No way is Neville as good on co-comm as Gray was, Chamberlain as good as Keys come on nobody could really believe that. Neville has covered Gray on the analysis but not the co-comm.
I'd rather listen to Neville than Gray any day. I did use to like Gray but I've lost all respect for him. As for Keys, he really is an egotistical cretin. I'm not normally one for personal insults but he deserves it. Keys isn't all that good and is perfectly replaceable as Sky have shown. In fact the only reason that he is considered good is because him and Gray come as a package. Keys survives on the strength of Gray.
Wilson is and by a distance. Matterface had his good days on the Radio, he does have to tolerate Carlisle as well on the box.
I have to say I'm only heard Matterface doing commentary on the radio once - and I remember him being even worse than he's been during the World Cup. It was an Arsenal 7-3 win over Newcastle commentated on by him and Collymore and it was dreadful. Both seemed to be yelling and talking utter drivel throughtout.
And sorry in no world is Matterface better than Wilson - Wilson is very good in my view. He gets the sense of occasion for big matches across very well, works well with his co-commentators and I find his commentaries very listenable and affable. And he is not 'bland' (which is a saying I really dislike and is very overused) - otherwise he wouldn't have been in so many of the ideal line-up lists on here. He's obviously good and not bland if so many of us on here think he's very good.
I do have to admit I have sometimes confused him and Simon Brotherton though by mistake - not a slight on both as they're both brilliant but they do sound similar in voice I often think.
No way is Neville as good on co-comm as Gray was, Chamberlain as good as Keys come on nobody could really believe that. Neville has covered Gray on the analysis but not the co-comm.
I stand by my point - in fact I'd probably say Neville & Chamberlin are better.
Keys isn't anything special in terms of presenting and comes with a big ego and did big up his role - while Ed does as good a job but comes without the ego and does what a good presenter should do and makes it his job is to get the best out of the 'experts' he has. In a strange way, the best praise for Ed is that it's always Neville and Carragher who gets the praise for how good MNF is - so Ed is clearly doing a good job getting good analysis from them and presenting in a way that allows them to shine.
And I'd also add Des Lynam (who'd know all about presenting and certainly more than me) seems to think Ed is very good - and that Keys is at times his own biggest fan so it's not just me who thinks it but an experienced pro like Des too.
On the Neville front, he's far superior as a pundit to Gray and I'd say pretty much equal on the commentary too. Gray is a good broadcaster no doubt but often can descend into cliches or hyping up certain players beyond belief (Gerrard a particular example) and I think Neville is now a good broadcaster too, makes good points (or as good as you're going to get from a co-commentator) and now sounds like a #1 co-commentator.
Plus I'd argue Neville matches Gray in terms of memorable commentary moments - if you asked the average punter I'm sure the Neville 'goal-gasm' from 2012 would be quite well-remembered and probably nearly as much as Gray's 'Youuu Beaaauuutttyyy' line from 2005.
Here we go guys, just thought I would add a bit of fun to the World Cup line up that quite a few of us took part in.
I went through all our entries and counted all the selections from the categories that were suggested.
I have then listed the most popular to compile our special, and unique, football's commentators World Cup line up.
As far as the commentators and co-commentators go who is listed 1 would get the final, 1 and 2 the semi, 1,2,3,4 the quarter whilst the 5th gets only one game from the last 16.
Presenters.
Lead Presenter James Richardson with Ed Chamberlin and Jeff Stelling
Pundits Martin O'neil, Graham Souness, Thierry Henry, Gary Neville
Jamie Carraghar and Ray Wilkins
Commentators Martin Tyler, Ian Darke, Steve Wilson Guy Mowbery
and Jon Champion
Co-commentators Davie Provan, Jim Beglin, Andy Gray, Danny Murphy
and Alan Smith.
Would be a very interesting line up if it was decided on our votes!!
One thing for sure as far as co-commentators goes is how well Danny Murphy has done this summer, however apart from him none of the others in the top 5 have appeared at this years World Cup, clearly shows we all think that was a problem with most of the pundits.
Even to this day many still think Andy Gray is still one of the best around.
On the commentators front there was only one vote between the top 3 but what a line up we would have there!!
As far as pundits to be honest there was a fairly even split although Martin O'Neil was strong at the top.
Mr.Henry was also a strong favorite for many of us.
