Pool Announcers; What do you want?

D

DieselPete

Active member
I'm watching Table Two of the Matchroom World Pool Championships, streaming on YouTube, and generally enjoying it. I appreciate that they stream some content for free and the quality of play is obviously amazing. But I find that I do miss having announcers.

At the same time, I often find that I don't love what I get from pool announcers, that there is too much time spent predicting every single shot and then telling us what the player should have done, what the announcer would have done, why another route was better, and then the occasional comment about how great a shot actually was. (I can't stand being told that "the folks at home don't know how hard that was" when most of us know EXACTLY how hard something was).

Announcers often seem torn between teaching the game, like the viewers are beginners (Gasp! "He has to go THREE rails for position; here, here, and here, to get on this ball, here...") and over using the telestrator to show us every route, or assuming that the viewers know all of this and using technical terms that beginners wouldn't get ("He just has to stun this ball and he'll fall onto the carom for his next shot.").

So, the question: What is it that you want from your pool announcers? How is the job done properly in your opinions?

Should they speak to the veteran players or should they teach the game to the newbies, like instructional videos?
 
Basically I don’t want Phil Yates. He adds nothing to the broadcast and you can tell he spends all of his time trying to think up cute anecdotes or puns. He also comes off as someone who likes the smell of their own farts. I think Karl and Alex are good and I’ve been enjoying the player commentators, particularly Jayson Shaw. But if had to pick one person, I’d take JJ all day.

Also, I will admit that I’m not a huge fan of the guy who does the in game interviews. He mentioned he’s new to pool so it’s clear he doesn’t have a lot of knowledge of the game. More than that though, I just don’t think he is a very good interviewer.
 
Less talk In ALL tournaments i would love to have the option of 'ambient (balls clicking, balls going in the pocket etc) sounds only.
 
Last edited:
My personal favorite is the ones where Earl does commentary on matches. I kind of appreciate intermediate level 9 ball commentary because I suck at it. I get pool, but 9 ball is so different from 8 ball as far as cue ball movement goes, sometimes I don't see the obvious route.
 
I've grown tired of Earl honestly... The first hundred times he talked about how he'd never get so lucky or why we need to play placement pool was mildly entertaining, but it's gotten long in the tooth. He knowledge is second to none, but he's delivery and the rest of the babble is meh.

While I don't necessarily enjoy Phil Yates, but I do appreciate having someone with some volume and enthusiasm in the booth. I'll also give him credit where credit is due, with his ability/willingness to get the other commentators back on task and not let them ramble on about crap that has nothing to do with the match at hand.

Someone needs to ensure the volume on Karl's mic is turned up a couple of notches.

As long as Matchroom keeps the meek speakers and the lip smackers out of the booth, I'll listen.

IMO, commentators need to cater to the low level players, and/or newbs. Pool players by nature will complain about anything so trying to appease them at the expense of the newbs is a lost cause.
 
The_JV said:
I've grown tired of Earl honestly... The first hundred times he talked about how he'd never get so lucky or why we need to play placement pool was mildly entertaining, but it's gotten long in the tooth. He knowledge is second to none, but he's delivery and the rest of the babble is meh.

While I don't necessarily enjoy Phil Yates, but I do appreciate having someone with some volume and enthusiasm in the booth. I'll also give him credit where credit is due, with his ability/willingness to get the other commentators back on task and not let them ramble on about crap that has nothing to do with the match at hand.

Someone needs to ensure the volume on Karl's mic is turned up a couple of notches.

As long as Matchroom keeps the meek speakers and the lip smackers out of the booth, I'll listen.

IMO, commentators need to cater to the low level players, and/or newbs. Pool players by nature will complain about anything so trying to appease them at the expense of the newbs is a lost cause.
Click to expand...
Earl has stopped preaching about placement pool in his recent match commentaries- he is all about straight pool now.

I like Earl's commentary- he is obviously an expert and I like his various quips about random stuff. However, one issue is that he said he really doesn't like calling matches with another person- he prefers to be alone because he doesn't like the second guessing/questioning of the co-commentator
 
westcoast said:
Earl has stopped preaching about placement pool in his recent match commentaries- he is all about straight pool now.

I like Earl's commentary- he is obviously an expert and I like his various quips about random stuff. However, one issue is that he said he really doesn't like calling matches with another person- he prefers to be alone because he doesn't like the second guessing/questioning of the co-commentator
Click to expand...


That seems fitting all choices of isolation.

However for entertainment Earl fighting other people has been a thing to attract viewers.

The question being does Earl like being a villain or anti villain

The shift from pool just being played in a room, to pool being narrated and curated by the top players in the sport. That gives them an audience and pulpit. Imagine having former pros just check in and share stories about past matches.

It could create the fellowship around the sport that a movie once did.

The Church of The Pool Hall is the internet now.
 
