This summer’s genuine cricket win? The coverage

Daniel got it exactly right when he said the commentary was stale an this was evidenced, in part by having 3 commentators, the thinking being that 3 people would have more chance of coming up with something entertaining to say, rather than two. Throw in a large dash of "old boys club", a large pinch of Australian bias, a dash of ability only and you've got a recipe for poor coverage. Please don't get me wrong, I don't blame the guys behind the mics, they were doing their best, but it simply didn't work.

Was the commentary like this under Channel 9? We weren't able to get Channel 9 commentary during the 2017-18 Ashes as BT Sport supplied their own commentary.

I watched the Sky Sports coverage of the India/England series last year and this was excellent commentary, Joshua. The good things were a small sized team who placed the cricket first and everything else a distant second. I particularly liked the after game coverage because it was then that the old stories came out, which is fine once play's over. That third man segment was also very good, but it was the balance of commentators they had right; English, Indians, Australians, male/female. All in all it was something I looked forward to and certainly something some our numpties could learn from when they get behind the mike. PS, that David Lloyd story is exactly the kind of thoughtless commentary that actually spoils not enhances games. Have a sing before or after play but during? Really?

Sky Sports in the UK seems to tick all these boxes Paul (and I know you’ll probably be able to watch the coverage on the Fox Sports Cricket channel this year). In the test matches, every so often they go across to who they call the ‘3rd man’ (e.g. Nasser Hussein) who will pick up on a interesting section of play and analyse it in depth. This does not take place in the ODIs and T20s – Sky Sports operate out of ‘the pod’ during T20s and emphasis is placed on fun, which is something I enjoy, although not when I was watching my team, Worcestershire, in the T20 Blast Final in September when Bumble (David Lloyd) started singing Sweet Caroline while I was getting nervous over whether or not Worcestershire would make it over the line (we did)!

It does my head in to be honest, Joshua. Hearing 50 plus year olds screaming like banshees at a guy hitting a six doesn't value add as far as I'm concerned, BUT I can see that I only represent one person or generation and there are no doubt others who find this adding to the excitement. I can always turn off the sound!

You're 100% right Daniel, but I think the commentary needs to suit the game as well. T20, high energy, needs high energy commentary, just not all the time. Long form cricket needs a more sedate pace where the guys can alternate between describing the play, astute game analysis and discussion about other points relevant to cricket. ODI is probably the hardest to describe because games can range from incredibly exciting to incredibly boring to incredibly exciting, all in the space of 10 or 15 overs. Again, this is why a professional commentary coach would be invaluable.

exactly my point Daniel. When Chappelli started commentating and they showed multiple replays, he gave a comment about each one, which then became his style. He'd latch onto a topic and literally beat it to death. Warney has that bad habit a few others that a professional could tone down

Re. your last point about Benaud: we do have that in the UK on Sky Sports - sometimes an entire over can go without commentary, which is bliss! I doubt we will fully return to the great days of Benaud's commentary though.

Yes, many excitable Australians in a commentary box can wear you down after a while!

There is a massive difference between having a microphone shoved in your hand and told to "talk", which is how Warne and most of these other guys learnt to commentate and having a professional show them how to do it properly. I completely agree with your last statement and the really good commentators can switch between the describing the play and talking about other things with ease. In Mr Warne's case, he thinks singing is okay, he'll spend an entire broadcasts session talking about food and nothing else, if a decision happens while he's on and he thinks it's wrong, that's all you'll hear about, etc. And finally, he likes to talk..... and talk..... and talk. Benaud was very good as a commentator and he perfected when NOT to say something. He learned that as part of his training for television. This is why I suggest Warne and quite a few others should go back to school.

Warney started commentating for Channel 9 in 2003 so I think he has enough experience! I think that this sort of chat makes cricket commentary so great - watching cricket for 7 or 8 hours a day can get boring at times and sometimes there isn't that much to talk about. There are natural lulls in cricket that need to be filled with this sort of chat sometimes!

Perhaps Batman and Batwoman will come to our rescue

Nope. Because of female cricket that word is on the no no list

Fair enough Daniel, but I think the broadcasters can move a fair bit more quickly. All of the commentators need to receive professional training in how to commentate on the game at hand and not let their thoughts drift. Once that starts happening, we hear more about Bill's seagulls, or Warney's pizza toppings than we do about the game.

Can we get rid of the term "batters" instead of batsmen?