Football Commentators

[Twodogs]

This is a digression off topic I need to hear...….

As my dear old dad would have said. He started it, I finished it.

[jeemak]

Go on then...….

[ledge]

I don’t think I’ll be able to stand Bruce dog whistling about wanting to root Rankine next week.

Depending who is winning it’s either Rankine or Weightman , if the game is close he will sit on the fence praising both until the end then he will be in awe of the player who played in the winning team.

[azabob]

I don’t think I’ll be able to stand Bruce dog whistling about wanting to root Rankine next week.

You are in luck, this is a foxtel game.

[Happy Days]

You are in luck, this is a foxtel game.

Great. Dwayne then, dog whistling about rooting Rankine *and* trying to neg the Dogs out of existence.

[azabob]

Great. Dwayne then, dog whistling about rooting Rankine *and* trying to neg the Dogs out of existence.

As long as your glass is still half full, that is all that matters.

[azabob]

Mark Robinson dropped the CBomb on TV last night and apologised for it.

Genuine question does the standards board get involved or?

Having said that, if the standards board don't get involved for Channel 7's footy commentary, not sure they will take action on this occasion.

[ledge]

Mark Robinson dropped the CBomb on TV last night and apologised for it.

Genuine question does the standards board get involved or?

Having said that, if the standards board don't get involved for Channel 7's footy commentary, not sure they will take action on this occasion.

Was he sober for a change ?

[EasternWest]

Was he sober for a change ?

Of course not.

Gerard Healy breathes a sigh of relief.

[Axe Man]

I don't really get as wound up about commentators as other seem to but this article is amusing, love the graphs.

Comment: Bruce McAvaney asked 55 rhetorical questions in one AFL game — it’s almost time to go

Editor’s note: The following piece was written by Reddit user u/GoldBricked and republished with his permission.

Before I begin, can I preface this by saying that I adore Bruce McAvaney’s passion for the game. And I’m not trying to ether him out of existence here.

But after being relatively spoiled with five consecutive matches of Foxtel commentary for Collingwood games I was disappointed to see that we had the traditional Seven Sunday arvo fixture for our big clash with Carlton. And the more I tuned in throughout the match, the more I picked up on Bruce’s incessant rhetorical questions.

I know he’s been doing it for years. He has a cacophony of catchphrases (some of which I’ve included below) which grate the ears. His biggest issue now is that it’s become second nature for these questions in particular to be asked of his fellow commentators ad nauseam.

He craves reassurance from everyone else on the commentary team. This is illustrated with the quite frankly crazy amount of times he refers to his fellow callers by name. He doesn’t need to lead Jimmy Bartel or Luke Hodge into their statements every time they want to make one.

Yes, I know they’re calling off the TV this year. But it was the same before all that.

I love it when he sticks his neck out and actually makes a non-fence-sitting call because it happens about twice a year. It’s otherwise all just backslapping and “How good was Player X” and nothing of substance.

I would hate to be critical without happily acknowledging that commentary is not an easy thing to do. I myself have commentated probably in the vicinity of 50 local football matches, including senior grand finals.

I got nervous, I stumbled at times. I used to say “can’t do much about it” all the time when there was a pack and no clear possession was being taken.

But I was also 17 years old and calling my first grand final. I wasn’t an experienced broadcaster with decades of on-screen performances behind me. And I can’t recall ever patting my co-commentator on the back and saying “great call” or anything along those lines.

The issue for Bruce right now is a constant need to fill space. He is not alone in this regard; in fact, nearly all TV commentators (bar Adam Papalia and Mark Howard) can’t let two seconds of silence go by without interrupting it.

Silence is not dead air. It is letting the vision speak for itself. When a player pulls off a nice linking field pass, it’s “good stuff”. A short handball out of traffic is always a “little give”. If the ball dribbles inside 50 without any real purpose, it’s either “bubbling around there”, or “bubbling bubbling bubbling”.

It is no surprise that fans prefer, more than anything, the analysis of the special comments callers and/or boundary riders.

If an ex-player must be involved in the media – ahead of well-trained, skilled performers who never played league football – then their experience at the highest level is their point of difference.