Let me open by saying that I'm talking about commentators, not guests such as active pros who sit in for a match. I'm talking about those who are commentating, not participating, in an event. For me, I'm looking for five things more than anything else: 1) impartiality, 2) selectivity, 3) meaningful analysis, 4) avoidance of cliches, platitudes and patent falsehoods., and 5) supplementary information about the players.

As this thread has been started during the World Championship, I will focus on the commentators of the current event.

Impartiality
The first thing I want in a commentator is impartiality. When a commentator openly roots for one of the players, it devalues the commentary. Such announcers also tend to be apologists for the errors of their favored players and are excessively critical of their opponents. They are more laudatory of their preferred players in pre-match comments, too. The lack of impartiality has been a big problem at the current World Championship.

Selectivity
The next thing I want is selectivity in commentary. Most shots require few, if any words. Great shots deserve praise and poor shots deserve to be pointed out, too. Difficult decisions should be analyzed before the shot. After the fact assessments of a player's intent is, more often than not, like cheating on a test.

Meaningful Analysis
The next thing I want is meaningful analysis of the play, which you get from less than 5% of the commentators. The best, by a mile, at the World Championships has been Alex Lely, and Team Europe is in very good hands at the Mosconi with such a knowledgeable player and game analyst who also shows superior communication skills. He's the only commentator I never mute of the Matchroom group, Karl Boyes isn't bad either, but he's way below Lely in his analysis of the play.

Avoidance of Cliches, Platitudes, and Patent Falsehoods
Commentators who feast on cliches and platitudes, and offer uninformed statements about the participants are hard to listen to and such comments add almost no value at all. The worst of these is Phil Yates, but most of the commentators fall into this trap, offering heaping helpings of the obvious far too often.

Supplementary Information About the Players
Have the contestants met in other tournaments? Who has had the edge? Have they ever met in a very big spot? Are they rivals? When did they last draw each other in a tournament and who prevailed? When did each contestant win their last title? Which of them is having a good year in tournament play? Questions like these are rarely, if ever, answered. Commentators rarely furnish the kind of supplementary information that is standard in other sports, and I attribute most of it to poor preparation by such commentators.

In my case, I use the mute button on many matches. Pool commentators as a group are terrible, but there are a few good ones worth a listen. Decide which ones you enjoy.
 
Last edited:
There is no pleasing some people. Under every pool video on youtube there are people complaining about the commentary. They don't want this, they don't like that...Personally I quite like to hear experienced commentators opinon on position routes etc. I don't always agree, but I like to compare notes as it were. Apparently some people have such high opionions of themselves that they consider all other opinions stupid and uninformed. To them I have the simplest suggestion: mute the sound and enjoy the glory of your own internal commentary.

Sports commentary in general is fairly inane. The voices of the commentators are polished, never saying anything controversial. Pool is a cerebral game compared to most other sports and analysis is interesting. Personally I don't need someone to OOH and AAAHH everything but that is what some of the detractors want. They want total deferral to the player and never to question his or her choices. Again, mute the sound, you don't have to listen.
 
I want an informed play-by-play commentator and a color commentator.

The play-by-play should be an active or former player offering insight into shot selection and patterns.

The color should draw interplay of tension and release, intrigue, anecdotes, information about the players, updates about the event, and a storied narrative for the match. This person needs a good radio voice.

I wouldn’t mind Yates for color if it wasn’t for the puns. I hate the puns. I also hate when they react to chatrooms or just fail to treat it like a broadcast and get too casual.
 
sjm said:
Let me open by saying that I'm talking about commentators, not guests such as active pros who sit in for a match. I'm talking about those who are commentating, not participating, in an event. For me, I'm looking for four things more than anything else: 1) impartiality, 2) selectivity, 3) meaningful analysis, 4) avoidance of cliches, platitudes and patent falsehoods., and 5) supplementary information about the players.

As this thread has been started during the World Championship, I will focus on the commentators of the current event.

Impartiality
The first thing I want in a commentator is impartiality. When a commentator openly roots for one of the players, it devalues the commentary. Such announcers also tend to be apologists for the errors of their favored players and are excessively critical of their opponents. They are more laudatory of their preferred players in pre-match comments, too. The lack of impartiality has been a big problem at the current World Championship.

Selectivity
The next thing I want is selectivity in commentary. Most shots require few, if any words. Great shots deserve praise and poor shots deserve to be pointed out, too. Difficult decisions should be analyzed before the shot. After the fact assessments of a player's intent is, more often than not, like cheating on a test.

Meaningful Analysis
The next thing I want is meaningful analysis of the play, which you get from less than 5% of the commentators. The best, by a mile, at the World Championships has been Alex Lely, and Team Europe is in very good hands at the Mosconi with such a knowledgeable player and game analyst who also shows superior communication skills. He's the only commentator I never mute of the Matchroom group, Karl Boyes isn't bad either, but he's way below Lely in his analysis of the play.

