When Bruce would call the athletics at the Olympics his commentary was second to none.

His use of statistics and superlatives were justified and of course it was only once every 4 years.

TV commentators treat us as mugs. We all know that some games are just a yawn fest and to have the faux enthusiasm rammed down our throats is monotonous.

Not sure why the radio commentators are more ready to call a game boring etc but the TV people insist on talking up the most pedestrian of games.

I would happily subscribe to Foxtel if I had choices of commentary that say included minimalist commentary, crowd noise only and occasional analysts as choices. Do they still do push red for Eddy games?

Bruce was better when the game was slower. 

The lack of emotional equilibrium of the CH7 commentators must surely also affect control of their bodily functions. They maybe wear incontinence products?

Edited July 15, 20178 yr by america de cali

12 hours ago, dees189227 said:

Any chance the siants could kick straight? My god they have gone form a high to very very low. Like the tigs last week. 

Did anyone see fox footy? Apparently Ed is back in the country and let fly at journos knocking Bucks. 

Yes on EdTel Footy channel he let fly. Started with Jon Ralph asking 1 question, then Ed's verbal diarrhea took over. Didn't need to "press Red for Ed" as he went totally red on his own. Ed went unchallenged by Ralphy "the journalist" after he'd claimed earlier in the week on AFL Tonight that he would be asking the tough questions of Buckley. The only 1 to try and ask additional q's was Dermot Brereton. It was farcical.

As for what he said it boiled down to basically 3 things:

• It's unreasonable for the media to present/write stories speculating on who may replace Buckley
• Buckley will coach until the end of the year and you don't base a decision when almost 1/3rd of the year is yet to be played (let's igonore the other 5 years hey Ed)
• Collingwood "will do right by Buckley"

With regards to doing right by Bucks, what I saw told me Bucks was more important than the rest of the club (except Ed of course, because he's a paid up member too)!!!

7 minutes ago, america de cali said:

The lack of emotional equilibrium of the CH7 commentators must surely also affect control of their bodily functions. They maybe wear incontinence products?

Personally I think Bruce has to wear a condom to capture his output during the game especially when commentating his faves like Danger, Franklin, Buddy, etc (and he has to change it regularly)

15 minutes ago, CanberraDemon said:

Yes on EdTel Footy channel he let fly. Started with Jon Ralph asking 1 question, then Ed's verbal diarrhea took over. Didn't need to "press Red for Ed" as he went totally red on his own. Ed went unchallenged by Ralphy "the journalist" after he'd claimed earlier in the week on AFL Tonight that he would be asking the tough questions of Buckley. The only 1 to try and ask additional q's was Dermot Brereton. It was farcical.

As for what he said it boiled down to basically 3 things:

• It's unreasonable for the media to present/write stories speculating on who may replace Buckley
• Buckley will coach until the end of the year and you don't base a decision when almost 1/3rd of the year is yet to be played (let's igonore the other 5 years hey Ed)
• Collingwood "will do right by Buckley"

With regards to doing right by Bucks, what I saw told me Bucks was more important than the rest of the club (except Ed of course, because he's a paid up member too)!!!

He shouldn't be allowed to do that, though.  Which other president gets to sit in on a show and go bananas in defence of their coach?  When he's on Fox Footy Ed should stick to focusing solely on the games being played and put Collingwood aside.  It'll never happen, but it should.

The Collingwood malaise. 'Tis beautiful to behold. If this keeps up they're going nowhere and that suits this writer just nicely.

Go Eddy go !!! 

13 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Parish had a massive 12 disposals to 3/4 time. Wish we took him over Oliver! Bwahahahaha!

and wasted every single one of them.

1 hour ago, CanberraDemon said:

Personally I think Bruce has to wear a condom to capture his output during the game especially when commentating his faves like Danger, Franklin, Buddy, etc (and he has to change it regularly)

Thanks for putting that image in my head. Didn't need that CD

Bruce remains a miles better commentator than the vast majority of his contemporaries 

Be interesting to see how Cats go against Hawks today

Only watched a quarter and a bit of the peptides big win, but it looked to me that Saints weren't chasing at all

Anyone notice how Daniher, and i'm not picking on the D's, seems to go out of his way to try to take the speccie quite early/regularly in his games. To me this could be a potential weakness that could be exploited. The great mark, whilst a feature of our game is potentially quite dangerous to do, and i should know. However the specialty of it, and the impact and supposed morale boosting it creates, gees up supporters like nothing else. 

12 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Anyone notice how Daniher, and i'm not picking on the D's, seems to go out of his way to try to take the speccie quite early/regularly in his games. To me this could be a potential weakness that could be exploited. The great mark, whilst a feature of our game is potentially quite dangerous to do, and i should know. However the specialty of it, and the impact and supposed morale boosting it creates, gees up supporters like nothing else. 

Looking closely at a couple of those marks they are an excellent strategy to use the force of a run up to split the pack to the advantage of your team. Even if you miss one or two of the defenders are momentarily taken out of the play thus allowing your team mates to play to advantage.

If you know your player is going to approach the ball in that way it could become a real strategy.

Hard to stop it as you are not allowed to block the run up. I suppose you could have a player run with him and compete/impede the leap.

If you think about it the speccie is the one time when a clear in the back infringement is allowed.

21 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Anyone notice how Daniher, and i'm not picking on the D's, seems to go out of his way to try to take the speccie quite early/regularly in his games. To me this could be a potential weakness that could be exploited. The great mark, whilst a feature of our game is potentially quite dangerous to do, and i should know. However the specialty of it, and the impact and supposed morale boosting it creates, gees up supporters like nothing else. 

How?

3 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Looking closely at a couple of those marks they are an excellent strategy to use the force of a run up to split the pack to the advantage of your team. Even if you miss one or two of the defenders are momentarily taken out of the play thus allowing your team mates to play to advantage.

If you know your player is going to approach the ball in that way it could become a real strategy.

Hard to stop it as you are not allowed to block the run up. I suppose you could have a player run with him and compete/impede the leap.

If you think about it the speccie is the one time when a clear in the back infringement is allowed.

Yep, and he does put his hand on the back in front quite often. His opponent in my opinion needs to be as agile and leap as well as he does, no small order, but he also needs to be smart.

7 minutes ago, sue said:

How?

Sensitivities?Hugs, smiles and nice niggles..... 

And i do understand about the the failures of the past, like more opposition at the contest, which leaves less marked around the contest.Not simple needs a lot of thought.

I don't understand why 7 doesn't poach someone like Gerard whateley he is such a good caller and the reason I love watching afl360 

Unfortunately Bruce has been awful for a long time. Can't exactly put a date on it, but whist Cometti was in his prime, Bruce would try and compete. Would try way too hard and became a parody of himself (and has only got worse).

Mute the TV and play your favourite music instead.  Your eyes will tell you what's going on, just like being there.

Dangerfield hurt, very similar to Cripps. 

Whoever decided to elevate BT as a Primary Commentator on friday nights with Bruce should be charged and sent to Guantanemo Bay for a good thrashing. 

Seriously it is unwatchable, i am glad others are feeling the same. 

Danger looks to have done the same as what cripps did last week!

See you later Geelong you pretenders 

59 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Anyone notice how Daniher, and i'm not picking on the D's, seems to go out of his way to try to take the speccie quite early/regularly in his games. To me this could be a potential weakness that could be exploited. The great mark, whilst a feature of our game is potentially quite dangerous to do, and i should know. However the specialty of it, and the impact and supposed morale boosting it creates, gees up supporters like nothing else. 

 

37 minutes ago, sue said:

How?

 

21 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Sensitivities?Hugs, smiles and nice niggles..... 

And i do understand about the the failures of the past, like more opposition at the contest, which leaves less marked around the contest.Not simple needs a lot of thought.

Willmoy, with great respect, I still have no idea what you're on about. But I'm curious as to how Daniher (and other similar styled players) can be exploited.

Edited July 15, 20178 yr by Ethan Tremblay

1 minute ago, GCDee said:

Danger looks to have done the same as what cripps did last week!

See you later Geelong you pretenders 

Lol, false alarm! He's running the boundary.

Having kids/babies in the house is a blessing.  Every Friday night I watch the football with the sound off so as not to wake them, right now I'm watching the game while they listen to PlaySchool.

19 minutes ago, Demon77 said:

Lol, false alarm! He's running the boundary.

Really? He went down like he got shot... soft as danger