The purpose of TV commentators

It's pretty clear what the purpose of radio commentators. But what about ones on the tele? There are more that I dislike than ones I like. Are they there to describe what is going on to the novice? Are they there as 'live' pundits to give their valued opinion on tactics, etc? Are they there simply to fill the audio track when the ref isn't speaking?

Some of my likes/dislikes.

I don't like rambling waffle (e.g. Mark Robson on Sky, Eddie Butler on BBC)
I don't like it when commentators talk over the ref mike, giving their opinion on what a penalty was given for, so you can't hear his actual reasons (e.g. Stuart Barnes on Sky)
I do like it when they pick on particular tactics being used and highlight them (Healey and Kay on ESPN, Davies and Moore on BBC)
I don't like it when they use their position to whine about what they think is wrong with the game (e.g. Moore and Davies on BBC, Barnes and Morris on Sky)
I do like it when they listen to what the ref is saying and expand on it (e.g. Moore on BBC, Healey and Kay on ESPN)

Those examples aren't exclusive and just based on gut.

My preferred ones are Healey and Kay on ESPN. The other guy doesn't add much but they're pretty good. I like Moore and Davies but both focus on their own teams (often the negatives) and tend to complain a lot.



EDIT: BTW this is supposed to be more about what you want from a commentary team not which one's you hate (although they can be used as examples of course)

I think they are there to fill the void between scrum setups, injury breaks, kicks to goal and general info.

I think you're confusing commentators and pundits. The commentator is the main guy who is supposed to do the narrative, e.g. Bill McLaren. I like to think if I was blind a good commentator would make it possible for me to listen to the game and understand what was going on. McLaren was good at doing this.

The co-commentator/pundit, call them whatever, are there precisely because of their expertise and experience in the game so that they can explain to the fan the technical aspects (a la Moore) and tactical plays (a la Jonathan Davies). For them not to provide this service would be negate he need for them at all (which isn't a bad thing if you've got someone as good as McLaren). They are there just for this purpose.

Usually the main commentator is not a top ex-player, like McLaren, Miles Harrison on Sky, the Northern Irish guy off Sky, the Welsh guy who does Welsh regional rugby (I'm crap with names!). Eddie Butler is a bit if an exception to the rule, and I think that's why it's like Burt and Ernie with him and Moore - it's essentially two pundits instead of 1 dedicated and experience commentator and 1 co-commentator/pundit.

When I say commentator I include those that make comments during a game . Those that talk while the game is not on are pundits. Extra comments may come from analysis (the front line on sky) and interviewers (Steele on BBCW) [those are just how I think of them]

Griff, under you definitions I just dislike all commentators. They add absolutely nothing to the experience (IMO). Griff I agree with you on what commentators (your definition) should do but they tend not to anymore and just talk Poopie to fill the void

The commentators should enhance the live action, giving names to players principally, and perhaps adding a bit of colour a la McLaren. Co-commentators should add some colour, and describe individual performances during the gaps in action, perhaps advising viewers what to look out for in each team's tactics. Pundits are for the half-time break, or long gaps in action, expanding on team tactics and individual performances. Analysts should illustrate what is not readily evident to viewers - we, the viewers, miss a lot that a wide angle view shows.

There's variations on that - commentators on u20's or little viewed teams should assume that we know nothing about the players and give stats, etc about the players. Commentators on senior teams should resist regurgitating what the majority of viewers already know.

Bias is acceptable as long as it's open and balanced by others. Squeaky grating voices should be banned, as should spleen-venting.

The purpose of TV commentators is to remind you to turn the sound off.

blackcanelion wrote:The purpose of TV commentators is to remind you to turn the sound off.

A very silent +1.

All the best DJ's dont speak. Just let you listen to the music.

But. Jiffy is a laff without meaning to be. Moore is brilliant. Not a pundit, just a rabid English fan and I love it, specially when England play France. That's entertainment.

I like Healy's on-the-spot analysis

For the rest? Yeah. Shoite. Intrusive.

Gusset, Butler, and that total douchebag Inverdull, just...

I miss Bill Mclaren so much.

