Channel 7 commentary whinge thread 2018-19

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

I think it was Alison Mitchell early in the day claiming that letting our number 10 and 11 bat sent the wrong message that we didn’t have enough runs. I’m utterly baffled by her logic.
 
I think it was Alison Mitchell early in the day claiming that letting our number 10 and 11 bat sent the wrong message that we didn’t have enough runs. I’m utterly baffled by her logic.
It was completely weird, can't imagine many skippers telling the number 11 to not bat because of a 250 run lead on day 4, but the logic was that with the way the pitch was behaving it was a risk to our two opening bowlers. Especially after Cummins and Lyon had gone cheaply and was looking like Starc or Hazlewood wouldn't last much longer anyways. Risk vs Reward thing.
Obviously turned out to be a valuable partnership and well luckily we didn't hear any more of that theory when Hazlewood was splitting the gap between deep point and third man for 4.
 
I guess I shouldn't reply.. the coverage is no bother... s**t is as s**t expects and if you don't like em then it is going to be s**t..

not found a problem, and no more s**t than channel nine was... grubby and grim and grumble is as it does...:p:rolleyes::thumbsu:
 
The only examples I can think of is that he thought there was an edge behind yesterday when there wasn't and that he called an over one ball early today.
However, I think he is the best lead commentator at Seven, better than Brayshaw and Mitchell.

bit hard on tim lane there,

the legendary bill Lawry would always cry "yesss got him gawwwwwn' and then "noooo - almost - I thought he nicked it then" etc etc
 
bit hard on tim lane there,

the legendary bill Lawry would always cry "yesss got him gawwwwwn' and then "noooo - almost - I thought he nicked it then" etc etc
That comment was in reply to another one criticising Lane, I fully agree with you and think that Lane is a great caller.
And yes, Bill Lawry is certainly missed in the commentary box!
 
Love how people want to s**t on Channel 7 so much, they’re now complaining about Mitchell and Lane :rolleyes:

The coverage is so much better than 9. Yes Slats isn’t ideal at all, but both stations have their downsides. Talking crap about Mitchell and Lane is baffling, to say the least - IMO at the least on par with Isa, who everybody seems to froth over
 
Love how people want to s**t on Channel 7 so much, they’re now complaining about Mitchell and Lane :rolleyes:

The coverage is so much better than 9. Yes Slats isn’t ideal at all, but both stations have their downsides. Talking crap about Mitchell and Lane is baffling, to say the least - IMO at the least on par with Isa, who everybody seems to froth over
Indeed. Mitchell and Lane are very good lead commentators, they call the action accurately and let the analysts have their say. I even think that James Brayshaw is not bad, certainly better compared to how he was on Nine. The Seven coverage is not much worse than Fox I think, Ponting is an excellent analyst and Greg Blewett is quite good. The only negative would be Fleming, he's irritating me now.
 
Love how people want to s**t on Channel 7 so much, they’re now complaining about Mitchell and Lane :rolleyes:

The coverage is so much better than 9. Yes Slats isn’t ideal at all, but both stations have their downsides. Talking crap about Mitchell and Lane is baffling, to say the least - IMO at the least on par with Isa, who everybody seems to froth over
Isa's hot though
 
Greg Blewett is quite good
I hadn't heard him for a few years but he's seemed really good this test. Would be good for 7 to get him on a full time basis and works well with Ponting

Agree with everyone here re Slater; Biggest mistake 7 have made by far. Fleming needs to understand he's not funny because when he's being serious he's passable.

Mitchell and Lane are great and JB is hugely improved from his 9 days.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Slats is an odd pick up by 7. He's been with 9 long enough to be a 9 person but without any of the likability of Bill/Tony/Richie.

Was driving in the country the other day for a couple of hours listening to the 1st test with Jim Maxwell and friends on ABC. Much easier to listen to than the TV commentary which tends to go OTT and provide endless filler even though we can actually see what is happening on the screen.
 
Slats is an odd pick up by 7. He's been with 9 long enough to be a 9 person but without any of the likability of Bill/Tony/Richie.

Was driving in the country the other day for a couple of hours listening to the 1st test with Jim Maxwell and friends on ABC. Much easier to listen to than the TV commentary which tends to go OTT and provide endless filler even though we can actually see what is happening on the screen.

Knew that would happen the moment Buzz McNamara became the producer on Fox.
 
Radio commentary is soothing and slow paced.

'Sharma comes in and Harris just guides that one to third man for a single'
*low level ground noise ensues*
'In comes Sharma again, wide of off stump and Finch watches it through to the keeper'
*brief reference to ongoing boring anecdote*

Compare that to Channel 7 and there's 3 people nattering away as the bowler is in his run up, the crowd noise mic is turned up and as soon as the ball is back with the keeper some ad for Family Food Fight or some bullshit comes blaring over the screen. All the while the commentators are still crapping on about Trent Copeland's tie or Slats' poor grasp of mathematics or whatever word/phrase Flem has invented that day.
 
