Who was commentating during the Mosconi Cup?

Spot on....Obvious they had a bad view or angle. I think they need a constant over head view feed on a monitor for them to see at all times. That at least would give them a fighting chance to see if a player was hooked. Felt sorry for them. It did make them sound like they didn't have a clue....lol

I now know that it was Jay that I was hearing (after reading the replies above, so thanks for that info). I thought he was a great commentator. I love hearing the commentators, even if they do not always know what the players are going to do. They are fun to listen to. I am sure that Jay really knew what he was talking about (based on what I know about the game). I imagine that he is a very good player. By the way, I mostly knew what the players were going to do, and I thought that Jay was thinking and commentating just about the same things that I was thinking. I do not know about the other commentators, because I missed most of the Mosconi Cup (only seen half of yesterdays matches, and all of todays except for Bergmans, which I really regret missing).
 
Last edited:
I was watching with Buddy Hall and another world class banker when Skyler shot the cross side bank today. Sky is from here. From both angles they showed on TV all three of us thought he couldn't see enough to bank it...
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but I hated the commentary. I know you are not supposed to say these things here, but it is my opinion. The picture was excellent, though. Too many things to say, not enough space, I'll stick to the essentials.

1. Knowledge of facts. Commentators are supposed to have all the facts of the matches that have been played before, and at least know enough about the players to avoid basic mistakes. They should guide you through the statistics in a manner that makes it easy to catch up, and that shows interesting trends/rivalries. Mixing up players/matches, forgetting where they are from etc is just unprofessional. And causes confusion in the viewer.

2. Knowledge of shots. Bad calls etc. Nuff said.

3. Annoying clichès. Jim Wych does basically the same commentary every match, his comments are all interchangeable. Ok, he doesn't stumble over the words and does a decent job creating "exitement", but it gets really old after a while. I wondered for a while if his commentary might be some sort of secret Turing test, a computer generated commentary to see if people can tell the difference, that's how bad it has gotten.:(

I don't like the others either. To me it seems that Matchroom handpicked people for their speaking voices, not their knowledge of the game. They may at one time have been good players, but they clearly don't know (or have forgotten) professional patterns and percentage play, or have such crappy monitors that they cannot tell what is going on. Sure, they point out the blindingly obvious, but a commentator should see the hidden dangers, the neat solutions etc. The bar has been set high by the commentators of the past (Grady, Billy, Buddy etc). Perhaps we will never again see the near "supernatural" calls that we have seen on the old Accu-Stats tapes, but even a notch below that would be amazing compared to this.

What to do:

Next year I hope Matchroom (if they insist on keeping the same people on) match each up with a current (or at least fairly recent) top player, that can help them with the calls etc. There are tons of people to pick from: John Schmidt, Johnny Archer, Buddy Hall (old I know, but may still be available) , Pat Holtz. Alex Lely is a candidate if they don't insist on native english speakers. A super obvious choice would be Steve Davis. Great speaker, great player, interesting commentator. What about one of the top Germans? There are just too many to even mention.
 
I'm sorry, but I hated the commentary. I know you are not supposed to say these things here, but it is my opinion. The picture was excellent, though. Too many things to say, not enough space, I'll stick to the essentials.

1. Knowledge of facts. Commentators are supposed to have all the facts of the matches that have been played before, and at least know enough about the players to avoid basic mistakes. They should guide you through the statistics in a manner that makes it easy to catch up, and that shows interesting trends/rivalries. Mixing up players/matches, forgetting where they are from etc is just unprofessional. And causes confusion in the viewer.

2. Knowledge of shots. Bad calls etc. Nuff said.

3. Annoying clichès. Jim Wych does basically the same commentary every match, his comments are all interchangeable. Ok, he doesn't stumble over the words and does a decent job creating "exitement", but it gets really old after a while. I wondered for a while if his commentary might be some sort of secret Turing test, a computer generated commentary to see if people can tell the difference, that's how bad it has gotten.:(

I don't like the others either. To me it seems that Matchroom handpicked people for their speaking voices, not their knowledge of the game. They may at one time have been good players, but they clearly don't know (or have forgotten) professional patterns and percentage play, or have such crappy monitors that they cannot tell what is going on. Sure, they point out the blindingly obvious, but a commentator should see the hidden dangers, the neat solutions etc. The bar has been set high by the commentators of the past (Grady, Billy, Buddy etc). Perhaps we will never again see the near "supernatural" calls that we have seen on the old Accu-Stats tapes, but even a notch below that would be amazing compared to this.

What to do:

Next year I hope Matchroom (if they insist on keeping the same people on) match each up with a current (or at least fairly recent) top player, that can help them with the calls etc. There are tons of people to pick from: John Schmidt, Johnny Archer, Buddy Hall (old I know, but may still be available) , Pat Holtz. Alex Lely is a candidate if they don't insist on native english speakers. A super obvious choice would be Steve Davis. Great speaker, great player, interesting commentator. What about one of the top Germans? There are just too many to even mention.

Yeah, I remember back in the 90's when I 1st starting watching the pro players on tv (ESPN), and the commentators were really great (I think they were pro players that were actually in the tournament most of the time), and they always had this marker that they would draw in the screen to show you some options on what the player might do next to get shape on the next ball, and the players would always do one of the things that the commentator said they would do (usually right down to an exact spot that the cue ball was going to stop). So, yeah, it was completely professional back then, and no laughing or jokes (just pro pool commentating).
 
always had this marker that they would draw in the screen to show you some options on what the player might do next to get shape on the next ball,

Ah yes - those were the times! A bit difficult with 30sec shot clock, but still doable.
Nowadays it's just "he's got the right angle / uh, difficult angle to get to the next ball" all the time.

Also love Snooker commentary on Eurosport, usually both German and English.

Cheers!
 
They might be very knowledgeable but i find mosconi cup commentry very routine. Having said that i used to like them when i started playing pool as they used to bring lots of excitement but now it is repetitive for me. I have seen few old matches where buddy hall was commenting he was excellent, so is earl :)
 
Back
Top