Being better than the abomination that was served up in the IPL is not the measure of good commentary.I pretty much disagree with the above. I've enjoyed the commentary a lot more in this tournament than in the IPL. The commentary there was just cringeworthy. The commentary here has been sensible, focused and generally talking about the cricket and not just waffling on about sponsors, bollywood and money.
I'd rather listen to Nasser Hussain, David Lloyd, Ian Bishop, Ian Chappell and Harsha Bhogle anyday as compared with the people mentioned above. Anil Kumble has been a very pleasant addition to the commentary box as well.
I've found his commentary fascinating to listen to so far and with the amount of experience he has and his cool, calm and common sense approach to cricket, I'm looking forward to hearing him commentate throughout this tournament.
I'm with you here and would have posted something similar if I could articulate the point as well as you. I sympathise with a lot of the Asian commentators who clearly struggle with their English - they can add very little and making mistakes with syntax/vocab doesn't look too good. They end up just stating the obvious.I don't have anything against people that don't speak English well as a language that isn't their natural tongue, as I am pretty useless at speaking foreign languages, but why do SS continually pick people that don't speak English particularly well to commentate. Not only that, but they rarely have something inciteful or interesting to add. Sky Sports just assume that if someone has played international cricket, then they must be a good commentator. I could name about 15 people who are contributors to CW that I would rather listen to that have never played international cricket than some people who don't speak English as their first language and have played test cricket for 10 years.
Overall I agree that commentators should be proficient enough in English. That just enhances the quality of your presentation. I disagree though on the Anil Kumble comment, his English is pretty good and he speaks it rather fluently. Wasim Akram's English on the other hand is quite poor and he can definitely improve.I'm sure that people like Anil Kumble could add some very interesting points if they could speak good enough English to articulate them. Sanjay Manjreakar is an exception TBF, he has excellent English and can pretty much speak it perfectly.
Funny, i've never had a problem with not being able to understand someone's commentary. I probably would have before I came to Manchester because none of my friends back in Ireland were Indian or Pakistani, but i wouldn't think it would be a problem for Indian people.Overall I agree that commentators should be proficient enough in English. That just enhances the quality of your presentation. I disagree though on the Anil Kumble comment, his English is pretty good and he speaks it rather fluently. Wasim Akram's English on the other hand is quite poor and he can definitely improve.
AWTA, at times - distracts from his commentary skills a bit. Loving Bish at the moment - maybe it's the accent but his voice is very smooth on the ear and he articulates his point very well.Bhogle is far too prone to hyperbole. The Indian Mark Nicholas, if you will.
I'm pretty sure it's the other way round for Germans - because "w" is pronounced as "v" in German, they pronounce "Wales" as "Vales".Can't agree Kumble struggles with English. Of all the Asian comms who don't have English as their first language his command seems the most fluent to my English ears.
I quite enjoy his understated, calm style. He needs a cheer leader beside him or it would become a bit too sonambulant, but his English seems first rate.
Bhogle's is excellent as well, although he's obviously cut from a more excitable cloth than Anil. He does seem to have the same problem with English as a lot of Germans tho in that he can't pronounce the "v" sound; his "versus" & "very" become "wersus" and "wery".