Biased Australian Commentators
Glen Camarlinghi
listening to the end of the run chase in Sydney the other night on
Australian radio. It amazed me how in a situation where SL were going down
to a pretty bad defeat, Dean Jones took the chance to take pity on the
plight of Damien Martyn! The plight of the Sri Lankans was never mentioned.
They might as well not have been on the field.
Speaking of biased, the media has gone just a little overboard with
Gilchrist's innings by describing it as one of the best ever. As splendid
as it was, even I have seen better but then unlike most commentators, I take
into account games which take place OUTSIDE Australia. A good example of
this was Dean Jones' 145 against England. Ian Chappell asked him after the
innings if that was his best innings because he'd never seen Jones play
better. Now, anyone who saw Jones' massacre of Hadlee and Morrison at
Auckland nine months before knew that innings was the closest to a perfect
ODI century one could hope to see. He jumped down the pitch to the fast
bowlers and played outrageously across the line to hit sixes. Jones cited
that innings to Chappelli as better than the flawed 145 from which he only
really excelled after he reached three figures.
I would like to think the commentators know what their doing and are
just playing to their audience's prejudices Unfortunately, I think they get
lost in the hype of the moment and they are biased.
--
Glen Camarlinghi
gho...@ozemail.com.au
White Rock
Queensland
Australia
cockatoo
not sure what the role of commentator is these days. I don't need them to
tell me what is happening...I can see that (many times replayed)...it seems
they are there to fill in the time between balls. I don't really mind a
commentator who is biased, so long as he is reasonably knowledgeable and
has something interesting to say. There is no guarantee that just because
a person has been a fine cricketer he is worth tuppence as a commentator.
The best commentators are those who can keep quiet when there's nothing
worth saying.
On the subject of commentator bias, cricket gets off reasonably lightly
compared with some other sports. I well remember Norman May at the Los
Angeles Olympics calling the women's 400m (I think) medley relay.
Listening to Norm, you would think that Lisa Curry was the only swimmer in
the race. It was only in the last 25 metres that Norm realised that Lisa
wasn't going to get a medal and turned his attention to the other
Australian in the race (Michelle Pearson) who had led Curry throughout and
was about to get bronze. Let us all thank our lucky stars that we have
managed to keep Norm out of cricket!!!!
Glen Camarlinghi <gho...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in article
<77krkb$uu5$1...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>...
Harish Chandramouli
South African trio of Quirk, Irvine and Jackman. Or for that
matter, even the deadly quadro of Gavaskar, Manjrekar, Lal
and Charu.
You'll be literally begging for the likes of Lawry and Greg
Chappell to re-appear in the box, when and if you manage.
Cheers,
Harish [who doesn't mind the Ch.9 lot at all]
vig...@eros.its.deakin.edu.au
: Biased *Australian* commentators? You wait till you hear the
: South African trio of Quirk, Irvine and Jackman. Or for that
: matter, even the deadly quadro of Gavaskar, Manjrekar, Lal
: and Charu.
: You'll be literally begging for the likes of Lawry and Greg
: Chappell to re-appear in the box, when and if you manage.
Well, Lawry supports other teams than Australian teams some
times.
"That was out.. certainly the ball was going to hit the
stumps... and hit tha pads... Ohh Ohhh Nooooo...
Umpire says not out"
The next line was,
"Headley is disappointed... It was a close call".
With his tone and decidel level, one would have thought that
Lawry was from England.
But, I was little disappointed with Channel 9 team. The
way they defended the third umpire decision on Slater's
run-out, there was no comment on Ranatunga's...
Stephen Tjasink
> Biased *Australian* commentators? You wait till you hear the
> South African trio of Quirk, Irvine and Jackman. Or for that
> matter, even the deadly quadro of Gavaskar, Manjrekar, Lal
> and Charu.
The problem with Quirk is that he's just stupid and doesn't realise
that there can be another side to the story. I shudder every time I hear
his voice and usually have to turn the sound off. I enjoyed him
commentating
with Boycott once; Boycott told him he was being stupid about something
and proceeded to tell his own version of it (which might also have been
biased but was more reasonable).