I was a little surprised how well Jamie Carraghar did.
On side notes Richard Keys, love him or hate him, still polled quite a few votes although didn't make the top 2.
Joe Spright did fairly well considering he only went as 3rd commentator, maybe a voice for the future?
Adrian Chiles, Sam Matterface, Jonathan Pearce were just a few famous faces of the present who didn't get any votes.
There you go, passed a hour or so and hopefully a little interesting as to what it could look like for us if votes counted!!
This is a genuine question, which so far no one has answered.
Why would the BBC/ITV employ Lawro, Hansen, Townsend and others as pundits for 10+ years if they are unpopular, a poor pundit/co-commentator, surely they must have had loads of contract extensions in that time, so they have had plenty of chances to get rid of them?
Are BBC/ITV just playing dumb, and ignoring what their viewers want, thinking they know best, or is they carry out focus groups and market research which paints a completely different picture of said pundits, than is portrayed here?
Firstly I'm not sure the viewers' opinions do count that much, unless of course people switch off in their millions (which is unlikely in this case as the main selling point for most people is the football. It's not like a police drama or something where if you stop enjoying the characters you're quite probably going to end up not watching any more.) Ultimately I guess the pundits are decided by a fairly limited number of people and really it's their view that matters. If I was to be in charge of picking a punditry team for a football tournament I'd pick who I thought was best and probably wouldn't be too bothered what other viewers thought. As an example, the people in charge at BBC Sport have obviously decided Guy Mowbray is a better commentator than Steve Wilson and Jonathan Pearce. What are the chances of them changing that view? How many people make a decision over something which is subjective and then a few years later drastically change their mind? And how many are really going to listen to public opinion if they believe they've chosen the best people for the job?
And I think research for this type of thing would always favour those already in the jobs. I'm not a fan of Coronation Street and have barely ever seen it but I do know some characters. If someone was to ask me as part of research who I thought the best characters were and whether I thought it needed improving then I'd probably name a few characters I knew - regardless of actually liking them or not - and say that it didn't need improving. That's not because I think it has amazing characters and is a great show but more because I have no conscious thoughts on new ideas or better alternatives and generally people taking part in a survey are going to wish to seem helpful and not display too much ignorance. Therefore if they're asked 'do you like Mark Lawrenson/Alan Hansen/Alan Shearer' the masses are probably going to give a favourable response unless they actively dislike them. Equally if asked 'who is your favourite BBC pundit?' most people are going to opt for Hansen/Shearer/Lawrenson because they're the most prominent ones so a lot of people would just be happy to give a name of someone they know works for the BBC - amongst the masses I'm not sure too many people are going to say 'I saw Michael Laudrup on there once in May 2013 - I'd like to see him used again'.
Of course some people will like them but I'm not sure the fact they've been there for a long time proves that. Of course the likelihood is over time they form networks with those who make the big decisions, potentially making it less likely that big names are going to be moved on.
You clearly like bland and boring personally I would rather listen to somebody prepared to speak his mind and tell it as they really see it.
I couldn't care if I was in a minority I will give my views as I see them and personally that sort of line up tells me why I rarely watch BBC. It couldn't be worse I genuinely can't see what any of them offer other than stating the obvious or pre planned stats or lines.
You're idea of "non BBC bore" is Steve Bower! A steady, unspectacular, solid number 3 or 4.
Why is he superior to Wilson and Mowbray? He's certainly no more interesting, is he?
I have to say I'm only heard Matterface doing commentary on the radio once - and I remember him being even worse than he's been during the World Cup. It was an Arsenal 7-3 win over Newcastle commentated on by him and Collymore and it was dreadful. Both seemed to be yelling and talking utter drivel throughtout.
And sorry in no world is Matterface better than Wilson - Wilson is very good in my view. He gets the sense of occasion for big matches across very well, works well with his co-commentators and I find his commentaries very listenable and affable. And he is not 'bland' (which is a saying I really dislike and is very overused) - otherwise he wouldn't have been in so many of the ideal line-up lists on here. He's obviously good and not bland if so many of us on here think he's very good.
I do have to admit I have sometimes confused him and Simon Brotherton though by mistake - not a slight on both as they're both brilliant but they do sound similar in voice I often think.
I stand by my point - in fact I'd probably say Neville & Chamberlin are better.
Keys isn't anything special in terms of presenting and comes with a big ego and did big up his role - while Ed does as good a job but comes without the ego and does what a good presenter should do and makes it his job is to get the best out of the 'experts' he has. In a strange way, the best praise for Ed is that it's always Neville and Carragher who gets the praise for how good MNF is - so Ed is clearly doing a good job getting good analysis from them and presenting in a way that allows them to shine.
And I'd also add Des Lynam (who'd know all about presenting and certainly more than me) seems to think Ed is very good - and that Keys is at times his own biggest fan so it's not just me who thinks it but an experienced pro like Des too.
On the Neville front, he's far superior as a pundit to Gray and I'd say pretty much equal on the commentary too. Gray is a good broadcaster no doubt but often can descend into cliches or hyping up certain players beyond belief (Gerrard a particular example) and I think Neville is now a good broadcaster too, makes good points (or as good as you're going to get from a co-commentator) and now sounds like a #1 co-commentator.
Plus I'd argue Neville matches Gray in terms of memorable commentary moments - if you asked the average punter I'm sure the Neville 'goal-gasm' from 2012 would be quite well-remembered and probably nearly as much as Gray's 'Youuu Beaaauuutttyyy' line from 2005.
Collymore is quality, great variety of vocabulary, orator of the highest order. Bland maybe overused but with Wilson it sits well, boring, big headed, total non-entitity sorry I am not having praise for him he is crap and worst of all damned biased when anything to do with his beloved Liverpool comes up.
I like Neville but as a co-comm he struggles, Gray was one of the very few who mastered it. Keys and Gray have not been replaced at Sky, I don't understand why they don't go for the peerless James Richardson, well I do he is no cheerleader. No1 requirement now for a high profile job on any sports channel.
Collymore is quality, great variety of vocabulary, orator of the highest order. Bland maybe overused but with Wilson it sits well, boring, big headed, total non-entitity sorry I am not having praise for him he is crap and worst of all damned biased when anything to do with his beloved Liverpool comes up.
I like Neville but as a co-comm he struggles, Gray was one of the very few who mastered it. Keys and Gray have not been replaced at Sky, I don't understand why they don't go for the peerless James Richardson, well I do he is no cheerleader. No1 requirement now for a high profile job on any sports channel.
Have to say according to most on here he would rate very highly as he came out lead presenter for our own World Cup line up.
You're idea of "non BBC bore" is Steve Bower! A steady, unspectacular, solid number 3 or 4.
Why is he superior to Wilson and Mowbray? He's certainly no more interesting, is he?
He is superior because he doesn't feel the need to hear his own voice all the time either with needlees, tenuous stats like Mowbray, or the verbal onslaught and false hype and excitement of Wilson, unlike the other 2 he describes the game in a calm simple manner, has a bit of humour and can get something out of the most uninteresting or thick co-comm, eg Kilbane or even Savage. A class act in a sea of doom.
Collymore is quality, great variety of vocabulary, orator of the highest order. Bland maybe overused but with Wilson it sits well, boring, big headed, total non-entitity sorry I am not having praise for him he is crap and worst of all damned biased when anything to do with his beloved Liverpool comes up.
I like Neville but as a co-comm he struggles, Gray was one of the very few who mastered it. Keys and Gray have not been replaced at Sky, I don't understand why they don't go for the peerless James Richardson, well I do he is no cheerleader. No1 requirement now for a high profile job on any sports channel.
Post 9583? I'd be interested in what qualities you feel Bower has that the one's you slate haven't?
Collymore is quality, great variety of vocabulary, orator of the highest order. Bland maybe overused but with Wilson it sits well, boring, big headed, total non-entitity sorry I am not having praise for him he is crap and worst of all damned biased when anything to do with his beloved Liverpool comes up.
I like Neville but as a co-comm he struggles, Gray was one of the very few who mastered it. Keys and Gray have not been replaced at Sky, I don't understand why they don't go for the peerless James Richardson, well I do he is no cheerleader. No1 requirement now for a high profile job on any sports channel.
All I remember of him from the commentary I heard was saying people's tweets and yelling "I am Theo Walcott. I am a Striker" for no apparent reason - and I wish I were making that last bit up. Maybe he was just having a bad day that day but I remember thinking that commentary on radio was dreadful and any good points he may have made (and I don't remember any of them if there were any) were cancelled out by the awful goal calls.
And trust me I spotted a lot of Liverpool bias last season (especially towards the end) but I certainly didn't think Wilson was that biased at all - Hansen and Lawrenson and others were far worse for it (and that's not even beginning with the national press where the fawning was very over-the-top). I'd say most commentators were far worse for bias or favouring Liverpool than Steve Wilson during that period.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the 'new breed' of talent - you don't seem fans of them on a whole (which is fair enough - and you're entitled to your view) whereas I think the 'new breed' like Wilson, Mowbray, Murphy, Ed Chamberlin, Mark Chapman etc. are all really good (and not bland but are good at their jobs while being down-to-earth and inserting some but not too much personality)and am just desperate for the last of the last generation of pundits like Hansen, Lawro, Shearer and Townsend to disappear.
And I'd like to thank Readingfan too - I was trying to answer that question earlier but I think he sort off got to the point of what I was trying to say but in a much more coherent way.
He is superior because he doesn't feel the need to hear his own voice all the time either with needlees, tenuous stats like Mowbray, or the verbal onslaught and false hype and excitement of Wilson, unlike the other 2 he describes the game in a calm simple manner, has a bit of humour and can get something out of the most uninteresting or thick co-comm, eg Kilbane or even Savage. A class act in a sea of doom.
Thanks for your answer. Can't see anything in Bower myself that makes him any better than John Roeder, or Simon Brotherton. He's capable, and steady, but wouldn't you say he's actually quite bland really, to use your own definition?
I'm not sure Steve Wilson is a Liverpool fan either
Mr Wikipedia suggests he is (take that as you will) - and also a Tranmere fan.
But I have to say I wouldn't know who he supported from his commentaries.
Mr Wikipedia suggests he is (take that as you will) - and also a Tranmere fan.
But I have to say I wouldn't know who he supported from his commentaries.
He is a very very keen supporter of Tranmere, def not Liverpool.
As it's now many years on, the "decision" was Davie Provan becoming a regular co-comm on Sky live PL games.
Up to that point he had never done live PL games (or certainly not many).
Let's just say I had some "correspondence" - there was a really convenient few pages of this thread where literally about 15 different posters all said how highly they rated Provan and that he should become a live PL co-comm. It read very well - high quality, articulate, reasoned posts from a wide range of different posters.
I included the link and said it wasn't just my opinion - I just said please take a few minutes and read through this - it's a very widely held view.
And about 2 or 3 months later, Provan became a regular live PL co-comm!
Maybe it was a complete coincidence - but who knows - can't be proved either way!
Interesting - good to know we're useful for something! That does sound plausible as Provan wasn't part of the initial audition process when Andy Gray left but then the following season was suddenly used significantly pretty much from the start. I do think he's excellent.
Although I am slightly confused because having been reminded of that I went searching through the thread and that discussion actually took place in February 2010 which must have been before Provan was being considered for live Premier League co-commentary?
Very glad that it looks like we'll have Wilson on the live semi-final tomorrow night. I feel this is the tournament in which the BBC are starting to move in the right direction, even if they're not quite there yet. This is in contrast to the ITV who with their commentators I don't see any light at the end of the tunnel. The best I can hope for is that when ESPN lose their rights they might make a go for Champon, Burley and even Ian Darke on loan (I think the last of these is certainly a very long shot!)
Interesting - good to know we're useful for something! That does sound plausible as Provan wasn't part of the initial audition process when Andy Gray left but then the following season was suddenly used significantly pretty much from the start. I do think he's excellent.
Although I am slightly confused because having been reminded of that I went searching through the thread and that discussion actually took place in February 2010 which must have been before Provan was being considered for live Premier League co-commentary?
Slightly puzzled - I can only think that the discussion in February 2010 was referring to something else.
Yes it was a rather unusual situation, Ray apparently took ill just before game and with no time to replace him, George Hamilton had to commentate on the full 120 mins of the Holland - Costa Rica game and the penalty shoot out on his own, which is no mean feat. He did a good job in the situation.
On that matter.....who would posters think would do the best job in that situation from other broadcasters and who do you think would struggle? I think Steve Wilson would be the best. He is the best on MOTD at analysing as well as commentating. I think Sam Matterface would be a total disaster, he struggles enough as it is. I also don't think Jon Champion is suited to solo work. Yes he is generally a fine commentator but sometimes he can be rather opinionated and over bearing and can over do certain situations.
