mwhite wrote:Didn't question the criticism, you're entitled to a view. Hence why I posted a light hearted response. I visited the thread to see what fans' thoughts were on the game & saw my name pop up.
I'll make no apology for the references to City. I was presenting, as well as commentating, on a SPORTS show that also included a big game for City - of which many of our listeners are fans of both.
As for 'inconsequential nonsense', I'm not really sure what that refers to as you never missed any significant moment of action. However, I challenge you to listen to ANY commentary/commentator and you will never get 100% of "kick, run, pass, tackle, run, pass, kick, run, pass, try" for 80 (or 90) mins. Now that would be dull.
Always open to constructive feedback btw but if you don't like the commentary, more power to ya.
What I don't expect during an RL commentary is for the commentator to break off
during play to discuss another sport. Just as I wouldn't expect the commentators at the City game to break off and discuss happenings at an RL game. Presenting is fine but not during the 80 minutes of play. I also found it odd that you asked Radford for his opinion on City during the post-match. It all adds to the
impression that you're more interested in soccer than RL, which I'm sure isn't the case.
And of course I don't expect 80 minutes of simple description of happenings on the field, but there is a happy medium to be struck and last night you failed to do that IMO. There were long stretches where it wasn't at all clear what was happening on the field. Not that this was a unique experience, mind you - it's a pet gripe of mine as someone who lives a long way away and has to rely on radio commentary a lot more than I'd like.
Anyway - apologies if my criticism was somewhat heavy-handed. I wasn't in a good mood during last night's game and that carried over to my first response this morning. Always nice (and unexpected) to see someone from RH engage with the fans on here.