Common Taters

As previously mentioned, I was listening to the footie on Five Live and this nagging question began to gnaw again. Why do they need two commentators per match, each taking half a game each?

The summarisers have to go the whole 90 minutes: Steve Claridge, Marks Bright and Lawrenson, Terry Butcher, Chris Waddle, and ‘this is what I call a Jimmy Armfield.’ (And he is what I call a national treasure.)

But the commentators? They seldom run out of breath, so why can’t they manage the whole game? There must be a reason.

Help me, Mosh!

Nobody’s prefect. If you find any spelling mistakes or other errors in this post, please let me know by highlighting the text and pressing Ctrl+Enter.

2 comments… Add yours
  • Mosher 13th December 2004

    I think it adds variety. When you're down the pub, one person will always have a different view on that foul, the ref, the manager…

    My question is why they always refer to each other using both names. "So what did you think of that challenge… Mark Lawrenson?" Why not just say "…Mark"? We know who he is!

    Reply
  • Shooting Parrots 13th December 2004

    Hmm. Still not convinced. They seem to manage with just one commentator for some Championship matches and I thought the summariser's job was to provide contrast and opinion.

    I wondered if it was the two-job syndrome, like on Test Match Special where they do twenty minute slots and then rush off to write their newspaper columns. That and more than twenty minutes of Henry Blofeld would make your tits explode.

    Know what you mean about 'Mark Lawrenson' etc. It's like 'and for those just switching on' comments — if they can't be arsed to listen to the full game, let'em catch up in their own time.

    And why do World Service listeners only get to hear the last twenty or thirty minutes? How annoying would that be if you were listening to FiveLive in Honolulu or wherever.

    Reply

(will not be published)

Scroll Up

Thanks for taking time to send this report

The following text will be sent to me: