What's wrong with the commentating...

pound cat

G.O.A.T.
I finally figured it out. Regardless of whether it's CBS or ESPN (the main players being Enberg, Carillo and one of the McEnroe's) I feel as if these guys belong to a club that I don't have the membership for. They aren't talking to the audience (me) or saying anything that makes the match more understandable to the tennis viewer. They work on presumed knowledge,,,that the viewers are all tennis junkies and know what a half-volley or a defensive lob is. Nor should a particular player be praised ad nauseum, only to talk about the other player the same way when he has won a set. Their job is to educate the viewer and get them involved in the match/sport, definitely not to be a third party to their "in" gossip about various tennis players, or to tell corny jokes that often have nothing to do with tennis eg Or comments like "Tiger is in the box so Roger can show off to him" Mary C (wave)
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
I agree. I remember the days when before the match started they would assess the players' games and talk about strengths and weaknesses. Even though I watch a ton of tennis and have been following it for a long time, I would have liked to hear JMac review Davydenko's game - is his FH or BH more reliable, etc...

And you forgot throwing out ridiculous theories. JMac in the 2nd and 3rd set that Fed was 'mentally and physically tired'. Sad.

I had the 4th set on Mute while on the phone - quite pleasurable.
 

Zets147

Banned
I bet the commentators have never seen some players before and just make it up as they go. I got the feeling of this during the Davydenko vs. Haas match.
 
T

tasukette

Guest
i think some of the more knowledgeable members here should set up a podcast that we can listen to instead. the match results threads are quite fun to read - especially when people start getting sassy and throwing around words like "chokefest" and bagel jokes. dick enberg is the worst commentator for me... always repeating himself and making mistakes every other sentence like a senile grandparent (minus being endearing).
 
Because it's common knowledge that if one is interested enough to watch the broadcast, then one should know the very basics of the game. Often time that's not true, but it doesnt make sense for them to explain the fundamentals of the game to the viewer on every single broadcast.

I for one dont know what a "Zone Defense" is in the game of basketball, but who cares, doesnt make it less enjoyable to watch.
 

35ft6

Legend
Not about the commentating but the ignorance of anchors on CBS. During one 1 minute stretch, this dude, obviously reading from a script, breathlessly said "serve and volley" when Roddick put away an easy forehand at the service line, then described Nadal running down a short ball and guiding it down the line as a "drop volley" (yes, they were describing Nada's shot, not his opponents, I'm sure...). I see this a lot. A guy at the baseline will hit a winner and the sports anchor will say "puts away an easy volley!"
 

alienhamster

Hall of Fame
pound cat said:
I finally figured it out. Regardless of whether it's CBS or ESPN (the main players being Enberg, Carillo and one of the McEnroe's) I feel as if these guys belong to a club that I don't have the membership for. They aren't talking to the audience (me) or saying anything that makes the match more understandable to the tennis viewer. They work on presumed knowledge,,,that the viewers are all tennis junkies and know what a half-volley or a defensive lob is. Nor should a particular player be praised ad nauseum, only to talk about the other player the same way when he has won a set. Their job is to educate the viewer and get them involved in the match/sport, definitely not to be a third party to their "in" gossip about various tennis players, or to tell corny jokes that often have nothing to do with tennis eg Or comments like "Tiger is in the box so Roger can show off to him" Mary C (wave)
Some very good points here. I noticed a bit more of the pedagogical mode in the Canadian coverage on CBC, and it made me aware of how much they don't attempt to draw in the casual viewer to the *mechanics* and *tactics* of the sport itself in typical US coverage. But they DO spend a lot of time and money on attracting viewers with flashy intros and "meaningful" retrospectives.

I would love to see them take a little time to replay a point--freeze and slow it down and illustrate how a point was constructed effectively, showing the movement of the players and the types of shot hit. They could even use a nice little white pen to draw Xs and Os on the screen. I feel like I have to do so much work to explain to my friends why a certain shot is so amazing, and it would help if the commentators actually did something other than just gab for 2 hours.
 

Backbored

Hall of Fame
That’s the way I feel about the commentating. They need someone who is not a tennis player to represent us fans.
 

