My favourite sports journo type writer person, The Great Man Leapin' Larry L, the Sunday Age's Superstar of Scrawl, bangs out The Greatest Article Ever (super superb CAPITALS included).
But first, a couple of points.
One; personally I couldn't care less whether Ten shows Carlton v Collingwood or Port v Adelaide, but if it was me running Ten, I'd show the Pies/Blues game into Braxopolis. And two; pity Leapster couldn't squeeze in Dwayne "from the paint" Russell for a slap about the hipster chops. Then again, it would have been impossible to stop at just Dwayne-Oh; the list of clichéd cooloid fuckwits goes on and on, like, forever dudes.
Who cares about us? Not Ten
There is s a tide in the affairs of media sport coverage, which, taken at the flood, can make you a little seasick about the whole damn business.
There comes a time when one has heard sufficient prattle about "the blowtorch", which sporting idols are always purportedly "under", to start wondering what became of the pumps they USED to be under, let alone when in Hades someone outlawed the words "pressure" and "scrutiny".
A time when one may tire ever so slightly of the usual sports media suspects big-noting and testosteroning at interminable length all over the shop, in the pure pursuit of "good fun", as long as it's lamebrained fun at someone else's expense.
Not to mention their media boofhead compadres - the pundits - some of whom have no definable sense of humour whatsoever, but have imbibed sufficiently of their own bathwater to constitute a hazard to shipping, and have heads visible from Mars.
There probably came a time at least two years back where actual sports fans reached an apex of gastric reflux over the merciless soap-operaisation of sport, where we're apparently obliged to care about "scores" made in the bedroom region than the kind still occasionally made on the field of play.
One may grow palpably bone-weary at being told, AGAIN, what sort of shot a television camera is making (useless information - we can see it), how good a camera shot is (an insult to the intelligence - we can see it), or that most spectacularly thick-eared of pandemic TV vulgarisms - telling us that whatever's coming up next is a "great story". (Actually, we'll be the ones deciding that, thanks very much.)
When it comes to the flyblown showbiz hipsterisms ("You're working beautifully", "You're travelling well", "Not a good look", hello James Brayshaw), or everyone down to the guy who brought in the doughnuts being referred to as "a superstar" if not "the Great Man", or a television station wilfully withholding available information about a time-clock on the apparently Jack Nicholson-inspired basis that "You can't HANDLE the truth", the temptation to invite all parties concerned to stick it right up their jumpers - or somewhere thereabouts - becomes entirely overwhelming.
So full credit to anyone, at the grumpy peak of what Shakespearean scholar Benny Hill used to call "The Winter of out Discotheque", who can find a way to make matters appreciably more irritating. Step up and take a bow Channel Ten.
Last week Ten confirmed that, in round 20, in Melbourne, it will broadcast the Super-Ultra Smackdown thingo match between Port Adelaide and The Crows in preference to a Carlton-Collingwood game. Amazing.
"National game," Ten Said. "Finals chances," Ten said.
"Oranges, porranges, who cares?" responded the home viewer, thoughtfully.
Welcome to scenic Melbourne. Bottom line: Collingwood-Carlton ALWAYS matters here, and Adelaide-Port - well, with any luck, there's a half-decent Eddie Murphy movie on another channel.
Your so-called “sports” are just another sorry imitation of life in wild, humans yearning after the lost freedom they used to have before some homonut starting digging up the earth and planting grasses.
Posted by: Gorilla Bananas | 04 July 2005 at 16:16
What's your computer made out of GB? Sago palm? Just, you know, curious.
Posted by: Tony.T | 04 July 2005 at 16:17
I've tried to get into AFL - God knows I've tried. I know the Swans team song and sang it after their victory over Collingwood. I went to the MCG and sat next to some ginormous oaf from North Melb and watched the Swans get smashed in the grand final.
But - I can't stand the game. Every now and then there is a good one - sorta. I can't determine when someone is caught with the ball and when they aren't as the same indiscretion twice never seems to elicit the same ref response. How come some guys run a mile with no penalty and others 8, 9 metres and get pinged? How come you can flatten someone unawares from the side but you can't touch another guys back? When do you yell "ball" and when is it legitimate to hold on?
And whats with all the shoulder, chesting, slappy slappy stuff? For the games sake they orta allow a fair dinkum punch up or nothing at all. The 'fights' are embarrassing.
I'm sure if I grew up on the game I would understand these things but as it is, I just don't get it. These things need splainin.
Posted by: pat | 04 July 2005 at 16:36
I can understand you not being into Aussie Rules, Pat. To someone (as you mention) not brought up with it it's a pretty bizarre game, but I certainly reckon it's the best of the "footballs". And by some margin.
On the side, though, I'm sure you can sympathise with the boneheaded and clichéd coverage of the game. Afterall, the League clots are every bit as idiotic in their coverage as our own Rules fatheads.
Posted by: Tony.T | 04 July 2005 at 16:55
Can't stand sport. But I used to listen to Leapin' Larry L on the radio years ago. He was good. Sorry to hear he's slipped on the ladder and fallen on hard times - writing about sport.
Posted by: Francis Xavier Holden | 04 July 2005 at 16:55
He writes about TV in the Green Guide, FX. Pity he doesn't write about rock music, though. He's got very, very, VERY good taste indeed. And I used to record his Clobbering Time. Top show that.
He likes good fillums, too, but he's a bit too fond of Martin Scorsese for me.
He has a website (see the left hand sidebar) but he needs to update it more often.
Posted by: Tony.T | 04 July 2005 at 17:04
Pet peeve is the pluralising of names to make it sound like their is an abundance of talent when in fact one or two blokes do all the work. eg: "They'll need to keep a close eye on the Fittlers, Minichelos and Robertsesesesssss if they have any hope of playing good"
Posted by: pat | 04 July 2005 at 17:10
Oh and stupid speech like: "He done good out there", or "We good played, head hit 10 minutes fell down don't member nothing much, but is was good but. Team won - I think"
Posted by: pat | 04 July 2005 at 17:14
The first time I heard that plural thing was when I played in Perth and one day our coach (GD) started in on the " ... and come on blokes! Let's get it to the Armstrongs and the Johnstones and the Callaghans and the Taylors and the Capirottis and the ... "
TT: "We have two of them, you know."
GD: "Two WHAT?"
TT: "We have two Capirottis."
GD: "Oh shut up!"
Bit harsh, don't you think. He was up to five, six I suppose, and SOMEONE had to stop him blurting out the whole team because he had nothing better to say.
Posted by: Tony.T | 04 July 2005 at 17:26
Golden Rule for good commentary: Prediction is your enemy Eg. Never declare that the latest talent will play for Australia one day. Never declare that a team will score in the next set.
Nasser Hussein just about predicted the opposite of 100% of everything that happened in Saturday's ODI. Last comment "Australia never lose finals - they just don't". Technically he was correct.
Posted by: pat | 04 July 2005 at 17:42
Nasser is a hopeless barracker, too. Nearly everything he says must be measured on the "WE" Meter. As in "We [England] are going ok." No doubt he'll eventually get out of the habit. Obviously he's taken one too many thumpings at the hands of the Aussies.
But Tim Lane was the worst mozzer. "Steve Waugh is batting beautifully and looks set for yet another century ... he's out!" Tim is one of Australia's greatest ever wicket takers.
Posted by: Tony.T | 04 July 2005 at 17:51
Tony- Carlton AND Collingwood matter very little. To Anybody. Nobody cares etc etc. I would go as far to suggest that PAUL Collingwood has more esteem and prestige on the Sporting Arena.
What is it with those Poms retiring straight into the Commo Box ? Hussain, Stewart and Athers roll sraight of the field onto the end of a mic. Just wouldn't happen over here right ?
Posted by: Brett Pee | 04 July 2005 at 20:21
Several words: Healy, Warne, MWaugh, Tubstoneworth. All went pretty much straight to the Channel Nine booth. Heals is the pick and Tubby, despite his rapid fire mumbling, is OK. Not sure that Mr Message or Mwaugh will add much to the coverage.
Posted by: Tony.T | 04 July 2005 at 20:27
Tubby should be commentating on Italian or Spanish footie - he would make them appear slow !!! Warne does not an interesting commentator make. I reckoned he would be more interesting than he actually is. Heals could be heading to Benaud/God status given 20 years.
Posted by: Brett Pee | 04 July 2005 at 20:39
Tubby: "NO BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL ................ .............. LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!"
Warnie: "Haw. Haw. Noice one, Tubbs. Seen moy phone, boy the way?"
Posted by: Tony.T | 04 July 2005 at 20:46
They are trying to create a bit of theatre in the box. But sometimes it spills over into high farce.
Posted by: Brett Pee | 04 July 2005 at 20:56
Grind Guignol, more like.
