Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

SaintPowelly wrote:As someone who no longer has Sky, and sometimes listens to TMS, I hope he is with Sky permanently.

Stewart too

It's too difficult to separate what they really think from their duties to the players in their management stables

Stewart's well bland, like Knight.

I would take Vaughan and say cheerio to Beefy on Sky.

Knight of the realm. Never going to happen

If Sky signed Boycott and Blofeld, I could happily turn down the volume on the tv and listen to the radio full time.

Blofeld still going?

Afraid so. He's delighted me quite enough.

Over the last decade or so TMS has moved into the entertainment business with commentators and summerizers indulging more in repartee between one another than concentrating on the cricket. Agnew's obsession with twitter adds to the downward slide.

I think Agnew used to be a great commentator, and he's still good with Marks. Part of the BBC remit is to interact with the public, so it is really forced to go through the twitterverse, but it doesn't make for good radio. I think they have a balance of serious coverage (Smith, Mann, Vaughan) and some who offer insight and a little personality (Tufnell, Marks). Only Blofeld really takes you entirely away from the game. As I often confess, I can't listen to Boycott, but he probably fits in the second category.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:I think Agnew used to be a great commentator, and he's still good with Marks. Part of the BBC remit is to interact with the public, so it is really forced to go through the twitterverse, but it doesn't make for good radio. I think they have a balance of serious coverage (Smith, Mann, Vaughan) and some who offer insight and a little personality (Tufnell, Marks). Only Blofeld really takes you entirely away from the game. As I often confess, I can't listen to Boycott, but he probably fits in the second category.

When was the last time any commentator has said who is fielding in what position. In the old days they used to say whether the bowlers was running away from the commentary box or towards it and tell us who was in the slips etc. The last person to do any of that was CMJ and he did so very rarely as his memory went. As a radio listener you want to build up a picture of the field in minds eye and that information allows that. All that has been replaced by giggles and information on what Agnew had for dinner the previous evening and other extraneous tit-bits.

TMS caters for a wide audience of differing expectations. I do think it has strayed a little too far into the mundanely personal. The fault there being some of the commentators just aren't good at being funny (Vaughan, Boycott). It would be fine if they were (Marks). But I think the spirit of CMJ is still alive in Mann and Smith. The by-play between the cast has always been part of its charm. Not a golden age of TMS (though that was quite recently, for me) but it still contains a lot of the qualities that gave it its reputation. I think only Blofeld truly breaks the thread of the contest.

hopeforthebest wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:I think Agnew used to be a great commentator, and he's still good with Marks. Part of the BBC remit is to interact with the public, so it is really forced to go through the twitterverse, but it doesn't make for good radio. I think they have a balance of serious coverage (Smith, Mann, Vaughan) and some who offer insight and a little personality (Tufnell, Marks). Only Blofeld really takes you entirely away from the game. As I often confess, I can't listen to Boycott, but he probably fits in the second category.

When was the last time any commentator has said who is fielding in what position. In the old days they used to say whether the bowlers was running away from the commentary box or towards it and tell us who was in the slips etc. The last person to do any of that was CMJ and he did so very rarely as his memory went. As a radio listener you want to build up a picture of the field in minds eye and that information allows that. All that has been replaced by giggles and information on what Agnew had for dinner the previous evening and other extraneous tit-bits.

I agree completely. Any fielding changes I want to know about them. Also if a player goes off the field and comes back so I can work out, if he's a bowler, when he will be able to bowl again. I remember in 2000 lying in bed listening to Talksport, when England were in Pakistan, and the commentary was superb. I was able to keep a scorecard of every ball bowled and run made throughout the night.

I find that ommentators on county matches comment on about on 2 or 3 balls an over while chatting about rubbish.

I've never really been sure what purpose is served by the TV commentators. I never listen and haven't really ever done so, but don't they basically tell you what you've just seen? If that's their purpose, it's little wonder that they stray off from time to time. Radio, of course, is different.

That's what I like about Athers and Nasser. They do say things that are not clearly obvious, well to me, anyway.

Yes, there is the possibility that they may say something that's not obvious, DrR, but you can still go to a local club match where there is no commentary and enjoy it, can't you? That's the way I watch cricket on TV - as though I were just a spectator.