The AFL Supporters Survey released today, and hightlighted on The Age back page, talks about, among other things,  fans fed up with the boys club commentary ruining the watching spectacle on tele.

Who'd have thought?

But the good news is Ch 7 is allocating this season Daisy Peace to the Friday night commentary team for special comments, moving Wayne Carey to Saturday.

How good is that, but a good call by 7 after Daisy's suberb comments contribution on the GF. At times it was emabarrassingly good. Well done to 7 on that.

She even had BT saying during the GF's 3rd quarter "....Daise , can you explain just what's  happened...?"  So she did.

Priceless.

Very good. Very very good.

1 minute ago, TRIGON said:

Very good. Very very good.

Sorry you are wrong, Excellent, very very excellent. 😀

Daisy is fantastic, but with BT calling, it still makes the Ch 7 Friday night games unbearable to watch unless you mute.

I'm amazed (and somewhat angered) at the number of negative social media comments I've read about Daisy as a commentator (both male and female). I didn't think anyone would / could object to a highly intelligent and extremely footy-smart commentator on our screens - but there you go. I guess there are still a few Neanderthal boys-club types about.

I also amazed that Channel 7 don't listen to their audience and replace B and BT once and for all.   

Edited February 20, 20223 yr by Neil Crompton

46 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Daisy is fantastic, but with BT calling, it still makes the Ch 7 Friday night games unbearable to watch unless you mute.

No it doesn't , you can count the times she waits for about a minute then points out why BThas just said something completely incorrect ,showing he's learnt nothing about the game since he retired.

It was the second best bit of the grand final.

It's like pencilling in the goal kickers in the footy record

 

similarly, Daisy had to explain fundamentals to BT in the GF, how he is still working as a commentator is a joke!

Watching the GF on TV live i remember Pearce's comments in the 3rd when Dogs went 19pts up. She mentioned how long it had been since we goaled and the value of resetting the momentum. Said something like that we just needed to find a way of getting a goal, toughing out a way forward, to reset.

Then Viney pushed out space for Harmes to kick to Fritter and off we went

She read exactly where the game was at and described it succinctly. Perfect commentary

Wish there was more like that within the commentary team and less 'wow-wee!' dipsh*ts

 

13 minutes ago, Stiff Arm said:

Watching the GF on TV live i remember Pearce's comments in the 3rd when Dogs went 19pts up. She mentioned how long it had been since we goaled and the value of resetting the momentum. Said something like that we just needed to find a way of getting a goal, toughing out a way forward, to reset.

Then Viney pushed out space for Harmes to kick to Fritter and off we went

She read exactly where the game was at and described it succinctly. Perfect commentary

Wish there was more like that within the commentary team and less 'wow-wee!' dipsh*ts

 

Yes I do remember this clearly.

One of my missus best mates is actually close friend of Daisy and they usually come up to Bright a fair few times. I've met Daisy once and was blown away with her in depth knowledge of the game around structure and game plans.

Regarding Daisy's comment, I said to my other half whwn we first watched the replay that Daisy could see where the game was going well before the other commentators.

I really do hope she gets into some sort of development coaching in the men's competition whether that's with the dees or another club.

Daisy's footy nous is as good as anyone in the business. Has a knack similar to Ricky Ponting in that she can she things unfold before they happen.

Would love to see her on a coaching panel in the future.

I think she is fantastic - and for all the reasons posted above the best special comments person in the business.

But I don't think she had a good grand final - specifically the second half.

15 minutes ago, binman said:

I think she is fantastic - and for all the reasons posted above the best special comments person in the business.

But I don't think she had a good grand final - specifically the second half.

Right, another reason to watch the replay.....😀

17 minutes ago, binman said:

I think she is fantastic - and for all the reasons posted above the best special comments person in the business.

But I don't think she had a good grand final - specifically the second half.

Pretty sure that’s when she educated BT why the ball was kicked from our backline to McDonald instead of to Pickett…explained how the dynamics of our game had changed when we got that first goal after trailing by 19pts…i.e. attacking the ball rather than going into our shells. I’m assuming you made that comment “tongue in cheek”.?

Of the four who commentated the grand final, Daisy was the only one who had interesting and valuable insights into how the game was playing out.

The three guys BT JB and LH are challenged dummies as commentators although anyone who comes up with Bang! Bang bang bang is worth a handful of comments a game, no more.

Although Daisy's voice is at times irritating. Tone it down and slow it down and she would be even better.

 

1 hour ago, Deestar9 said:

Pretty sure that’s when she educated BT why the ball was kicked from our backline to McDonald instead of to Pickett…explained how the dynamics of our game had changed when we got that first goal after trailing by 19pts…i.e. attacking the ball rather than going into our shells. I’m assuming you made that comment “tongue in cheek”.?

No, not tongue in cheek.

I don't want to bag Daisy as she is fantastic and the best special comments person in the footy media.

But in the second half i think she got a few  things wrong. Funnily enough the examples you highlight are two of those things

I hate to say it but BT was right - that kick should have gone to Pickett not Tmac, albeit not for the reason BT said. And curiously for the very reason that Daisy noted a few minutes after that the kick to Tmac was the right option.

Pickett had space in front of him and if he did win the ball he would have swept it forward into our forward line with his electric pace, as he so often does, which would have made it impossible for the dogs defensive zone to properly set up and mids etc to push back and allow a forward like Fritter to lead into space. 

But of most significance kozzie was close to the boundary, so if he had not won the ball there was a high chance it would gone over the line for throw in and stoppage, allowing us to set up behind the ball and get our defensive zone set up (which, ironically, was Daisy's argument for why it was right to go to Tmac).

If his opponent wins the contest, they are hard up against the boundary and either have to risk switching (which we are brilliant at defending) or kick down the boundary line, which is how we like it as we set up to cover it and if we can't intercept smash it over the line for a stoppage. 

Tmac was central, nearly in the centre corridor and had a man on him (ie not leading up into open space for an easy spot up kick). If the dogs win that contest it is in a very dangerous spot, one that is very hard to defend, as they have three lanes to choose from going forward. 

Going to Kozzie near the boundary was the percentage play and as such in line with our tactical model and related team rules. The fact we ended getting a stoppage and were able to to set up behind the ball was lucky.

As for the comment about us going into our shells, that was the one of the things that really rankled for me.

At one point Daisy said we needed to 'rediscover our dare' and later after we had kicked some goals, used the example of one of our players keeping the ball in play rather than letting it go over the line as an example of us doing so, noting it was something we weren't doing in the second (ie before we 'rediscovered our dare')

But that is how we play, and how we always play - indeed there was an example in the second quarter where Gus did a look away over the head handball right on the boundary line rather than take it over as he easily could have.

I posted right after the grand final that Daisy fed into what i think is a false narrative that the dees were looking shaky and came back from the dead, so to speak. I think she got it wrong in the third declaring we desperately needed a goal just for confidence. 

We had a poor second quarter. The simple reason why was that they smashed us in contested ball. It was not surprising the dogs lifted their rating in that quarter, but it was really surprising we dropped off. And they were clearly on top.

The dogs carried that pressure into the third, but despite them getting the first goal in the third (early) we were matching them in contested ball and had clearly got the game back into the shape we like it to look like. It was back to contest to contest. We had stopped their transition game. And stopped them flicking it around. And stopped allowing unpressured kicks by the like of Daniel. We were back grinding.

This is how we played all season. Absorb opposition pressure, let them take their best shot, and then kick a goal against the run of play and then pile on multiple goals and take the game away from our opponents in a ten minute burst.

There were so many examples through the season of that exact same pattern, and funnily enough examples where that occurred in the third quarter as it did in the GF.

The two best examples were the round 17 Port game and the round 23 Cats game, where both teams were on top but couldn't score enough to, in the Cat's case put us away and in Port's case get in front.

In both games our opponents could only manage 2 goals (same for the dogs), despite throwing everything they had us. 

What Daisy, and all the other  commentators, should have been all over is that the dogs simply had to get more reward for their effort in the third quarter.

Two goals was never going to be enough, particularly because we had such a huge fitness advantage. We were always going to score  a goal and all evidence was that once we did we would pile on more.

It is important to note in this context that it is not like the dogs missed any easy shots or failed to take their opportunities -  they only had 2 scoring shots in the third, both goals, and perhaps only 2 or 3 other deep inside 50s that might have resulted in a score.

We didn't win it becuase we 'rediscovered our dare' or scored a goal to get our confidence back. We never lost our dare or our confidence. 

We won the game by absorbing the dog's pressure and getting our pressure levels back to where it needed to be, after it had dropped right off in the second 

The dogs lost the game by not finding a way to score more goals in the third quarter.

They simply had to get get the lead out to 5 plus goals, and even then i am confident we would have reeled them in.

In fact if anything  i'd argue the dogs needed to show more dare in the third. They needed to take more risks, switch  more often perhaps or try different match ups.

Instead they just played into our hands and did the same thing over and over, largely trying to engineer a goal from a inside 50 ground ball, which is their go to.  

They were the critical points that needed to be made.

 

Edited February 21, 20223 yr by binman

Daisy seems pretty astute so good luck to her. I think she’ll be very good. At least we won’t get any ‘slick Fritsch’ or ‘Kozzie the little mozzie’ type garbage that Fox gave us last year 🙄

15 minutes ago, binman said:

No, not tongue in cheek.

I don't want to bag Daisy as she is fantastic and the best special comments person in the footy media.

But in the second half i think she got a few  things wrong. Funnily enough the examples you highlight are two of those things

I hate to say it but BT was right - that kick should have gone to Pickett not Tmac, albeit not for the reason BT said. And curiously for the very reason that Daisy noted a few minutes after that the kick to Tmac was the right option.

Pickett had space in front of him and if he did win the ball he would have swept it forward into our forward line with his electric pace, as he so often does, which would have made it impossible for the dogs defensive zone to properly set up and mids etc to push back and allow a forward like Fritter to lead into space. 

But of most significance kozzie was close to the boundary, so if he had not won the ball there was a high chance it would gone over the line for throw in and stoppage, allowing us to set up behind the ball and get our defensive zone set up (which, strangely, was Daisy's argument for why it was right to go to Tmac).

If his opponent wins the contest, they are hard up against the boundary and either have to risk switching (which we are brilliant at defending) or kick down the boundary line, which is how we like it as we set up to cover it and if we can't intercept smash it over the line for a stoppage. 

Tmac was central, nearly in the centre corridor and had a man on him (ie not leading up into open space for an easy spot up kick). If the dogs win that contest it is in a very dangerous spot, one that is very hard to defend, as they have three lanes to choose from going forward. 

Going to Kozzie near the boundary was the percentage play and as such in line with our tactical model and related team rules. The fact we ended getting a stoppage and were able to to set up behind the ball was lucky.

As for the comment about us going into our shells, that was the one of the things that really rankled for me.

At one point Daisy said we needed to 'rediscover our dare' and later after we had kicked some goals, used the example of one of our players keeping the ball in play rather than letting it go over the line as an example of us doing so, noting it was something we weren't doing in the second (ie before we 'rediscovered our dare')

But that is how we play, and how we always play - indeed there was an example in the second quarter where Gus did a look away over the head handball right on the boundary line rather than take it over as he easily could have.

I posted right after the grand final that Daisy fed into what i think is a false narrative that the dees were looking shaky and came back from the dead, so to speak. I think she got it wrong in the third declaring we desperately needed a goal just for confidence. 

We had a poor second quarter. The simple reason why was that they smashed us in contested ball. It was not surprising the dogs lifted their rating in that quarter, but it was really surprising we dropped off. And they were clearly on top.

The doags cared that pressure into the third, but despite them getting the first goal in the third (early) we were matching them in contested ball and had clearly got the game back into the shape we like it to look like. It was back to contest to contest. We had stopped their transition game. And stopped them flicking it around. And stopped allowing unpressured kicks by the like of Daniel. We were back grinding.

This is how we played all season. Absorb opposition pressure, let them take their best shot, and then kick a goal against the run of play and then pile on multiple goals and take the game away from our opponents in a ten minute burst.

There were so many examples through the season of that exact same pattern, and funnily enough examples where that occurred in the third quarter as it did in the GF.

The two best examples were the round 17 Port game and the round 23 Cats game, where both teams were on top but couldn't score enough to, in the Cat's case put us away and in Port's case get in front.  In both cases our opponents could only manage 2 goals (same for the dogs), despite throwing everything they had us. 

What Daisy, and all the other  commentators, should have been all over is that the dogs simply had to get more reward for their effort in the third quarter.

Two goals was never going to be enough, particularly because we had such a huge fitness advantage. We were always going to score  a goal and all evidence was that once we did we would pile on more. It is important to note in this context that it is not like the dogs missed any easy shots or failed to take their opportunities -  they only tow scoring shots in the third, both goals and perhaps only 2 or 3 other deep inside 50s that might have resulted in a score.