Of course Clive Tyldesley did exactly that back in 2010, when Jim Beglin was taken ill just before the Netherlands V Uruguay semi-final - there must be something about the Dutch! As I recall, I thought Tyldesley did a good job.
Of course Clive Tyldesley did exactly that back in 2010, when Jim Beglin was taken ill just before the Netherlands V Uruguay semi-final - there must be something about the Dutch! As I recall, I thought Tyldesley did a good job.
Oh yes I forgot about that, and yes Clive did a good job.
The worst nightmare would be for the commentator to be taken ill just as the match starts (as happened to Andrew Cotter on a rugby international a couple of years ago and co-comm Jonathan Davies had to commentate until they got a spare radio bod to take over).
The worst nightmare would be for the commentator to be taken ill just as the match starts (as happened to Andrew Cotter on a rugby international a couple of years ago and co-comm Jonathan Davies had to commentate until they got a spare radio bod to take over).
Of course Clive Tyldesley did exactly that back in 2010, when Jim Beglin was taken ill just before the Netherlands V Uruguay semi-final - there must be something about the Dutch! As I recall, I thought Tyldesley did a good job.
Coupled with ex-Republic of Ireland internationals!
The worst nightmare would be for the commentator to be taken ill just as the match starts (as happened to Andrew Cotter on a rugby international a couple of years ago and co-comm Jonathan Davies had to commentate until they got a spare radio bod to take over).
The thought of Clarke Carlisle commentating.....
If main comm got taken ill they'd take the world feed, or more likely utilise a 'spare comm' at IBC.
Comments
He's now posted a picture from the stadium in Belo Horizonte:
https://twitter.com/SteveWilson1967/status/486159748044423168
I'd rather listen to Neville than Gray any day. I did use to like Gray but I've lost all respect for him. As for Keys, he really is an egotistical cretin. I'm not normally one for personal insults but he deserves it. Keys isn't all that good and is perfectly replaceable as Sky have shown. In fact the only reason that he is considered good is because him and Gray come as a package. Keys survives on the strength of Gray.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/liverpool-hero-ray-houghton-cancels-3822554
I have to say I'm only heard Matterface doing commentary on the radio once - and I remember him being even worse than he's been during the World Cup. It was an Arsenal 7-3 win over Newcastle commentated on by him and Collymore and it was dreadful. Both seemed to be yelling and talking utter drivel throughtout.
And sorry in no world is Matterface better than Wilson - Wilson is very good in my view. He gets the sense of occasion for big matches across very well, works well with his co-commentators and I find his commentaries very listenable and affable. And he is not 'bland' (which is a saying I really dislike and is very overused) - otherwise he wouldn't have been in so many of the ideal line-up lists on here. He's obviously good and not bland if so many of us on here think he's very good.
I do have to admit I have sometimes confused him and Simon Brotherton though by mistake - not a slight on both as they're both brilliant but they do sound similar in voice I often think.
I stand by my point - in fact I'd probably say Neville & Chamberlin are better.
Keys isn't anything special in terms of presenting and comes with a big ego and did big up his role - while Ed does as good a job but comes without the ego and does what a good presenter should do and makes it his job is to get the best out of the 'experts' he has. In a strange way, the best praise for Ed is that it's always Neville and Carragher who gets the praise for how good MNF is - so Ed is clearly doing a good job getting good analysis from them and presenting in a way that allows them to shine.
And I'd also add Des Lynam (who'd know all about presenting and certainly more than me) seems to think Ed is very good - and that Keys is at times his own biggest fan so it's not just me who thinks it but an experienced pro like Des too.
On the Neville front, he's far superior as a pundit to Gray and I'd say pretty much equal on the commentary too. Gray is a good broadcaster no doubt but often can descend into cliches or hyping up certain players beyond belief (Gerrard a particular example) and I think Neville is now a good broadcaster too, makes good points (or as good as you're going to get from a co-commentator) and now sounds like a #1 co-commentator.
Plus I'd argue Neville matches Gray in terms of memorable commentary moments - if you asked the average punter I'm sure the Neville 'goal-gasm' from 2012 would be quite well-remembered and probably nearly as much as Gray's 'Youuu Beaaauuutttyyy' line from 2005.
