stepsider wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 9:20 pm
Commentators need to add value, i.e. tell viewers something they may not know such as player's names etc, or provide information about events off camera, or whatever.
When aforesaid commentators are simply relaying details of what viewers can see for themselves - in particular via a constant stream of dire cliches and mangled metaphors - their input is best improved by being muted. When what they're saying is particularly asinine, it's time for a BT Sport rethink. LD gives the impression that he can't believe he's actually being paid to produce the rubbish he talks.
Although Healey is very annoying and a lot of a git, his rugby interventions on tactics and execution are very good.
At least he generally says something interesting. For example on Quins v Bath, he commentated on the different pre-match body language of the teams, with Bath looking very serious and Quins 'aving a bit of a larf'. Looks like the stern game face won on this occasion.
Healey's flaw is that he seems to question most ref calls whether they're good or not.
stepsider wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 9:20 pm
Commentators need to add value, i.e. tell viewers something they may not know such as player's names etc, or provide information about events off camera, or whatever.
When aforesaid commentators are simply relaying details of what viewers can see for themselves - in particular via a constant stream of dire cliches and mangled metaphors - their input is best improved by being muted. When what they're saying is particularly asinine, it's time for a BT Sport rethink. LD gives the impression that he can't believe he's actually being paid to produce the rubbish he talks.
Although Healey is very annoying and a lot of a git, his rugby interventions on tactics and execution are very good.
At least he generally says something interesting. For example on Quins v Bath, he commentated on the different pre-match body language of the teams, with Bath looking very serious and Quins 'aving a bit of a larf'. Looks like the stern game face won on this occasion.
Healey's flaw is that he seems to question most ref calls whether they're good or not.
Although Healey is very annoying and a lot of a git, his rugby interventions on tactics and execution are very good.
At least he generally says something interesting. For example on Quins v Bath, he commentated on the different pre-match body language of the teams, with Bath looking very serious and Quins 'aving a bit of a larf'. Looks like the stern game face won on this occasion.
Healey's flaw is that he seems to question most ref calls whether they're good or not.
and his pathetic banter with Kay and anyone else.
I'd say that Healy is also frequently guilty of hyperanalysing the plays (like Squidge) often reading into the situation some chance happening as though it were cleverly planned to the nth degree. Much of the stuff that happens on the pitch is quite random, spur of the moment and not pre planned but can alter the course of a game.
Healey can offer some interesting insight into a game. When he's being serious, he's Ok. His problem is that he thinks he's funny. He really isnt. Stick to the game, Austin.
fivepointer wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 3:55 pm
Healey can offer some interesting insight into a game. When he's being serious, he's Ok. His problem is that he thinks he's funny. He really isnt. Stick to the game, Austin.
Agreed for the most part. He’s so frustrating to listen to and seemed to be in a particularly strange mood on Saturday. He often seems to get really close to making a good point and then undoes it all.
He kept almost making an interesting point about defensive alignment when Hill shot out of the line for a Quins linebreak, but it was like he got bored of his own point halfway through. Saying things like “don’t rush up, back off the attacker otherwise you’ll get DEMOLISHED” isn’t really explaining anything about what Hill did wrong in that moment, yet he kept referencing it.
