Originally Posted by mlt11:
“My favourite commentators are Tyler and Darke (and Wilson though he does far fewer live games) precisely because of their general chat which, for me, provides a much more rounded and interesting viewing experience.
It's also why I'm glad Sky haven't dropped Parry. If you compare him to Leslie then sure, Leslie is much sharper and makes far fewer mistakes etc. But he doesn't have the rounded, broader broadcasting skills that Parry has.
To some extent I suspect it's a generational thing. I would imagine the likes of Tyler and Darke rate much more highly with older viewers than they do with younger viewers.”
I would agree with most of this. It's why I prefer Daniel Mann to Bill Leslie, and why I've never really been able to warm to Rob Hawthorne. Certainly I much prefer hearing commentators who seem to have a bit of wit about themselves. And a good voice is so important as well, there are some commentators who I know are technically good and have exceptional football knowledge, but I simply find their voices a bit unappealing.
Of course, when BSB, as was, was setting up, they deliberately wanted to change the style of commentary, by modelling it on the American style and making it much more of a conversation, rather than one voice talking for 99% of the time. They deliberately wanted the commentator and co-commentator to have a rapport and work together, and to that end asked Andy Gray to get involved in choosing them - and he recommended Martin Tyler because he'd worked with him before and got on well, but he was already their first choice.
Sometimes it does go a bit too far in the other direction, I think - Clive Tyldesley is the obvious example, I think. And I do like Martin Tyler, but it is certainly the case that he talks a lot during matches. Certainly he often talks about interesting things, but it's a bit like John Motson, he can sometimes add too many stats and anecdotes and if a game is very boring, as was the case on Monday, it can sometimes sound a bit desperate.