Deuce

Banned
alienhamster said:
Some very good points here. I noticed a bit more of the pedagogical mode in the Canadian coverage on CBC, and it made me aware of how much they don't attempt to draw in the casual viewer to the *mechanics* and *tactics* of the sport itself in typical US coverage. But they DO spend a lot of time and money on attracting viewers with flashy intros and "meaningful" retrospectives.

I would love to see them take a little time to replay a point--freeze and slow it down and illustrate how a point was constructed effectively, showing the movement of the players and the types of shot hit. They could even use a nice little white pen to draw Xs and Os on the screen. I feel like I have to do so much work to explain to my friends why a certain shot is so amazing, and it would help if the commentators actually did something other than just gab for 2 hours.
I don't at all like Peter Burwash's detailed descriptions on Canadian telecasts of what a half-volley is, or of how to properly hit a slice backhand, or a kick serve. This isn't an instructional video, it's a telecast of a tennis match. It's not the time to be teaching viewers as if we're all a bunch of 6 year old kids.

Hell, you don't see that in other sports. Imagine Vin Scully saying
"And that, folks, is a home run. A home run is when the batted ball is hit over the outfield fence on the fly in fair territory - that is, between the right and left foul poles. On rare occasions, a batter can hit an 'inside-the-park home run' - that is a ball that is hit in fair territory, but not over the outfield fence, and which the defensive team - that is, the players with the large gloves on one hand - can't get the ball to any one of the four bases - and yes, home plate is a base - before the batter - who becomes the runner - gets there."
This is effectively what Burwash does. And it is effectively very annoying.
 

Phil

Hall of Fame
Deuce has a point. This time. There's a happy medium between over-generalized and empty commentary and instructional video-like drowning-by-minutae.

The few times I've had the pleasure to watch/listen to the BBC telecasts, I was pleasantly surprised at how close some of the commentary came to that happy medium.

Now, I'm stuck with Japanese commentators, and that only for Wimbledon (I don't subscribe to the cable stations that broadcast the other majors). If you think the US commentators are "bad" then you don't know how good you have it. The Japanese commentators, who waver between out and out SCREAMING during a rally, and describing stuff like string tension and repeating every minor action that the viewer can obviously gleam for himself("And now the players are sitting down for their between-games break. And now, they are returning to the court, with Federer to serve this game). Yeah, that's an actual "quote"; it never ends. "Oh my, Gonzalez hits the ball so very hard!"
 

Deuce

Banned
Watching BBC tennis telecasts back in the 80s was great - because their comments were so sparse. They would often stay with the match during the change-overs, and quite often, nary a word was spoken.

And during the match, all you'd hear is "Jolly good shot by McEnroe there", or some such. Usually, not more than one such comment per game. It was the closest thing to being there live that I've seen.
 

diredesire

Adjunct Moderator
Normally I don't comment much about the.. comment...ating, because i'm sure the job is harder than it seems, but I'm pretty fed up with Dick Enberg. Tasukette has it right. He makes so many errors in stats, players' names, and in general game play... That's not even the worst of it. I noticed the OP says they seem to be talking and commentating assuming prior knowledge, but Dick seems completely backwards of that, to me. He makes so many obvious statements, and makes very, very broad generalizations, etc. I found myself yelling at the TV for him to shut up today.

I don't think the others are half as bad, but I have no clue how Enberg got on the crew for tennis matches, nor do I know why he's still there. "Senile Grandparent" sounds about right to me. </rant>
 

alienhamster

Hall of Fame
Sorry. To clarify: When I mentioned the "pedagogical," I didn't mean to turn all commentary entirely into tennis instruction. But there is definitely something useful in providing *moments* of *actual analysis*--this kind of thing actually happens with some frequency during the olympics. For example, it's great to actually SEE, either in a slo-mo shot with commentary or a computer simulation, what the hell a triple sow cow actually is instead of just hearing constantly, "She nailed a triple sow cow with a double toe loop!"

Now, do I, as a casual tennis fan, need something like that every 5 minutes? No. Would it be nice in a 3 hour telecast to learn at least one thing about the sport that's relevant to the particular match I'm watching? You bet.

For the fans at home, why not slow down one of those Federer points and show WHY that short slice is so damn effective? Talk us thru the limited options the opponent has about where and how to hit it when they come forward, and where Fed will likely anticipate the next shot.

I don't think this is that disruptive or trivial in any way--much the opposite, in fact.
 

ta11geese3

Semi-Pro
Sometimes I feel like I'm listening to a radio commentator or something... where the targeted audience doesn't have a tv in front of them.

