South Africa v England, 4th Test, Johannesburg, 24-28 January, 2020

England should take Tim Paine's advice and win the toss and bowl first with tired bowlers in a match you don't need to win.

PeterCS wrote:On the other bit, specific to Agnew ...

beamer wrote:

PeterCS wrote:Meanwhile, BBC website:

'England have turned things around and should win series’ - Agnew


What a bleedin' expert. How prescient. What genius!

I think that piece of NSS is the headline writer’s line, rather than his own (...)

Yes, it's as if the headline writer/editor is sending up Agnew's level of argument! Since the latter always reacts to what's already happened, because - unlike commentators of greater weight - he is fickle, has no "centre of gravity", no greater authority of judgment.

He's - at best - like a weather forecaster who tells you what today was like .... (And that's my point throughout.)

Well, you’re entitled to your views... for me it’s like slagging off David Attenborough or Gary Lineker. Although admittedly the Jonathan Liew stuff was a bit ugly, if perhaps mitigated by personal circumstances at the time.

On TS - it just has the wrong feel to it. Lots of summarisers and no real anchor commentators.

Oof! Out of line! Attenborough and Lineker are living national icons, heroes in their own sweet, non-pedestal way.

How can I get this across. What I'm saying is that Agnew in particular doesn't "read" the game; doesn't research, investigate or test the truth of his assertions: all too often, he gives listeners the benefit of obvious statements, but worse than that, whims and fancies, hugely subjective moods according to each change in the weather (situation), and indulges passing peeves instead of getting to the core of the matter, instead of trying to work out the core of the matter, to describe and iluminate the play and what lies behind it, as any decent commentator should.

And personally, unlike the two others you mentioned, I'd say he's anything but a likeable, modestly charismatic figure with a track record of mighty effort, well-researched insight and well-judged conclusions, and genuine personability!


To me, the worst problem of Talksport Radio is the "bags-of-bull" mentality, presumably instilled by its managers. But at least they keep the (*sub-Ray-Winston voice*) "TALK--SPORT TWO!! - ***TO-DYE!!!***"-type battering ram bullshit (- repeated every five minutes -) out of the whole day long of Test match commentary.

I wouldn't quite agree TS has no anchors. Butch is good. Nicholas is fine when he talks cricket and not smarm. Andrew Wotsisname (McLashen? McClashing?) isn't bad, he tries, with some success. Manthorp is okay, though a wee bit too ingratiating for me (a potential pitfall of commentators who weren't professional players - they may defer and suck up a bit too much to others, seemingly insecure about their authority).

And (as previously mentioned in discussions of cricket commentators) I really, really dislike the "Coronary Commentary" trend he's joined - perhaps on managerial suggestion?  

You know what I mean ,,,:

(*Triple-volume, lung-busting bellowing voice*) "AND E'S GODDIM!!!!! CAUGHT BEHIND!!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHA!!!!! ... (oh, errr, hang on, did he touch it?)"

Dear commentators, radio or TV: I actually have passion and emotion enough of my own, thanks, and a brain too - I don't want my ears, heart or radio destroying for me. Stick to commentary. Give it some feeling, by all means, show you care as much as you jolly well like. But don't sound like a global meltdown, a universal heart attack.

The urbane "Manners" - for one - should know better.

JGK wrote:England should take Tim Paine's advice and win the toss and bowl first with tired bowlers in a match you don't need to win.

Come on, give Joe a break!

I see SAf have two Jimis, plus Bavuma and "Pet-luck-why-oh" in the ODI squad.

How many of them will be playing this Friday, I wonder?

PeterCS wrote:
Dear commentators, radio or TV: I actually have passion and emotion enough of my own, thanks, and a brain too - I don't want my ears, heart or radio destroying for me. Stick to commentary. Give it some feeling, by all means, show you care as much as you jolly well like. But don't sound like a global meltdown, a universal heart attack.

The urbane "Manners" - for one - should know better.

I like excitable commentators... but in football, as opposed to cricket.

“Manners” confused me for a moment as I thought you meant Simon Mann, but it was Manthorp, presumably. I know you’ve never been keen on people with an “-ers” nickname (or to a lesser extent “-y”). Aggers, Daggers, Blowers, I assume you weren’t a fan of Johnners either if you’re old enough to remember him other than from the “leg over” clip...

I went to Swanny and Blowers’ touring stage show late last year, which I’m sure you would hate... pretty entertaining, though not that sure what to make of Swann as a personality, sense he can probably be a bit spiteful behind the scenes. Got a few KP digs in (on winning the Ashes - “It was great to be able to celebrate out there with all my mates. And Kevin”...) Made light of Monty Panesar’s situation a bit too much as well, he’s clearly a troubled individual. But most of the rest was good humoured, and justified digs at the Aussies etc.

And I guess my main issue with TS is it’s just missing the reassuring voices of the TMS anchors (not rhyming slang...) when you turn on the radio.

If Boris and Dictator Dom do go ahead with their threat to replace the BBC with Fox UK, it will perhaps be the biggest loss, other than impartial(ish) news...

Uff. Don't! - If you think I'm "going on" about cricket commentators - good, bad, sparkling & indifferent (as I see 'em) - extending this to Cummings, Mogg's "ERG" and the rest of the self-serving, manipulatively subversive wretches blackmailing the BBC lowers all this to a new level of head-in-hands hair-tearing!

>
I liked Brian Johnston, in fact.  Wasn't in reality the "semi-upper class/army family duffer" of his reputation. Knew his onions, read the game pretty well - for all his "What-ho!" approach - and was always genuinely kind, generous-spirited. (How unlike his tediously waspish successor & pallid epigon, Blofeld!)

And "Jonners", that fitted the original pretty well. A pukka Etonian nickname for the best sort of typical graduate of that school.

More on this, and why - only lift the lid if interested, obvs!:

Anyway, commentators, commentators, commentators .... let's get back to South Africa v England.

Tuffers was already Tuffers in his playing days wasn’t he? And he’s not posh...  

Anyway, yeah, back to the cricket. Joffrey back to partner Glass in a twin pace battery? Bess might be the unlucky one. Knowing us though we’ll probably drop Buttler and make Pope keep...

That was exactly my point. He's not posh, so why poshify him?
(tbh: I don't recall that nickname in his playing days. "Cat" was the usual one. I see "Two Sugars" was another. He was also called other things. Such as by Yabba's successor at the SCG ... And how many nicknames does a player collect? Even larger-than-life Botham had only about three nicknames in his career.)


Archer AND Wood sounds fast, appropriate to Wanderers, but also like an accident waiting to happen!

I dunno. I guess it will be one of them? (Will "Dormie One" make the selectors reckless? Is that a good thing?)

Bess would be very unlucky to miss out. Even though Jo'burg is not noted for a lot of spin.

Yeah, they might feel the two Joes can do a job if it’s not going to turn much. But fielding two out-and-out pacemen and a 33-year-old in your attack means you’re lacking long spell options, and probably do need a proper spinner.

PeterCS wrote:That was exactly my point. He's not posh, so why poshify him?

Because everyone on TMS becomes an honorary posho. It’s tradition, stop fighting it, Pete-ers

Argh!


But I agree on the Bess.

You could argue that Wanderers is all about quicks. And that having a quick-only attack (or two-quick, two-quickish) - with "Bras-d'Or" Stokes possibly chipping in a couple of overs if all else fails - and well, Two Guys Named Joe giving them some sort of a rest if it's a long day at the office ... you could argue that is horses for courses. Young thoroughbreds and older nags together, but horses all, for the Jo'burg course.

And they may well choose to go that way.

But I'm not at all sure it's the best way to go. For miscellaneous reasons, also already stated. Frontline/specialist spinner. Balanced attack. Flexibility. Hopefully tie one end up. Especially when the ball gets ropey, when it might be fairly easy meat off the quicks.

"On verra", as they say in France.

Beamers - Just a brisk afterthought (I promise):

You haven't got me quite bang to rights above re Blofeld & Swann.

I imagine a Blowers-and-Swanny travelling show might be quite entertaining, amusing, a laugh. At their best as free raconteurs, regaling listeners with funny tales, and no rancour or further self-advertisement needed.

It's rather the pontificating, bluff, gurning and self-airing (and a bit of mean-spirited, vindictive sniping on the side, from Wheely Bins onwards) - (ab)using the power of the commentary seats - that I found & find .... errrm, quite a bit less attractive. When I want to hear about the cricket.

They may well be fine as ordinary decent citizens, outside the pressures & demands of the commentary box. And released into the wild, especially.

TMS is about more than just the cricket, which is why it’s the national treasure that it is. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one

Meanwhile, Root dropping a big hint (or maybe teasing) about playing both fast guys:

"It would be nice to see how they go together ... I think they would be a relentless barrage of pace which is exciting, especially on a surface such as you typically get here at the Wanderers."

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/51219537

Slim chance of play today due to rain which means in a four day test scenario, it would be limited to only three.

Forecast for the next couple of days isn’t great either... I doubt we’ll get a Cronjegate contrived finish given it’s still a live series!

Although they should do it, just because it’s the 20th anniversary of said incident...

How can you lose the toss six times on the bounce?

It seems Root and Co may have blindsided us. Woakes and not Archer in for Bess?

Jimi's in.

As is Bavuma, as widely predicted.

England cruising again after Faf lost yet another toss.

Wheels coming off the " favourites' " wagon train at the mo. (As so often!)

Four wheels off that wagon
Are they still rolling along?

"Firestarter"?

or "Give a dog a bad name, and hang him"?


Horace will know the answer. ...

PeterCS wrote:How can you lose the toss six times on the bounce?

It seems Root and Co may have blindsided us. Woakes and not Archer in for Bess?

Joffrey’s injured. Faf’s just a useless tosser...

A day of two halves, anyway. Disappointing to let such a solid start slip away, but hopefully Root and Pope are getting it back on track. And congratulations to the captain on scoring England’s half-millionth Test run... more fitting than it being a no-ball or leg-bye or a nick through slip from a tailender!