Darts Betting and discussion

[Bazzaboy]

Tal does make some valid points, it's not a job I'd fancy doing.

Personally speaking I much prefer the ITV coverage these days to Sky (when they employ decent spotters that is). Mason is very good and improving and Warriner isn't too bad either. Rawling does a decent enough job as well considering he's not really a darts fan.

[horseplayer]

Not to do with topic but

If you enjoy good analysis Freddie Flintoff is doing a brilliant job on the big bash this morning...

Learning something rather than stating the obvious

[The Camel]

Darts is, IMO, probably the most difficult sport to commentate on

- People know the first 6-12 darts are aimed at 60, 57 and 54
- People can hear the caller do the arithmetic for them (the louder and longer the better)
- When it comes to a checkout, the series appears in the bottom right, so people can follow that)
- The camera generally focuses on the bit they're aiming at, so, like golf, it's either in or out
- Unlike golf, there are no conditions to tell us about that we can't see
- It's quickly repetitive, so, twenty legs into the night, saying things that are new is tricky
- In the PDC era especially, there is a pressure to fill the silences with hugely enthusiastic noises (if you've ever been to watch the darts - sober - it's really quite boring as you get very little of the above, can't see anything and there's no one telling you what's going on so you end up watching on a telly without the commentary and standing up for the ad break song). It's not like in, say, tennis or snooker, where you can allow the audience to enjoy the sport for a bit. It's bright lights, blaring music, skimpily clad, overly made-up walk-on girls, big, sweaty blokes in massive, flowery shirts and a fancy-dressed audience absolutely off their faces on lager. The commentators have to follow suit.

Sid Waddell was unique, but, as he was in pool, he had a wingman to fill in with the more on-message stuff. I like Mardle, personally, and whilst I'm not a huge fan of the rest particularly, I do have some sympathy for them. I think they're in a difficult position, where the ghost of a great still walks the halls. I'm pleased none of them has tried to fill the gap and that's what Mardle does pretty well: it's a Mardle Korma to the Waddell Phaal, that's designed to taste like a curry but is obviously designed to be different, too.

Out of interest, if you could take any commentator from any sport and train them in the technical aspects of darts, who would you have on sky tonight?

Very good post.

The phrase "less is more" comes to mind. Just shut up and let us watch unless you have something useful to add.

The one man I'd like to hear having a bash at darts is Mike Carlsen (CH4 NFL man), who is the best analyst on any sport bar far IMO.

Doesn't treat the audience like idiots, tell us interesting stuff, is funny without being patronising and has an encyclopaedic knowledge of his sport (but doesn't use it to show off).

[The Camel]

Why do TV companies use as many former pros as possible as analysts on sport?

Alan Shearer was unquestionably one of the best strikers of my lifetime.

But equally unquestionably he is one of the worst analysts on any sport.

Just because you are good at one, doesn't mean you'll be good at the other.

Richard Langley was a QPR midfielder of the early 2000s. I follow him on Twitter.

He is intelligent, funny and opinionated. I think he would be an excellent pundit on football programmes.

But he's a million to one to ever get the chance because SKY and BBC would rather wheel out Carragher, Shearer, Gullit, Souness, Redknapp et al because everyone has heard of them.

I like Thierry Henry, fantastic player, nice guy. But to pay him £4 mill per year to describe what has happened on a football field is a borderline criminal waste of money.

[Tal]

Why do TV companies use as many former pros as possible as analysts on sport?

Alan Shearer was unquestionably one of the best strikers of my lifetime.

But equally unquestionably he is one of the worst analysts on any sport.

Just because you are good at one, doesn't mean you'll be good at the other.

Richard Langley was a QPR midfielder of the early 2000s. I follow him on Twitter.

He is intelligent, funny and opinionated. I think he would be an excellent pundit on football programmes.

But he's a million to one to ever get the chance because SKY and BBC would rather wheel out Carragher, Shearer, Gullit, Souness, Redknapp et al because everyone has heard of them.

I like Thierry Henry, fantastic player, nice guy. But to pay him £4 mill per year to describe what has happened on a football field is a borderline criminal waste of money.

Click to see full-size image.

Click to see full-size image.

