Moved Thread The standard of commentary is hurting our great game

[Ian Dargie]

Prove that it doesn't.

It doesn't work like that.

You're the one making the statement. You're the one asserting that this phenomenon is occurring. The onus is on you to back that up, not on me to disprove your baseless speculation.

If I insist that unicorns are real, it's on me to prove that, not on someone else to come along and disprove my statement.

So either you can point to some damage being inflicted on the game or it's unclear what you're even talking about. What is the nature of the damage that you refer to in the title of this thread?

Can you demonstrate that the game has been hurt by the commentary? If not, you have no argument.

 

[amer]

It doesn't work like that.

You're the one making the statement. You're the one asserting that this phenomena is occurring. The onus is on you to back that up, not on me to disprove your baseless speculation.

Either you can point to some damage being inflicted on the game or it's unclear what you're even talking about. What is the damage that you refer to in the title of this thread?

Can you demonstrate that the game has been hurt by the commentary? If not, your argument is in the toilet.

There was never an argument. If you want one, create one. Adopting the methods you've set for others.

Hope you have a good day.

 

[Ian Dargie]

There was never an argument. If you want one, create one. Adopting the methods you've set for others.

So basically, you're completely unable to support the assertion you made up front.

You talk about damage done to the game but are unable to identify that damage.

So what are you talking about? Is the damage real or imaginary?

 

[amer]

So basically, you're completely unable to support the assertion you made up front.

You talk about damage done to the game but are unable to identify that damage.

So what are you talking about? Is the damage real or imaginary?

Mate whatever makes you feel like you can move on. I'm flexible.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Mate whatever makes you feel like you can move on. I'm flexible.

Is the damage done to "our great game" real?

If so, point to it. If you can't, what are you talking about?

 

[Mister_A]

The standard of commentary used to be really good when channel 9 and 10 had the rights. When 7 got their hands on it, it all went downhill from there.

Bruce- very old-fashioned, cant stand him
Commetti- I can stand him
Tom Harley- Good insight into the game, not bad
BT-absolute flog of the highest order, spends more time stroking his ego than watching the game
Darcy- seriously, does he even watch the game? his analysis is that of a 5 year old's. dumb flog
Richo- I like him
Hamish Mclaughlan- Flog, reminds me of the guy who got everything given to him on a plate
Basil Zemplias-Flog, how did he even get this job?

Dwayne Russell- Worst commentator by far
Hudson- Best commentator by Far
Dermott- Rate him, great knowledge of the game
Jason Dunstall- Ditto
Brad Johnson-not bad, can be a bit bland however
Tony Shaw- pretty bad, he rambles about something frivolous half the time
Jackovich- needs to learn how structure a sentence, terrible
Ruscuito- Rate him, great commentator, impartial views in every game he calls
Roos- can be a bit biased towards the swans, but one of the better commentators

Channel 7/Fox missed out on a great opportunity to get Christian or Lloyd, two commentators who I rate highly

9/10 post. Basically agree with everything here. I would talk up Darcy more and talk down Lloyd more.

 

[ming65]

Still fail to see any evidence - or even a cogent argument - that any commentary hurts the game. Sam Newman's example is a completely different issue....

While not exactly the same issue I'd say it was closely related. That is - a style of commentary that was being seen as bad for the sport, by the people who run the sport.

 

[Ian Dargie]

While not exactly the same issue I'd say it was closely related. That is - a style of commentary that was being seen as bad for the sport, by the people who run the sport.

Keep it real.

The AFL objected to Newman because he was bagging the product every week. There is a clear distinction between that and the quibbles presented here – essentially questions of style – and that's why the AFL won't be intervening.

 

[le dominateur]

Dennis for me is the best but seems to be on the slide, maybe separation from Bruce is the answer, maybe a 10 minute stint in the ruck is the answer.

 

[aflcliche]

Peter Landy and Robbo were good. Sandy was the best and Cometti is still good IMO.

There's not enough "kick a goal son" these days.

 

[ming65]

Keep it real.

The AFL objected to Newman because he was bagging the product every week. There is a clear distinction between that and the quibbles presented here – essentially questions of style – and that's why the AFL won't be intervening.

A clear distinction that nobody sees but you. The AFL approaches a broadcaster with queries about how it's presenting the game and you call it a 'completely different issue' from the one the OP raised? The 'real' world is complex and layered - not the simplistic black and white version you are trying to create here to support an argument.

I also find true in the 'real' world. That the call we most constantly make on others is something we are not seeing in ourselves; and by denying any middle ground in this debate you are guilty of exactly what you accuse the OP of.

 

[Mister_A]

A clear distinction that nobody sees but you.

At some point this will turn from including myself in this conversation to irrelevant to what you two are trying to debate, so read this knowing I haven't read any posts behind your last two in the argument. Why? Because, well... TL/DR.

