theweatheroutlook

Remove ads from site

Gandalf The White
04 August 2013 15:02:47

Well worth a read:

http://seftonparkcc.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/tms-sky-and-cricket-commentary-whimsy.html?m=1 

The Sky cricket commentary team is atrocious. Shame cause the coverage is excellent.

Originally Posted by: Brian Gaze 



It's been the case for as long as Test cricket has been televised live that the best combination was TMS commentary withTV sound off.

I agree that some of the 'expert' opinion on Sky is pretty average but then Boycott can have his moments on TMS. Willis is a twit, as evidenced by his groundless accusation of ball-tampering (which at the time I said here was rubbish).

I'm afraid that the general trend in most forms of media is to go for the headline, the sound-bite, the dramatic, the controversial. It's almost as if letting the game tell its own story isn't enough, which is a shame but might reflect a trend towards 'dumbing-down'.
Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


Essan
04 August 2013 15:15:07

The Sky cricket commentary team is atrocious. 

Originally Posted by: Brian Gaze 





You're joking?   Seriously?!!!!

The Sky commentary team is the best thing on TV.  Ever.   It's 'atrocious' in the same way that Windpr Castle is a garden shed and Africa a small tidal island in the English Channel 



Andy
Evesham, Worcs, Albion - 35m asl
Weather & Earth Science News 

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job - DNA
Essan
04 August 2013 15:24:29

Why aren't the Aussies declaring?   What has Nathan Rao told them?! 

Or don't they want to win?   Bizarre.

I know that there's not be the disruption that was expected today, but as it stands the Aussies must surely wonder if they can get 10 wickets even without any rain interruption tomorrow?

Andy
Evesham, Worcs, Albion - 35m asl
Weather & Earth Science News 

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job - DNA
Essan
04 August 2013 15:30:52

Light?!!!!


Maybe the Umpires should have gone to specsavers?  

Pathetic

Andy
Evesham, Worcs, Albion - 35m asl
Weather & Earth Science News 

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job - DNA
KevBrads1
04 August 2013 15:39:02

Light?!!!!
Maybe the Umpires should have gone to specsavers?

Pathetic UserPostedImage

Originally Posted by: Essan 




If it is in the rules, how the hell do you standardise it? Each ground/location will be different. You can't standardise it and isn't it based on opinion?

That's the problem.
MANCHESTER SUMMER INDEX for 2021: 238
Timelapses, old weather forecasts and natural phenomena videos can be seen on this site
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgrSD1BwFz2feWDTydhpEhQ/playlists
Gandalf The White
04 August 2013 15:39:17

Why aren't the Aussies declaring? What has Nathan Rao told them?! UserPostedImage

Or don't they want to win? Bizarre.

I know that there's not be the disruption that was expected today, but as it stands the Aussies must surely wonder if they can get 10 wickets even without any rain interruption tomorrow?

Originally Posted by: Essan 



They don't want to lose, as I suggested earlier. Imagine the reaction if Clark declared, it didn't rain tomorrow and England scored 300 to win? Still what, 110-120 overs left in the match. Under 3 runs per over? Why risk it?
Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


Gandalf The White
04 August 2013 15:42:58

Light?!!!!
Maybe the Umpires should have gone to specsavers?

Pathetic UserPostedImage

Originally Posted by: KevBrads1 




If it is in the rules, how the hell do you standardise it? Each ground/location will be different. You can't standardise it and isn't it based on opinion?

That's the problem.

Originally Posted by: Essan 



Law 3 - forseeable risk to any player. There's clearly a judgement call in there but the variables are many - the bowler, the batsmen, and as you say the specific ground. I've been at Lords on a gloomy day and you wouldn't want to be batting at the Nursery End with the ball coming at you from the Pavilion....
Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


NickR
04 August 2013 15:44:00

Light?!!!! Maybe the Umpires should have gone to specsavers? Pathetic UserPostedImage

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

If it is in the rules, how the hell do you standardise it? Each ground/location will be different. You can't standardise it and isn't it based on opinion? That's the problem.

Originally Posted by: KevBrads1 

Law 3 - forseeable risk to any player. There's clearly a judgement call in there but the variables are many - the bowler, the batsmen, and as you say the specific ground. I've been at Lords on a gloomy day and you wouldn't want to be batting at the Nursery End with the ball coming at you from the Pavilion....

Originally Posted by: Essan 


It'll be raining there in half an hour anyway.

Nick
Durham
[email protected]
KevBrads1
04 August 2013 15:51:51

Light?!!!! Maybe the Umpires should have gone to specsavers? Pathetic UserPostedImage

Originally Posted by: NickR 

If it is in the rules, how the hell do you standardise it? Each ground/location will be different. You can't standardise it and isn't it based on opinion? That's the problem.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Law 3 - forseeable risk to any player. There's clearly a judgement call in there but the variables are many - the bowler, the batsmen, and as you say the specific ground. I've been at Lords on a gloomy day and you wouldn't want to be batting at the Nursery End with the ball coming at you from the Pavilion....

