Footy Media - good and bad

waddayamean wrote:Hey come on ?You blokes fair dinkum or not.

CK's commenTs and mine have been removed ?

PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT I SAID WRONG.

waddayamean wrote:

waddayamean wrote:Hey come on ?You blokes fair dinkum or not.

CK's commenTs and mine have been removed ?

PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT I SAID WRONG.

And have the balls to re post my comments.

Big apologies for not agreeing with certain people on here . Can't upset the minority I suppose.

Ahhhhh , I remember the refreshing start to this site and how it would be different.

PhilH wrote:Without seeing what was deleted one of the "refreshing" items when this site started was this part of the mission statment

- We encourage club and media representatives to participate in the site by providing an online environment free of personal attack or insult.

Not sure if that was the issue but I am sure the admin / mods would clarify for you

PhilH wrote:Onto the matter at hand re the quality of SANFL commentators.
 
I acknowledge the regular comments that the SANFL broadcasters are "ordinary". However without further specifics on what make them ordinary no one can take that feedback on board.
 
ie
- do they not know the game Knowledge good - AS MENTIONED
- do they not know the players
- are they too AFL focussed Hardly relevant , or is this to mke the list bigger
- are they too focussed on the game and not entertaining. No
- are they too entertaining and not focussed on the game At times a few trying to over do it yes
- are they too monotonous in their tone very much
- are they too excited all the time all the time no .
- are they too repetative in their sayings yes
- does their description of the game paint a picture in your mind
- are they too statistical no I don't think so
- are they not statistical enough making big statements with no facts to back them up
- do they promote their sponsors too much no ,
- are they too biased no
- do they sit on the fence too much yes
- are they too robotic some
 
This sort of feedback can be taken on board.
 
Just saying ... "they are ordinary"  cannot.

PhilH wrote:Forgot a few
- are they too focussed on the umpires, not the game
- are they not focussed at all on the umpiring
- are they giving too few score & time upates
- are they giving too many score & time updates
- are they too focussed on a few "favourite" players
- are they not advising who the best players are

any others come to mind?

redandblack wrote:Move on, W.  That issue has been done to death and there's no need to keep at it.

redandblack wrote:Thanks for your post, Phil.

I'll make some general points about the SANFL radio coverage, from my own viewpoint.

First, player ID.  Having 'called' the opposition players for West for a couple of years, I know how hard it is.  I think the occasional wrong identification is almost inevitable and I judge a caller on their overall performance with this.  I can't listen often and when I do it's generally 5RPH, not Life FM.  However, the callers are often the same people, so:

I'd rate Phil Herdern, Chris Kendall and Phil Aspinall highly on player ID.  Not only that, but I also rate them highly on overall calling of the game.  The common factor with them is that they're passionate about the game and/or they're highly involved with the SANFL competition.

I haven't listened enough to some callers to give a proper opinion.

I enjoy listening to Doug Oakley, but he needs to concentrate on the game, not peripheral factors to the detriment of the game.  It's no good hearing that the ball is at one end of the ground, listening to a Doug 'aside' and the call is resumed with the ball at the other end.  I haven't listened to him lately, so he may have improved on that.  His player ID, IMO, needs a lot of improvement.  Too many "a West player' type statements.  He has a great radio voice.

DB?.  well, he's entertaining, he's a good bloke, he's experienced, but he's living on his past efforts.  His player ID is awful, to be honest and there's only so many 'sausage rolls' that can be called before you wish he'd just say it was a goal.  He needs to do a lot of homework, as he relies on the other callers for player ID too often.  Does he use binoculars?  If not, then he should.

Other general points.  I'd rather a caller waited an extra second or tow before saying a kick is a goal, until they're ceratin.  Nothing worse than a goal being called, then corrected to a behind.

We're listening to a radio call.  We can't see the game, except through the caller.  That should be remembered at all times.

I know community radio needs sponsors, but it's a bit annoying when parts of the game are called with a sponsor's name while the game is going on.  Sounds amateurish, but I understand it probably can't be avoided.

I would rate PH, PA and CK very highly.  Their calls are knowledgeable, clear and entertaining and I think it would be fairly churlish to criticise them too much.

having said that, I don't think the fact that it is community radio should ever a call should be judged any differently and obviously different people have different opinions.

I listen often to games from both RPH and Lifeand for me John Nankerville is by far the best caller. Excellent tone, player knowledge and has a good feel for the game

bigclock wrote:

Join the club. You can have an opinion as long as everyone else agrees or no one takes offence.  

waddayamean wrote:And no personal attack was made. It seems quuite clear if the so called "media" who post on here are not agreed with then it is perceived as a personal attack.