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

alstl

alstl

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
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.
 
There was one commentator who really knows little about pool or what is actually happening out there. A poor choice by Sky.
 
I thought that it sounded like they were talking to an audience of children, or those who did know much about pool.
 
Commentating

jay helfert said:
There was one commentator who really knows little about pool or what is actually happening out there. A poor choice by Sky.
Click to expand...

I think it was more than one. Other than Jim, they were rather unfamiliar with 9-ball and how it's played.
 
Inaction said:
I thought that it sounded like they were talking to an audience of children, or those who did know much about pool.
Click to expand...

That's normal for a televised event, you have to expect that more than half the audience has never played 9 ball much less know the rules or the shots.

The major events seem to have less colorful commentary to keep things more G rated and polite. I'm sure they get some instruction not to talk about gambling and other road stories.
 
jay helfert said:
There was one commentator who really knows little about pool or what is actually happening out there. A poor choice by Sky.
Click to expand...

I didn't like his commentary, but I don't necessarily think it was a bad choice by Sky. They aren't aiming the show solely at a hardcore pool audience. Sometimes it helps to have a beginner in the booth, asking the kind of questions beginners watching at home will be thinking. That way people don't feel they're being lectured to by the commentary team.

I'm not sure if it worked out perfectly on this occasion, but if that's what they were aiming for then it would make sense. Pool commentary in general is poor, IMO. In fact, you're one of the few people I think does a good job.

The level of snooker commentary is what we should be aiming for. Less dissecting every shot, more silence.
 
SakuJack said:
I didn't like his commentary, but I don't necessarily think it was a bad choice by Sky. They aren't aiming the show solely at a hardcore pool audience. Sometimes it helps to have a beginner in the booth, asking the kind of questions beginners watching at home will be thinking. That way people don't feel they're being lectured to by the commentary team.

I'm not sure if it worked out perfectly on this occasion, but if that's what they were aiming for then it would make sense. Pool commentary in general is poor, IMO. In fact, you're one of the few people I think does a good job.

The level of snooker commentary is what we should be aiming for. Less dissecting every shot, more silence.
Click to expand...


"The level of snooker commentary is what we should be aiming for. Less dissecting every shot, more silence". More silence is needed IMO. Johnnyt
 
Wow. Different strokes for different folks I suppose. I personally thought in its entirety, this was the best pool broadcast I've ever seen. This was a professional presentation in every sense of the word. From the stream quality, to the camera work, to the back stories, to the commentators knowing the rules and informing the audience, to the commentators giving us some background on the players, to the commentary itself. Well done. This was the gold standard, imo.
 
Jimmy Wych was his usual brilliant self. I think he is the best in the business when it comes to pool commentary.

Ted Lerner, who knows his limitations as far as analyzing the play, is very entertaining and is skillful in analyzing the ebbs and flows in both the matches and in the psychology of the players.

I didn't much care for the other commentators. Forsyth and Helfert were needed here.
 
There was a couple of things I thouht could have been better. But overall, a very good broadcast. I thought Karl was pretty good too.
 
Good points!

hang-the-9 said:
That's normal for a televised event, you have to expect that more than half the audience has never played 9 ball much less know the rules or the shots.

The major events seem to have less colorful commentary to keep things more G rated and polite. I'm sure they get some instruction not to talk about gambling and other road stories.
Click to expand...

They didn't miss to many points, good job for the most part.
 
sjm said:
Jimmy Wych was his usual brilliant self. I think he is the best in the business when it comes to pool commentary.

Ted Lerner, who knows his limitations as far as analyzing the play, is very entertaining and is skillful in analyzing the ebbs and flows in both the matches and in the psychology of the players.

I didn't much care for the other commentators. Forsyth and Helfert were needed here.
Click to expand...

Brilliant??? A brilliant commentator wouldnt have to constantly mention the fact that Shane wears hearing aids..... Every match shane played he mentioned it...... He should be ashamed of himself.......Thats not professional in the least.
 
My personal opinion is that commentators have to say something. So they often ascribe motivation and emotion to players during the match when they really have no possible way to know what the player is actually feeling or thinking.

Now guys like Jim and Jay have been out there as competitors and they can say what they have felt in similar situations but they still don't really know because they can't read minds.

So I don't really pay a lot of attention to the commentators since I know their job is to keep a running dialog going in what is a pretty slow sport to comment on. Having up to 30 seconds to fill between the action - taking shots - is a lot of air to fill with commentary in my opinion.

That's why it lapses into comments on much more than the actual play I think.
 
John Novak said:
Brilliant??? A brilliant commentator wouldnt have to constantly mention the fact that Shane wears hearing aids..... Every match shane played he mentioned it...... He should be ashamed of himself.......Thats not professional in the least.
Click to expand...

I did think it was odd that they focused on that as much as they did, like literally. At one point they zoomed in on Shane's ear.

Did you know Earl is only 5'4"? Jim Wych said that earls cue is as tall as he was and that it was 64" long. And that's almost 3" longer than a standard cue. He said this twice.

Could things have been better? Sure, but there's no reason to tear down an otherwise really well done production. I'm glad they did it, and I thank espn3 for making it available to me. I hope to see more tournaments like this. Perhaps the CSI guys could do some tournaments for ESPN in the future. That'd be cool

Ben
 
I listened to about 90 seconds worth of Jim Wych's brilliant analysis. This is what I learned:

- China lost because of something Wang Can ate.

- The Philippines lost because of jetlag.

- If England were to lose to the US, it would be because they made eye-contact with Earl.
 
iusedtoberich said:
Wow. Different strokes for different folks I suppose. I personally thought in its entirety, this was the best pool broadcast I've ever seen. This was a professional presentation in every sense of the word. From the stream quality, to the camera work, to the back stories, to the commentators knowing the rules and informing the audience, to the commentators giving us some background on the players, to the commentary itself. Well done. This was the gold standard, imo.
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on what you consider the role of a commentator is in pool. I believe in pool they should describe the game as it exists. If you believe pool is too boring to keep it interesting by describing the game accurately or if the commentator is not knowledgeable enough to do that, then fabricating drama is probably a preferable option.
 
alstl said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top