Originally Posted by: KevBrads1 


It'll be raining there in half an hour anyway.

Originally Posted by: Essan 




It's just started raining here and I'm 8 miles to the west of the ground.
MANCHESTER SUMMER INDEX for 2021: 238
Timelapses, old weather forecasts and natural phenomena videos can be seen on this site
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgrSD1BwFz2feWDTydhpEhQ/playlists
bowser
04 August 2013 16:05:14

Light?!!!!
Maybe the Umpires should have gone to specsavers?

Pathetic UserPostedImage

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 




If it is in the rules, how the hell do you standardise it? Each ground/location will be different. You can't standardise it and isn't it based on opinion?

That's the problem.

Originally Posted by: KevBrads1 



Law 3 - forseeable risk to any player. There's clearly a judgement call in there but the variables are many - the bowler, the batsmen, and as you say the specific ground. I've been at Lords on a gloomy day and you wouldn't want to be batting at the Nursery End with the ball coming at you from the Pavilion....

Originally Posted by: Essan 



Can't be much mor farcical than this: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOjHxYIF7h4&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DZOjHxYIF7h4
NickR
04 August 2013 16:11:20
Re. the TMS crew these days, the one person I cannot stand is Michael Vaughan. He is overly-aggressive and very arrogant. His belittling, laughing reaction to a caller who dared suggest his placing of Jimmy Anderson as the greatest English bowler was wide of the mark was a complete disgrace, but sad predictable. He offers the nasty end of laddish humour too often, where Tuffers offers it with more humility and general respect.
Nick
Durham
[email protected]
NickR
04 August 2013 16:13:49

Light?!!!! Maybe the Umpires should have gone to specsavers? Pathetic UserPostedImage

Originally Posted by: bowser 

If it is in the rules, how the hell do you standardise it? Each ground/location will be different. You can't standardise it and isn't it based on opinion? That's the problem.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Law 3 - forseeable risk to any player. There's clearly a judgement call in there but the variables are many - the bowler, the batsmen, and as you say the specific ground. I've been at Lords on a gloomy day and you wouldn't want to be batting at the Nursery End with the ball coming at you from the Pavilion....

Originally Posted by: KevBrads1 

Can't be much mor farcical than this: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOjHxYIF7h4&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DZOjHxYIF7h4

Originally Posted by: Essan 


Farcical? That was magnificent. Pakistan got what they deserved. If the batsmen are happy to stay on...

Nick
Durham
[email protected]
bowser
04 August 2013 16:20:29

Light?!!!! Maybe the Umpires should have gone to specsavers? Pathetic UserPostedImage

Originally Posted by: NickR 

If it is in the rules, how the hell do you standardise it? Each ground/location will be different. You can't standardise it and isn't it based on opinion? That's the problem.

Originally Posted by: bowser 

Law 3 - forseeable risk to any player. There's clearly a judgement call in there but the variables are many - the bowler, the batsmen, and as you say the specific ground. I've been at Lords on a gloomy day and you wouldn't want to be batting at the Nursery End with the ball coming at you from the Pavilion....

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Can't be much mor farcical than this: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOjHxYIF7h4&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DZOjHxYIF7h4

Originally Posted by: KevBrads1 


Farcical? That was magnificent. Pakistan got what they deserved. If the batsmen are happy to stay on...

Originally Posted by: Essan 



Magnificently dark... Pity they don't apply such etiquette these days... We'll probably see a declaration tomorrow anyway.

Jim_AFCB
04 August 2013 16:53:50

Re. the TMS crew these days, the one person I cannot stand is Michael Vaughan. He is overly-aggressive and very arrogant. His belittling, laughing reaction to a caller who dared suggest his placing of Jimmy Anderson as the greatest English bowler was wide of the mark was a complete disgrace, but sad predictable. He offers the nasty end of laddish humour too often, where Tuffers offers it with more humility and general respect.

Originally Posted by: NickR 


 


I agree with you so far as his phone-in programme 6-Duck-6 is concerned, but I think he is OK on TMS itself.

Jim, Bournemouth, Dorset. Home of the mighty Cherries
Bournemouth Weather Onine - Click here. 
Matty H
  • Matty H
  • Advanced Member Topic Starter
04 August 2013 17:04:32

The Sky cricket commentary team is atrocious.

Originally Posted by: Essan 



UserPostedImageUserPostedImageUserPostedImage UserPostedImageUserPostedImageUserPostedImageUserPostedImageUserPostedImage

You're joking? Seriously?!!!!

