Aussies v Poms: the cricket commentators’ rivalry
Roar Pro
By Sam Stoffy Stoffelen, 28 Dec 2007 The Crowd is a Roar Pro
The first thought that comes to mind when we put the words ‘rivalry’, ‘England’ and ‘Australia’ on the same page is without question, the Ashes. But let’s consider another contest. One where the old still have their say: the cricket commentators.
As the year draws to a close, cricket tops the list of things to do. Well, it’s the only thing on things to do – I should say. I looked at the match ups, predicted results and, when there was nothing left to do but ponder, I compared the commentary.
So who do we think is better, the toffee nosed Poms or the annoying Aussies? I say Michael Holding and Ian Bishop leaving the decision neutral when I decide England or Australia.
Looking at England first we have the likes of Mike Atherton, Ian Botham, Geoffrey Boycott, David Gower, Tony Greig, Nasser Hussain, Mark Nicholas. Marks go to Gower, Atherton and Nicholas. The others are typically English: very correct and always looking for an Aussie to pick on, especially Boycott who’s the resident sledger. Gower I regard as one of the great commentators, we speaks well, knows what he’s on about and is not at all biased.
The same can be said about Nicholas, with Atherton just squeezing into the good books. Overall 3/7.
Now we turn our attention to our boys, the Aussies that give us many memorable summer moments. Do we say yes, or no to the home grown lads? The Channel Nine boys consist of Richie Benaud, Ian Chappell, Ian Healy, Bill Lawry, Michael Slater, and Mark Taylor. Picking the goods is a difficult call but we definitely throw in the aging great Mr. Benaud along with Taylor, Lawry and Healy. I’m leaving Slats boarder line, he can drag on a bit and does tend to refer to himself a lot, but the definite no is Chappell. He brings out irrational comments, criticism left right and center and he takes it too seriously. Overall score 4/6.
From this analysis, I say Australia leads the way, but mind you I’m being lenient towards my home nation. Benaud, Lawry, Gower, Atherton and Nicholas are the commentators I hold the most highly. Mind you, it’s the West Indians who get the 10/10 for me. Yeah man…
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- What we do and don’t know about our Baggy Greens (112)
- Success of Twenty20 spells trouble for ODI cricket (106)
- Channel 9 commentators an annoyance this summer (102)
- One Day Cricket is suffering from Middle Child Syndrome (89)
- Cricket Australia must take a stand against racist spectators (89)
- Dave’s Warner-ful switch-hit panned by precious critics (84)
- Khawaja shouldn’t have been Shaun from the Test side (71)
- Clarke stars as Australia beat Sri Lanka
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (197)
- Hall of Fame for Indian legend Gavaskar
- Sri Lanka to target ‘weak’ Aussie bowlers
- India backing Rohit Sharma to find form
- Game-by-game preview of round 19
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (6)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (197)
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (6)
- Pakistan’s win over England a triumph of character (21)
- Steve Waugh is right about cricket’s succession plan (5)
- India vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (180)
- Let’s talk about selection, Test fans (28)
- Pakistan win shows what’s beautiful about the game (13)
- Explore:
Spiro Zavos said | December 28th 2007 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
Sam, I think you’re being too hard on Ian Chappell. I like his commentary. He is always to the point and savvy about the game as befits the person rated along with Richie Benaud and Mark Taylor as the smartest on-field captain of Australia. When he writes his pieces, he writes them himself unlike most sportsmen who rely on ghosts to put down the words for him. Benaud is the same. This gives me the confidence that their strong and well-informed opinions are their own.
Ian Chappell, like Richie Benaud, too, does not belong to the ‘Aussie! Aussie! Aussie! oi! oi! oi! school of commentators, a welcome relief from some of our other cricket, league and rugby commentators.
For me, Richie Benaud and Ian Chappell are the standout cricket commentators, with Mark Nicholas (also an excellent journalist) and Ian Healy close behind them, and the other well behind.
As Sam says David Gower is an excellent summariser and chairman of a panel. But the rest of the England commentary box is sub-standard. Any group of commentators who refer to Geoff Boycott as ‘Fiery” have lost me.
I love the radio commentators of the cricket, though, both in England and Australia.
onside said | December 28th 2007 @ 4:44pm | Report comment
Like or dslike,it must be a difficult task,commentating on every ball of a cricket match,
telling viewers what they are watching . And then there are the sage like views on
computer driven statistical analysis, such as cumulative bowling speeds for example.
A graph is presented showing say Kumbles bowling speeds for every delivery. The
average speed over ten overs might be 87 kph. With hinsdsight the commentator then
postulates on the possible effectiveness of Kumbles bowling, had his average speed
been in the order of about 82kph, instead of 87kph.The recently retired Alan Greenspan
should be contracted to the panel so viewers might be further enlightened about that
they have just witnessed.
For my part I struggle to listen to any of it, prefering mute,vision only,interupted only
when a wicket falls, or contentious point is discussed.
And how about a signed replica of Shane Warnes baggy green batting box . Only one
thousand copies, your choice of framed , or mounted as an ashtray, just $899 plus
delivery
And so it goes.
Ian Noble said | December 28th 2007 @ 7:57pm | Report comment
There are many in England who prefer to listen to the radio commentary whilst watching the TV on mute. TMS ( test match special) is a UK institution with Aggers (Jonathan Agnew) and CMJ ( Christopher Martin-Jenkins) for England and the excellent Jim Maxwell for Aussie during the Ashes, still allowing time for the occasional comment from Chappel, Boycott, Thommo amongst others to keep the listener involved during a days play; many find the majority of the TV commentary rather shallow and uninteresting.
