Eurosport commentary

Page 121 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

the delgados said:
Pricey_sky said:
HelloDolly said:
StephenC2020 said:
Cycle Chic said:
Just seen on Twitter that ROB HATCH is doing the Tour de France - finally !
No Kirby?

I asked Rob Hatch and he said that there are 2 commentary teams ...so I guess we will have Kirby as well...

of course they are broadcasting all stages from the off so will need further comms ...esp if all stages flat boring ones as most seem to be

Think ES may be taking on board that alot of people prefer Hatch
Yes I think we will see even more of what happened in the Giro when they split the commentary. Rob Hatch and Carlton Kirby as lead commentators with Sean Kelly and maybe Brian Smith sharing the co commentary duties.
Please, for the love of everything holy, don't pair my man Carlton Kirby with Sean Kelly.
One word: Awkward.

You come on here and say no one can complain about Kirby or anyone saying how awful he is is hysterical or unfair

Yet you can say what you like about a cycling legend ?...talking about hypocritical :rolleyes:

Sean Kelly is worth 7 millions Kirbys...the man knows what he is talking about
If there is any awkwardness its becasue Kelly is a professional and probably has to contain himself from punching Kirby in the snout for crimes against cycling

Here is why Kirby is a dreadful commentator

Not because he calls riders incorrectly - he does
Not becasue he is biased - he is
Not because he misses the action obsessing about one rider way down the field - he does
Not becasue he keeps having a go at certain riders and teams he has decided to dislike - he does
Not because he has limited knowledge but bashes us over the head with what he has to death - he does
Not because he is funny - I know funnier hedgehogs and wittier lampposts
Not because he ridicules the architecture of many places in a superior way - he does and more

Its because of the deceit he plays out continuously ...he is superior , he knows everything, he is never wrong . he can tell you what the riders are thinking , how they are being bullied, what they said to each other ...
He treats the viewer as if an eejit ...that i why I will never like Kirby and I am within my rights as a fee payer to complain about him on any forum I so choose
 
Oh yea and If I am being too hard on the poor man.... my comments are on his capacity as a commentator
If you work in the public eye and are paid for it then you need to be prepared for criticism if you do not take on board comments (which he doesn't) and improve your knowledge which he hasn't
 
Aug 21, 2011
468
0
9,280
Re: Re:

HelloDolly said:
[quote="

Fantastic summary of my feelings exactly. Thanks. It is all about him not what we are watching which is why whenever I have an alternative to a race with his commentary,even in a language I don't understand, that alternative will be what I watch.
 
Jun 6, 2015
98
0
0
Nice to see that Carlton Kirby was awarded an OBE in the Queen's Birthday Honour List for his contribution to cycling. If he keeps up his good work it will soon be "Arise, Sir Carlton".

Well done to whoever in the Buckingham Palace staff for flagging-up his undoubted talent. An award well merited.
 
How many times did they ignore the presence of Carapaz in the Moreno-led group, stating that none of that group was GC relevant, and that the Dillier vs Ellisonde?


Why, if one of the commentary pair makes such a mistake, is the other not ready to step in with a correction?
Equally ignorant?
Worried about showing up his partner?
Maintaining "expert" status of partner considered more important than informing the viewer?
 
I don't mind them making mistakes, it is when the co-commentator supports them in that mistake that it is less defensible. And it happens far more often than it should, I really suspect that the second man just mentally switches off half the time and makes vague agreeing noises whatever errors the main guy is making.

I know the production budget is minimal: a microphone and a TV screen, but surely they could stretch to a tablet with PCS on it.
 
Re:

Armchair cyclist said:
I don't mind them making mistakes, it is when the co-commentator supports them in that mistake that it is less defensible. And it happens far more often than it should, I really suspect that the second man just mentally switches off half the time and makes vague agreeing noises whatever errors the main guy is making.

I know the production budget is minimal: a microphone and a TV screen, but surely they could stretch to a tablet with PCS on it.
Pretty sure it's used by them a lot.

Yesterday's Tour of Slovenia had some inspired Maggy analysis towards the finish line - Jack Haig was dropped and seemed to be pedaling squares as Majka and Visconti broke clear in the last 500m. However they then sat up a bit and he got back on with 300m to go after fighting to do so - cue Maggie stating "advantage Jack Haig in this position" as they promptly dropped him again to contest the stage.
 
Re: Re:

argyllflyer said:
Armchair cyclist said:
I don't mind them making mistakes, it is when the co-commentator supports them in that mistake that it is less defensible. And it happens far more often than it should, I really suspect that the second man just mentally switches off half the time and makes vague agreeing noises whatever errors the main guy is making.

I know the production budget is minimal: a microphone and a TV screen, but surely they could stretch to a tablet with PCS on it.
Pretty sure it's used by them a lot.

Yesterday's Tour of Slovenia had some inspired Maggy analysis towards the finish line - Jack Haig was dropped and seemed to be pedaling squares as Majka and Visconti broke clear in the last 500m. However they then sat up a bit and he got back on with 300m to go after fighting to do so - cue Maggie stating "advantage Jack Haig in this position" as they promptly dropped him again to contest the stage.
I read continual complaints about commentators making mistakes but your post is factually inaccurate - Majka and Haig were the strongest riders, hence Visconti being dropped 3 or 4 times on the climb when Majka accelerated - Problem was Haig refused to work with Majka which allowed Visconti back - Visconti rejoined Majka and Haig in the last 700 metre - Visconti made a dig with 350m to go which was quickly followed by Majka and with a little more effort by Haig - They were together at the 200m at which time Backstedt pointed out, Haig was in the best position for a sprint. To say Majka and Visconti broke clear at the 500 metres is wrong, as it is for you to say Haig was pedalling squares with 500 metres to go.
 
