7Cricket Vs Fox Cricket

Who has the better coverage?


  • Total voters
    256

Remove this Banner Ad

Ponting best commentator - talking about yasir trying to make burns play through onside
 
I don’t really understand Michael Vaughan being on fox cricket. England aren’t here and everyone knows how much the guy loves trolling Australian cricket. Mainly just haven’t found him to be particularly insightful as a commentator either.
 
I don’t really understand Michael Vaughan being on fox cricket. England aren’t here and everyone knows how much the guy loves trolling Australian cricket. Mainly just haven’t found him to be particularly insightful as a commentator either.

playing the "modern Tony Greig" role sticking up for the tourists.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I don’t really understand Michael Vaughan being on fox cricket. England aren’t here and everyone knows how much the guy loves trolling Australian cricket. Mainly just haven’t found him to be particularly insightful as a commentator either.
He was actually one of the only Englishman during the Ashes who gave credit to Smith/ the Aussie bowlers without it being through gritted teeth.
 
Last edited:
I really like Vaughan as a commentator. He's a deadshit on twitter though.

7 probably have the better commentators with Ponting and Katich but I like Wasim Akram on Fox.

But 7 have Slats which sucks a bit.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Yep, I thought that was a bit untidy.

Vaughan looked uncomfortable TBH.

It also makes no sense, collingwood made a fighting 90 at the gabba then followed it up with a double ton at adelaide, it wasn't his fault the ashes was all but over by the end of that test , warnie always had this crap about having to prove you belong to the club by doing it vs the best but even when collingwood did the business with the bat agiant the best around warne still slagged him off.

Way i see it warne is just a petty insecure bloke pretending to be the coolest bloke in the room and he seems to invent slights against his honor over seemingly innocuous or even just plain made up grievances.
 
It was funny listening to Warne going on about how even he was dropped a couple of times early in his career so its something that young players have to expect before they consolidate their spot, and then have someone point out that Warne got dropped again late in his career in the West Indies.
 
I recently read an article bemoaning how poor the MNF coverage had become in the US, with their focus on big garish graphics and clueless commentators, and it got me wondering why TV stations are so keen to attract non-sports fans to their telecasts even at the risk of alienating the rusted-ons who make the rights so valuable in the first place. It's certainly how it felt in Nine's last few years.
 
I recently read an article bemoaning how poor the MNF coverage had become in the US, with their focus on big garish graphics and clueless commentators, and it got me wondering why TV stations are so keen to attract non-sports fans to their telecasts even at the risk of alienating the rusted-ons who make the rights so valuable in the first place. It's certainly how it felt in Nine's last few years.
Because they know the rusted-ons will watch anyway, especially if it's a monopoly situation.

What I don't get is why their approach would attract casuals/non-sports fan. It just looks off-putting to any kind of person. Perhaps I over-estimate the lowest common denominator....

Also interestingly I find that 7's coverage seems higher-brow than Fox's despite being FTA rather than subscription. Watching 7 at times feels very radio-esque (no doubt an influence on signing so many ex-ABC guys + Ponting), whereas Fox feels more of a standard TV coverage (but probably still better than most TV cricketing broadcasts). From what I remember the 4 and Sky were kind of similar in that regard?
 
Also interestingly I find that 7's coverage seems higher-brow than Fox's despite being FTA rather than subscription. Watching 7 at times feels very radio-esque (no doubt an influence on signing so many ex-ABC guys + Ponting), whereas Fox feels more of a standard TV coverage (but probably still better than most TV cricketing broadcasts). From what I remember the 4 and Sky were kind of similar in that regard?
Fox's coverage is produced by Brad McNamara, Nine's ex-producer during their worst years. While it's miles better than Nine it still has a bit of a Nine feeling around it such as having 3 commentators and Warne running his mouth.
 
Fox's coverage is produced by Brad McNamara, Nine's ex-producer during their worst years. While it's miles better than Nine it still has a bit of a Nine feeling around it such as having 3 commentators and Warne running his mouth.
Also worth noting that Channel 7’s cricket coverage is produced by the guy that used to do channel 10 BBL coverage - which was fantastic
 
Channel 7 have easily got the right idea when it comes to their coverage.
They use the old fashioned microphone that you have to raise to speak - this is so that none of them talk over each other and so that they don’t over speak (both things that Fox do)
Furthermore, they don’t show the commentators in the box during test matches because they know that the game is more important. This is shown in most of the commentators they hire.
 
Back
Top