I went through all our entries and counted all the selections from the categories that were suggested.
I have then listed the most popular to compile our special, and unique, football's commentators World Cup line up.
As far as the commentators and co-commentators go who is listed 1 would get the final, 1 and 2 the semi, 1,2,3,4 the quarter whilst the 5th gets only one game from the last 16.
Presenters.
Lead Presenter James Richardson with Ed Chamberlin and Jeff Stelling
Pundits Martin O'neil, Graham Souness, Thierry Henry, Gary Neville
Jamie Carraghar and Ray Wilkins
Commentators Martin Tyler, Ian Darke, Steve Wilson Guy Mowbery
and Jon Champion
Co-commentators Davie Provan, Jim Beglin, Andy Gray, Danny Murphy
and Alan Smith.
Would be a very interesting line up if it was decided on our votes!!
One thing for sure as far as co-commentators goes is how well Danny Murphy has done this summer, however apart from him none of the others in the top 5 have appeared at this years World Cup, clearly shows we all think that was a problem with most of the pundits.
Even to this day many still think Andy Gray is still one of the best around.
On the commentators front there was only one vote between the top 3 but what a line up we would have there!!
As far as pundits to be honest there was a fairly even split although Martin O'Neil was strong at the top.
Mr.Henry was also a strong favorite for many of us.
I was a little surprised how well Jamie Carraghar did.
On side notes Richard Keys, love him or hate him, still polled quite a few votes although didn't make the top 2.
Joe Spright did fairly well considering he only went as 3rd commentator, maybe a voice for the future?
Adrian Chiles, Sam Matterface, Jonathan Pearce were just a few famous faces of the present who didn't get any votes.
There you go, passed a hour or so and hopefully a little interesting as to what it could look like for us if votes counted!!
Firstly I'm not sure the viewers' opinions do count that much, unless of course people switch off in their millions (which is unlikely in this case as the main selling point for most people is the football. It's not like a police drama or something where if you stop enjoying the characters you're quite probably going to end up not watching any more.) Ultimately I guess the pundits are decided by a fairly limited number of people and really it's their view that matters. If I was to be in charge of picking a punditry team for a football tournament I'd pick who I thought was best and probably wouldn't be too bothered what other viewers thought. As an example, the people in charge at BBC Sport have obviously decided Guy Mowbray is a better commentator than Steve Wilson and Jonathan Pearce. What are the chances of them changing that view? How many people make a decision over something which is subjective and then a few years later drastically change their mind? And how many are really going to listen to public opinion if they believe they've chosen the best people for the job?
And I think research for this type of thing would always favour those already in the jobs. I'm not a fan of Coronation Street and have barely ever seen it but I do know some characters. If someone was to ask me as part of research who I thought the best characters were and whether I thought it needed improving then I'd probably name a few characters I knew - regardless of actually liking them or not - and say that it didn't need improving. That's not because I think it has amazing characters and is a great show but more because I have no conscious thoughts on new ideas or better alternatives and generally people taking part in a survey are going to wish to seem helpful and not display too much ignorance. Therefore if they're asked 'do you like Mark Lawrenson/Alan Hansen/Alan Shearer' the masses are probably going to give a favourable response unless they actively dislike them. Equally if asked 'who is your favourite BBC pundit?' most people are going to opt for Hansen/Shearer/Lawrenson because they're the most prominent ones so a lot of people would just be happy to give a name of someone they know works for the BBC - amongst the masses I'm not sure too many people are going to say 'I saw Michael Laudrup on there once in May 2013 - I'd like to see him used again'.
Of course some people will like them but I'm not sure the fact they've been there for a long time proves that. Of course the likelihood is over time they form networks with those who make the big decisions, potentially making it less likely that big names are going to be moved on.
You're idea of "non BBC bore" is Steve Bower! A steady, unspectacular, solid number 3 or 4.
Why is he superior to Wilson and Mowbray? He's certainly no more interesting, is he?
Collymore is quality, great variety of vocabulary, orator of the highest order. Bland maybe overused but with Wilson it sits well, boring, big headed, total non-entitity sorry I am not having praise for him he is crap and worst of all damned biased when anything to do with his beloved Liverpool comes up.
