planetf1.com

I certainly appreciate being able to watch the race uninterrupted by commercial breaks, but announcers have to be the worst I've listened to in any sport. They drone on and on, trying to impress the world with their knowledge, but never talk about what we are actually watching. The post race interviews are pure crap. That's not how you build an audience.

Given that the race is broadcast by any different number of networks and teams around the world, a hint about which one you are mindlessly complaining about might have been a good start.

The morons we see/hear in the US.

ptr250 wrote:The morons we see/hear in the US.

We get the British Sky F1 team now. Crofty is indeed a moron, and I assume is the one you're complaining about.

I wish they'd get rid of Croft entirely and promote Davidson to doing the lead commentary. He seems to be the only one of the lot who actually understands the technical stuff in F1 at present.

Exediron wrote:

ptr250 wrote:The morons we see/hear in the US.

We get the British Sky F1 team now. Crofty is indeed a moron, and I assume is the one you're complaining about.

I wish they'd get rid of Croft entirely and promote Davidson to doing the lead commentary. He seems to be the only one of the lot who actually understands the technical stuff in F1 at present.

Agreed on Crofty and Davidson. Personally I would prefer the return of Bob Varsha but that is not likely to happen any time soon.

I like Martin Brundle and his interviews. Simon Lazenby might be a bit better for Parc Ferme interviews after the race but I appreciated Martin's contributions.

Steve Jones has been becoming very annoying on the Channel 4 coverage for a while now - thought he was okay at first but now seems like he's trying too hard to be funny - a bit like what happened with Jake Humphreys. Rest of the C4 team are solid though.

Always find it strange that they find these tall presenters to cover a sport where height is a disadvantage!

Exediron wrote:

ptr250 wrote:The morons we see/hear in the US.

We get the British Sky F1 team now. Crofty is indeed a moron, and I assume is the one you're complaining about.

I wish they'd get rid of Croft entirely and promote Davidson to doing the lead commentary. He seems to be the only one of the lot who actually understands the technical stuff in F1 at present.

Davidson/Brundle I could definitely listen to

I have no problem with Croft, I think he does the lead commentator job quite well in terms of keeping things engaging when nothing is happening on track.

If you want awful then listen to the chap who does the F2 commentary. Or Jonathan Legard.

j man wrote:I have no problem with Croft, I think he does the lead commentator job quite well in terms of keeping things engaging when nothing is happening on track.

If you want awful then listen to the chap who does the F2 commentary. Or Jonathan Legard.

That's interesting, because I think the F2 commentary is a lot better! I realize Valsecchi is an acquired taste, but at least the team there focuses on the race instead of taking up time to tell some irrelevant story that quickly devolves into a complete tangent. About once per session Crofty gets some sort of bone stuck in his mouth, and whatever it is he will not let it go. It's so annoying.

j man wrote:I have no problem with Croft, I think he does the lead commentator job quite well in terms of keeping things engaging when nothing is happening on track.

If you want awful then listen to the chap who does the F2 commentary. Or Jonathan Legard.

Exactly! Well said that man.

If they could keep it commercial free and bring back David Hobbs and Steve Matchett, I'd be more than happy. Not a big fan of what we are getting in the U.S.

whitewolfarctic wrote:If they could keep it commercial free and bring back David Hobbs and Steve Matchett, I'd be more than happy. Not a big fan of what we are getting in the U.S.

And Varsha
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Exediron wrote: I realize Valsecchi is an acquired taste.........

Like a huge dose of Castor oil. Just my opinion.

Crofty's as annoying as a mozzie bite on the bum. Same goes for Johnny Herbert. Would like to see Coulthard re-team with Brundle. Ant Davidson's insights are excellent.

And then theres ............



Ahhhhhhhhhhh.

whitewolfarctic wrote:If they could keep it commercial free and bring back David Hobbs and Steve Matchett, I'd be more than happy. Not a big fan of what we are getting in the U.S.

would be adding quite a bit of overhead for little return, though. They currently buy the complete package form Sky (is my understanding), so if they have to then find a studio and pay salaries for two or three commentators on top of that they'd be shelling out quite a bit extra for what is at the end of the day a highly subjective issue.

Zoue wrote:

whitewolfarctic wrote:If they could keep it commercial free and bring back David Hobbs and Steve Matchett, I'd be more than happy. Not a big fan of what we are getting in the U.S.

would be adding quite a bit of overhead for little return, though. They currently buy the complete package form Sky (is my understanding), so if they have to then find a studio and pay salaries for two or three commentators on top of that they'd be shelling out quite a bit extra for what is at the end of the day a highly subjective issue.

liberty media gave espn2 f1 free this year. they aren't paying for it.
so we should have had "commercial free" from the start. with the advertisement in the corner, like it is now.

if liberty gets their streaming service figured out before the start of next season, i would imagine that will be the only option we have in the states.

Exediron wrote:

j man wrote:I have no problem with Croft, I think he does the lead commentator job quite well in terms of keeping things engaging when nothing is happening on track.