The purpose of a commentator is simple: to provide a running commentary of what's going on during a match. Not to be confused with presenters, as their job is to present the TV/radio coverage of the match and provide filler stuff - usually analysis, interviews and the like. You can add to the mix that being entertaining has rapidly become part of the job too. I like a commentator, what would you have instead on TV if you took them away? I don't want to listen to some random fans (sometimes abusive) shouting being picked up on the mic or just the referee's mic. Also, the commentary provides a service to visually impaired viewers.

Commentators are like everything else on TV - some pointless, some terrible, some provide a service and some of it just fantastic.

For me, there are two points in having commentators.

Their primary job is to say the obvious things that casual watchers of the game won't pick upon, and to make the game as accessible and understandable to as wide an audience as possible.

They are not for the diehard fans. If you watch multiple games of rugby a weekend or have a strong background in the game you don't need this info. You can pretty much watch with the sound off and have a similar experience. For the casual viewer who might not fully appreciate the intricacies of the game or watch much rugby they should make obvious the names of the players involved and provide context on what they offer (i.e. Jonny Wilkinson, such an accomplished place kicker...) point out where teams are gaining the ascendancy (a typically powerful scrum from the French, so hard to deal with) and explain things as they happen (and thats gone out on the full from Priestland, which means Wales will have to go all the way back to where the ball was kicked...). This is good as it means more people will have a handle on the game and enjoy it- maybe even get down to support their local club, amateur or professional, who knows.

The second major thing they should do is add colour and atmosphere to the occassion. This is a classic example;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmpjxVv6Od8

The commentary is as memorable as the try! Brilliant stuff from Jim Neilly there. Not that I'm biased or anything

Notch - you know when you get a bruise and it hurts to touch it, but you can't help enjoying the sensation a bit so you just keep touching it? That's what watching that video is like for me

I like it when they analyse the game and point out something you didn't notice (Dean Ryan and Will Greenwood), apart from that they're pretty pointless just pointing out the obvious. I quite like it when they banter though (Ben Kay & Austlin Healy, OZ fox sports gang).

Bit of a contradiction there. The commentators can't be entirely pointless if you find them helpful (pointing out things you didn't notice) and entertaining (the banter etc).

I think it's fair to say it depends on who is commentating really. Like I said above, some are very good at it and others are downright terrible and come across as useless because they're not really saying anything of worth. It must take a some skill to do well because sport isn't scripted and you have to convey what's happening live as you speak to the listeners/viewers. I would've thought that's tougher to do on the radio too.

Cari wrote:Bit of a contradiction there. The commentators can't be entirely pointless if you find them helpful (pointing out things you didn't notice) and entertaining (the banter etc).

I think it's fair to say it depends on who is commentating really. Like I said above, some are very good at it and others are downright terrible and come across as useless because they're not really saying anything of worth. It must take a some skill to do well because sport isn't scripted and you have to convey what's happening live as you speak to the listeners/viewers. I would've thought that's tougher to do on the radio too.

I meant they're pointless if they don't do those things imo. If they're just repeating what they see in front of them then they're pointless.

Analysis and banter are the only good things about commentators and not all of them do it.

Ah I see. Like I said, it does take some skill and not everyone is good at it.

Spoiler:

This sketch sums up some of my feelings. Listen to Brady (the bald one). Commentators are useful, I thik I prefer listening to radio commnetators though. They tend to be incredibly passionate. Michael Corcoran when Munster got that last minute DG this year and when Ireland won the Slam. For another sport, there's a great American Football commentator for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. He is literally the voice of the organisation.

TV commentators need to add some flavour to what is happening and explain where needed, but we all have eyes and can see. Too many talk too much.
The co-commentator/pundit is there to highlight certain things that we, the TV audience may not be able to see.


Radio commentators however have to tell you what is going on as they are your eyes.

Rugby isn't a game that's supposed to be watched in silence, it's about passion and atmosphere, a good commentator/pundit not only helps people understand the game but helps pick up the atmosphere for those watching on t.v.

That's why Jiffy and Moore are my two favourite commentators, both can be completely biased and arguably unproffessional but they produce gems like these..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNzdB-LsjNc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTQWT-B0EBw

Cari wrote:Notch - you know when you get a bruise and it hurts to touch it, but you can't help enjoying the sensation a bit so you just keep touching it? That's what watching that video is like for me

The function of the expert match co-commentator is most definitely not to be spin doctor for his own national side.

I don't know who's the Irish Sky bloke is*, but he's a spin doctor. And on Auntie, Andy Nicol spins many a fine yarn.

* If Paul Wallace nips between between the studio and the commentary box - then he's a Jekyll and Hyde character. (or afraid of FitzPatrick's sarcasm).

Some of the best sports commentators don't actually say very much during the action, letting the game speak for itself, but have the ability to paint a picture with words as the action dies down. Having some characteristic euphemisms (Bill McLaren's 'bit of Argy Bargy' to describe a right royal punch up) help.

The other thing the commentators and particularly co-commentators can help with is in seeing what is happening off-screen - Jiffy's perpetural cries of 'numbers' may be a bit annoying but reflect things he can see on the pitch but we often can't from the closer perspective of the TV cameras.

Oh, and I have little problem with a bit of emotion and bias from the co-commentator (especially when Moore goes into a rant about something England have cocked up), but the main commentator should retain a bit of aloofness - again, back to the legend that was Bill McLaren, who commentated on nephews and grandsons playing for Scotland, but you'd hardly know it from listening to him.

Bill McLaren lost the plot way before he retired. He couldn't cope with the shamatuerim period, he got the names wrong, was full of clichés etc.

He was however infinitely better than his predecessor Peter Wright.

Don't get me wrong. He was good. But not worthy of deification.

He also showed that you don't have be a top-level player to be a classy live commentator - along with John Arlott and Brian Johnson (cricket).

Portnoy wrote:

I don't know who's the Irish Sky bloke is*, but he's a spin doctor. And on Auntie, Andy Nicol spins many a fine yarn.

* If Paul Wallace nips between between the studio and the commentary box - then he's a Jekyll and Hyde character. (or afraid of FitzPatrick's sarcasm).

If it's the Southern Irish guy you're on about that's Alan Quinlan. They also have a Northern Irish guy - he's been covering the Wales/Oz matches recently but I don't know what his name is.

Mark Robson. Worst I've ever heard. Doesn't seem to know the players, doesn't seem to know the laws, doesn't seem to know what's going on.

HammerofThunor wrote:Mark Robson. Worst I've ever heard. Doesn't seem to know the players, doesn't seem to know the laws, doesn't seem to know what's going on.

Mark Robson, while not a god, is a minor deity. I love him. And I'm not even a Nordie. To get true cringe you have to come to our province and experience Ryle Nugent.

Across all sports, the best commentators know when to stay silent. They appreciate that the viewer can see what they're seeing and that often the pictures speak for themselves. Unfortunately, most modern commentators have a terror of silence and feel that they should be talking all the time, even if what they're saying is a load of bum gravy and adds nothing to the viewing experience.

I always enjoyed watching rugby from New Zealand when Murray Mexted and Grant Nisbett commentated just that little bit more for the fact that those two were in the commentary box.

The two of them bounced off each other so well. They were both excellent narrators of a match, but they could also lighten the mood with a well placed quip, such as:

GN: The number 9 landed a punch on the prop behind the ref's back
MM: Yeah, but he's a scrum half so it didn't hurt.

On another occasion when French referee Joel Dume gave two players a finger-wagging rebuke, for a spot of 'handbags at dawn' in a Bledisloe Cup match, Murray described the referees words, not audible to the TV audience thus: "The referee told the players..... (and then put on a comic French accent) ..... I do not want any more to see the little fighting". I just couldn't stop chuckling.

Of course, Murray's gaffes were many and varied, and I wonder if they were all genuine gaffes, or were thrown in deliberately in the knowledge they would become world famous Colemanballs.

Top blokes, Murray and Grant. What a shame they don't work together any more.

.

Those quotations are great!

The best I've heard from Murray Mexted was, "Carlos Spencer is running across the pitch, screaming 'come inside me, come inside me'."