I like Neville but as a co-comm he struggles, Gray was one of the very few who mastered it. Keys and Gray have not been replaced at Sky, I don't understand why they don't go for the peerless James Richardson, well I do he is no cheerleader. No1 requirement now for a high profile job on any sports channel.
Have to say according to most on here he would rate very highly as he came out lead presenter for our own World Cup line up.
He is superior because he doesn't feel the need to hear his own voice all the time either with needlees, tenuous stats like Mowbray, or the verbal onslaught and false hype and excitement of Wilson, unlike the other 2 he describes the game in a calm simple manner, has a bit of humour and can get something out of the most uninteresting or thick co-comm, eg Kilbane or even Savage. A class act in a sea of doom.
Post 9583? I'd be interested in what qualities you feel Bower has that the one's you slate haven't?
All I remember of him from the commentary I heard was saying people's tweets and yelling "I am Theo Walcott. I am a Striker" for no apparent reason - and I wish I were making that last bit up. Maybe he was just having a bad day that day but I remember thinking that commentary on radio was dreadful and any good points he may have made (and I don't remember any of them if there were any) were cancelled out by the awful goal calls.
And trust me I spotted a lot of Liverpool bias last season (especially towards the end) but I certainly didn't think Wilson was that biased at all - Hansen and Lawrenson and others were far worse for it (and that's not even beginning with the national press where the fawning was very over-the-top). I'd say most commentators were far worse for bias or favouring Liverpool than Steve Wilson during that period.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the 'new breed' of talent - you don't seem fans of them on a whole (which is fair enough - and you're entitled to your view) whereas I think the 'new breed' like Wilson, Mowbray, Murphy, Ed Chamberlin, Mark Chapman etc. are all really good (and not bland but are good at their jobs while being down-to-earth and inserting some but not too much personality)and am just desperate for the last of the last generation of pundits like Hansen, Lawro, Shearer and Townsend to disappear.
And I'd like to thank Readingfan too - I was trying to answer that question earlier but I think he sort off got to the point of what I was trying to say but in a much more coherent way.
Thanks for your answer. Can't see anything in Bower myself that makes him any better than John Roeder, or Simon Brotherton. He's capable, and steady, but wouldn't you say he's actually quite bland really, to use your own definition?
Mr Wikipedia suggests he is (take that as you will) - and also a Tranmere fan.
But I have to say I wouldn't know who he supported from his commentaries.
He is a very very keen supporter of Tranmere, def not Liverpool.
Interesting - good to know we're useful for something! That does sound plausible as Provan wasn't part of the initial audition process when Andy Gray left but then the following season was suddenly used significantly pretty much from the start. I do think he's excellent.
Although I am slightly confused because having been reminded of that I went searching through the thread and that discussion actually took place in February 2010 which must have been before Provan was being considered for live Premier League co-commentary?
Very glad that it looks like we'll have Wilson on the live semi-final tomorrow night. I feel this is the tournament in which the BBC are starting to move in the right direction, even if they're not quite there yet. This is in contrast to the ITV who with their commentators I don't see any light at the end of the tunnel. The best I can hope for is that when ESPN lose their rights they might make a go for Champon, Burley and even Ian Darke on loan (I think the last of these is certainly a very long shot!)
Slightly puzzled - I can only think that the discussion in February 2010 was referring to something else.
Please PM me if you wish to discuss further.
Yes it was a rather unusual situation, Ray apparently took ill just before game and with no time to replace him, George Hamilton had to commentate on the full 120 mins of the Holland - Costa Rica game and the penalty shoot out on his own, which is no mean feat. He did a good job in the situation.
On that matter.....who would posters think would do the best job in that situation from other broadcasters and who do you think would struggle? I think Steve Wilson would be the best. He is the best on MOTD at analysing as well as commentating. I think Sam Matterface would be a total disaster, he struggles enough as it is. I also don't think Jon Champion is suited to solo work. Yes he is generally a fine commentator but sometimes he can be rather opinionated and over bearing and can over do certain situations.
Oh yes I forgot about that, and yes Clive did a good job.
The thought of Clarke Carlisle commentating.....
Or Lawro :eek: Doesn't bear thinking about
Coupled with ex-Republic of Ireland internationals!
If main comm got taken ill they'd take the world feed, or more likely utilise a 'spare comm' at IBC.
Joe Speight!