But we do, and I can see that he just served an ace, that he just broke, that the score is 40-15 (that one especially confuses me. It's right there!!!)
 

Deuce

Banned
diredesire said:
Normally I don't comment much about the.. comment...ating, because i'm sure the job is harder than it seems, but I'm pretty fed up with Dick Enberg. Tasukette has it right. He makes so many errors in stats, players' names, and in general game play... That's not even the worst of it. I noticed the OP says they seem to be talking and commentating assuming prior knowledge, but Dick seems completely backwards of that, to me. He makes so many obvious statements, and makes very, very broad generalizations, etc. I found myself yelling at the TV for him to shut up today.

I don't think the others are half as bad, but I have no clue how Enberg got on the crew for tennis matches, nor do I know why he's still there. "Senile Grandparent" sounds about right to me. </rant>
Leave Enberg alone. No, he's not perfect. He is elderly, and he makes some obvious errors. But he can also come up with some good lines ("That was her first unforced error of the night!" - after the top of the trophy fell off during Sharapova's celebration).

Enberg has been around for over 20 years, and his voice is comforting to some of us who grew up listening to him, bringing back warm memories of watching McEnroe and Connors and Lendl... and the white balls of Wimbledon...
He'll retire soon enough, to be replaced by some new age hot shot with a loud case of verbal diarrhea.

It seems to be mostly the younger folk who complain about Enberg. Perhaps you'd prefer Luke Jensen's yelling and screaming? Is he more 'cool' than Enberg?

Personally, I'll take Enberg's patented "Oh, My!" over "Awesome shot, dude!" any day.
 

diredesire

Adjunct Moderator
Deuce said:
Leave Enberg alone. No, he's not perfect. He is elderly, and he makes some obvious errors. But he can also come up with some good lines ("That was her first unforced error of the night!" - after the top of the trophy fell off during Sharapova's celebration).

Enberg has been around for over 20 years, and his voice is comforting to some of us who grew up listening to him, bringing back warm memories of watching McEnroe and Connors and Lendl... and the white balls of Wimbledon...
He'll retire soon enough, to be replaced by some new age hot shot with a loud case of verbal diarrhea.

It seems to be mostly the younger folk who complain about Enberg. Perhaps you'd prefer Luke Jensen's yelling and screaming? Is he more 'cool' than Enberg?

Personally, I'll take Enberg's patented "Oh, My!" over "Awesome shot, dude!" any day.
The "first unforced error" was surprisingly clever... (sort of), but I don't think age, or "coolness" has anything to do with it. I think the only type of person that CAN like him are the types that you describe... the types that find his voice comforting. I'm not saying other commentators make no errors, or aren't annoying, but he gets on my nerves because he talks TOO much, and (typically) does not have much to add to the analysis of a match, and how it breaks down. I think it's perfectly fair to have someone who is "comforting" and/or there for general comments, but he is too much. He says something trivial after every. single. point.

I respect your opinion, and understand that he's been around for a long time, but as far as i'm concerned, it's the age old quality over quantity argument, and Dick is certainly not cutting it. At least in my eyes.
 
Touche Deuce! I prefer an accomplished smooth-toned veteran professional sports announcer to only former players. Even if this announcer is not as well versed it the game, a real media pro adds a sense of importance and high production quality, whereas the less professional announcer lends to an amateurish quality. The big tourneys in particular need this injection of announcing stature, "gravitas." If tennis hopes to continue on the fringes of bigtime, it must enlist one pro announcer for broadcasts with color added by the ex-players.
 

Brickjp

New User
Thats why HD is awesome. You pump up the sound and hear Fed and Roddick smack the sh-t outta the ball. Sounds so clean, especially on Roger's forehand
 

Kaptain Karl

Hall Of Fame
Deuce and I are from about the same generation. (I am 50 ) But we disagree. I think Jensen's enthusiasm is great for helping our sport gain new fans. I also note that Luke *does* periodically explain some nuance of an observed tactic -- helping the "developing fan" learn more about what he's watching.

(Luke is growing into the job quite well, IMO. When he first made the scene, he was obnoxious.) He's learned to talk less and be more brief, but he still injects enthusiasm for the sport and an interest in fans understanding tactics and strategies more completely.