The Sky commentary team is the best thing on TV. Ever. It's 'atrocious' in the same way that Windpr Castle is a garden shed and Africa a small tidal island in the English Channel UserPostedImage



Originally Posted by: Brian Gaze 



Yeah, agree completely with this. Sky's cricket team is top drawer. It puts anything they churn out in the way of football to shame. Gary Neviile? Nah, I'll pass.
Yate, Nr Bristol
Say NO to misogyny 
https://human-rights-channel.coe.int/stop-sexism-en.html 
Gooner
04 August 2013 17:10:08

The Sky cricket commentary team is atrocious.

Originally Posted by: Matty H 

UserPostedImageUserPostedImageUserPostedImage UserPostedImageUserPostedImageUserPostedImageUserPostedImageUserPostedImage You're joking? Seriously?!!!! The Sky commentary team is the best thing on TV. Ever. It's 'atrocious' in the same way that Windpr Castle is a garden shed and Africa a small tidal island in the English Channel UserPostedImage

Originally Posted by: Essan 

Yeah, agree completely with this. Sky's cricket team is top drawer. It puts anything they churn out in the way of football to shame. Gary Neviile? Nah, I'll pass.

Originally Posted by: Brian Gaze 


You think that is bad, watch BT Sport............................good job it is free

Remember anything after T120 is really Just For Fun



Marcus
Banbury
North Oxfordshire
378 feet A S L


NickR
04 August 2013 17:32:58


Re. the TMS crew these days, the one person I cannot stand is Michael Vaughan. He is overly-aggressive and very arrogant. His belittling, laughing reaction to a caller who dared suggest his placing of Jimmy Anderson as the greatest English bowler was wide of the mark was a complete disgrace, but sad predictable. He offers the nasty end of laddish humour too often, where Tuffers offers it with more humility and general respect.

Originally Posted by: Jim_AFCB 


 


I agree with you so far as his phone-in programme 6-Duck-6 is concerned, but I think he is OK on TMS itself.


Originally Posted by: NickR 


Quite right, Jim, I was confusing the two.

Nick
Durham
[email protected]
David M Porter
04 August 2013 20:21:49

Re. the TMS crew these days, the one person I cannot stand is Michael Vaughan. He is overly-aggressive and very arrogant. His belittling, laughing reaction to a caller who dared suggest his placing of Jimmy Anderson as the greatest English bowler was wide of the mark was a complete disgrace, but sad predictable. He offers the nasty end of laddish humour too often, where Tuffers offers it with more humility and general respect.

Originally Posted by: NickR 


Can't really comment on Michael Vaughan as I don't know an awful lot about him or his personality, but Phil Tufnell has a top class personality for me and makes an excellent captain on A Question of Sport, a bit like the late, great Emlyn Hughes in his day.

Lenzie, Glasgow

"Let us not take ourselves too seriously. None of us has a monopoly on wisdom, and we must always be ready to listen and respect other points of view."- Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022
NickR
04 August 2013 20:43:51
Looking at the GFS I reckon there could be up to 4 hours play tomorrow towards the end of the day.
Nick
Durham
[email protected]
Gandalf The White
04 August 2013 21:35:24

Light?!!!! Maybe the Umpires should have gone to specsavers? Pathetic UserPostedImage

Originally Posted by: NickR 

If it is in the rules, how the hell do you standardise it? Each ground/location will be different. You can't standardise it and isn't it based on opinion? That's the problem.

Originally Posted by: bowser 

Law 3 - forseeable risk to any player. There's clearly a judgement call in there but the variables are many - the bowler, the batsmen, and as you say the specific ground. I've been at Lords on a gloomy day and you wouldn't want to be batting at the Nursery End with the ball coming at you from the Pavilion....

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Can't be much mor farcical than this: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOjHxYIF7h4&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DZOjHxYIF7h4

Originally Posted by: KevBrads1 


Farcical? That was magnificent. Pakistan got what they deserved. If the batsmen are happy to stay on...

Originally Posted by: Essan 



Of course the law was different then and the batsmen had the option of electing to keep batting. The umpires only had the final say if conditions were dangerous - which was an interesting call in the gathering darkness...!
Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


Matty H
  • Matty H
  • Advanced Member Topic Starter
04 August 2013 22:15:07
Credit to England, they've never been massively behind the game anyway. Not much play was lost today, and I reckon even if tomorrow was completely dry it would still be a draw. We've not been hanging on by our finger nails at any stage although, admittedly, the convicts have had the better of it overall.