Tell us why a team sets up with two behind the stoppage, or why they always look for short 45s coming out of halfback, or that their deep forward entries are a directive from the coach. Don’t just say “here’s the slow play” and expect that to cover it off. We aren’t fools. We deserve better.

To demonstrate just how wacky Bruce has got with his rhetorical questions, here’s a breakdown of everything from the Carlton v Collingwood match on Sunday.

And yes, I had to watch the match for a second time.



Now I’m no data scientist either so I probably haven’t displayed this all in the best format possible, but hey, it’s a bit of fun. And in hindsight I could’ve broken up each mention of “Hame”, “Jimmy”, “Hodgey” and “Luke” by the individual reference. But I’m not watching this game for a third time.

All in all, Bruce asked a total of 55 rhetorical questions over the course of approximately 102 minutes of game time. Let’s say that 80 per cent of the time in commentary is from the play-by-play callers and 20 per cent by the colour.

And let’s be generous and say that it was an even 50/50 split of airtime between Bruce and Hamish, even though the latter probably had slightly more.

That means Bruce had around 41 minutes of airtime on Sunday’s call. In that period, he referred to his co-commentators by name 55 times at a rate of around 1.38 per minute. He also asked 1.38 rhetorical questions per minute. This is astounding.





When I was a kid, all I wanted to be was Bruce McAvaney. At five years old, watching the Sydney Olympics, and everyone in primary school wanted to be an astronaut, or a pilot, or a fireman … I wanted to be a commentator.

And Bruce was the pick of the bunch up until Seven lost the footy rights at the end of 2001.

Since then, he’s had his “special” moments, but his slow decline has been like watching your ageing grandparent fade away slowly as they lose everything about themselves that made them unique.

He’s a legend of the game, I love him, but I think Seven have a decision on their hands pretty soon.

[angelopetraglia]

Don’t think Bruce or any of the commentators are having their best year .... but it must be more difficult to commentate when you are not at the ground and in m at cases separated physically from your fellow commentators.

[jeemak]

Don’t think Bruce or any of the commentators are having their best year .... but it must be more difficult to commentate when you are not at the ground and in m at cases separated physically from your fellow commentators.

This isn't something most of us are just realising though...….Bruce has been cooked for a very long time and I think people don't have enough distractions to ignore it anymore.

[soupman]

Yeah and his issues aren't to do with not being able to follow the play.

All the main players biggest problems is their pigheaded boys club mentality and obsession with talking about absolute crap and offering nothing insightful at all (and often shutting down or ignoring the special comments people who are meant to be providing that ie. Daisy Pearce, Bartel etc.).

The only guys that understand that talking for talkings sake is a bad idea and that sometimes just calling games as they present themselves are the part timers like Mark Howard, Adam Papalgia, Brenton Speed and thankfully more often seen Anthony Hudson. Funnily enough none of them were superstar footballers and none of them spend the whole broadcast making it about themselves.

[bornadog]

Yeah and his issues aren't to do with not being able to follow the play.

All the main players biggest problems is their pigheaded boys club mentality and obsession with talking about absolute crap and offering nothing insightful at all (and often shutting down or ignoring the special comments people who are meant to be providing that ie. Daisy Pearce, Bartel etc.).

The only guys that understand that talking for talkings sake is a bad idea and that sometimes just calling games as they present themselves are the part timers like Mark Howard, Adam Papalgia, Brenton Speed and thankfully more often seen Anthony Hudson. Funnily enough none of them were superstar footballers and none of them spend the whole broadcast making it about themselves.

Yes some of the best commentators over the years like Drew Morphet were just professional commentators and never played sport.

[Cyberdoggie]

I've been thinking the same thing this year that it's been getting worse but i didn't realize via these stats actually how bad it is.

1.38 rhetorical questions per minute with 41 minutes of airtime. That's basically every time he talks he is asking a question or two.


The other thing that is creeping into the commentating game and 7 are the worst of it is the random unrelated conversation that occur.
As there are too many commentators there as it is, they feel the need to break into some inane conversation when they lose interest in the game. Bruce and Brian are the main culprits.