I dread to think how Savage would've been on the Iran v Nigeria game. All he's done is moan and criticise, despite the fact that it's been quite an entertaining game. Everything is "poor" according to him.
I dread to think how Savage would've been on the Iran v Nigeria game. All he's done is moan and criticise, despite the fact that it's been quite an entertaining game. Everything is "poor" according to him.
The Rooney-Altidore chance comparison was fairly embarrassing. I'd prefer Lawrenson over Savage, at least Lawrenson has a level of humility
I dread to think how Savage would've been on the Iran v Nigeria game. All he's done is moan and criticise, despite the fact that it's been quite an entertaining game. Everything is "poor" according to him.
Agreed, he's awful. If he's so unhappy to be covering a world cup match they should send him home.
I wish they would do some kind of featurette on the host cities. Porto Alegre. It means nothing to me, I haven't a clue where it is, what the weather's like or anything. I could Google it all but it would be nice to have a little bit on tele instead of pointless babble about matches already taken place.
Well it's not saying that much. Mark Lawrenson frequently shows himself to be out of touch with the modern game, Andy Townsend is excessively snouty and the very essence of dumbed down simplicity, Clarke Carlisle pondered whether a Columbian would play for Ecuador and as I say at times Robbie Savage comes across as lacking nuance and being overly confrontational. Not to mention some huge gaffes Jonathan Pearce and Sam Matterface have made, yet it's Neville who gets over 400 complaints!
I agree with some posts by mlt11 that the reaction to Phil Neville indicates a preference for how it is said over what is said, and suggests the casual viewer has s limited interested in tactics which I think is a shame. I really hope the BBC stick with their plan and put Neville on the liv England last 16 match if they get that far.
Hmm ive been watching ghana usa on both bbc one and espn usa, they seem to be copying each other. For example "The only stat that matters is usa 1 ghana nil" and something about 50/50 decisions
I agree with some posts by mlt11 that the reaction to Phil Neville indicates a preference for how it is said over what is said, and suggests the casual viewer has s limited interested in tactics which I think is a shame. I really hope the BBC stick with their plan and put Neville on the liv England last 16 match if they get that far.
How a commentator sounds is a fairly important part of his overall performance. And it wasn't as though he was full of outstanding insights.
I expect he'll get better, and hope that there's a last 16 match featuring England to see if Neville will be in the booth. In the meantime, maybe the Beeb should give him a lower profile match or two in which to up his game. Does anyone know if the norm in this situation would be to send him to some other matches and have him cover them with a commentator (or have them do it from a studio watching) even if it's not actually broadcast?
Savage doesn't seem very chatty unless he's specifically asked to speak, sometimes the play-by-play guy has to encourage him.
Which is exactly what the co-commentator is supposed to do. They used to be called "expert summarisers" and only spoke occasionally to bring insight as to what was happening from a tactical perspective, not, as happens now, waffle on endlessly!
I have to agree with most, I really could not warm to Savage, he is an odd and off putting character in life and his commentary just does not work.
Although I really do not like Rio, his punditry yesterday was good.
The Italian Cannavaro is not getting any better and there are a lot of silences from hosts and pundits when he speaks as if they are baffled.
Apart from German v Portugal, I think yesterday was the weakest day of matches so far.
But, Looking forwards to today, especially seeing Hazard, hope he does show some of his Chelsea flair I have enjoyed so much for my beloved team, amongst others we have on loan and recently gone.
But also, they do have quite a mix of other Premiership team players of note.
Comments
7 minutes?
It's his entire BBC career man
The Rooney-Altidore chance comparison was fairly embarrassing. I'd prefer Lawrenson over Savage, at least Lawrenson has a level of humility
Agreed, he's awful. If he's so unhappy to be covering a world cup match they should send him home.
Personally I think that Kilbane and Dixon aside Phil Neville has actually been the best co-commentator.
Welcome to the forums Phil Neville's mum.
This link may be of interest.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b046yvcy
A vile man, complete and utter chancer
Well it's not saying that much. Mark Lawrenson frequently shows himself to be out of touch with the modern game, Andy Townsend is excessively snouty and the very essence of dumbed down simplicity, Clarke Carlisle pondered whether a Columbian would play for Ecuador and as I say at times Robbie Savage comes across as lacking nuance and being overly confrontational. Not to mention some huge gaffes Jonathan Pearce and Sam Matterface have made, yet it's Neville who gets over 400 complaints!
I agree with some posts by mlt11 that the reaction to Phil Neville indicates a preference for how it is said over what is said, and suggests the casual viewer has s limited interested in tactics which I think is a shame. I really hope the BBC stick with their plan and put Neville on the liv England last 16 match if they get that far.
What a complete OTT post
How do you know he is vile? Have you ever met him?
Many thanks. That's just what I was after.
http://postimg.org/image/5u7c1i7s3/
Looks French to me
This is Belgium;
forum image hosting
How a commentator sounds is a fairly important part of his overall performance. And it wasn't as though he was full of outstanding insights.
I expect he'll get better, and hope that there's a last 16 match featuring England to see if Neville will be in the booth. In the meantime, maybe the Beeb should give him a lower profile match or two in which to up his game. Does anyone know if the norm in this situation would be to send him to some other matches and have him cover them with a commentator (or have them do it from a studio watching) even if it's not actually broadcast?
Which is exactly what the co-commentator is supposed to do. They used to be called "expert summarisers" and only spoke occasionally to bring insight as to what was happening from a tactical perspective, not, as happens now, waffle on endlessly!
Although I really do not like Rio, his punditry yesterday was good.
The Italian Cannavaro is not getting any better and there are a lot of silences from hosts and pundits when he speaks as if they are baffled.
Apart from German v Portugal, I think yesterday was the weakest day of matches so far.
But, Looking forwards to today, especially seeing Hazard, hope he does show some of his Chelsea flair I have enjoyed so much for my beloved team, amongst others we have on loan and recently gone.
But also, they do have quite a mix of other Premiership team players of note.
Oh dear, Basdfg
ITV hd in London.
Kilbane is attrocious, one of the worst. I have never heard him say anything of insight.