Stephen
--
/=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\
| Stephen Tjasink aka stja...@cs.uct.ac.za |
Vermillion |
| University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa |
-==UDIC==--==UDHISS==- |
\=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\/-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=/
Harish Chandramouli
Stephen Tjasink <stja...@cs.uct.ac.za> wrote:
>The problem with Quirk is that he's just stupid and doesn't realise
>that there can be another side to the story. I shudder every time I hear
>his voice and usually have to turn the sound off.
Quirk isn't half the problem. Having heard him over the years, I,
like most people I know, have by now learnt that the *only* way
to listen to him, is to turn the sound off and look in the other
direction...but what I've heard from Irvine (in particular -- as
I was once under the impression that he was a fairly impartial
and knowledgable sort) and Jackman especially over the last few
tests, does annoy me to a much larger extent.
I enjoyed him
>commentating
>with Boycott once; Boycott told him he was being stupid about something
>and proceeded to tell his own version of it (which might also have been
>biased but was more reasonable).
The Boycott-DeKock (yeah whatever) pair is far and away the
most enjoyable of the lot to listen to. Boycott is Boycott;
and you've just gotta love the way Gerald indulges in those
quiet "umm's" from time to time ie when he happens to think
the other person has said something reasonably "profound",
or even something that he happens to agree with.
Cheers,
Harish
samarth harish shah
> Biased *Australian* commentators? You wait till you hear the
> South African trio of Quirk, Irvine and Jackman. Or for that
> matter, even the deadly quadro of Gavaskar, Manjrekar, Lal
> and Charu.
Well, I don't really think Gavaskar is biased. I haven't heard too much
of Manjrekar - just a couple of "tamasha" matches. Who's this Lal guy?
Akash Lal? Charu Sharma sucks big time - no question about it. It's so
embarassing when he refers to India as "we" and India's opponents as
"they". I know he's Indian, but he doesn't have to be that blatant about
it. I think Harsha Bhogle's great and Ravi Shastri's borderline - not too
bad, not too great. Boycott, of course, is my favorite. He is a favorite
of most Indians, though.
I don't think the Australian commentators are bad at all. They never seem
to know the names of the opposing players, unless they're English
(probably because they play England every 2 years). But, I really like the
guys from Channel 9 (including Tony Greig!).
I like English commentators too. They sort of keep you in the game.
They're interesting to listen to, which is a little more than I can say
about the English cricketers. They also have a very, very good knowledge
of the game and its history - that's something that Indian commentators
really lack, apart from SMG and Harsha Bhogle.
Pakistani commentators, well, aren't as good as Indian commentators,
although, I think I can tolerate them. Same with Ranjit Fernando. He's not
gonna keep me awake all night listening to him, but he's tolerable. I
think Robin Jackman, Lee Irvine and Gerald De Kock are also quite good.
Trevor Quirk is a real moron. I absolutely detest him. I don't know how he
can develop such a dislike South Africa's opponents. I don't think Alan
Donald dislikes opposing batsmen as much as Trevor Quirk does! When Trevor
Quirk's speaking, I really pray for an audio failure...
-Samarth.
Wakelpa
How about :
(Sri Lankan batsman takes off for a quick single)
Bill Lawry : Ooooh there could be a run out here!
(Aussie fieldsman pings at stumps, misses and nearly concedes overthrows)
Bill Lawry (in almost the same breath) : Well that was just foolish, there
was no chance of a run out there.
Bias? Just stupid, methinks
--
Regards
Peter
wak...@ozemail.com.au
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Practice random acts of intelligence & senseless acts of self- control.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew O'Neill
Ian Chappell - Great knowledge, but rambles on too much of crap like, I
remember Ian Redpath once played a shot like that in 1965.
Bill Lawry - I think he is anti Aussie, except when he is a Victorian. He is
over dramatic.
Tony Greig - He is ok without being great. Some days you think he is England,
Australia or South Africa.
Richie Benaud - A great knowledge of the game, lets it flows. He is a champion
at his profession.
Mark Taylor & Ian Healy - Both on the rise, look out for them.
I was impressed with Shane Warne too in the first Test, but he was a bit more
attached to the players and Australian side as a commentator then Taylor or
Healy.
Now to the others,
samarth harish shah wrote:
> Well, I don't really think Gavaskar is biased. I haven't heard too much
> of Manjrekar - just a couple of "tamasha" matches. Who's this Lal guy?
> Akash Lal? Charu Sharma sucks big time - no question about it. It's so
> embarassing when he refers to India as "we" and India's opponents as
> "they". I know he's Indian, but he doesn't have to be that blatant about
> it. I think Harsha Bhogle's great and Ravi Shastri's borderline - not too
> bad, not too great. Boycott, of course, is my favorite. He is a favorite
> of most Indians, though.
I liked Bhogle.
When Gavaskar was here in 91/92, I had my TV on mute for him. The 2nd worst
I've heard. Croft is the worst.
I was one who thought Boycott was on the improve.
> I like English commentators too. They sort of keep you in the game.
> They're interesting to listen to, which is a little more than I can say
> about the English cricketers. They also have a very, very good knowledge
> of the game and its history - that's something that Indian commentators
> really lack, apart from SMG and Harsha Bhogle.
The English commentators are the best. Same with their umpires.
> Pakistani commentators, well, aren't as good as Indian commentators,
> although, I think I can tolerate them. Same with Ranjit Fernando. He's not
> gonna keep me awake all night listening to him, but he's tolerable. I
> think Robin Jackman, Lee Irvine and Gerald De Kock are also quite good.
Never heard Paki umpires and probably never want too.
> Trevor Quirk is a real moron. I absolutely detest him. I don't know how he
> can develop such a dislike South Africa's opponents. I don't think Alan
> Donald dislikes opposing batsmen as much as Trevor Quirk does! When Trevor
> Quirk's speaking, I really pray for an audio failure...
>
> -Samarth.
I can't stand South African commentators.
We all failed to mention West Indies.
Tony Cozier - The best I've heard from the WI.
Michael Holding - Started slow, he was on mute for a while but is improving
rapidly.
Colin Croft - He is a genuine whinger. Permanant on mute. The worst I've heard
in my life time.
Kind Regards,
Matthew O'Neill,
King Street Computers.
URL - http://www.ksc1.com
Rugby League - http://www.rleague.com
Canterbury - http://www.rleague.com/bulldogs
mailto:rle...@tig.com.au
Harish Chandramouli
samarth harish shah <shs...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Well, I don't really think Gavaskar is biased. I haven't heard too much
>of Manjrekar - just a couple of "tamasha" matches. Who's this Lal guy?
Firstly, Gavaskar is far and away the most parochial commentator of the
lot. I'll grant you that he wasn't quite this bad in the past, but of
late he just seems to have gotten worse and worse - to the point where
all he seems to do is whine and whine and whine. Manjrekar started off
reasonably but over the last couple of days of the NZ test tour,
degenerated very rapidly indeed. Suffice it to say that I think his
parochiality and narrow-mindedness are not particularly fit for the
air, either.
And without wanting to nit-pick on each and every one of the Indian
commentators (and to drag this thread on inexorably, as is likely
to be the case if I do), let me simply state that to me the Kiwi
commentators (Morrison being my favourite) stand head and shoulders
above the rest. The English commentators *can* be fairly partisan at
times, but I tend to agree with you in that more often than not
they're very well informed and tend to be enjoyable to listen to
(except for Willis and Botham, that is).
Channel 9 isn't too bad either, except for Tony Greig: who I think
is a %^%$&^^& piece of *&(&*((* &*(&*((&* ()**()*() who ought to
have been deported to his beloved Sri Lanka eons ago to take up
fly-fishing on the coast, or some such thing...
But getting back to the Indians, Bhogle is simply A1-fantastic, and
although I started off disliking Shastri intensely, over the last few
months I've sort of toned that down to being even able to appreciate
his comments at times. The less said about most of the rest, the
better, however.
Cheers,
Harish
PS: Lal == Arun Lal. Yes, God help us :-)