By the way it celebrated it’s 50th anniversary this year
sheek said | December 28th 2007 @ 8:49pm | Report comment
Sam,
Ditto Spiro re Chappelli, & everything else he said in his email. It’s instructive to know that Chappell’s team-mates still revere him 30 years later. Ian Chappell led from the front. He put his team first. Consequently, most of them would die for him.
Chappelli was at the fore-front of players rights. In the early to mid 1970s, the amount of test matches being played increased significantly, but test cricketers were still expected to hold down a regular job. Virtually impossible.
WSC was a result of all this, & again Chappelli was at the fore-front. Instructively, although retired, Kerry Packer wouldn’t hear of anyone else leading the rebel Australian cricketers. he understood the ‘aura’ of Ian Chappell.
Chappell’s test batting average of 42.42 is good, but not great. He spent so much time fighting for his players on & off the field, I reckon his batting suffered. He was a better batsman than that. Interestingly, when the Windies arrived in Australia for the 1975-76 series, they placed more value on Ian’s wicket than Greg’s, despite Greg being a 10-11 point average superior batsman to Ian. They understood his value to Australia.
As a commentator, Chappelli is blunt, but instructive. Yes, he’s critical, but listen to him, he also provides the solution. He’s incredibly practical. He’s his own man, always has been. I admire that.
Love Benaud & Nicholas. The others I can tolerate. I guess we’re all different in what we like. Sorry Sam, but for me, Chappelli is tops. Hopefully, next time you listen to him, you might see him in a different light.
Stoffy said | December 28th 2007 @ 9:41pm | Report comment
Now when i think of it, and after taking ur advice sheek and taking the time to really listen to him, i realise that maybe we can squeeze him into that list. The comments i made were probably to harsh but thats how i felt about Ian off the field, with all of his comments towards Buchanan and in the past others. But in rating his commentary, that feeling towards the off camera Chappell overpowered the judging of his commentary. He does speak alot of sense and shows that he has a broad knowledge of cricket.
My mistake, and thanks for making me see straight
sheek said | December 28th 2007 @ 10:12pm | Report comment
Stoffy,
One of the best pieces of advice I can recall from Chappelli, related to declarations, but you could apply it to so many other things!!!
Chappelli argued that, when considering declarations, it was important “to give a bit in order to get a bit”. In other words, give the opposition a target that makes them think they have an outside chance of achieving. The logic being that the batsmen will go for their shots, which increases the chances of the bowling/fielding side dismissing them.
Otherwise, the opposition, if set an unrealistic target, will “close shop” & play for survival only. Incredibly practical advice.
Re Chappelli’s comments on Buchanan, perhaps he does have a point! Bucks has made some strange suggestions. Anyway, you don’t get any middle ground with Chappelli. One thing’s for sure, he doesn’t suffer from splinters as fence sitters do!!!
Jimbo said | December 28th 2007 @ 11:12pm | Report comment
I largely agree with Spiro’s comments about commentators, except for Ian Chappell. He knows his cricket, but is too much in the mold of ‘I know best’. There is one right opinion, and then there is everyone else’s. Also, he won’t let something go. If Ian thinks a captain should be doing something then he can’t seem to move on but keeps coming back to the same point over and over. It gets a bit tedious.
Personally, I like Mark Nicholas, interesting, unbiased, well-spoken and knowledgeable.
Fairplay said | December 29th 2007 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
I used tioeonjoy watching cricket but now, no way. When you switch on to find out the batting sides individual scores, you could be expected to wait 30 minutes or more, in the meantime the commentary consists mainly of trying to sell you something. The cricket board are wondering why people are not turning iup n the same numbers to every game as they used. There’s the answer, people are become bored to tears with the current crop of media commentators and unfortunately the ABC have got themselves a bunch of rubbish as well.
Spiro Zavos said | December 30th 2007 @ 10:01am | Report comment
The Channel 9 commentary is made ludicrous with the persistent selling of mediocre memoribilia items of little real value. it’s disappointing when even Richie Benaud is forced to flog off some particular item. Come to think of it, though, I can’t remember Ian Chappell flogging off anything. But aside from this garage-sale propensity, the worst other feature of the television commentary is the lack of information presented. I’ve always believed, for instance, that there should be graphics telling you what has happened to every ball in the over. Also a scoreboard should come up, if only briefly, at the end of every over. This would impinge possibly on advertising time.
What you need in every cricket commentary is a continual reference to the factual state of play. I learnt this truth many decades over when a NZ team was touring South Africa and we had to listen to hours and hours of Charles Fortune carrying on in a fruity voice about the seagulls, the clouds and what the ladies were wearing and so on, everything in fact but what was going on on the field. A friend of mine, as exasperated as I was, sent Fortune a telegram: ‘Dear Charles, WHAT IS THE SCORE?’
The telegram had the desired effect. At the end of every over Fortune would say, ‘In deference to the wishes of master Pope, the score is …’
sheek said | December 30th 2007 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
Spiro,
I reckon the philosophy behind the channel 9 cricket coverage is the same as that from ‘Wide World Of Sports’. The commentators would tell you a particular topic was coming up after the next break.
Yeah……….the next break of 10. Popular stories, interviews, etc were held back until late in the program to keep people watching. I was hugely turned off by this, & eventually refused to watch the program anymore, which was filled with a lot of crap anyway.
The cricket telecast is the same. The less info they give you, hopefully you’ll keep watching the cricket longer until some morsel of info is passed along.
Like many people, I have the TV broadcast on mute, & listen to the ABC commentary. That way, I get the best of both worlds – a visual picture & regular radio updates.
Channel 9 basically sucks on everything!