[BigAdz]

Why do TV companies use as many former pros as possible as analysts on sport?

Alan Shearer was unquestionably one of the best strikers of my lifetime.

But equally unquestionably he is one of the worst analysts on any sport.

Just because you are good at one, doesn't mean you'll be good at the other.

Richard Langley was a QPR midfielder of the early 2000s. I follow him on Twitter.

He is intelligent, funny and opinionated. I think he would be an excellent pundit on football programmes.

But he's a million to one to ever get the chance because SKY and BBC would rather wheel out Carragher, Shearer, Gullit, Souness, Redknapp et al because everyone has heard of them.

I like Thierry Henry, fantastic player, nice guy. But to pay him £4 mill per year to describe what has happened on a football field is a borderline criminal waste of money.

I think you have reasoned it out for yourself there Keith.

People like to hear from their heroes. Your QPR man may be all you say he is, but most wouldn't give him the time of day, because he is a lesser stripped QPR former player.

I agree, £4m a year for Henry is a scandal. He must have a great agent, or whoever signed him must be in on the coup. But the reality is, he has a name that people want to hear opinions from, and will switch onto out of interest, at least.

[The Camel]

Why do TV companies use as many former pros as possible as analysts on sport?

Alan Shearer was unquestionably one of the best strikers of my lifetime.

But equally unquestionably he is one of the worst analysts on any sport.

Just because you are good at one, doesn't mean you'll be good at the other.

Richard Langley was a QPR midfielder of the early 2000s. I follow him on Twitter.

He is intelligent, funny and opinionated. I think he would be an excellent pundit on football programmes.

But he's a million to one to ever get the chance because SKY and BBC would rather wheel out Carragher, Shearer, Gullit, Souness, Redknapp et al because everyone has heard of them.

I like Thierry Henry, fantastic player, nice guy. But to pay him £4 mill per year to describe what has happened on a football field is a borderline criminal waste of money.

Click to see full-size image.

Click to see full-size image.

Funnily enough I like Kammy and love Soccer Saturday - especially Merson.

I think it's because they don't take themselves too seriously and are prepared to laugh at themselves.

It's the ones who think their opinions are gospel that get my goat - like Rod Harrington and Alan Shearer.

[tikay]

Why do TV companies use as many former pros as possible as analysts on sport?

Alan Shearer was unquestionably one of the best strikers of my lifetime.

But equally unquestionably he is one of the worst analysts on any sport.

Just because you are good at one, doesn't mean you'll be good at the other.

Richard Langley was a QPR midfielder of the early 2000s. I follow him on Twitter.

He is intelligent, funny and opinionated. I think he would be an excellent pundit on football programmes.

But he's a million to one to ever get the chance because SKY and BBC would rather wheel out Carragher, Shearer, Gullit, Souness, Redknapp et al because everyone has heard of them.

I like Thierry Henry, fantastic player, nice guy. But to pay him £4 mill per year to describe what has happened on a football field is a borderline criminal waste of money.

I think you have reasoned it out for yourself there Keith.

People like to hear from their heroes. Your QPR man may be all you say he is, but most wouldn't give him the time of day, because he is a lesser stripped QPR former player.

I agree, £4m a year for Henry is a scandal. He must have a great agent, or whoever signed him must be in on the coup. But the reality is, he has a name that people want to hear opinions from, and will switch onto out of interest, at least.

I would not agree its a "scandal", good luck to him, but yes, people will want to see him & hear his views, & I can think of few better suited to the role. He is immensely popular, & from what I have seen & heard, comes across wonderfully on TV.

Great signing, I thought.

[Tal]

That's the terrible thing, Camel: I much prefer soccer saturday to final score. If I were sitting there, watching the games with them, I reckon it'd be a great day, my sides would be aching and I probably wouldn't even mention that it's ridiculous they don't know who all the players are.

But, alas, they are primarily there to tell us - their hungry audience - what is going on in the football matches their broadcaster doesn't have the rights to show live in our country. They have 10-20 seconds to give us a description of an incident (goal, penalty appeal, sending off, offside) and how often are you left feeling you know what has happened?

What you really need for that job is radio commentators, not the excitable bloke in the pub.

