this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2024
22 points (89.3% liked)
Ask Lemmy
27278 readers
3510 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't
It’s not that different than other media. There is really good analysis out there but you have to really go out of your way to avoid the bullshit. The stuff that really gets eyeballs is the low hanging, drama oriented, sound-byte-y stuff.
In F1 they're usually great. More grounded observations / opinions, from either former drivers or at least people who have been around the paddock for decades. They feel more "objective" regarding what they talk about and what they'll allow themselves to hypothesize about.
I don't watch much NBA and NFL but the analysts / opinion guys seem goofy and way too loose with opinions. I think they're all entertainment so the more outlandish their statements the better the engagement.
In chess the players and analysts are all way above my level, but as far as I can tell, they do a good job at breaking down the position and giving you an idea of what super grandmasters are thinking. But this is more commentator and less analyst.
Funnily enough, my mind jumped to Martin Brundle as a classic example of a good analyst - or at least he was in the 90s and 2000s. He's still good, but it just isn't as new or exciting anymore - he was a fantastic counterpoint to Murray Walker's boundless enthusiasm with a lot of sensible chatter and in depth knowledge.
Another guy I quite like is Jimmy Bullard, particularly on Sky Sports News or Soccer AM - no bullshit, everything in layman's terms, and has a laugh with it.
What matters is that they're having fun presumably
I'm gonna speak purely from an American football (NFL/NCAA DI) standpoint, which will probably interest like 2 other people on this site, but whatever:
If you're talking about those who provide "analysis" between games, I don't think there is a more useless way to spend your time than listen to these guys. I put analysis in quotes because it's all really just speculation. Speculation about a fucking game. People already speculate about real world stuff like politics way too much, but I feel like I know too many grown adults who treat consuming sports "analysis" as a hobby.
Now, as for the play-by-play and color commentary, there was a time when I felt like it actually added to the experience, like the 90s to the mid 00s. Of course, there was the great John Madden who had the talent of providing interesting commentary for both experienced fans and people who were watching their first game. Once he retired, I feel like it all went downhill. Now, the commentators only cater to the lowest common denominator of fans who are more into sports for the tribalism aspect than actually understanding the game beyond what is happening on the screen. Everyone always goes "but what about Tony Romo?" Ok is it really that surprising that a quarterback who played professionally for over 10 years can occasionally predict plays pre-snap? It was his job long before he was a commentator. He doesn't even really explain the thought processes behind his predictions either. He's just flexing to impress people.
It is interesting to hear a current or former pro player share insights about the game.
Media personalities that haven't been professionals are useless and feed on clickbait.
I don’t find the designation to be that much of a thing. There are former players that are great and there are former players who are completely awful clickbait clowns. Same is true for non former athletes.
The good former pros definitely have a valuable perspective though I think there’s also something to be said for a bit of a removed perspective.
About as necessary as nipples on the Bat Suit.
They're even less worthy of their excessive paychecks than the people involved in the sports. That money could end homelessness.
I think about the one team whose games I watch and realize the commentators are a huge part of what I enjoy about watching. I would enjoy it much less without them.
Then I think about watching other teams on occasion, or about the occasional broadcasts that are national or put on by a different network, where there's a different team of commentators, and I pretty much hate them all.
So, I'd have to say "depends on how interesting/entertaining they are."
We need to tell us that scoring more points is better than scoring less points.
They should get a real job.