Bottom line is the series will be dead by this time tomorrow 😂
Yate, Nr Bristol
Say NO to misogyny 
https://human-rights-channel.coe.int/stop-sexism-en.html 
SydneyonTees
04 August 2013 22:34:31

Credit to England, they've never been massively behind the game anyway. Not much play was lost today, and I reckon even if tomorrow was completely dry it would still be a draw. We've not been hanging on by our finger nails at any stage although, admittedly, the convicts have had the better of it overall. Bottom line is the series will be dead by this time tomorrow 😂

Originally Posted by: Matty H 


 


I think Clarke should have rolled the dice and taken a risk with a lead around 250 - 290 and put England in. Australia could have had England say 35 / 4 now chasing say 260ish. Ok not as many runs required but would have had a few wickets probably if the pattern of early wickets continued and more overs at England.


I understand why Clarke would have wanted to bat on to a 350ish lead and not play to the weather but I think there was an opportunity to still force a result.


 

Matty H
  • Matty H
  • Advanced Member Topic Starter
04 August 2013 23:05:31

Credit to England, they've never been massively behind the game anyway. Not much play was lost today, and I reckon even if tomorrow was completely dry it would still be a draw. We've not been hanging on by our finger nails at any stage although, admittedly, the convicts have had the better of it overall. Bottom line is the series will be dead by this time tomorrow 😂

Originally Posted by: SydneyonTees 



I think Clarke should have rolled the dice and taken a risk with a leadaround 250 - 290 and put England in. Australia could have had England say 35 /4 now chasing say 260ish. Ok not as many runs requiredbut would have had a few wickets probably if thepattern of early wickets continuedand more overs at England.
I understand why Clarke would have wanted to bat on to a 350ish lead and not play to the weather but I think there was an opportunity to still force a result.

Originally Posted by: Matty H 



There was certainly an argument for that, but I reckon he's gambling on the forecast being wrong. On recent and not so recent history he'll be right. They have been nothing short of shite the last few months at times.
Yate, Nr Bristol
Say NO to misogyny 
https://human-rights-channel.coe.int/stop-sexism-en.html 
SydneyonTees
04 August 2013 23:39:02

Credit to England, they've never been massively behind the game anyway. Not much play was lost today, and I reckon even if tomorrow was completely dry it would still be a draw. We've not been hanging on by our finger nails at any stage although, admittedly, the convicts have had the better of it overall. Bottom line is the series will be dead by this time tomorrow 😂

Originally Posted by: Matty H 

I think Clarke should have rolled the dice and taken a risk with a leadaround 250 - 290 and put England in. Australia could have had England say 35 /4 now chasing say 260ish. Ok not as many runs requiredbut would have had a few wickets probably if thepattern of early wickets continuedand more overs at England. I understand why Clarke would have wanted to bat on to a 350ish lead and not play to the weather but I think there was an opportunity to still force a result.

Originally Posted by: SydneyonTees 

There was certainly an argument for that, but I reckon he's gambling on the forecast being wrong. On recent and not so recent history he'll be right. They have been nothing short of shite the last few months at times.

Originally Posted by: Matty H 


 


Gambling on putting England in chasing say 280 would have been more under Clarke's control than gambling on the weather, putting England in chasing a total under 300 would have been a big risk but Australia's best chance I think.

Gandalf The White
05 August 2013 00:19:01

Credit to England, they've never been massively behind the game anyway. Not much play was lost today, and I reckon even if tomorrow was completely dry it would still be a draw. We've not been hanging on by our finger nails at any stage although, admittedly, the convicts have had the better of it overall. Bottom line is the series will be dead by this time tomorrow 😂

Originally Posted by: SydneyonTees 

I think Clarke should have rolled the dice and taken a risk with a leadaround 250 - 290 and put England in. Australia could have had England say 35 /4 now chasing say 260ish. Ok not as many runs requiredbut would have had a few wickets probably if thepattern of early wickets continuedand more overs at England. I understand why Clarke would have wanted to bat on to a 350ish lead and not play to the weather but I think there was an opportunity to still force a result.

Originally Posted by: Matty H 

There was certainly an argument for that, but I reckon he's gambling on the forecast being wrong. On recent and not so recent history he'll be right. They have been nothing short of shite the last few months at times.

Originally Posted by: SydneyonTees 



Gambling on putting England in chasing say 280would have beenmore under Clarke's control thangambling on theweather, putting England in chasing a total under 300 would have been a big risk but Australia's best chance I think.

Originally Posted by: Matty H 



But what if England had finished the day on 40-0 needing 240 in 90 overs?

I feel that there is a tendency here to underestimate the degree of caution displayed by all captains in Test cricket. Sure we can all hypothesise what a captain should do and how it might pan out. The reality is that captains simply don't leave any real risk of defeat.

The weather forecast is hardly ever a consideration for the same reason. What would be the reaction if Clarke gambled on losing a session tomorrow and no play was lost?
Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


Users browsing this topic
    Ads