He annoys me greatly. So much so that I turn TV commentary onto mute when he hits the mic and tune into the radio commentary.
All he does is slag off everything that the modern cricketer does. Every time a ball goes into a gap, he would have had a fielder there. If somebody is wearing a new type of cricket boot, he questions it's purpose. If one of the younger commentators agrees with any decision that captain has made, he always compares it to something one if his captains did 30 years ago. I'd rather listen to Botham, and that is saying something.
I'm getting to the stage now where I only really want to listen to people who retired post millennium. (With a couple of exceptions) Didn't think I'd like Ganguly's commentary but I think he's been really good. Strauss and Atherton are brilliant. There are others around the world also like Pollock, Slater and Richardson who I think have a slightly more relevant opinion.
In summary, I want younger commentators or older ones ( like Agnew and Lloyd) who can accept that cricket isn't the same as it was in 1980.
All he does is slag off everything that the modern cricketer does. Every time a ball goes into a gap, he would have had a fielder there. If somebody is wearing a new type of cricket boot, he questions it's purpose. If one of the younger commentators agrees with any decision that captain has made, he always compares it to something one if his captains did 30 years ago. I'd rather listen to Botham, and that is saying something.
I'm getting to the stage now where I only really want to listen to people who retired post millennium. (With a couple of exceptions) Didn't think I'd like Ganguly's commentary but I think he's been really good. Strauss and Atherton are brilliant. There are others around the world also like Pollock, Slater and Richardson who I think have a slightly more relevant opinion.
In summary, I want younger commentators or older ones ( like Agnew and Lloyd) who can accept that cricket isn't the same as it was in 1980.