Aug 21, 2011
468
0
9,280
Re:

Armchair cyclist said:
How many times did they ignore the presence of Carapaz in the Moreno-led group, stating that none of that group was GC relevant, and that the Dillier vs Ellisonde?
I think someone must have sent them a tweet pointing out their mistake as they suddenly started to mention Carapaz, although they then compounded the problem as at one stage they called him David and then referred to him and Uran as fellow countrymen. Clearly they didn't have a clue who he was. I would have thought a bit of pre race homework on the top 10 riders at least. I think that they were so convinced the Sky were going to win that they concentrated on them and got caught out when they didn't' deliver.

Anyway Don't know if if was just the feed we managed to get yesterday but there was no commentary so perhaps they were told to go home early?,
 
Re: Re:

[quote="yaco

I read continual complaints about commentators making mistakes but your post is factually inaccurate - Majka and Haig were the strongest riders, hence Visconti being dropped 3 or 4 times on the climb when Majka accelerated - Problem was Haig refused to work with Majka which allowed Visconti back - Visconti rejoined Majka and Haig in the last 700 metre - Visconti made a dig with 350m to go which was quickly followed by Majka and with a little more effort by Haig - They were together at the 200m at which time Backstedt pointed out, Haig was in the best position for a sprint. To say Majka and Visconti broke clear at the 500 metres is wrong, as it is for you to say Haig was pedalling squares with 500 metres to go.[/quote]

Haig had been distanced and for MB to say that he was in the best position when he kind of got back on is incorrect. Haig had lost momentum by that point, no matter what he had done before and was spent in the last 500m - Stephens had said as much before he got back on. By broke clear I mean they had 20/30m on him. I have watched it back twice to check what I saw / heard. Haig looked the least likely to win the stage, no matter what had happened before, so I don't see how it was advantage to him, no matter his placing in the trio.
 
Oct 10, 2012
1,426
0
0
My guess is that Hatch will be doing the early part of the stages whilst Kirby will be wheeled in for the finale so that he can shout and scream and proclaim 'what a day'.......and that's just on a mundane flat stage with no drama!

Would love if Hatch and Kelly were paired together but I don't think that will happen as there will be more casual viewers watching the tour and Kirby's hysterical screaming might appeal to a broader audience.
 
Re: Re:

argyllflyer said:
[quote="yaco

I read continual complaints about commentators making mistakes but your post is factually inaccurate - Majka and Haig were the strongest riders, hence Visconti being dropped 3 or 4 times on the climb when Majka accelerated - Problem was Haig refused to work with Majka which allowed Visconti back - Visconti rejoined Majka and Haig in the last 700 metre - Visconti made a dig with 350m to go which was quickly followed by Majka and with a little more effort by Haig - They were together at the 200m at which time Backstedt pointed out, Haig was in the best position for a sprint. To say Majka and Visconti broke clear at the 500 metres is wrong, as it is for you to say Haig was pedalling squares with 500 metres to go.
Haig had been distanced and for MB to say that he was in the best position when he kind of got back on is incorrect. Haig had lost momentum by that point, no matter what he had done before and was spent in the last 500m - Stephens had said as much before he got back on. By broke clear I mean they had 20/30m on him. I have watched it back twice to check what I saw / heard. Haig looked the least likely to win the stage, no matter what had happened before, so I don't see how it was advantage to him, no matter his placing in the trio.[/quote]

Backstedt stated that Haig was in the favored position for a sprint - He also stated Visconti was the favorite for the sprint when he got back on in the last 700 metres - Backstedt may have got his predictions wrong but his actual analysis of the last km was ok.
 
I made the mistake of rewatching old races with eurosport commentary

I'd completely forgotten about David "Literally" Harmon

'Damiano Cunego the man who literally ripped the legs off Gilberto Simoni'
'Fabian Cancellara is literally dead'
'Vinokourov is literally made of iron'

I could go on.
 
Re: Re:

Easy there, Hellodolly.
No one is denying that Sean Kelly possesses a ton of cycling knowledge. Apparently some people prefer to hear it come from someone who talks like he was just roofied, but whatevs. To each their own, as they say.
I'm talking about chemistry. You know, oil and water.
My man Carlton does not mix well with Kelly.
We can theorize until the cows come home about why that is, but I think most would agree that the two do not go well together.
Kirby seems to get on just fine with former pros such as Magnus.
All I'm suggesting is the world would be a better place if my man Carlton Kirby could do his thing without periodically nudging his colleague out of a coma.
That's all.
 
Re:

DFA123 said:
"Only one way to get rid of Peter Sagan, and thats <i>literally</i> to kill him. Get there, stick the knife in... Cancellara gets on to the drops."
Talk about grounds for instant dismissal...
It annoys me to no end when grown adults misuse the term "literal."
I don't care if you've been calling a race for four hours without so much as a pee break. There is no excuse for misusing the term "literal.'
 
Nov 29, 2010
2,326
0
0
I think they changed the definition of literal a while back so it's actually correct usage. Get with the times lads. :lol:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts