc.

It's not that he's wrong, it's just he's been saying them for 35 years - we know you like attacking cricket.

It's also not helpful that his voice is just dull and that he goes on with his old stories ad nauseum. The 12th man showed that beautifully.

However, like you said, he does give a completely different aspect on the game at times. The latest is that Smith should remain captain if he does ok and Clarke comes back. Maybe it was on other people's minds, but it certainly wasn't on mine as an option and the more I thought about it, the more it makes sense. That's when he's at his best and adds something really worthwhile. It also doesn't hurt that he doesn't seem to give a stuff what anyone else thinks of him - he's not afraid to ruffle a few feathers - something that Warne seems to be capable of doing as well. It's nice to have that point of difference in commentary to the supporters club that the rest of them seem to be in.

In short, give me Ian Chappell actually talking about specific things that are happening out on the field, or contemporary cricket issues every day of the week. Keep the story telling Ian Chappell and the one who talks silly fluff stuff away.
 
Ian Chappell cops a lot of stick on here because of telling "old stories", but for mine, Chappell is still the only commentator who can make me stop and think about what he just said. All the others just roll out cliche comments whereas Chappell is always offering food for people who like to think about their cricket. He has a unique way of looking at the game and it's easy to see why he was such an innovative leader.

i cannot agree with you any more.

as kevin sheedy once said, you dont know where you're going unless you know where you've been. i for one enjoy the anecdotes he brings. as you said, he makes you think. i like history and enjoy hearing about the players from that period.
 
Might get bagged for this but I honestly think Mark Nicholas is a superb commentator/ presenter. Really get the impression he was to paint detailed a picture for the viewer of what it is like to play at the vey top even if he didn't quite get there himself. Very slick in the way he presents. Best sports broadcaster still going for mine.
 
Ian Chappell cops a lot of stick on here because of telling "old stories", but for mine, Chappell is still the only commentator who can make me stop and think about what he just said. All the others just roll out cliche comments whereas Chappell is always offering food for people who like to think about their cricket. He has a unique way of looking at the game and it's easy to see why he was such an innovative leader.

A bit too much of it is of the Grumpy Old Granpa variety "In my day, we did it like this.....why don't they do the same? blah blah........"
 
Dear Channel 9 commentators,

On behalf of the Australian cricket family, I would like to suggest a number of language options for you, so that we can go back to enjoying our cricket again, and remove the very strong notion that you are just a bunch of try-hard cockspankers.
  • Wickets. They're wickets, not poles.
  • Balls. Please use this word instead of rocks, dots, cherries or nuggets. It's what they actually are.
  • Hands. Fielders use their hands to catch the ball, not dukes. Same goes with levers. They are arms.
  • Actual names. Mitch Johnson could be MJ, but he's not The Beast or The Animal.
  • David Warner is in great form, but he's not the best batsman the world has ever seen. Neither do his dives, throws, stops or regulation catches redefine cricket.
These should be a good start. For Ian Healy and James Brayshaw, please memorise these immediately and then, next time you're due to be in the commentary box, find a bucket of acid and put your head in it.

Yours sincerely,

Everyone currently watching Channel 9 on mute and listening to ABC Radio
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Dear Channel 9 commentators,

On behalf of the Australian cricket family, I would like to suggest a number of language options for you, so that we can go back to enjoying our cricket again, and remove the very strong notion that you are just a bunch of try-hard cockspankers.
  • Wickets. They're wickets, not poles.
  • Balls. Please use this word instead of rocks, dots, cherries or nuggets. It's what they actually are.
  • Hands. Fielders use their hands to catch the ball, not dukes. Same goes with levers. They are arms.
  • Actual names. Mitch Johnson could be MJ, but he's not The Beast or The Animal.
  • David Warner is in great form, but he's not the best batsman the world has ever seen. Neither do his dives, throws, stops or regulation catches redefine cricket.
These should be a good start. For Ian Healy and James Brayshaw, please memorise these immediately and then, next time you're due to be in the commentary box, find a bucket of acid and put your head in it.

Yours sincerely,

Everyone currently watching Channel 9 on mute and listening to ABC Radio

I like your style.

One of the more amusing things I read last year was that NSW power was planning to build a turbine in Ellerston. They figured the energy from Kerry Packer spinning in his grave would power most of rural NSW.
 
Last edited:
He tries way too hard to come across as "hip" or "one of the boys". Too many stupid words/phrases like "dukes", "levers", "wheels" etc. Too much hyperbole - everything is "superb", "magnificent", "enormous" etc.