Posted by: Tony.T | 04 July 2005 at 21:15
Tubby started well but is showing signs of succumbing to the "everything the players are doing is wrong" school of 9 commentary. Healy is a diamond amongst swill. Magilla was pretty good during the recent ODIs, as is Damian Fleming and Slaters chats Brendan Julian.
The best commentary I've heard for a while was the Kiwi commentators on Fox for the Parra Warriors game. Great analysis of defence and attack tactics of both teams. Predictions weren't made but assumed by the explanation of what each team was attempting to do to crack or shutdown the opposition.
NFL commentators are the best IMO for great analysis, criticism based on objectivity, and in depth understanding of tactical approaches.
Re. footy, a critical metric never mentioned is penalties or errors whilst in possession. AFL seems to be the same as League in that a run of penalties usually cause critical turning points in games, most so when a team is in possession. So the other metric would be consecutive penalties.
I would imagine that coaches would gather such stats and it seems obvious to me that they are necessary in order to evaluate a game.
Many people eulogise Harrigan as a great ref which seems based upon the fact he had low penalty counts but if you study him (as I have - dork alert!) he failed on the penalties he never gave and should have. His leniency wasn't consistent and influenced the outcome of many games. So my final metric of note is the penalty that wasn't given (like Sherlocks dog that never barked).
Posted by: pat | 04 July 2005 at 21:19
I have no idea what relevance my comments have to your post Tony - I kind of got carried away in the moment (sheepish grin).
Posted by: pat | 04 July 2005 at 21:20
No worries, Pat, they're often the best comments.
Texted Wicky during last Satdee's ODI that Stewboy was OK. He thought I was taking the piss. But after a dodgy start, he's doing some good stuff.
Never get to hear the Kiwi league guys, but no matter the sport I always like to hear incisive analysis.
Heard Smuthy at the Union on the weekend. He's an aquired taste, to put it politely. He must be EnZed's version of Kenny Thutcliffe.
Eulogise? Is Harrigan dead?
My favourite commentators world-wide are Joe Buck, Troy Aikman and Chris Collinsworth on Fox NFL. A fantastic team. Buck is smooth, Troy brings the recent player knowledge. Collinsworth is the gun, though. They have a fine chemistry and a real sense of humour that draws you into the commentary box. My top team.
Posted by: Tony.T | 04 July 2005 at 21:35
Jeez, Tony, what occured with the 'Mons at weekend. 166 points conceded ? There is hope for us in the finals yet.
Posted by: Brett Pee | 04 July 2005 at 21:38
The 'Mons? No idea what you're talking about, Brett. No idea. At. All. 166 what? Points? Sorry. I know nothing about these points things.
Posted by: Tony.T | 04 July 2005 at 21:42
Harrigan died to me the night he sin-binned 4 parra players in a row. I have come to bury him not to praise.
Not even Smuthy can compare to the world's worst commentator Chris Mcevaney - that man is so wrong he disturbs me.
Posted by: pat | 04 July 2005 at 22:50
Sorry - Bruce Mcevaney (shudder).
Posted by: pat | 04 July 2005 at 22:51
I think it's McAvaney. But that is no matter, I know exactly where you are coming from, Pat. Bruce can be unbearable.
Posted by: Tony.T | 04 July 2005 at 22:55
Nice call by Paddy Smith today in his brilliant scoop:
Andrew Demetriou and his administration have been disingenuous in the extreme. They have bluffed the public and a brain-dead media.
Posted by: slatts | 04 July 2005 at 23:00
Read it today, Slatts. A big story indeed. And more than the 26 blokes done for grass, I'd like to know what the other five tests were for. Speed? Ecstacy? Cough mixture?
Makes all that criticism of Dale Lewis and others look pretty flimsy.
Posted by: Tony.T | 04 July 2005 at 23:04
Tony, you know full well what i was refering to. You simply cannot bury your head under the sand mate, and pretend it did'nt happen. Your sporting world is collapsing like one of the twelve Apostles.
Posted by: Brett Pee | 05 July 2005 at 19:03
I know nothing of these things. Sport is for fools!
Posted by: Tony.T | 05 July 2005 at 20:53
I'll tell you what, for sheer entertainment value in commentary (radio mostly) you can't go past our man "Skull". Incisive comment, knowledge of the game and a laugh that makes the most inane chat seem funny. I think so anyway.
With the AFL, I am definately over Channel Nine and their "blokes". As the Leaping one said, every second person is a "great man" If you were named the lowly position of "champion" would you question if they had a grudge against you? And God forbid if everything wasn't "working beautifully" even if shows like Any Given Sunday are a complete dog's breakfast...
Oh and good to see the Australians adopt another sporting superstar as one of "our own", that being "Our Roger" after the Federator talked to some Aussie cricketers for 10 MINUTES before he annihilated Roddick the other nite. 10 minutes is about 8 minutes longer than it usually takes us to jump on any winners bandwagon we choose to associate with....
Posted by: Adsy | 05 July 2005 at 23:25
Skull needs to reign it in though, Adsy. Last summer he was starting to get carried away with his own "entertainment" value. He goes OK on the current Channel Seven lunchbreak show, though.
That On Any Sunday is a complete farce!
And despite continually pantsing Our Lleyton, you gotta love Our Dodger.
Posted by: Tony.T | 09 July 2005 at 13:15
All the fuss over the match choice confirms what I have known for some time. The AFL is still the VFL in the eyes of many in Victoria. As one of those darn Ammerricans, here's my take.
I suppose the argument that Coll v Carl will rate better than Port vs Adel is true in Melbourne, and nothing else should be expected. However, if the AFL is to be seen as a national game then the lead network should select the best game for national telecast regardless of where it is played and whether a Victorian team is in it.
If the AFL wants the networks to treat them better outside Victoria then it's only reasonable to think that the networks will show the best matches regardless of local loyalty.
Now over here in Ammeeerica, we have this thingy called satellite and cable and you can watch any game from anywhere regardless of what the local stations put on. Very convenient, I say, but you gotta pay. Capitalism, ya know.
Posted by: Rob de Santos | 09 July 2005 at 13:17
Your last statement is the Money Shot, Rob. For me, anyway. Most hard core footy fans have cable/sattelite and can watch any game, no matter what.
Also, Foxtel are very happy Ten have picked the Port/Cows game.
Finally, no doubt you have a valid point re the National Comp. But speaking as a Victorian, bugger the other states.
Posted by: Tony.T | 09 July 2005 at 13:22
Me and my mates want to do this to Dipper.
http://tinyurl.com/ahdzz
• McCartney's last game for the Roos.
• Down in the changerooms after the fairytale finish.
• Dipper's in there reporting for someone, but not the teev station I'm watching.
• Dipper - perched near McCartney, mug in camera range, microphone in hand - boisterously starts singing the club song.
• Dipper doesn't know the words.
• Dipper FOOLS US ALL by keeping his lips moving and acting like he belongs.
• Dippers eyes dart up towards the camera every 1.2 seconds to make sure his BIG FAT HEAD is still in shot, a la Oprah.
• When Dipper realizes the camera is panning in, he positions his microphone above McCartney's head.
• Towards the end of the song, Dipper starts WHACKING McCARTNEY'S BONCE with the microphone.
I absolutely kid you not. Awesome live TV. Gold. (This was Dipper's moment, not McCartney's moment. Sheesh.)
Dipper is the biggest dickhead going around, possibly for reasons slightly different than the gripes mentioned in the article.
Posted by: Far Queues Saul | 09 July 2005 at 13:22
Gruesome stuff, Far. I trust that's not you in the photo.
Tim Gossage is worse than Dipper. In fact, Dipper is a goose, but I kind of like him.
Posted by: Tony.T | 09 July 2005 at 13:24
Tim Gossage is a twit and so is Lauchy Reid or whatever the hell his name is.
Two clowns that suddenly decide: not only will I report on the footy, but I will also try and be a comdeian. Like that Steve Jacobs moron who does the weather on 9's Today show.
Who is the idiot who gives these guys free reign to be comedians?
Were they comedians before they started? No. Did they apply as comedians during the job interview process? No.
So where along the line did they decide / get told they had to be comedians? Cancer is funnier than the three of them combined.
David Koch is another good example.
Posted by: David Koch Head | 09 July 2005 at 23:30
In fact, if you do the numbers, there are three stations with about 30 commentators of which only about 5 are much chop. There's just fuck-all depth to fill the on air slots.
Posted by: Tony.T | 09 July 2005 at 23:43
Fair enough, I agree with you Tony, you Vics have to support the struggling local clubs.
The rest of us in Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane will follow the real action at the top of the ladder.
Posted by: Scarlet | 13 July 2005 at 16:48