While I agree Enberg talks too much / too inanely and his timing of *when* to talk is poor ... I don't place all the blame on him. Knowing a little about TV Production, it must be noted that many of the shows -- especially sports -- have Producers and Ass't Producers who are "Thirty-somethings" and "Twenty-somethings" (or are trying very hard to appeal to the younger generations).

I notice an increase in "noise pollution" during sporting broadcasts in-general. It seems that today's Producers believe silence to be the equivalent of "dead air." I strongly suspect the excessively inane chatter we hear is driven by the Producers -- who are constantly suggesting "ideas" in the ears of the On-Air personalities.

That being posted, I'd say Michael Markan (sp?) needs to tell the Producers to stop making him appear to be a Total Idiot with the STUPID questions they're feeding him for his on-court and court-side interviews. (Either that or that guy is truly as dumb as a bag of hammers.)

I'd drop Michael and Dick. I'd keep Carillo, Mac, Jensen, Fernandez. (And I'd tell all their Producers to stay out of it; they're suggesting too much noise pollution.) I'd have Shriver study Arias' court-side ability to get to the point ... or I'd drop her, too.

Lastly, I'm so happy the Brits hired Brad Gilbert. He made me detest having the volume UP for matches. (But his court-side technique was getting better. He seemed coachable about being brief) .... NOT like this post(!).

- KK
 
One of the few former players I really enjoy to hear commentate a match without too much inane chatter and "inside" jokes is Tracy Austin. Provides good details, not afraid to disagree with another"s analysis, but does so tactfully. Granted, I understand a number of the references to former players and such given by McEnroe and Carillo for example, but it can get tiring after a while when we are there to watch the match not be distracted by their comments.
 
It's Michael Barkan, and I also wondered why he feeds such off the wall questions to players, but sometimes it can be humourous. I know it irritates some but it used to be enjoyable when he found a celebrity in the audience and talked with them, even if it happened to be during a point. Made one rather feel like they were looking around the stadium. Dean Martin was always my favorite celeb Barkan would get match commentary from.
 

Hardball

Rookie
pound cat said:
I finally figured it out. Regardless of whether it's CBS or ESPN (the main players being Enberg, Carillo and one of the McEnroe's) I feel as if these guys belong to a club that I don't have the membership for. They aren't talking to the audience (me) or saying anything that makes the match more understandable to the tennis viewer. They work on presumed knowledge,,,that the viewers are all tennis junkies and know what a half-volley or a defensive lob is. Nor should a particular player be praised ad nauseum, only to talk about the other player the same way when he has won a set. Their job is to educate the viewer and get them involved in the match/sport, definitely not to be a third party to their "in" gossip about various tennis players, or to tell corny jokes that often have nothing to do with tennis eg Or comments like "Tiger is in the box so Roger can show off to him" Mary C (wave)
I do enjoy the current commentating from the McEnroes. I think they make the game more interesting. It is just the way they say things, sometimes it is so funny. If you have someone who explains every single things in tennis in every match for the average tennis viewers, who watches tennis if nothing else is on, the junkies like us would find its boring. A lose lose situation. Wouldn't you agree?
 

35ft6

Legend
More crappy tennis writing:
Acasuso beat Hewitt 1-6, 6-4, 4-6, 6-2, 6-1 in a rain-delayed match the extended into Saturday. David Nalbandian and Agustin Calleri used an artful array of powerful smashes, overhead lobs and net volleys to beat Wayne Arthurs and Paul Hanley 6-4, 6-4, 7-5.
I've gotta work on my net volleys and overhead lobs. This was from Yahoo! Sports.
 

BluBarry

Semi-Pro
I couldn't disagree with the premise of this Thread more. Especially when speaking of John McEnroe and quite often Patrick McEnroe's knowledge and insight of a Player's ability and what should be expected of them. I will agree however that PatMac tends to be pro-American Players as if he's always scouting for Davis Cup Players amongst the American Players but John is very informative and if you listen to what he offers the listening audience objectively, his analysis of the game is Top Notch.

Mary Carillo on the other hand has always bugged the hell out of me. Her constant input of personal conversations as if she lives with every Player's mother, cousin, girlfriend, gardener, driver, trainer, coach. If they had a private conversation with that Player, Mary was there recording it.

"Oh My" Dick Enberg is the Best and a real great guy. Nothing bad to say about him at all.

Not sure what you want from these people but maybe you should try Sports Casting and let us hear what you bring to the table.
 
you only need one person to give commentary, any more than one and you have conversations going on which the viewer should not be subjected to.
 

jmsx521

Hall of Fame
How about when the commentators interrupt the match with commercials between points, "Tune in tonight and watch..." "Oh My!"
 

BluBarry

Semi-Pro
uNIVERSE mAN said:
you only need one person to give commentary, any more than one and you have conversations going on which the viewer should not be subjected to.
Your Post should be under .. Rants & Raves

Maybe someone should do a Poll to see how many here prefer the Commentating as it is and how many would prefer your method ? Which kinda sounds like a throwback to the AM Radio days.
 

OrangeOne

Legend
jmsx521 said:
How about when the commentators interrupt the match with commercials between points, "Tune in tonight and watch..." "Oh My!"
I hate it too, but that's part of the job. An objectionable part of the job, but it's not their choice, it's what they're told to do. Advertising is sold for those slots (unfortunately), and they must deliver those slots...

As for those who've mentioned producers... they're totally correct. Commentators are at the total whim of the producer, they simply talk when told to. If you don't like how often they're speaking, blame the network. If you don't like what they're saying or how they're saying it - the blame-split would be closer to 50-50 between them & the network imho.
 
My biggest problem with all the comentators, is that they are just waiting to talk the whole time, "My turn My turn"

Hell even a few of them like that one moron woman speeks during the whole game no matter what.


It is called "comentating" not "talk show" so you make some coments here and there and end it.

Not blabing your mouth off in a blabing contest which it very much seems like.


I hate it when the games get good and intense and I am trying to concentrate on the game and the players and the sound of the ball ect


But there they are blabing their heads right off, hell they don't care.

I have had to resort to pressing mute, and it sucks.

I wish there was alternative coverage with 0 = no comentating at all ever!
 

need2paint

Rookie
Deuce said:
Watching BBC tennis telecasts back in the 80s was great - because their comments were so sparse. They would often stay with the match during the change-overs, and quite often, nary a word was spoken.

And during the match, all you'd hear is "Jolly good shot by McEnroe there", or some such. Usually, not more than one such comment per game. It was the closest thing to being there live that I've seen.
That's the way it should be. The BBC soccer commentators were very similar, and they were absolutely my favorites. There is no need to comment on things when the viewer can see them for himself.
 

alienhamster

Hall of Fame
need2paint said:
That's the way it should be. The BBC soccer commentators were very similar, and they were absolutely my favorites. There is no need to comment on things when the viewer can see them for himself.
I really, really disagree with this. You gotta think about "the average viewer" sometimes if you really want to grow the viewership of the sport. I think a lot of people overlook the "genius" of Federer (or whoever) because they aren't usually shown why one of his points is genius.

Those of us who obsessively watch the sport know what to look for. But occasional sports fan don't, really. They like it when people are cat-and-mousing at the net, they like through the legs shots. But they don't get things like the quickness with which Federer takes the ball on the rise, the effectiveness of the different slices, etc.

Just as an example, I was watching football the other day, a sport I never watch regularly. And it was so incredibly helpful when the commentators actually replayed a point, used that magic white pen to show me what the passing options were for the offense, what the defense was trying to do, etc.

Why can't tennis commentators SHOW rather than TELL just a wee bit more? I wonder if it's grating to hear "Another beautiful shot from Fed," "Pure Genius!!" 3000 times when you don't really get why it's all that impressive.

And yes, BBC broadcasts are often a lot like this. Little commentary, and then a sudden "Another Brilliant Shot!" with ZERO analysis of why it was brilliant (particularly when it might be helpful to point out any subtleties in tactics). What are these people getting paid for again?
 