We didn't win it becuase we 'rediscovered our dare' or scored a goal to get our confidence back. We never lost our dare or our confidence. 

We won the game by absorbing the dog's pressure and getting our pressure levels back to where it needed to be, after it had dropped right off in the second 

The dogs lost the game by by not being able to find a way to score more goals in the third quarter. They simply had to get get the lead out to 5 plus goals, and even then i am confident we would have reeled them in.

In fact if anything i'd argue the dogs needed to show more dare in the third. They needed to take more risks, switch  more often perhaps or try different match ups. Instead they just played into our hand and did the same thing over and over, largely trying to engineer a goal from a inside 50 ground ball, which is their go to.  

They were the critical points that needed to be made.

 

Great post. Probably the best GF summary I have read

 

17 minutes ago, binman said:

No, not tongue in cheek.

I don't want to bag Daisy as she is fantastic and the best special comments person in the footy media.

But in the second half i think she got a few  things wrong. Funnily enough the examples you highlight are two of those things

I hate to say it but BT was right - that kick should have gone to Pickett not Tmac, albeit not for the reason BT said. And curiously for the very reason that Daisy noted a few minutes after that the kick to Tmac was the right option.

Pickett had space in front of him and if he did win the ball he would have swept it forward into our forward line with his electric pace, as he so often does, which would have made it impossible for the dogs defensive zone to properly set up and mids etc to push back and allow a forward like Fritter to lead into space. 

But of most significance kozzie was close to the boundary, so if he had not won the ball there was a high chance it would gone over the line for throw in and stoppage, allowing us to set up behind the ball and get our defensive zone set up (which, ironically, was Daisy's argument for why it was right to go to Tmac).

If his opponent wins the contest, they are hard up against the boundary and either have to risk switching (which we are brilliant at defending) or kick down the boundary line, which is how we like it as we set up to cover it and if we can't intercept smash it over the line for a stoppage. 

Tmac was central, nearly in the centre corridor and had a man on him (ie not leading up into open space for an easy spot up kick). If the dogs win that contest it is in a very dangerous spot, one that is very hard to defend, as they have three lanes to choose from going forward. 

Going to Kozzie near the boundary was the percentage play and as such in line with our tactical model and related team rules. The fact we ended getting a stoppage and were able to to set up behind the ball was lucky.

As for the comment about us going into our shells, that was the one of the things that really rankled for me.

At one point Daisy said we needed to 'rediscover our dare' and later after we had kicked some goals, used the example of one of our players keeping the ball in play rather than letting it go over the line as an example of us doing so, noting it was something we weren't doing in the second (ie before we 'rediscovered our dare')

But that is how we play, and how we always play - indeed there was an example in the second quarter where Gus did a look away over the head handball right on the boundary line rather than take it over as he easily could have.

I posted right after the grand final that Daisy fed into what i think is a false narrative that the dees were looking shaky and came back from the dead, so to speak. I think she got it wrong in the third declaring we desperately needed a goal just for confidence. 

We had a poor second quarter. The simple reason why was that they smashed us in contested ball. It was not surprising the dogs lifted their rating in that quarter, but it was really surprising we dropped off. And they were clearly on top.

The doags cared that pressure into the third, but despite them getting the first goal in the third (early) we were matching them in contested ball and had clearly got the game back into the shape we like it to look like. It was back to contest to contest. We had stopped their transition game. And stopped them flicking it around. And stopped allowing unpressured kicks by the like of Daniel. We were back grinding.

This is how we played all season. Absorb opposition pressure, let them take their best shot, and then kick a goal against the run of play and then pile on multiple goals and take the game away from our opponents in a ten minute burst.

There were so many examples through the season of that exact same pattern, and funnily enough examples where that occurred in the third quarter as it did in the GF.

The two best examples were the round 17 Port game and the round 23 Cats game, where both teams were on top but couldn't score enough to, in the Cat's case put us away and in Port's case get in front.  In both cases our opponents could only manage 2 goals (same for the dogs), despite throwing everything they had us. 

What Daisy, and all the other  commentators, should have been all over is that the dogs simply had to get more reward for their effort in the third quarter.

Two goals was never going to be enough, particularly because we had such a huge fitness advantage. We were always going to score  a goal and all evidence was that once we did we would pile on more. It is important to note in this context that it is not like the dogs missed any easy shots or failed to take their opportunities -  they only tow scoring shots in the third, both goals and perhaps only 2 or 3 other deep inside 50s that might have resulted in a score.

We didn't win it becuase we 'rediscovered our dare' or scored a goal to get our confidence back. We never lost our dare or our confidence. 

We won the game by absorbing the dog's pressure and getting our pressure levels back to where it needed to be, after it had dropped right off in the second 

The dogs lost the game by by not being able to find a way to score more goals in the third quarter. They simply had to get get the lead out to 5 plus goals, and even then i am confident we would have reeled them in.

In fact if anything i'd argue the dogs needed to show more dare in the third. They needed to take more risks, switch  more often perhaps or try different match ups. Instead they just played into our hand and did the same thing over and over, largely trying to engineer a goal from a inside 50 ground ball, which is their go to.  

They were the critical points that needed to be made.

 

Only point I would add is the team & coaching staff would have had supreme confidence that we would run the game out better. 

This confidence allowed us to be patient in the 3rd and not panic when a couple of goals down. 
 

1 hour ago, tiers said:

Of the four who commentated the grand final, Daisy was the only one who had interesting and valuable insights into how the game was playing out.

The three guys BT JB and LH are challenged dummies as commentators although anyone who comes up with Bang! Bang bang bang is worth a handful of comments a game, no more.

Although Daisy's voice is at times irritating. Tone it down and slow it down and she would be even better.

 

Daisy is a star. 

It’s such a relief to have someone who is knowledgeable, modest and articulate. Someone who does not have to refer to their own playing days or try and entertain us with their pathetic blokey humour.  The jocks with big egos but little idea of anything else. The entertainers who fail every test of excellence in sports broadcasting. 

Her voice may be irritating at times, but if you put her up against the jocks, I would listen to her every time. 

I would have preferred that The Duck be banished to a duck enclosure both on commentary grounds and moral grounds. Perhaps place him in a pen at AFLW games so that he discuss the big moral questions with the spectators. 

So please Ch 7, make an effort to improve the standards of commentary. 

 

1 hour ago, binman said:

No, not tongue in cheek.

I don't want to bag Daisy as she is fantastic and the best special comments person in the footy media.

But in the second half i think she got a few  things wrong. Funnily enough the examples you highlight are two of those things

I hate to say it but BT was right - that kick should have gone to Pickett not Tmac, albeit not for the reason BT said. And curiously for the very reason that Daisy noted a few minutes after that the kick to Tmac was the right option.

Pickett had space in front of him and if he did win the ball he would have swept it forward into our forward line with his electric pace, as he so often does, which would have made it impossible for the dogs defensive zone to properly set up and mids etc to push back and allow a forward like Fritter to lead into space. 

But of most significance kozzie was close to the boundary, so if he had not won the ball there was a high chance it would gone over the line for throw in and stoppage, allowing us to set up behind the ball and get our defensive zone set up (which, ironically, was Daisy's argument for why it was right to go to Tmac).

If his opponent wins the contest, they are hard up against the boundary and either have to risk switching (which we are brilliant at defending) or kick down the boundary line, which is how we like it as we set up to cover it and if we can't intercept smash it over the line for a stoppage. 

Tmac was central, nearly in the centre corridor and had a man on him (ie not leading up into open space for an easy spot up kick). If the dogs win that contest it is in a very dangerous spot, one that is very hard to defend, as they have three lanes to choose from going forward. 

Going to Kozzie near the boundary was the percentage play and as such in line with our tactical model and related team rules. The fact we ended getting a stoppage and were able to to set up behind the ball was lucky.

As for the comment about us going into our shells, that was the one of the things that really rankled for me.

At one point Daisy said we needed to 'rediscover our dare' and later after we had kicked some goals, used the example of one of our players keeping the ball in play rather than letting it go over the line as an example of us doing so, noting it was something we weren't doing in the second (ie before we 'rediscovered our dare')

But that is how we play, and how we always play - indeed there was an example in the second quarter where Gus did a look away over the head handball right on the boundary line rather than take it over as he easily could have.

I posted right after the grand final that Daisy fed into what i think is a false narrative that the dees were looking shaky and came back from the dead, so to speak. I think she got it wrong in the third declaring we desperately needed a goal just for confidence. 

We had a poor second quarter. The simple reason why was that they smashed us in contested ball. It was not surprising the dogs lifted their rating in that quarter, but it was really surprising we dropped off. And they were clearly on top.

The dogs carried that pressure into the third, but despite them getting the first goal in the third (early) we were matching them in contested ball and had clearly got the game back into the shape we like it to look like. It was back to contest to contest. We had stopped their transition game. And stopped them flicking it around. And stopped allowing unpressured kicks by the like of Daniel. We were back grinding.

This is how we played all season. Absorb opposition pressure, let them take their best shot, and then kick a goal against the run of play and then pile on multiple goals and take the game away from our opponents in a ten minute burst.

There were so many examples through the season of that exact same pattern, and funnily enough examples where that occurred in the third quarter as it did in the GF.

The two best examples were the round 17 Port game and the round 23 Cats game, where both teams were on top but couldn't score enough to, in the Cat's case put us away and in Port's case get in front.

In both games our opponents could only manage 2 goals (same for the dogs), despite throwing everything they had us. 

What Daisy, and all the other  commentators, should have been all over is that the dogs simply had to get more reward for their effort in the third quarter.

Two goals was never going to be enough, particularly because we had such a huge fitness advantage. We were always going to score  a goal and all evidence was that once we did we would pile on more.

It is important to note in this context that it is not like the dogs missed any easy shots or failed to take their opportunities -  they only had 2 scoring shots in the third, both goals, and perhaps only 2 or 3 other deep inside 50s that might have resulted in a score.

We didn't win it becuase we 'rediscovered our dare' or scored a goal to get our confidence back. We never lost our dare or our confidence. 

We won the game by absorbing the dog's pressure and getting our pressure levels back to where it needed to be, after it had dropped right off in the second 

The dogs lost the game by not finding a way to score more goals in the third quarter.

They simply had to get get the lead out to 5 plus goals, and even then i am confident we would have reeled them in.

In fact if anything  i'd argue the dogs needed to show more dare in the third. They needed to take more risks, switch  more often perhaps or try different match ups.

Instead they just played into our hands and did the same thing over and over, largely trying to engineer a goal from a inside 50 ground ball, which is their go to.  

They were the critical points that needed to be made.

 

The incident you talk about was 6.15 left in third. Kozzie was in square when Langdon got ball, heading towards boundary, player goal side of him, no support.

 

Tmac was not central corridor at all, if he halved the contest, he then had Puckett in support.

 

I find the correct read here was Daisy’s one.

3 hours ago, Deestar9 said:

Pretty sure that’s when she educated BT why the ball was kicked from our backline to McDonald instead of to Pickett…explained how the dynamics of our game had changed when we got that first goal after trailing by 19pts…i.e. attacking the ball rather than going into our shells. I’m assuming you made that comment “tongue in cheek”.?

I've watched that play many many times now, and my opinion is the same each time. "What the hell is daisy on about"?

She is very good, but imperfect.

1 hour ago, Phil C said:

Daisy seems pretty astute so good luck to her. I think she’ll be very good. At least we won’t get any ‘slick Fritsch’ or ‘Kozzie the little mozzie’ type garbage that Fox gave us last year 🙄

In the Top 5 worst commentators in the games history. Just terrible.

20 minutes ago, faultydet said:

In the Top 5 worst commentators in the games history. Just terrible.

..... and the most grating voice I have ever heard on radio.

@binman

Props for such a considered answer, personally I was ambivalent about that particular call, as I wasn't sure I was judging depth of the players' positions correctly from the perspective of that camera shot. 

But what I very much agree with is I never felt like we lost our dare, it just 'kept coming up tails' during that period, as a supporter with a well diagnosed case of MFCSS, I was very much thinking that we needed a goal and I felt like Daisy was talking for the supporters (tongue in cheek), as I very much needed to settle, clearly the players never lost their belief, a MFC side like I have never seen before. 

 

Daisy identifies patterns in play and strategic positioning rather than do what most older commentators do which is to either repeat what we've just seen or comment on individual player actions. Only a few others do that, and those that do are all in the recently retired bunch. Other examples are Bartel, Jobe Watson and Leppitsch (when he was a recently "retired" coach). Older commentators seem to be oblivious to gameplans and strategies and are therefore in my view of much less value.

Being recently retired doesn't automatically make someone a good commentator, though. Luke Hodge comes to mind.   

And whoever thought Wayne Carey should be a special commentator is completely tone deaf as to what is acceptable behaviour. Yes, he seems to have reformed, but I suspect that's not enough to make him a commentator who appeals to women.