Not a real big deal but I was disappointed in the commentary

[RedEyeJedi]

From what I remember, Jim's commentary regarding Earl and Shane was totally justified. Earl may be one of the greatest of all time, but there is no way Shane is in any way inadequate or in need of Earl's opinions on shape. And it wasn't where he was leaving him, it was the whole fundamental way in which he was preparing to shoot the shot. Shane has often commented on how similarly they play the game. and I thought it was insulting, World # whatever the hell telling World # 2 how to play a simple position shot. Get over it.

 

[spanky79]

I believe it was Wyche who commentated at one point about how Earl shouldn't be telling Shane how to shoot a shot.

Shane asked where Earl wanted him to leave the cue ball for the next shot, Earl pointed to the spot on the table. Then the commentator implied more than once Earl and Shane were mad at each other. The camera showed Earl talking to Shane and he was laughing about something.

He tried to fabricate drama. Not a big deal but I didn't care for it.

Wyche is horrible and always has been. He called the wrong shot more times then I can count. The other guys where not much better. At times I had to hit the mute button. Some of the shots he was calling made me laugh they where so bad.

 

[alstl]

I thought the commentary was awesome way better than at the US bar table fro example when the commentators are eating their food or slurping their drinks on the mic or the TAR matches where their totally biased.

And the incident your referring to that is exactly what happened earl told him to check the cue ball shane did not want to and pulled a face then he started waving his stick to where svb should play it before shane had a chance to look at it. they did not fist pump each other after those games they were not happy with each other that's for sure

I just watched it because that's how bored I am. Here is the link although ESPN tends to pull these videos down after a week so I don't know how much longer the link will be active.

http://espn.go.com/watchespn/index/_/channel/espn3#type/replay/

At 2:48 the commentator says there is zero communication going on between Shane and Earl. They have been sitting while England ran 3 racks and England was at the table. Meanwhile the English announcer dubbed them "glum and glummer". Between racks Earl was joking with someone behind him in the audience. At 2:51, three minutes later, Earl turns and says something to Shane and laughs. How is that not communicating and being "glum and glummer"? At 2:58 the guy repeats "zero communication in the American camp" - what are they supposed discuss while they are sitting? If Earl was jabbering away like he does sometimes they would claim he was trying to shark the Brits.

Then at 3:00 after Boyes misses a bank and the USA gets back to the table Earl said something to Shane about how to play the next shot. Shane did not "pull a face" and got down and shot the ball and killed it with reverse to leave Earl a shot. That is when the commentator - the same guy who twice criticized them for not communicating - bashed Earl for telling Shane how to play. If he doesn't talk it gets criticized, if he does talk it gets criticized. At 3:04 Earl played safe, sat down and said something to Shane and the referee told him to stop talking.

At 3:07 Earl got back to the table and he and Shane communicated about Earl's next shot. After they won the rack at 3:11 they were communicating. After they won the next rack they fist pumped.

At another point the announcers mentioned "iciness" between Earl and Boyes in the practice room. During a previous match they showed the practice room and Earl was practicing his break and oblivious to whether Boyes even existed.

The commentary was a bunch of fabricated drama. Whether they lack understanding of rotation pool or simply decided to spice up the telecast by inventing a bunch of nonsense I don't know, but for me it was disappointing. My guess is their knowledge is lacking.