Deuce

Banned
No... if a viewer cannot recognize the 'genius' of Federer, etc., it's because they aren't tennis fans, and are likely just 'passing through' the telecast. The commentators should not cater to these people, as they possess no true interest in tennis. Those of us who do possess a genuine interest can see and recognize what's going on. Things in the world are being 'dumbed down' more than enough - let's spare tennis broadcasts this fate, at least.
 

alienhamster

Hall of Fame
Deuce said:
No... if a viewer cannot recognize the 'genius' of Federer, etc., it's because they aren't tennis fans, and are likely just 'passing through' the telecast. The commentators should not cater to these people, as they possess no true interest in tennis. Those of us who do possess a genuine interest can see and recognize what's going on. Things in the world are being 'dumbed down' more than enough - let's spare tennis broadcasts this fate, at least.
I don't disagree with your p.o.v. entirely here, but practicality has got to set in at some point. The fact is, we NEED the casual viewers to some extent if we want tennis to continue to be covered. ESPN already ditched several master series events, the Davis Cup, and now the French Open. And yeah, we can say those events were sold to the REAL fanbase over at the Tennis Channel, but I really don't want to rely on the expenses of specialist programming and the whims of obscure cable channels for my basic access to professional tennis.

I've gotten a lot of my friends into the sport, but not without having to constantly explain stuff to them that the commentators don't. I am NOT asking for tennis instruction--just a couple moments of actual analysis each match. And some occasional excitement and humor. Otherwise, they can keep quiet for the majority of the match.
 

35ft6

Legend
alienhamster said:
I really, really disagree with this. You gotta think about "the average viewer" sometimes if you really want to grow the viewership of the sport. I think a lot of people overlook the "genius" of Federer (or whoever) because they aren't usually shown why one of his points is genius.
I agree, it should, ideally, be appealing to as many different people as possible. If you were to cater to the newbiest of tennis newbies, that would be a very different commentating style than if you were only addressing the most knowledgable, hardcore fan. For the match to be televised, obviously some compromises must be made. I hope I live to see the day where choosing the commentator or style of commentating is an option. We definitely have the technology, but I'm sure the market will prevent it from ever happening.
 

Tennis Fan

Rookie
I can't stand Mary Carillo or Tracy Austin. It's long overdue to get some new female commentators...& more male ones too for that matter.
 
I

ipodtennispro

Guest
You can always do what my Dad does for the NFL games which is to turn off the TV and put on the radio broadcast and get the better play by play commentating.

www.ipodtennispros.com
 

Keifers

Legend
Tennis Fan said:
I can't stand Mary Carillo or Tracy Austin. It's long overdue to get some new female commentators...& more male ones too for that matter.
I like Mary Joe Fernandez's commentating a lot -- she works hard at knowing what going on and being prepared. And SHE DOESN'T TALK DURING POINTS!!!

Liked Mary years ago when she was first commentating -- she was thoughtful and did her homework, too. But nowadays, it seems like she thinks of herself as some kind of grand dame of her profession and she should be able to ramble on with whatever comes to mind, whenever it comes -- doesn't even try to keep quiet during points. One gets the impression she thinks what she has to say is more important. (I don't think she really thinks that, but it seems like that when she shows so little discipline.) Give her a sabbatical!
 

CanadianChic

Hall of Fame
Good points to all. I usually just mute the matches to tune out the endless droning. I can't stand the biased love that is so apparent from most commentators to Federer while his opponent is just some poor schlub who doesn't stand a chance against the "Federer forehand", "Federer return", "Federer -please pull my nose out of his butt before I become permanently lodged" etc, etc, etc.
I always laugh when they kick a player for being down a game or two in the first set. That's it, he may as well pack it up and go home - he doesn't stand a chance - only to be proven wrong time and time again. And hey, what's up with one of the commentators (I forget the match; French Open 2005 maybe) going on and on about the money Nadal's father has. He seemed to go on forever - very tacky!!
 

thejerk

Semi-Pro
I think they sound effiminate. I watch alot at work with people that don't know anything about tennis. Sometimes these guys make it embarrassing to be a fan.
 

Keifers

Legend
And way too self-absorbed and opinionated. It's a real turn off, I reckon, for both fans and newbies -- but maybe especially for newbies and people who have tuned in casually.
 

MasturB

Legend
I don't see what's wrong with the commentating.

If you follow tennis enough to be watching the matches on TV, you should know who the players are and their weaknesses. Unless of course you see some guys like Haas,Davydenko,and Youzhny that you haven't really heard of. I didn't know who Marcos Bagdhatis was until the Aussie Open this year.

I love Enberg, he's old school.

Besides, 98% of the time I'm not even paying attention to the commentating, I'm watching the game. I wouldn't be saddened if they got rid of commentating, but I wouldn't be happy.
 
Top