Originally Posted by mikey1980:
“I've noticed a fair amount of negative comment on Andrew Castle and his position as the BBC's number one tennis commentator.
Now while I prefer people like Mark Petchey, Chris Bradnam and Nick Mullins, I have to admit there's nothing particularly objectionable about Castle.
Is that pretty much the consensus - that there's nothing wrong with Castle, its just there are better commentators out there? Or am I missing something?
Also, I'm wondering why Castle isn't used more as a presenter? After all, he's more experienced in that role having worked on GMTV for nearly 20 years. He seems to more suited to front of camera work than commentary...”
To me, Castle has a football commentator's tendency to chase the soundbite, and as a casual tennis viewer, I often feel as if I don't learn all that much from listening to him. Put those two things together (along with an unfortunate capacity for mixing his metaphors) and he can be a bit irritating.
Agree with the comments about Simon Reed. But the commentator I've really enjoyed listening to during this tournament is David Mercer. He's able to make good technical points very simply, can mix up the analysis with the anecdotes and he can produce memorable turns of phrase.
But what really impressed me was that when Lukas Rosol beat Rafael Nadal, Mercer didn't say anything for about 20 seconds. He resisted the urge to go for a bland "He's done it!" let the pictures and the crowd reaction do the initial talking and came up with a very eloquent summary to reflect the size of the upset.