Croft has to go
Discussion
ch37 said:
Adrian W said:
Oh wow. Well deserved, he's the best in the business, amazed Sky didn't snap him up. I'd be genuinely ok with going to highlights only just for this next season.JonChalk said:
ch37 said:
Adrian W said:
Oh wow. Well deserved, he's the best in the business, amazed Sky didn't snap him up. I'd be genuinely ok with going to highlights only just for this next season.ch37 said:
Adrian W said:
Oh wow. Well deserved, he's the best in the business, amazed Sky didn't snap him up. I'd be genuinely ok with going to highlights only just for this next season.Well, they needn't have worried - Whisper continue to value the quality of their output and once again show how they are determined to maintain it while positioning themselves to step into the breach when Sky's contract ends (or Sky decide to cut their costs and sub-out the production work).
I suspect one recurring problem that TV Cos make is assuming that a good radio commentator will also make a good TV commentator.
On radio the commentator needs to paint the picture and express the excitement of the event. No listener can pick them up for being wrong, as they know no better.
On TV, the viewer has a pretty good idea what is going on, so the commentary needs to be different. You can’t say Max’s Red Bull, if the number and helmet are telling the viewer its actually Alex and so on. You can’t go crazy when a following car pops out of the slipstream, because most viewers know that passing is actually a rare event.
I like the Rugby commentaries of Eddie Butler and Brian Moore. There are 30 guys on the pitch, often with foreign names, and a very complicated set of rules that change year-on-year and so need explanation. Despite having the occasional argy-bargy, the two guys work very well together, informing the viewer about the stuff that might not be immediately obvious. They very rarely get overexcited.
That approach is all that is required for F1. Make simple comments, but above all be accurate. If the race is quiet, then relax and take stock of what has happened, limit the conjecture of what might happen before the end of the race. It just makes you look a bigger chump, when it does not.
On radio the commentator needs to paint the picture and express the excitement of the event. No listener can pick them up for being wrong, as they know no better.
On TV, the viewer has a pretty good idea what is going on, so the commentary needs to be different. You can’t say Max’s Red Bull, if the number and helmet are telling the viewer its actually Alex and so on. You can’t go crazy when a following car pops out of the slipstream, because most viewers know that passing is actually a rare event.
I like the Rugby commentaries of Eddie Butler and Brian Moore. There are 30 guys on the pitch, often with foreign names, and a very complicated set of rules that change year-on-year and so need explanation. Despite having the occasional argy-bargy, the two guys work very well together, informing the viewer about the stuff that might not be immediately obvious. They very rarely get overexcited.
That approach is all that is required for F1. Make simple comments, but above all be accurate. If the race is quiet, then relax and take stock of what has happened, limit the conjecture of what might happen before the end of the race. It just makes you look a bigger chump, when it does not.
One thing I did notice when watching an f1 clip on YouTube by sky or F1 proper (can’t remember) is they appeared to have changed the sound quality deliberately to somehow enhance or clarify his voice?! As it sounded unnatural like they had messed around with the levels in some way.
It made it more horrible to listen to. Anyone else confirm or is it my imagination?
It made it more horrible to listen to. Anyone else confirm or is it my imagination?
Does anyone else watch the race live on Sky Sports to find out the result, then watch the highlights on Ch4 later?
I think DC provides some better insight about what actually goes on in a race, and even though they use the same broadcast images of the race the overall coverage is better.
Crofty's voice has put me off watching any highlight reels on YouTube by the official F1 page - they just sound like collections of a deranged man ranting. The Sky coverage is sold to both US and Australian markets (and probably others too), so I can only assume they're trying to cater for the US audience.
I think DC provides some better insight about what actually goes on in a race, and even though they use the same broadcast images of the race the overall coverage is better.
Crofty's voice has put me off watching any highlight reels on YouTube by the official F1 page - they just sound like collections of a deranged man ranting. The Sky coverage is sold to both US and Australian markets (and probably others too), so I can only assume they're trying to cater for the US audience.
JonChalk said:
Fundoreen said:
You try to stay out of it but...
Crofty telling brundle to hijack the camera boom and try and operate it.
Anything for base-level amusement of Crofty at other's discomfort seems fair game.Crofty telling brundle to hijack the camera boom and try and operate it.
Smollet said:
I'm starting to have some very dark thoughts about this man. He's been spectacularly irritating this morning.
He's actually caused me to stop watching all practice sessions, and quali and the race are watched with liberal use of the mute button. It's really, really frustrating. 
king ell, in what universe will the Ferrari manager be happy and purring oboist his car loosing twoGassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff