Co-commentators: What are you?
- Jul 5, 2016
- 3 min read
Glenn Hoddle. With your forehead like a sweaty potato. With your comments as subtle as a steamtrain. With your opinion as valued as pound sterling.
Along with pressing questions such as 'How did England not learn how to break down a team which puts XI men behind the ball?' and 'What's with those ITV titles?', the primary concern of mine during the Euros has been to understand what the point of the co-commentator is.
Guy Mowbray, Conor McNamara, Clive Tyldesley etc. (with varying levels of success) guide the viewer through the action and hopefully provide soundbites for the future in the key moments. Football without commentary certainly loses a layer. The commentator brings the viewer further into the game but unfortunately more often than not he or she is accompanied by an assistant who seems to just be there for the ride. Nobody seems to quite know what to do with them.
They are supposed to provide a contrast in voice and tone, and offer more of an opinion than the other. However, more often than not following a moment of silence from their eloquent friend they provide interjections which simply blurt out the bleeding obvious, like a child playing eye-spy on a long car journey. Yes Andy, that is a bad tackle because he has scythed through studs up. Yes Glenn, that is a bad free kick as one again Harry Kane has smashed that free-kick a good fifteen yards wide and above the Icelandic goal. Yes Andy, Belgium are currently 'Better' because they're 4-0 up. "For me Clive"... no Glenn we don't want to hear any more of your pearls of wisdom. There's no insight whatsoever. Stating something that the viewer can plainly see is not analysis and is the sort of insight I would expect to get out of my friend who thought that French midfielder Payet was called Piehead and that England would win games "Because they've got Wayne Rooney".
Mark Lawrenson was once wonderfully described by Russell Howard as Jabba the Hutt "melting into his chair" in the heat of the World Cup whilst Alan Smith infamous from the FIFA game series always sounds like a child lost in a supermarket. The infamous Andy Townsend seems to be trying to impress his mate ending every sentence with 'You're right there Clive' and consistently describing random acts of play as 'Better' whilst nobody quite knows why Michael Owen says what he says.
Much like the best pundits, those who are successful at commentary are able to articulate the intricacies of the game into an easily consumable form with interesting voices and offering a stance which adds more to the experience than listening to the opinions of your nearest door frame. There have been exceptions to the rule. 'For me', the views of the likes of John Hartson and Iain Dowie have provided the viewer with greater insight into games of the other respective home nations whilst their opinion seems open and genuine rather than just off a conveyor belt of football clichés. And I don't actually mind Kevin Kilbane and Jermaine Jenas.
Yet despite exceptions, the regulars which give the soundtrack to our screens are continually made a mockery of on social media. Twitter loves nothing better than to attack the banal statements of Messrs Owen and Townsend, which begs the question of why it is that the regulars are afforded such high wages and screen-time as they clearly grate with the viewing public. I've never actually heard anybody say, "Did you hear what Mark Lawrenson said on the commentary last night? I thought his contribution was much appreciated and his points valid and acute."
Their true purpose remains an enigma but acting as a makeshift audio description service is my best guess. When 22 players walk out at the Stade de France on 10th July one of the 81,338 seats will be taken up by Glenn Hoddle or Andy Townsend. That should be your seat. And they're getting paid to sit in it.
Comments