I don't need a commentator to tell me what I'm seeing at a game at the stadium, so don't need one watching a game on TV. I find them all irritating and if there's not much going on, they speak utter twaddle to fill in the gaps.
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
As I posted on a thread earlier, my wife thought the players heard the recorded crowd sounds, bless her.
I think this has been the biggest change to affect the TV viewing experience in my lifetime. I really don't mind commentary if it stuck purely to describing what was happening. I'm not looking for an opinion on the game, just identify who the players are that pass and/or receive the ball. If there's a tackle I want to know who tackled who.The problem with commentators is there are always bloody two of them so they start waffling utter shit. If it was just one and he kept it simple then no problem.
However, I'd rather just have the crowd noise all day long.
Just the noise of the crowd is what I would prefer when watching on TVCurrently we can choose between commentary and recorded crowd noise or commentary and live stadium sounds. If it were possible in the future (when the fans have returned to the stadiums) to have the choice instead as being genuine live crowd noise and no commentary or live crowd noise with commentary which one would you choose ?
Would you rather watch the match as a genuine spectator or listen to the designated pundits talk over the game ?
Pundit - noun - an expert in a particular subject or field who is frequently called upon to give their opinions to the public.I think I've misunderstood as I don't think the likes of Carragher, Neville, McManaman, Dixon, Murphy, Smith, etc are commentators. They're pundits/summarisers, no?
The only caveat to radio comms is of course if you are purely listening to it, that's not to say you've got it on whilst watching the game on the telly. You simply have to trust what you are listening to is a fair reflection of what is happening in the game. I'm happy though to enjoy a radio commentary, they genuinely bring you into the game and describe events like crowd songs & celebrations, even what's being sung and why (if it was a reaction to something).Too right!
Usually the radio commentators are better, purely by the need for radio being descriptive and not opinionated or filler.
Which is why I prefer teletext for news as well. Less info is more likely to be correct info.
Yep, remember when sky used to do this, watched every match without commentators, ,for me more enjoyable than listening to two people who know next to nothing about spursNo comms, when Sky used to do the option of just crowd noise I would always opt for just the crowd.
...and Dixon, the slimy c**t.I watch games on foreign streams, had enough of Carragher, Neville, Mcmanaman & Alan Smith ruining spurs games
Definitely prefer watching Spurs' games without the fake noise, but for other games, especially ones I'm not too invested in, I prefer to have it on.Not commentators but I prefer watching a game without the fake crowd noise.
I quite like hearing the players and coaches........and the apologies from the commentators for the swearing.Not commentators but I prefer watching a game without the fake crowd noise.