Your Favourite Commentators/ Cricket experts

[ravishingravi]

Here are my 2 favourite commentators on spot fixing scandal http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/video_audio/476004.html

[Don Sharma]

Apart from the ones already mentioned, I really like listening to Jeremy Coney and Pommie Mbangwa.

[Lord]

who is this guy?

[Sir john]

[ravishingravi]

who is this guy?

Richie Benaud

[Gunner_Mania]

who is this guy?

Richie Benaud

Bill Lawry

[Lord]

Richie Benaud

really?doesnt look like it?is it 30 yr old pic?

[ravishingravi]

Bill Lawry

I am sorry. I was typing something about Benaud elsewhere.

[VRV Singh]

The Sky bunch are generally good. Holding, Bumble, Gower, Nasser, Beefy and Knight make decent combinations but their choice of opposition panellist can be shocking - Rameez a prime example in the current series. As a rule any commentary during the IPL is dreadful, what with the 'DLF maximums, Karbon Kamaal, Citi success' nonsense spouted instead of meaningful discussion. Russel Arnold and our very own Siva are the main villains here.

[thevortex]

and also the ones you can' bear. There are some cricketers whose opinions I value very highly. There are few decent ones imo. But for me, ever since I started watching cricket, it has to be Ian Chappell. Fair to say, he has a had a big influence on my reading of the game also. Just brutal honesty. Other one would be Sanjay Manjrekar. He could not justify his potential as a batsman, but he has more than made it up in the comm. box. I think he has the respect of most people who work with him for his insight on the game and his objectivity. He also has been one of the few who has been critical of Tendulkar and has been attacked by the biased Indian media. As for the worst, where do I begin? I have more to add on this thread.

Ian Chappell has cricket sense. But sometimes his ego gets the better of him and it shows. As for Sanjay Manjrekar, the guys' tactics are cheap. Cricketing merit - there is little in his halting commentary delivered in staccato fashion. Arun Lal is streets ahead of Manjrekar for example :). The thing about the Sky commentary team is that it has people who all have gentle friction between them. Just watching a commentary session with Bumble, Atherton and Hussain together is a joy. For the little pin *****s that each deliver, little nuggets of references here and there and also the odd insight on the game in progress. For the fan looking for romance in cricket, they have a lot to offer. For others who want volume, there is always Ravi Shastri. :)

[ravishingravi]

Ian Chappell has cricket sense. But sometimes his ego gets the better of him and it shows. As for Sanjay Manjrekar, the guys' tactics are cheap. Cricketing merit - there is little in his halting commentary delivered in staccato fashion. Arun Lal is streets ahead of Manjrekar for example :). The thing about the Sky commentary team is that it has people who all have gentle friction between them. Just watching a commentary session with Bumble, Atherton and Hussain together is a joy. For the little pin *****s that each deliver, little nuggets of references here and there and also the odd insight on the game in progress. For the fan looking for romance in cricket, they have a lot to offer. For others who want volume, there is always Ravi Shastri. :)

Agree about Chappell. But Manjrekar's tactics are cheap? Could you elaborate ? Arun lal has to start talking tactics before he goes ahead of anybody. I find it more interesting to listen his insight into "birds" and his tete a tete with the like minded Rameez Raja. Again I am not talking about the delivery. I guess Tony Greig, Gower or someone like Lawry might be preferred choices. The Sky commentators do offer entertainment quotient, but I can get better from channel nine. Sky are a delusional bunch when it comes to judging their team's credentials. In last Ashes, which Aus really should have won, if you are new guy to cricket and you happen to listen to these mojos, you would think that Eng. have been dominating for last 20 years and Aus have just started to compete. I do like Holding though, offers a neutral perspective. Bumble is the humane clown in the piece. It is interesting to listen to them this year, when idea of "world's best" is being tossed around every so frequently. Fom England, I prefer Mark Nicholas. Very strong reading of the game and a good host.

[TheWall]

Richie Benaud Boycott Henry (Famous for earings comment)

[achilles]

Agree about Chappell. But Manjrekar's tactics are cheap? Could you elaborate ? Arun lal has to start talking tactics before he goes ahead of anybody. I find it more interesting to listen his insight into "birds" and his tete a tete with the like minded Rameez Raja. Again I am not talking about the delivery. I guess Tony Greig, Gower or someone like Lawry might be preferred choices. The Sky commentators do offer entertainment quotient, but I can get better from channel nine. Sky are a delusional bunch when it comes to judging their team's credentials. In last Ashes, which Aus really should have won, if you are new guy to cricket and you happen to listen to these mojos, you would think that Eng. have been dominating for last 20 years and Aus have just started to compete. I do like Holding though, offers a neutral perspective. Bumble is the humane clown in the piece. It is interesting to listen to them this year, when idea of "world's best" is being tossed around every so frequently. Fom England, I prefer Mark Nicholas. Very strong reading of the game and a good host.

What a commentator. Voice like velvet. Absolutely joy to the ears.

[Hindustani]

Here's my team of commies - Bill Lawry' date=' Geoff Boycott, David Gower, Tony Cozier, David Lloyd and Ian Bishop.[/quote'] Excellent list, it seems everyone else is sold out and biased

[Don Sharma]

Fom England' date=' I prefer[b'] Mark Nicholas. Very strong reading of the game and a good host.

Really? Bill Lawry was gold on his heyday..not any more. Among the cricket experts/writers, one name stands out - CLR James. I have read excerpts from his book, Beyond a Boundary. The way he put things into perspective was simple and elegant. Great read! If there is one book (on cricket) that I would like to complete, it would be that.

[Rajan]

Richie Benaud Boycott Henry (Famous for earings comment)

u r referring to Henry Blofeld who was quite popular in late 80's and early 90's in matches covered in india and a regular at sharjah matches.., he was a commentator but not an 'expert'/ex.international cricketer... Ravi shastri once picked up an argument with him when he made some disparaging remarks about Ravi's catching skills , on air. while appreciating a superb catch by a fielder in an India-england test, Henry said, if it was my fellow commentator Ravi, he would have flunked it . immediatelt Ravi retorted with- " i have played more than 200 international matches, scored 1000's of runs and picked up 100's of wickets/ how many wickets or runs or even catches you have , Henry?' not seen much of Henry after that. by the way, Richie Benaud is top class.all time favourite. Tony Cozier is closeset to that. Nasser is 3rd in my list. Among indians, SMG because he diagonoses the technical shortcomings/mistakes of batsmen. Ravi shastri because of his suggestions of strategy;we were unfortunate to miss him as a long term captain . radio:Narottam Puri,Ramamoorthy IAS. hate: Srikkanth, Laxman Siva,and used to hate Jaisimha & co in the earlier decades.

[Gunner_Mania]

Have you ever heard Mark Nicholas on Channel 5 when they do the highlights program. He along with Michael Vaughan, Boycott and Simon Hughes who does the analysis arer all cut from the same piece of fabric as any other Englishman. When England are playing good all of them think they are great, when they are playing poor all of them think they are rubbish and by the way that trait is not restricted to just English cricket commentators it is the same when it comes to football too.

[ravishingravi]

Have you ever heard Mark Nicholas on Channel 5 when they do the highlights program. He along with Michael Vaughan' date=' Boycott and Simon Hughes who does the analysis arer all cut from the same piece of fabric as any other Englishman. When England are playing good all of them think they are great, when they are playing poor all of them think they are rubbish and by the way that trait is not restricted to just English cricket commentators it is the same when it comes to football too.[/quote'] No, I only see him in Channel 9 broadcast here in India which is also a cringing experience to by and large. Ian Healy and Michael Slater seem like they will break into national anthem any second.

[gaurav92]

Countrywise Aus : Richie Sir, Mark Nicholas. NZ : Ian Smith and Simon Doull are good. Eng : Bumble, Holding.(Sky Sports). Indian : Harsha Bhogle (only during times when he looks sensible, that is, only when he keeps his mouth shut).Ravi Shastri is good as well. From others Mike Haysmen is pretty good to my ears.

[Gunner_Mania]

The problem is that Sky’s ex-pros are perfectly equipped, from personal experience, to deliver in-depth analysis of massive English defeats. When England win, they are forced to grope for superlatives and come across like sycophantic cheerleaders in sensible trousers.

This quote from Andrew Hughes Page2 piece on CI this week sums up English commentators.