AFL Commentary teams - How good is Daisy Pearce

[Engorged Onion 10,215]

3 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

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. 

 

 

Fortunately that's not a priority to the AFL.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Engorged Onion

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,693]

29 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

Fortunately that's not a priority to the AFL.

It should be for both the AFL and the broadcasters. This is not a commentary on behaviour. It's purely a commercial matter. Both the broadcasters and the AFL will make more money if they attract more people. Having commentators who are appealing would be a good start. 

[Return to Glory 8,411]

Daisy is very, very good but she's no Brett Kirk

 

[rpfc 28,262]

I thought her comments in the GF were fine - the non-kick to Kozzie is in the eye of the beholder and I think she was right to point out when Track was blatantly trying to keep the ball in - it was an indication that we are back in this and happy for the chaos to continue as it was in our favour. It was that mindset that led Track, Viney and Oliver to put the foot to the throat in the last minute that turned a 12 point lead into GF over.

The amount of critique she gets is far in advance of any bloke so even those that are in her corner are using the fine tooth comb. Watch in a normal game that doesn’t include the Dees - she brings simplicity to concepts and in understandable language. And she can read the game. There was a random Tigers game early in the year where everyone were thinking they were about to reignite and she didn’t see it and it didn’t happen. Made buffoons of BT and co. Not that that is tough.

[Fanatique Demon 2,642]

Any time Daisy confirms that BT is substandard is fine by me. Whether she’s right or wrong in @binman‘s eyes. 

[binman 42,669]

14 minutes ago, Fanatique Demon said:

Any time Daisy confirms that BT is substandard is fine by me. Whether she’s right or wrong in @binman‘s eyes. 

Yep, agree.

[one_demon 826]

Brian Taylor is excellent .  Brings real excitement to the game.

[Tony Tea 2,806]

What we got 'ere is failure to commun'cate.

Daisy shows up all the recent special comments commentators because she is one thing the they are not - a good communicator. You'd think the ability to clearly communicate would be a KPI lock for a commentator, but for the last few years - decades - the special comments commentators have been players first and communicators last. Duck is an absolute wood duck; it's no contest between him and Daisy. Bucks is actually a good communicator too, so he'll be a welcome addition to the commentary ranks.

[daisycutter 29,604]

1 hour ago, Tony Tea said:

What we got 'ere is failure to commun'cate.

Daisy shows up all the recent special comments commentators because she is one thing the they are not - a good communicator. You'd think the ability to clearly communicate would be a KPI lock for a commentator, but for the last few years - decades - the special comments commentators have been players first and communicators last. Duck is an absolute wood duck; it's no contest between him and Daisy. Bucks is actually a good communicator too, so he'll be a welcome addition to the commentary ranks.

i think they are hired mainly on who can tell the best tall stories from the good 'ole days

[Demon17 5,186]

21 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

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. 

 

 

Spot on.

An excellent example in the GF was her dissection of Tom Sparrows kick to BBB (which IMO sealed it for me).

She discusses at length  the difficulty of the kick, the way ANB drew defenders to him, BBB's instructions for 60m to Sparrow, etc......

Edited February 23, 2022 by Demon17

[Demon17 5,186]

2 hours ago, one_demon said:

Brian Taylor is excellent .  Brings real excitement to the game.

And credit to him for the number of times during the GF and deferred to Daisy to explain what the hell is happening. He's not all bad.

[58er 6,389]

7 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

And credit to him for the number of times during the GF and deferred to Daisy to explain what the hell is happening. He's not all bad.

Universally I don't think there has been a more bull headed egotistical and inaccurate commentator in the history of commentary teams than BT. 
Brayshaw is not much better and it has taken Hodge Leppitsch and above all Daisy Pearce to show that those old war horses should be punted out to pasture maybe for the VFL to get used to the slower pace and less skills needed in commentary. 
The sooner the better for all of us. 

[JTR 2,846]

I think Daisy is amazing, but know a couple of people that can't stand her in commentary.

When I press them as to why, all it really boils down to is that they don't like hearing a female voice commentating a male sport.

It doesn't matter to them what she says or how good she is as they cant get past the voice.  

🙄

[BDA 22,735]

42 minutes ago, JTR said:

I think Daisy is amazing, but know a couple of people that can't stand her in commentary.

When I press them as to why, all it really boils down to is that they don't like hearing a female voice commentating a male sport.

It doesn't matter to them what she says or how good she is as they cant get past the voice.  

🙄

I read some of the comments in the Herald Sun article. They were not good. General tenor was Carey was shafted due to political correctness and that Daisy didn't know what she was talking about. And numerous references to her voice which i don't understand at all. Her voice is fine. And so is her commentary

[Watson11 2,240]

On 2/21/2022 at 10:00 AM, 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.

 

@binman, re the Kossie play.  I took a screen grab of the point that Langdon kicked it. It was the right kick as worst case it should have been over the boundary on our half forward line, and Daniel did well to cover Kossie's shorter lead.  The only problem was Tmacs poor running pattern and his subsequent feeble effort that turned this play from 95% our advantage into a loss (we didn't actually get a stoppage and the dogs won the ball).  If TMac had run more laterally, then the kick goes behind him to his advantage where he can protect space with body contact if needed.  I don't like Tex but this example is almost a carbon copy and shows how a forward should do it Tex versus Dogs  

It's also unfair to critique Daisy or any special comments person for not predicting our comeback.  The examples you provided (Port and cats ) are where we absorbed pressure and won, but we also had games where we absorbed pressure, came back, and lost (GWS and the Dogs games round 20).  You just never know at the time.  Even her "need to show dare:" comment was fair enough.  At the specific time, we were stuck in our defence and had only had 2 inside 50s in the prior 15 minutes of the 3rd qtr.  Yes our defence in that period was unbelievable and held up, but the script was still up in the air as to whether we were going to repeat the Geelong effort or repeat the GWS/Dogs efforts.     

[one_demon 826]

20 hours ago, Demon17 said:

And credit to him for the number of times during the GF and deferred to Daisy to explain what the hell is happening. He's not all bad.

He's there to call the game, other commentators do the special comments

[rpfc 28,262]

On 2/23/2022 at 3:02 PM, Demon17 said:

And credit to him for the number of times during the GF and deferred to Daisy to explain what the hell is happening. He's not all bad.

So he does his job even when he has to do it for a woman… you wouldn’t trip over that bar it’s so low.

[picket fence 17,054]

On 2/20/2022 at 1:50 PM, Neil Crompton said:

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.   

Daisy is very nearly the best in the business! She could commentate on a Buzzcut and be at her eloquent best!

[Fork 'em 6,983]

  

 

On 2/23/2022 at 3:26 PM, JTR said:

I think Daisy is amazing, but know a couple of people that can't stand her in commentary.

When I press them as to why, all it really boils down to is that they don't like hearing a female voice commentating a male sport.

It doesn't matter to them what she says or how good she is as they cant get past the voice.  

🙄

I know a few too.

I've been saying for a few years now she's the best in the Bizz.
When they scoff I ask who's better ...... I get crickets.

[hemingway 7,615]

On 2/23/2022 at 3:26 PM, JTR said:

I think Daisy is amazing, but know a couple of people that can't stand her in commentary.

When I press them as to why, all it really boils down to is that they don't like hearing a female voice commentating a male sport.

It doesn't matter to them what she says or how good she is as they cant get past the voice.  

🙄

The negative commentary about Daisy and her voice come mainly from men. Feedback from the majority of women would be different. 

So we are talking about sexism plain and simple. 

We need to remember that unlike many other male dominated sports, AFL has a large female fan base. Others might know but I would guess that women would make up 50 per cent or more of followers. And that has been the case since the game was invented and it makes AFL unique and special. I love the passion that women fans bring to the game. Sit me next to a bunch of women every time rather than men. 

I suspect that many males who dislike female commentary also have a negative view of AFLW and women’s cricket. 

Daisy is intelligent, passionate and knowledgeable. She has no ego and does not need to indulge in stories about herself. Give me Daisy’s voice any day over BT, JB and the rest of the boys club. 

 

[The heart beats true 18,110]

I think Daisy does her job. The reason it stands out says more about the calibre of her peers than it does about her.

I’m very hopeful that the next few years will see a real shift in the way the game is communicated.

[Demon17 5,186]

8 hours ago, rpfc said:

So he does his job even when he has to do it for a woman… you wouldn’t trip over that bar it’s so low.

I have no idea what this post means?

BT's job is to call the action and add a bit of colour. Nothing more or less.

Leave the brainpower work to the experts - like Daisy , which he did on the GF call.

[rpfc 28,262]

1 hour ago, Demon17 said:

I have no idea what this post means?

BT's job is to call the action and add a bit of colour. Nothing more or less.

Leave the brainpower work to the experts - like Daisy , which he did on the GF call.

To give someone credit to do their job is my problem. Why do you get ‘credit’ for that??

[Lord Nev 13,512]

In related news...

 

[Redlagged 806]

On 2/22/2022 at 5:27 PM, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

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. 

 

 

Dunno, I quite like Hodge. Bit rough around the edges but honest and direct.