If you want awful then listen to the chap who does the F2 commentary. Or Jonathan Legard.

That's interesting, because I think the F2 commentary is a lot better! I realize Valsecchi is an acquired taste, but at least the team there focuses on the race instead of taking up time to tell some irrelevant story that quickly devolves into a complete tangent. About once per session Crofty gets some sort of bone stuck in his mouth, and whatever it is he will not let it go. It's so annoying.

To each their own I guess. In the F2 I find the pair of them get much too over-excited whenever any car draws alongside another and it is really quite irritating. There is no need to yell down the microphone whenever anyone attempts an overtake. I actually found the opposite regarding Valsecchi; he was quite entertaining at first but has grown steadily more annoying over time.

I see your point about Croft though, he can labour a particular point for far too long when he has a strong opinion about it. Often though I think he is largely filling time with general discussion when there is not a lot happening on track, I think he actually does this quite well in the commentary for the practice sessions where there is often little to discuss in terms of on-track action.

I can understand why some people would find Croft irritating. However I think Brundle and Davidson are excellent and I can't understand why anyone would object to their input.

Brundle's post race questions are inane. He asked Seb about his race. Seb as usual, win or lose, gave a very comprehensive answer. Brundle then gives him sh t about it. He asks Hamilton the same question and gets Hamilton's usual one sentence I can't be bothered when I lose answer. Instead of trying to draw Hamilton out he asks about a potential mistake Hamilton made. That'll open him up. He should of asked him about the Ferrari "tricks" statement.

ptr250 wrote:Brundle's post race questions are inane. He asked Seb about his race. Seb as usual, win or lose, gave a very comprehensive answer. Brundle then gives him sh t about it. He asks Hamilton the same question and gets Hamilton's usual one sentence I can't be bothered when I lose answer. Instead of trying to draw Hamilton out he asks about a potential mistake Hamilton made. That'll open him up. He should of asked him about the Ferrari "tricks" statement.

He didn't give him fairy cakes about it. I thought he was just clumsily trying to joke about how unusual it is for an F1 driver to give such good answers. I hate the new post race interviews anyway. I don't see what the benefit is of doing it there rather than the podium. The podium interviews used to create some great moments. The new way of doing it just feels awkward.

ptr250 wrote:Brundle's post race questions are inane. He asked Seb about his race. Seb as usual, win or lose, gave a very comprehensive answer. Brundle then gives him sh t about it. He asks Hamilton the same question and gets Hamilton's usual one sentence I can't be bothered when I lose answer. Instead of trying to draw Hamilton out he asks about a potential mistake Hamilton made. That'll open him up. He should of asked him about the Ferrari "tricks" statement.

This is an odd interpretation of the post-race interviews, Brundle is on familiar terms with most of the drivers including Vettel as he has been interviewing them for years so I would hardly accuse him of giving anyone s**t. At worst it was a poorly executed joke. These post-race interviews will have an allotted time window and it is entirely possible Vettel's comprehensive response may have limited the time available to interview the other drivers, hence Brundle's remark.

Hamilton has already clarified his "tricks" statement for those who like to fish for controversy when there is none.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13830 ... ari-tricks

j man wrote:I see your point about Croft though, he can labour a particular point for far too long when he has a strong opinion about it. Often though I think he is largely filling time with general discussion when there is not a lot happening on track, I think he actually does this quite well in the commentary for the practice sessions where there is often little to discuss in terms of on-track action.

I can understand why some people would find Croft irritating. However I think Brundle and Davidson are excellent and I can't understand why anyone would object to their input.

Yeah, honestly I think all they need to do to make it pretty much perfect for me is get rid of Croft and use Davidson more.

mikeyg123 wrote:He didn't give him fairy cakes about it. I thought he was just clumsily trying to joke about how unusual it is for an F1 driver to give such good answers. I hate the new post race interviews anyway. I don't see what the benefit is of doing it there rather than the podium. The podium interviews used to create some great moments. The new way of doing it just feels awkward.

Completely agree. The idea that the new format would make the drivers' reactions more authentic and less controlled was garbage: these people are far too professional for that. I enjoyed it much more wrapped into the podium ceremony - the only problem with that format was having random celebrities who didn't know **** about F1 doing the interview, not having it as part of the podium. So far, I feel we got better interviews on the podium than we do now.

Exediron wrote:

j man wrote:I see your point about Croft though, he can labour a particular point for far too long when he has a strong opinion about it. Often though I think he is largely filling time with general discussion when there is not a lot happening on track, I think he actually does this quite well in the commentary for the practice sessions where there is often little to discuss in terms of on-track action.

I can understand why some people would find Croft irritating. However I think Brundle and Davidson are excellent and I can't understand why anyone would object to their input.

Yeah, honestly I think all they need to do to make it pretty much perfect for me is get rid of Croft and use Davidson more.

But I don't think Brundle and Davidson would work well as a pairing in the same way that I didn't think Brundle and Coulthard worked when they were paired together. I don't think knowledge and insight are necessarily the most important attributes for a lead commentator; they need personality and the ability to keep things engaging when nothing is happening which is why Murray Walker was the absolute master of it despite getting most things wrong. Remember that Canadian Grand Prix where Brundle and Coulthard ran out of things to say during the red flag period? Croft could've talked through it no problem without losing my interest.

j man wrote:I have no problem with Croft, I think he does the lead commentator job quite well in terms of keeping things engaging when nothing is happening on track.
.

I agree, though I'm not a fan of Crofty, you need another Murray Walker who shows excitement and the calmness of Martin Brundle showing wisdom. Almost like James Hunt did.

Not a fan of American shows, too much ifs or butts, a bit wishy washy IMO..

j man wrote:I don't think knowledge and insight are necessarily the most important attributes for a lead commentator; they need personality and the ability to keep things engaging when nothing is happening which is why Murray Walker was the absolute master of it despite getting most things wrong. Remember that Canadian Grand Prix where Brundle and Coulthard ran out of things to say during the red flag period? Croft could've talked through it no problem without losing my interest.

The problem is that for me, Croft loses my interest almost immediately. I simply don't react well to his style of commentary, which I suppose is just yet more proof that you can't please everyone.

j man wrote:

Exediron wrote:

j man wrote:I see your point about Croft though, he can labour a particular point for far too long when he has a strong opinion about it. Often though I think he is largely filling time with general discussion when there is not a lot happening on track, I think he actually does this quite well in the commentary for the practice sessions where there is often little to discuss in terms of on-track action.

I can understand why some people would find Croft irritating. However I think Brundle and Davidson are excellent and I can't understand why anyone would object to their input.

Yeah, honestly I think all they need to do to make it pretty much perfect for me is get rid of Croft and use Davidson more.

But I don't think Brundle and Davidson would work well as a pairing in the same way that I didn't think Brundle and Coulthard worked when they were paired together. I don't think knowledge and insight are necessarily the most important attributes for a lead commentator; they need personality and the ability to keep things engaging when nothing is happening which is why Murray Walker was the absolute master of it despite getting most things wrong. Remember that Canadian Grand Prix where Brundle and Coulthard ran out of things to say during the red flag period? Croft could've talked through it no problem without losing my interest.

just shows how everyone is different. I thought that Canadian GP you were referring to showed just how good Brundle and Coulthard were. They managed to keep my interest in what I feel was a masterpiece of running commentary with virtually nothing to work with. An almost perfect team!

j man wrote:

Exediron wrote:

j man wrote:I see your point about Croft though, he can labour a particular point for far too long when he has a strong opinion about it. Often though I think he is largely filling time with general discussion when there is not a lot happening on track, I think he actually does this quite well in the commentary for the practice sessions where there is often little to discuss in terms of on-track action.

I can understand why some people would find Croft irritating. However I think Brundle and Davidson are excellent and I can't understand why anyone would object to their input.

Yeah, honestly I think all they need to do to make it pretty much perfect for me is get rid of Croft and use Davidson more.

But I don't think Brundle and Davidson would work well as a pairing in the same way that I didn't think Brundle and Coulthard worked when they were paired together. I don't think knowledge and insight are necessarily the most important attributes for a lead commentator; they need personality and the ability to keep things engaging when nothing is happening which is why Murray Walker was the absolute master of it despite getting most things wrong. Remember that Canadian Grand Prix where Brundle and Coulthard ran out of things to say during the red flag period? Croft could've talked through it no problem without losing my interest.

As others have said I'm the opposite, I liked Brundle/DC and I'd say it's my favourite commentary duo since watching. I guess I'd like Brundle/Davidson for the same reason.

Personally what engages me is Brundle talking through the drivers eye and giving the extra information. I'm of the opinion anyone can tell me what's happening on screen, so why not have them be experts who can give additional insight too? I'm not a fan of the expert coupled with a lead commentator who has a vague, more fan based knowledge of whats happening dynamic that everyone seems to go for, just give me 2 experts.

j man wrote:

ptr250 wrote:Brundle's post race questions are inane. He asked Seb about his race. Seb as usual, win or lose, gave a very comprehensive answer. Brundle then gives him sh t about it. He asks Hamilton the same question and gets Hamilton's usual one sentence I can't be bothered when I lose answer. Instead of trying to draw Hamilton out he asks about a potential mistake Hamilton made. That'll open him up. He should of asked him about the Ferrari "tricks" statement.

This is an odd interpretation of the post-race interviews, Brundle is on familiar terms with most of the drivers including Vettel as he has been interviewing them for years so I would hardly accuse him of giving anyone s**t. At worst it was a poorly executed joke. These post-race interviews will have an allotted time window and it is entirely possible Vettel's comprehensive response may have limited the time available to interview the other drivers, hence Brundle's remark.

Hamilton has already clarified his "tricks" statement for those who like to fish for controversy when there is none.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13830 ... ari-tricks

I seriously doubt there is a hard time limit or any limit on post race interviews They are for both the fans in the stands and those watching the broadcast. Hamilton has clarified his comments, but well after the fact. Brundle had an opportunity to question the statement immediately after it was uttered.