I think in some ways radio commentary might be easier. You're forced to talk about the cricket. Even in the middle of an anecdote. It seems the stories and what-not fill the gaps, whereas with TV exactly the same behaviour between deliveries and not talking during the delivery seems more like the play gets in the way of the same storytelling.

And then, TV seems to have people like Slater to the mix - so that they take a harder job and fill with less talented (or utterly untalented) asinine dimwitted campaigners.
 
On one hand, jeez some of you lot love a whinge. You've cracked the absolute shits about every single member of the box. It's actually as though you went in thinking it was s**t, and it turned out to match your expectations; isn't that bizarre? Maybe you should supply the rest of us with the lotto numbers, help us out with your prescience.

On the other, there was something that it seems has been allowed to slip through to the keeper; on day 4, Brayshaw made an offhand comment about how he expected this pitch to get reported, because the game was too one sided for the bowlers.

Brayshaw is/was a batsman, and bats have traditionally occupied the match calling positions after their careers, where bowlers have been resigned to sufficiently low positions despite their prominent roles; it is their job to win a test match, where a batsman's game is to save it or place it beyond the opposition. For decades there has been a widespread notion that a 'good' pitch is one with a) regular bounce, b) good carry, and c) predictable movement; in short, a pitch that is 'good' is good to bat on. A surface where the spinners get assistance is called a 'dustbowl', the quicks a 'seamer', or a 'greentop', a cracked surface with up and down bounce called a 'minefield'; hardly positive terms. It matches the thinking, that the game of cricket is a game for the batsman.

Terrific wicket, and it was the perfect ying to Adelaide's yang; where in Adelaide there was a bit in the surface for the spinner, if you worked at it you could get on top with the bat (or, at least, you were prepared to be patient enough to wait for the bad ball instead of forcing the issue) so too in Perth if you used the surface appropriately and found the right length, you could reliably work a batsman over with the ball. Run scoring was easier in Perth than in Adelaide, but the surface was harder to bat on. A wicket with great character, especially for a first time deck.

This kind of thinking is what creates the 5 day bat-athons, the games that retired Mitchell Johnson, and the reason why we are in such a batting malaise right now. Too many flat decks promoting the wrong kinds of technique and the wrong attitude to batting, where if you can't 'play your natural game', 'put the pressure back on the bowling', 'score at a run a ball', you're not worth selecting.

TL;DR version: * you James Brayshaw. That deck was terrific. Also, some watch to enjoy the game, and others to whinge about a forgone conclusion.
 
Indeed. Mitchell and Lane are very good lead commentators, they call the action accurately and let the analysts have their say. I even think that James Brayshaw is not bad, certainly better compared to how he was on Nine. The Seven coverage is not much worse than Fox I think, Ponting is an excellent analyst and Greg Blewett is quite good. The only negative would be Fleming, he's irritating me now.

Agree.

I think Seven would be better without James Brayshaw as one of the host callers, but they are unlikely to find anyone else as good as Ali or Tim. Like you said, they need to call the action and draw in comment from the expert commentators. Or if they persist with Brayshaw, they should never let him together with Fleming or Slater. Brayshaw tends to let the conversation drift into bullshit or guys having a dig at each other, with Fleming and Slater the worst for it. Those two need a Tim or Ali to keep them on track.

I definitely prefer the format of professional host caller plus experts to add analysis, over Nine's old format of ex-players only. The odd few ex-players (like Gilchrist) can do both, but most can't.
 
For decades there has been a widespread notion that a 'good' pitch is one with a) regular bounce, b) good carry, and c) predictable movement; in short, a pitch that is 'good' is good to bat on. A surface where the spinners get assistance is called a 'dustbowl', the quicks a 'seamer', or a 'greentop', a cracked surface with up and down bounce called a 'minefield'; hardly positive terms. It matches the thinking, that the game of cricket is a game for the batsman.
That's not it at all. The Perth pitch hasn't received criticism because it favoured bowlers. It has received criticism because it had severely variable bounce from the very first day, which came and went at random times in the match.

Not only does that detract from the game as a contest of skill (resulting in random wickets that owe little to the skill of the bowler or the failings of the batsman) but - more importantly - it's bloody unsafe. Vertical movement is far more dangerous than lateral movement. Not knowing if a ball is going to slam into your groin or take off your head after it hits the pitch makes it very, very difficult to evade or play safely.

I am all for dustbowls and seamers and greentops. I also don't mind a pitch showing some cracks and variable bounce on the fifth day. But dismissals like Harris's shouldn't be occurring in the second session of a match.

A good pitch can favour the bowlers, but it also has to play true.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top