Test Cricket England v New Zealand 2013

[DracoM]

I fear that that is precisely the reason I now no longer listen to TMS.

The Sky TV sound-only tactical and strategic analysis on air is far, far more technical and alert than anything TMS did, and while the serious commentators on TMS eg CMJ kept to cricket, too many others took us to areas that sidelined cricket. Yes, I like Vic Marks, but he is too often stifled by those around him.

[DracoM]

For example, just listened to three overs on TMS and they missed / did not notice / point out that it was the end of a Swann over, that then the bowling had actually changed from Broad to Finn, OR noticed that Broad had left the field.

Erm..............?

[amateur51]

For example, just listened to three overs on TMS and they missed / did not notice / point out that it was the end of a Swann over, that then the bowling had actually changed from Broad to Finn, OR noticed that Broad had left the field.

Erm..............?

I agree about that tendency, Draco but I put that down to the change in producer to Adam Mountford and the advent of the need for interactivity - text, tweets etc. If they ban cake from the commentary box then I'll know that the game is up

[anotherbob]

I agree about that tendency, Draco but I put that down to the change in producer to Adam Mountford and the advent of the need for interactivity - text, tweets etc.

To explain is NOT to forgive.... and I question the use of the word NEED in connection with interactivity.

[amateur51]

To explain is NOT to forgive.... and I question the use of the word NEED in connection with interactivity.

"O tempora o mores"

[Sir Velo]

I believe that CMJ was in a league of his own. For me Simon Mann does a good job as a commentator in a group of people too many of whom think the show is about them not the game. The partnership I dread is Blofeld commentating with Michael Vaughan (AKA Dave Podmore) summarising. They are both convinced of the hilarity of their humour and allow their anecdotes to replace what they should actually be doing. Agnew does a good job especially in keeping Boycott on the straight and narrow. My summariser of choice is Vic Marks who is disinclined to waffle on about the colour of his colleagues trousers, passing birdlife and public transport, or the social life in the country they happen to be visiting.
It's my view that the reputation TMS built in the 60s, 70s and 80s has resulted in some contributors believing that the show is more important than the cricket.

Agree with much of that: full marks whenever the ex Somerset all-rounder is on the roster. Simon Mann is somewhat dull. I have been impressed with the way that Ed Smith has taken the few opportunities to commentate which have come his way. He has the sort of mind which is able to consider situations from different angles. He may be the only cricketer who has written scholarly articles on Wagner since Cardus.

Michael Vaughan has definitely enlivened the summariser's position with his insights into how the contemporary game is played. He is thoughtful, quick witted and humorous, albeit occasionally the dressing room banter does go a tad too far into laddishness. I agree his stints with Blowers do sometimes degenerate into "my dear old thing" blather. He's probably at his best when partnered with Agnew, the new boy Smith or the overseas commentator (in this case the dependable Waddle).

Blowers, sadly, has now become a caricature of himself; sadly, the problems with his vision mean that the bread and butter of commentary, viz actually describing the action on the field is nowfrequently error strewn ("was that Broad? No, Anderson. Actually it was Finn. My goodness me!"). A little of Blowers now goes a long way.

Boycott, my earliest schoolboy hero as a cricketer, is one man with whose services I would now dispense. If I could have a quid for each time he goes into his interminable schtick about uncovered pitches, sticks of rhubarb, "me mam's pinny" and the perennial Fred Trueman anecdote ("that ball were wasted on thee lad") I would now be living a life of retired bliss.

Jeremy Coney is obviously the perennial choice of Kiwi summariser. However, his lack of in-depth current knowledge of the New Zealand squad has led to some embarrassing moments of ignorance. Either he should do a little bit more homework, or a younger name (Dion Nash?) would be a change up.

[amateur51]

Agree with much of that: full marks whenever the ex Somerset all-rounder is on the roster. Simon Mann is somewhat dull. I have been impressed with the way that Ed Smith has taken the few opportunities to commentate which have come his way. He has the sort of mind which is able to consider situations from different angles. He may be the only cricketer who has written scholarly articles on Wagner since Cardus.


Boycott, my earliest schoolboy hero as a cricketer, is one man with whose services I would now dispense. If I could have a quid for each time he goes into his interminable schtick about uncovered pitches, sticks of rhubarb, "me mam's pinny" and the perennial Fred Trueman anecdote ("that ball were wasted on thee lad") I would now be living a life of retired bliss.

I did enjoy Dickie Bird's story of Boycott's refusing him entry to Boycott Parva, and then having to phone the fire brigade when Dickie got stuck trying to climb over the wall ;and concluding with "I'll make you a sandwich Dickie, but then you have to go"

[aeolium]

Blowers, sadly, has now become a caricature of himself; sadly, the problems with his vision mean that the bread and butter of commentary, viz actually describing the action on the field is nowfrequently error strewn ("was that Broad? No, Anderson. Actually it was Finn. My goodness me!"). A little of Blowers now goes a long way.

Yes - I think he might have even achieved the three-card trick of getting bowler, batsman and fielder wrong in the same ball. When he's on commentary it's frequently a matter of pure guesswork for the listener as to what is happening.

If the rain does force the game to end in a draw then England will have had no-one to blame but themselves. What was Trott playing at on Sunday evening? Cook's declaration was ridiculously delayed and then he employed ultra-defensive field placings as if they were bowling to the best batsmen in the world.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

and a lengthy discussion of all these points with a team of journalists prepared to both make a point and see both sides... excellent ... now sitting out the rain and hearing about how tough playing the WI was .....

[Mr Pee]

Yes - I think he might have even achieved the three-card trick of getting bowler, batsman and fielder wrong in the same ball. When he's on commentary it's frequently a matter of pure guesswork for the listener as to what is happening.

If the rain does force the game to end in a draw then England will have had no-one to blame but themselves. What was Trott playing at on Sunday evening? Cook's declaration was ridiculously delayed and then he employed ultra-defensive field placings as if they were bowling to the best batsmen in the world.

There is much I do not understand about Test Cricket, but I find the weather thing is the most baffling. Why should a spot of rain have such a decisive impact on the result, and turn what would have been a thumping win into a draw? Why can't they just resume when the weather gets better? It just seems ridiculous.

[amateur51]

There is much I do not understand about Test Cricket, but I find the weather thing is the most baffling. Why should a spot of rain have such a decisive impact on the result, and turn what would have been a thumping win into a draw? Why can't they just resume when the weather gets better? It just seems ridiculous.

This from a fan of a sport that gets wildly excited about ... tyres

[anotherbob]

Why can't they just resume when the weather gets better?

That is what they will do, provided it gets better before the close of play.

Edit. Mr. Pee... Play is scheduled to resume at 3.00, you just have time to watch the good bits of the Monaco G.P.

[Sir Velo]

There is much I do not understand about Test Cricket, but I find the weather thing is the most baffling. Why should a spot of rain have such a decisive impact on the result, and turn what would have been a thumping win into a draw? Why can't they just resume when the weather gets better? It just seems ridiculous.

Put simply cricket is one sport where due to the different nature of batting and bowling, you cannot say that conditions are the same for both sides. Fielding in the rain is not only extremely hazardous but bowling on a wet surface is a guaranteed ankle breaker. Moreover, the ball becomes a bar of soap and is all but impossible to control for bowlers.

[aeolium]

There is much I do not understand about Test Cricket, but I find the weather thing is the most baffling. Why should a spot of rain have such a decisive impact on the result, and turn what would have been a thumping win into a draw? Why can't they just resume when the weather gets better? It just seems ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous or baffling? No sport has an unlimited timeframe and they cannot just schedule another day's play. Even rain has 'stopped play' in grands prix, even to the point of cancellation.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

.... finally; not a fine example of tactical nous by the England skipper eh?