31 Jan 2005 08:12:15
Calvin
Cricket v. Tennis coverage

Which is worse?

The case for cricket:

The entire commentary team
All that memorabilia crap
Cutting to news, price is right, etc
Bias, ignorance
Plugging upcoming crap shpws
Courier and Navratilova (damn they were good!)

The case for tennis:

JA, Bruce, Sandy Bloody Roberts
Non-live broadcasts
Crap coverage of outside courts
Poor use of stats
Bias, ignorance
Plugging upcoming crap shows
Technically inferior coverage cf cricket

Vote Now!

cheers,
Calvin






31 Jan 2005 11:00:24
**MattO**
Re: Cricket v. Tennis coverage

Calvin wrote:

> Which is worse?
>
> The case for cricket:
>
> The entire commentary team

Including Healy?


> All that memorabilia crap

I thought you would jump at getting the Steve Waugh thing.


> Courier and Navratilova (damn they were good!)

Courier. You are kidding. His interviews were well....


> The case for tennis:
>
> JA, Bruce, Sandy Bloody Roberts
> Non-live broadcasts
> Crap coverage of outside courts
> Poor use of stats
> Bias, ignorance
> Plugging upcoming crap shows
> Technically inferior coverage cf cricket
>
> Vote Now!

I vote for Cricket being worse because Tennis doesn't have Mark Nicholas.




31 Jan 2005 10:11:38
Kimon
Re: Cricket v. Tennis coverage

**MattO** wrote:

>> The entire commentary team
>
>
> Including Healy?


Holding should be excluded, as well.


> Courier. You are kidding. His interviews were well....


Courier is a significant upgrade over McEnroe.


> I vote for Cricket being worse because Tennis doesn't have Mark Nicholas.


Tennis has something far more insidious -- Bruce McAvaney.


31 Jan 2005 11:26:56
Calvin
Re: Cricket v. Tennis coverage


"**MattO**" <canterbury@premiers.2004 > wrote in message
news:ctjs68$qfr$3@nnrp.waia.asn.au...
> Calvin wrote:
>
> > Which is worse?
> >
> > The case for cricket:
> >
> > The entire commentary team
>
> Including Healy?

Healy is good by Nein standards, but I would't call him great. As someone
else mentioned, Holding is pretty good too.

> > All that memorabilia crap
>
> I thought you would jump at getting the Steve Waugh thing.

LOL. I'm sure I could find a use for it :-)

> > Courier and Navratilova (damn they were good!)
>
> Courier. You are kidding. His interviews were well....

His interviews were ordinary, but his commentary was very good. gave a real
insight into the mind of profesisonal tennis players.

cheers,
Calvin




31 Jan 2005 15:42:21
Funniest Nick of the Year
Re: Cricket v. Tennis coverage


"**MattO**" <canterbury@premiers.2004 > wrote in message
news:ctjs68$qfr$3@nnrp.waia.asn.au...
> Calvin wrote:
>
> > Which is worse?
> >
> > The case for cricket:
> >
> > The entire commentary team
>
> Including Healy?
>
>
> > All that memorabilia crap
>
> I thought you would jump at getting the Steve Waugh thing.
>
>
> > Courier and Navratilova (damn they were good!)
>
> Courier. You are kidding. His interviews were well....
>
>
> > The case for tennis:
> >
> > JA, Bruce, Sandy Bloody Roberts
> > Non-live broadcasts
> > Crap coverage of outside courts
> > Poor use of stats
> > Bias, ignorance
> > Plugging upcoming crap shows
> > Technically inferior coverage cf cricket
> >
> > Vote Now!
>
> I vote for Cricket being worse because Tennis doesn't have Mark Nicholas.

Mark Nicholas doesn't exist. He's a cyborg who was created out of sugar &
syrup to become the bechmark for all future psychophants to the game.

He is the most sickening Packer yes man of all.

>




31 Jan 2005 15:59:14
Will S
Re: Cricket v. Tennis coverage


"Calvin" <calvin@phlegm.com > wrote in message
news:ctk1h1$1tm$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
>
> "**MattO**" <canterbury@premiers.2004> wrote in message
> news:ctjs68$qfr$3@nnrp.waia.asn.au...
>> Calvin wrote:
>>
>> > Which is worse?
>> >
>> > The case for cricket:
>> >
>> > The entire commentary team
>>
>> Including Healy?
>
> Healy is good by Nein standards, but I would't call him great. As someone
> else mentioned, Holding is pretty good too.


talk about one over the head




31 Jan 2005 20:22:13
Will
Re: Cricket v. Tennis coverage


>> > Courier and Navratilova (damn they were good!)
>>
>> Courier. You are kidding. His interviews were well....
>

Is it just me or does Courier sort of remind you of Mark Nicholas in a way?
his body language, if dont know what i'm taking about when they talk or
interview someone watch their hands they almost seem similar, like they both
just came out of the 'Dodgy Sports Commentry School'

> Plugging upcoming crap shows

Do you really think that the tennis plugging of shows is any better than the
dodgy plugs they produce on the Cricket?

I really do doubt that Richie has even seen the new 'Abshoultly Brilliant
CSI: Shdney"
I believe cricket is worse, at least the tennis commentry sounds like they
are remotely interested and excited about the new show coming.




01 Feb 2005 07:49:47
Calvin
Re: Cricket v. Tennis coverage


"Will" <willbur@NOSPAM@austarnet.com.au > wrote in message
news:ctktch$93t$1@austar-news.austar.net.au...
>
> >> > Courier and Navratilova (damn they were good!)
>
> Is it just me or does Courier sort of remind you of Mark Nicholas in a
way?

It's just you.

> > Plugging upcoming crap shows
>
> Do you really think that the tennis plugging of shows is any better than
the
> dodgy plugs they produce on the Cricket?

No, which is why I never claimed it was.

> I believe cricket is worse, at least the tennis commentry sounds like they
> are remotely interested and excited about the new show coming.

I'm not sure that's a virtue.

cheers,
Calvin