Some people may argue they should be impartial but thinking about it I actually disagree. I think it adds to the entertainment value and interest if the commentators are completely biased then people can love and hate them like marmite etc. I remember a long time ago when Rodney Marsh said Bradford were the worst team to ever play in the premiership and said if they stayed up he would get his head shaved on the touchline at their first home game of next season. Bradford stayed up and it was funny. He went through with it. In basketball now their are commentators who are clearly biased and to me I think it makes it more interesting you enjoy the ones on the other side having to accept it went your sides way. You enjoy the ones you like on your side who comment when it goes your way.
I am aware the whole thing is likely an act but it adds to the entertainment which would not be the same if they were impartial.
0 ·
Comments
Motson was the worst with his not interesting stat filled musings.
Lynham was good due to his boxing commentary experience where simplicity is king.
Simple was the key and David Coleman personified that. " Law to Best, back to Law, across to Charlton, two nil. Enough said.
Barry Davis, Alan Weekes, Brian Moore, Gerald Sinstadt all commentated on what they saw and rarely strayed away from the action.
Radio commentators have a reason to be more descriptive as they have to allow the listener to visualise the action. In football perhaps Allan Greene was the daddy with crickets Brian Johnson and CMJ excellent examples of their trade.
Biased commentators would simply be a stupid idea. Biased pundits I can live with but for me the impartiality of the commentary box is sacrosanct.