[tikay]

That's the terrible thing, Camel: I much prefer soccer saturday to final score. If I were sitting there, watching the games with them, I reckon it'd be a great day, my sides would be aching and I probably wouldn't even mention that it's ridiculous they don't know who all the players are.

But, alas, they are primarily there to tell us - their hungry audience - what is going on in the football matches their broadcaster doesn't have the rights to show live in our country. They have 10-20 seconds to give us a description of an incident (goal, penalty appeal, sending off, offside) and how often are you left feeling you know what has happened?

What you really need for that job is radio commentators, not the excitable bloke in the pub.

What?

Don't start me off on Alan "Know It All" Green, please, or I'll need to go buy one of those critics armchairs with rear view mirrors & everything.

[The Camel]

That's the terrible thing, Camel: I much prefer soccer saturday to final score. If I were sitting there, watching the games with them, I reckon it'd be a great day, my sides would be aching and I probably wouldn't even mention that it's ridiculous they don't know who all the players are.

But, alas, they are primarily there to tell us - their hungry audience - what is going on in the football matches their broadcaster doesn't have the rights to show live in our country. They have 10-20 seconds to give us a description of an incident (goal, penalty appeal, sending off, offside) and how often are you left feeling you know what has happened?

What you really need for that job is radio commentators, not the excitable bloke in the pub.

What?

Don't start me off on Alan "Know It All" Green, please, or I'll need to go buy one of those critics armchairs with rear view mirrors & everything.

I think I'm the only person I know that thinks Alan Green is an excellent commentator.

Give me Green any day over Clive Tildsley or Martin Tyler.

I'm obviously a contrarian.

[Tal]

I don't mind Green particularly. I can take or leave it, but he does describe well.

But I mean in the sense that they're used to commentating in a medium where their audience can't see what they see.

Imagine commentating on something like poker on the radio. Some people would just tell you the cards and the bet-pot-stack sizes (let's say the elite online pros), but the best commentators would tell you everything and paint a picture of the way the players were dressed, their body movement, that the last, unexpected raise would have "scythed him down from his high horse" and so on. You'd feel like you were there. That's part of what makes the staring competition sketch so magnificent.

[BigAdz]

Agree with Camel.

If I'm driving home, and its footy on I always am pleased to hear Greens voice, yet because of all the bad press he gets, I'm almost looking to dislike him, but I can't. Solid, reliable and nicely excitable, perfect for that drive home.

Same with Kammy. Always pleased when its over to him. Life's too short to be serious all the time. Give me the fun time frankies any day.

 

[Kmac84]

Turned into a decent debate this, the thing that mostly comes across to me and I think we mostly all agree is we don't mind a bit of japes but we want our commentators to be on point and instead of stating the bloody obvious we want them to give us a proper analysis of what's going on.  Sometimes just let the pictures do the taling the way Ted Lowe did in Snooker.  Also echo Camel in that I love Mike Carlsen, the guy just oozes class. 

What of my pet peeves when watching Scottish Football is  how bad the commentators are, in all my years of watching football whether it be Sky/Terrestrial I feel badly let down.   Its such a shameful list of people we have let loose on our game. 

I also think paying Henry £4million a year is crminal because these costs are passed back to the consumer, and despte the fact he may well be very good - and having listened to him during the World Cup he definitely is - I don't think £4 million a year is value for money. 

[tikay]

Turned into a decent debate this, the thing that mostly comes across to me and I think we mostly all agree is we don't mind a bit of japes but we want our commentators to be on point and instead of stating the bloody obvious we want them to give us a proper analysis of what's going on.  Sometimes just let the pictures do the taling the way Ted Lowe did in Snooker.  Also echo Camel in that I love Mike Carlsen, the guy just oozes class. 

What of my pet peeves when watching Scottish Football is  how bad the commentators are, in all my years of watching football whether it be Sky/Terrestrial I feel badly let down.   Its such a shameful list of people we have let loose on our game. 

I also think paying Henry £4million a year is crminal because these costs are passed back to the consumer, and despte the fact he may well be very good - and having listened to him during the World Cup he definitely is - I don't think £4 million a year is value for money. 

I think Clive Everton was streets ahead of Ted Lowe in that department.