--

I agree with Ian - saying that Sam Newman's attacks on umpires and the AFL itself is a different case of 'media controversy' then the general shift from commentating the game, towards commentating the game while trying to make the listener/watcher feel involved in their program with the only intention of installing a loyalty factor into the listener/viewer - is a completely valid point.

The main difference being Newman doesn't have an agenda, he just says what he thinks. Radio and TV execs hire a group of commentators that they feel can appeal to an audience enough themselves and bring them in with all this personal drivel that the audience will end up listening for the commentators, not the game - a clear agenda. That is what the main problem is, they are trying to make it more about the commentators then that game itself.

The AFL wont intervene in that because as long as they aren't attacking the game itself then they don't really care. In any case, if the AFL really thought commentary these days was hurting what they perceive as their game you bet they would intervene, just like they did with Sam. They don't though, so the AFL clearly isn't of that view.

Very different cases.

 

[Ian Dargie]

A clear distinction that nobody sees but you. The AFL approaches a broadcaster with queries about how it's presenting the game and you call it a 'completely different issue' from the one the OP raised?

That's right. I've explained the reason.

Newman was actively bagging the product. The commentators criticised in this thread don't do that.

An obvious difference. Don't see how anyone could pretend otherwise.

 

[ming65]

I'm sure the TV networks with their self-supporting metrics, probably based around focus groups and Q-scores, perceive they are doing fine; and of course no-one can deny the ratings. Without meaningful competition between broadcasters I guess we'll never know. I dream of a digital future where you can not only pick your own camera angles but pick your own commentary team as well - then we'd see people voting with their feet.

So Ian you've downgraded from 'Completely un-related' to 'Clear distinction' and now to 'obvious difference' (which I'm not disputing - because they are different, but related, examples). You are now just a hop, step and a jump away from joining our band of footy watching freedom-fighters as we don our red headbands and storm the studios of channel seven; claiming the soul of our great game back from the corporate drones who've hijacked it. Viva la revolución!

 

[Geddy Lee]

Basil interviewing a debutant's mum at the moment. FMD.

 

[Ian Dargie]

So Ian you've downgraded from 'Completely un-related' to 'Clear distinction' and now to 'obvious difference' (which I'm not disputing - because they are different, but related, examples).

I think those characterisations are more or less the same.

Newman bagged the game. No one else did that. Hence, completely different.

If you want to clownishly insist on some tenuous link, then that's up to you. I think you'll struggle to convince people.

 

[Turkey Tom]

Peter Landy and Robbo were good. Sandy was the best and Cometti is still good IMO.

There's not enough "kick a goal son" these days.

Sorry, Peter Landy was crap. The only good commentary calls I heard him do was the Olympic rowing. (IMHO)

 

[ming65]

I think those characterisations are more or less the same.

Oh I see. You are unable to discern the subtle differences between the meanings of those three phrases. No wonder the essence of the relationship I've been trying to describe between the Sam Newman episode and this thread topic eludes you.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Oh I see. You are unable to discern the subtle differences between the meanings of those three phrases. No wonder the essence of the relationship I've been trying to describe between the Sam Newman episode and this thread topic eludes you.

Please. This is embarrassing.

You've flopped around in your own puddle like a fish out of water. And so it continues.

Run along.

 

[bugalugs213]

The standard of games is also hurting.
6-8 terrible teams means a good percentage of the games will be shit.
Don't blame the commentators for trying to entertain a bit more than they otherwise wouldn't.

 

[sutto]

I watch less football this year because the commentary teams are generally shite. There's your evidence, Ian Dargie. I may be ony 1, but I am 1.

 

[Ian Dargie]

I watch less football this year because the commentary teams are generally shite. There's your evidence, Ian Dargie. I may be ony 1, but I am 1.

How will the code recover from this body blow?

 

[ming65]

Please. This is embarrassing.

You've flopped around in your own puddle like a fish out of water. And so it continues.

Run along.

Beautifully demonstrating the grasp on logic that's had you resorting to clumsy little insults rather than furthering your argument. Can't be out of water in a puddle now can we?

Take your time.

 

[crownie]

Basil interviewing a debutant's mum at the moment. FMD.

he does what he is told to do.

Basil speaks well, better then most who do the boundary comments who find it hard to put 2 sentences together.

 

[Mister_A]

Beautifully demonstrating the grasp on logic that's had you resorting to clumsy little insults rather than furthering your argument. Can't be out of water in a puddle now can we?

Take your time.

Haven't seen you dispute what I said so far - which is contradictory to your argument. I think you started to try, then fell completely off topic. Rather than resorting to petty insults towards this guy (which you are both now doing, sending this into a fight rather then debate) pleast try to explain in greater detail just how they are linked in this context.

I don't see how Newman bagging the AFL and getting pulled up for it has any relevance to the OP. You do, so please share why.

I'm not writing this in an aggressive way, just so you know. I just want to fully understand how you link the two.