Avoidance of Cliches, Platitudes, and Patent Falsehoods
Commentators who feast on cliches and platitudes, and offer uninformed statements about the participants are hard to listen to and such comments add almost no value at all. The worst of these is Phil Yates, but most of the commentators fall into this trap, offering heaping helpings of the obvious far too often.

Supplementary Information About the Players
Have the contestants met in other tournaments? Who has had the edge? Have they ever met in a very big spot? Are they rivals? When did they last draw each other in a tournament and who prevailed? When did each contestant win their last title? Which of them is having a good year in tournament play? Questions like these are rarely, if ever, answered. Commentators rarely furnish the kind of supplementary information that is standard in other sports, and I attribute most of it to poor preparation by such commentators.

In my case, I use the mute button on many matches. Pool commentators as a group are terrible, but there are a few good ones worth a listen. Decide which ones you enjoy.
Click to expand...

Other sports have an advantage for providing previous results because for the most part they are part of an organizing body(NFL, MLB, etc.). Would you expect the pool commentators to know match results from all of the Eurotour events, Turning Stone, DCC, etc.? FargoRate is about the only possible source for this and they would only have what has been given to them and the match results entered aren't viewable to others. Maybe, they could make a little off of providing that data in the future.
 
Bit of a rant but I’ve always really disliked Jim Wych and Phil Yates in the booth. I’m hate when a player misses a difficult shot under extreme pressure and the commentators bash the player. Pool is actually pretty damn difficult despite how the top guys make it look sometimes, and having to hear Wych or Yates overdramatize errors doesn’t show much respect for the game or the players imo. I don’t think a player needs to be called careless on TV because he rolled 3 inches too far on a safety with 2000 fans screaming and on a table that is unpredictable. I understand Matchroom might like that for mosconi cup to add drama, but I just think it does a disservice to the game. Guys like Mark Wilson, Karl and JJ call out errors as they should but it’s with a lot more respect to the game and players.
I actually like Yates when he’s the third wheel and not doing too much other than bridging gaps and transitions.
I do like Matchroom bringing players in. They are smart and are going to find out which ones work. I thought the Boyes/Shaw/Yates trio was fantastic.
 
Last edited:
Scrunge19 said:
Basically I don’t want Phil Yates. He adds nothing to the broadcast and you can tell he spends all of his time trying to think up cute anecdotes or puns. He also comes off as someone who likes the smell of their own farts. I think Karl and Alex are good and I’ve been enjoying the player commentators, particularly Jayson Shaw. But if had to pick one person, I’d take JJ all day.

Also, I will admit that I’m not a huge fan of the guy who does the in game interviews. He mentioned he’s new to pool so it’s clear he doesn’t have a lot of knowledge of the game. More than that though, I just don’t think he is a very good interviewer.
Click to expand...

+1 the player commentators have been great
 
Here in the Netherlands, I watch the WPC through a video streaming service that in all their wisdom decided to employ their own commentators, maybe because they want it in Dutch to appeal more to Dutch viewers, maybe even because they didn't get the rights to broadcast the English commentary? I don't know.
Anyway, they clearly chose the strategy of appealing to the novice viewer. One of them is a darts commentator who does this on the side, the other a former Dutch 'pro'. The first 3 days, they were even explaining most of the rules ("so first he shoots the one ball, then the two ball...", "now a push out, what is that?").

I guess their reasoning is that they want to appeal to more viewers and attract novice viewers, which could be understandable. I just wonder how many newbie viewers there actually are. I suspect: not that many (conservative estimate) which means all Dutch poolplayers have been cringing with me the past four days at the lower-than-low level commentary.

Bottomline: I wish I could have heard Lely's commentary, he's one of the best ever.
 
If the commentator is also a player I would like to see them expand on their comments to help other players coming up. I know it would have helped me a lot.
What I mean is that when they’re describing what the player is doing they might say, “he/she will be shooting the 4 ball into the corner with a little top left to get onto the next ball”, and that’s it. Someone watching could really benefit if they would expand on that just a little to explain why ‘top left’? Why not center left or low left(not talking about draw all the time). I know if you’ve beaten the balls around a few years you’ve figured it out for yourself but just a little explaining as to ‘why’ it’s top and not center or low could almost develop a ‘rule of thumb’ that could be applied to other similar shots. I’ve played many good players who thought that top spin was just for ‘follow’ Not understanding that it’s also used to straighten the angle off the rail or adding just a little more ‘top’ would actually kill the ball off the rail vs making it run around the table like they intended. Even a lot of instructional videos on ‘position play’ would fall short by just explaining what English to use, if any, without explaining why top vs middle or low
 
Easy question, they are not the show. People tuned in to watch the pool. And don't say then turn off the sound, that's not the point. Commentator's do add to the show, but they have to not try to be the show.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top