He needs to tone down the histrionics and just call the game. When he does that, he isn't too bad.
Nailed it. It works on footy radio as it moves quicker. In tests he calls someone the greatest batsman in the world, you have time to think 'wow he's not even the best in his country' Then he'll call the next bloke the same
 
Dear Channel 9 commentators,

On behalf of the Australian cricket family, I would like to suggest a number of language options for you, so that we can go back to enjoying our cricket again, and remove the very strong notion that you are just a bunch of try-hard cockspankers.
  • Wickets. They're wickets, not poles.
  • Balls. Please use this word instead of rocks, dots, cherries or nuggets. It's what they actually are.
  • Hands. Fielders use their hands to catch the ball, not dukes. Same goes with levers. They are arms.
  • Actual names. Mitch Johnson could be MJ, but he's not The Beast or The Animal.
  • David Warner is in great form, but he's not the best batsman the world has ever seen. Neither do his dives, throws, stops or regulation catches redefine cricket.
These should be a good start. For Ian Healy and James Brayshaw, please memorise these immediately and then, next time you're due to be in the commentary box, find a bucket of acid and put your head in it.

Yours sincerely,

Everyone currently watching Channel 9 on mute and listening to ABC Radio

Clear winner for best post in this thread. Gold.
 
One of the joys of test cricket was to just have it on in the background whilst you do other s**t, back in the day when a whole over could go by with barely a mumbled word from the commentators. Bloody channel nine bean counters would have a coronary these days if that happened.
 
Ian Chappell cops a lot of stick on here because of telling "old stories", but for mine, Chappell is still the only commentator who can make me stop and think about what he just said. All the others just roll out cliche comments whereas Chappell is always offering food for people who like to think about their cricket. He has a unique way of looking at the game and it's easy to see why he was such an innovative leader.
I find him a bit of an arrogant pig and while I respect his record and listen to what he has to say, he doesn't strike me as someone I would like or would have liked to play under. Seems like he had his favourites and if he didn't rate you - that's it. I find it funny that he still feels necessary to campaign against Ed Cowan - is he threatened by Ed's intellect? I heard him on radio yesterday tell McGrath that if he had had of sledged him in his day he would have done such and such. The whole commentary went silent for a minute. I've heard Botham speak about him, I played with two guys who played with him at North Melbourne - not big wraps for him. Very different bloke from what I can work out.
 
I find him a bit of an arrogant pig and while I respect his record and listen to what he has to say, he doesn't strike me as someone I would like or would have liked to play under. Seems like he had his favourites and if he didn't rate you - that's it. I find it funny that he still feels necessary to campaign against Ed Cowan - is he threatened by Ed's intellect? I heard him on radio yesterday tell McGrath that if he had had of sledged him in his day he would have done such and such. The whole commentary went silent for a minute. I've heard Botham speak about him, I played with two guys who played with him at North Melbourne - not big wraps for him. Very different bloke from what I can work out.

Well,, all I can tell you is the Australia players who played under him from 1971 to 1975 and in the World Series Cricket years didn't have any problem with him. Doug Walters speaks glowingly of the effect Chappell had on his playing career, stating Chappell was easily the best captain he played under. I witnessed first hand the respect the Aussie players had for Chappell. I was in a bar at the Sheraton Hotel in Perth, all the players sitting around talking cricket. When Chappell spoke, everyone listened. He wasn't perfect, nor was he always right, but he was always interesting.

Arrogant? Maybe, but I think he found a recipe for success in cricket and demanded it of others. Favourites? Sure, but don't we all have players we prefer to others? Chappell demanded certain things of his players and if they weren't able to deliver, they were out. Sounds like a recipe for success to me. AFL coaches have worked on that theory for years.

Back to the bar in Perth, everyone was enjoying an ale or two, quite comfortable, when Chappell decided he was hungry. At no stage did he ask anyone else to join him, he just stood up and said, "I'm off to get something to eat". As he walked out of the room, the entire team stood up and followed him ..... except for Thommo and Pascoe who preferred to keep drinking. :)

I know Botham isn't particularly enamoured of Chappell, I've heard the story from both sides and they differ so much it's reasonable to think both parties have embellished details of the event. It's difficult to know the full story there. I enjoyed the company of Chappell, but then again, I like people who call a spade a f***ing shovel and not sugar coat responses. I guess some others don't feel as comfortable with that as I do. The one thing you can always rely upon with Chappell is an honest point of view, whether we like it or not.

And whether we like the guy or not, we must never forget what he did for the game by continually fighting the Australian Cricket Board for better pay and conditions for players. I would have loved to play under Chappell, but I guess we are all different.
 
Last edited:
Since when did it take one hour to introduce a day's play? It used to take 10mins. Why do sports broadcasters these days believe that the more they talk, the more they are saying? Just let us see the game and not hear you clowns waffling on.

Cannot agree more. It's the same with the AFL, an hour of pure dribble before the ball is bounced. Unnecessary.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top