...and generally they have no real idea about which players are accurate. A lot of commentators will believe that superstar players like Dangerfield and Fyfe are likely to go back and kick the goal, while a lesser known player with an unorthodox run up / kicking action is likely to be a poor set shot, or somebody who plays ruck or in defence. 'Dangerfield misses from 25 metres out - he'd kick that one 99 times out of 100'.All broadcasters do this, but when they say how accurate someone is in front of goal, then they miss, and they think it's height of hilarity joking about 'commentators curse'. Hear that gag about a zillion times a year.
Not a massive fan of him, especially when he was calling the cricket, but credit where it's due - for a guy so deeply entrenched in a club he is pretty objective when calling North games. If anything when they play the Swans he seems to felate the "Swannies" more than North.Just want put it out there. He is the best for calling it as he sees it. He called out several frees Essendon should have got/ didn't deserve against tonight.
I respect commentators who are prepared to provide an honest assessment of the umpiring. It's an important part of their job.Just want put it out there. He is the best for calling it as he sees it. He called out several frees Essendon should have got/ didn't deserve against tonight.
Luckily they’d need actual analysts.be carful what you wish for. How bad would it be if they let the commentary team loose with the pen or whatever it is the use to mark fielding position's on the cricket telecast