Tennis and Bruce McAvaney (2 Viewers)

[OMGITzJustin]

Anyone else find his comments absolutely pointless? They are so frustrating and blatantly obvious, and I find all he does is recall what happened in the match and offers no analysis at all. For example today Nadal vs Berdych - "set point" "hes going to have to serve it out for the set" "break point" "second double fault for the game, they're not serving very well" "holds to love"... he says NOTHING apart from repeating scores, and if hes not repeating scores hes stating the obvious

EDIT: that last point by nadal, roger and jim are talking about court position, how low he gets and body strength required to get that shot. thats what we want to hear, instead of the score that we can clearly see ourselves.

 

[phuong14]

yes i agree. reminds me of Phill gould.

 

[halapenyo]

yes i agree. reminds me of Phill gould.

Phil Gould is a great commentator wat are you on about.

 

[b00m]

phil gould is a terrible commentator.

a fantastic analyst of the game but terrible commentator. he and rabs get wayy too off topic sometimes with knitting and god knows what

as for bruce mcaveny i have to agree. Courier to me is the only one who offers great insight

 

[Phoenix Fury]

Tbh I don't really like the idea of play by play commentators at all
Analyst 5eva

But I guess others disagree

 

[b00m]

Tbh I don't really like the idea of play by play commentators at all
Analyst 5eva

But I guess others disagree

u dont have play by play commentators in tennis though. all the commentary is after the point. so pretty much u have to be a good analyst to commentate tennis

 

[Phoenix Fury]

u dont have play by play commentators in tennis though. all the commentary is after the point. so pretty much u have to be a good analyst to commentate tennis

true, should have said commentators that dont really add anything as well

also Courier is gr8 imo

 

[DavDav]

Bruce McAvaney reminds me of American commentators on ESPN.

'Its in the net!'

'Nice work!'

'Excellent play!'

Just a series of generic B.S. statements made up by pea brained idiots to stall time and break the awkwardness of having to sit in a small room with another man/woman you've just met for a couple of hours.

We should have professionals of the game commentating like Courier. He's decent.

Henri Leconte is just crazy hahaha.

I wouldn't mind seeing Federer doing it after he retires.

 

[paraplegicmeilz]

Phil Gould is a great commentator wat are you on about.

are you an idiot

he is what is wrong with nrl

 

[noworriez1]

there is nothing wrong with bruce mcaveny

sure, he may point out the obvious occasionally

but i sure as hell would hate it if all i heard were ball pops throughout the entire game

When Jim Courier isn't speaking, McAveny says a thing or two (but never dominates it with plain gibberish all the time). He always gives Courier time to speak, and when he isn't, he throws in a comment or two, which makes it a tad more engaging than utter silence

the commentators during the day, for the female matches, are terrible

Jim Courier is, no doubt, better... but McAveny adds a nice touch to the game. His voice, especially, is soft and mellow in comparison to the terrible american commentators that feel so fake in the way they speak (typical)

And Roger Rasheed is... decent, at best.
Just my two cents

Also, just a side-point, Berdych, last night, played the better game and should have beaten Nadal (imo). Nadal only relies on unforced errors, which Berdych made over 50 as opposed to nadal that made almost half that.
It frustrates me, is all.

 

[b00m]

yes i supposed he does add balance to the commentary, more aimed at the general population who have little knowledge of tennis

 

[noworriez1]

yes i supposed he does add balance to the commentary, more aimed at the general population who have little knowledge of tennis

couldn't have said it better

 

[converge]

Henri Leconte is just crazy hahaha.

Haha crazy and biased at the same time. If you guys think Bruce McAvaney is bad, have a look at Sandy Roberts. These commentators just love the sound of their own voice.

 

[gunnerz]

he is so out of his depth, is what happens when channel seven uses him to commentate 15 different sports (lol)

he commentates a lot of the matches too even the womens (makarova vs sharapova)

 

[kaz1]

I loved it when he called Nicholas Mahut a "journeyman" and Jim Courier full ripped into him saying that is insulting and he is a professional tennis player.

McAvaney was about to cry.

 

[gunnerz]

imagine an Azarenka, Sharapova final, they will blow the roof off (definitely watching it on mute)

 

[mirakon]

Anyone else find his comments absolutely pointless? They are so frustrating and blatantly obvious, and I find all he does is recall what happened in the match and offers no analysis at all. For example today Nadal vs Berdych - "set point" "hes going to have to serve it out for the set" "break point" "second double fault for the game, they're not serving very well" "holds to love"... he says NOTHING apart from repeating scores, and if hes not repeating scores hes stating the obvious

EDIT: that last point by nadal, roger and jim are talking about court position, how low he gets and body strength required to get that shot. thats what we want to hear, instead of the score that we can clearly see ourselves.

thats the point. commentary teams have to be balanced with at least 1 person giving play by play analysis and the other having a sort of "historian" role. Its the same for pretty much every commentary team for any sport

 

[gunnerz]

thats the point. commentary teams have to be balanced with at last 1 person giving play by play analysis and the other having a sort of "historian" role. Its the same for pretty much every commentary team for any sport[/QUOTEi

yes but the main commentator also has to know his stuff and stats(ie martin tyler in soccer) McAvaney is clueless.Sam Smith was providing the hardcore stats (that you will expect from the main commentator) and analysis in the wozniacki and clijsters match: Bruce Mcavaney asked who was the last counterpunch player to win a grand slam (refering to wozniacki ability to win a slam with her style of play) and bang Sam Smith says 2004 Anastasia Myskina

 

[Lentern]

Not sure if I've ever heard of a sports commentator I did like. In cricket the late Peter Roebuck was quite pleasant I suppose.

 

[kaz1]

Peter Roebuck raped adolescent Zimbabwean young men, there was a big smh article about it,