Jump to content

The decline of Radio Derby (?)


LazloW

Recommended Posts

I've added a question mark to the title statement for two reasons; firstly, some might not consider RD is in a state of decline or others might think its been this bad for years.  Others might think its great.

I only listen to RD for away games (half fan) and for immediate post match reaction after home games, when I often realise that I've been watching a different game altogether to the presenters.  I am an unashamed happy clapper, so perhaps my natural instinct is to rail against those who seek to highlight and emphasise the team's failings. But...

Yesterday was probably the last straw for away games.  I realise it was another poor away performance and they are there to tell us what is happening.  I don't mind or object to them telling us what they might consider to be an honest reflection of what they are seeing. However, Ed Dawes in particular is starting to drive me insane with his editorial comments and personal opinions on the game and on players in particular.  Ramage is there to be the expert pundit and summariser; while he repeats himself constantly and seems to only want us to play one way (running around a lot, kicking people and hitting it long) at least he has played the game.  Ed Dawes is a fan with a microphone; he is no more qualified to pass his opinion on about individual players or anything else than any of us, but he has a position of some responsibility as he is the main conduit for a lot of fans who probably never see us play. For that reason, I don't want to hear that he hasn't been impressed with Tom Huddlestone (for example) since he came (which, by the way, translates and creeps into his commentary... "turns like the titanic" was one description given).  All very colourful, but not exactly objective.  This type of thing is also why I can't stand the likes of Alan Green.

Some people might quite like this approach, but I want the commentators to be objective and to paint an accurate picture of what is happening on the pitch, without more subjective opinions colouring that picture and without those opinions being expressed so vehemently.  When he breaks away from telling us what is happening to shout/scream things like "they're just not working hard enough Craig!", to me that is not the voice of a professional commentator, it is the voice of a whiny fan.  Even if what he is saying is true, its not for him to say (in my opinion). It is for the pundit to put this out there (again, hopefully, constructively).  Good commentators would draw this out from the pundit, but when they get on their mardy little rolls, they also manage to wind each other up into a frenzy, which just gets shouty and comes across as quite unprofessional at times.  

In my experience, RD have never been happier than when the team is struggling, but even going back to Graham Richards and Ian Hall, I always thought there was some objectivity and constructive criticism in there.  At the moment, it just seems to be the same reactive and unconsidered stuff you get on the internet.  To me, its almost as if its done on purpose to drive the infamous "listener derived content" they have to pursue after games. Wind people up and set them free.

I must emphasise that I'm not suggesting that RD are to blame for us losing, or that RD should sugar coat anything or that we played so much better than RD said we did.  I just consider that RD's current approach to commentary, particularly when we are playing poorly, is not conducive to any form of enjoyment of what is supposed to be a form of entertainment afterall.  Losing is painful enough, without the commentary being torturous as well. 

Still, as some people will no doubt pointout, I don't have to listen and I probably shant for a while.  Nonetheless, I needed to get it off my chest.  Apologies if there are threads already in place to do this.  Feel free to merge, delete or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I do not like Ed Dawes commentary and never have for exactly the reasons you outline above. Luckily these days I only rarely have to listen to a match as I am usually there instead!

I have said this before but I think Owen Bradley is much better when he gets the chance. Level headed and objective with a much better attention to the detail of the game in front of him.

My favourite commentator was Ross Fletcher back in a time that I  wasn't going to many matches. Painted the picture of what was happening on the pitch beautifully with his words. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, LazloW said:

the moment, it just seems to be the same reactive and unconsidered stuff you get on the internet.  To me, its almost as if its done on purpose to drive the infamous "listener derived content" they have to pursue after games. Wind people up and set them free.

This is one of my big annoyances with media in general. In my view it's like the only way to obtain viewers/listeners is to be controversial or sensationalise to generate interest. 

Like you I've switched off on away days (tend to follow through Twitter, weirdly using Owen Bradley and Ed Dawes?) 

i actually find ramage my annoyance with the commentary, now some people like the local lad /fan being the pundit,  but he really grates on me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listened yesterday and agree with most that has been said especially on commentators.  But I'm glad that it is there as I struggle to get to some games through work at the moment.  Days off being in the week instead of weekends.  Hopefully be sorted soon when I jack it in.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, LazloW said:

I've added a question mark to the title statement for two reasons; firstly, some might not consider RD is in a state of decline or others might think its been this bad for years.  Others might think its great.

I only listen to RD for away games (half fan) and for immediate post match reaction after home games, when I often realise that I've been watching a different game altogether to the presenters.  I am an unashamed happy clapper, so perhaps my natural instinct is to rail against those who seek to highlight and emphasise the team's failings. But...

Yesterday was probably the last straw for away games.  I realise it was another poor away performance and they are there to tell us what is happening.  I don't mind or object to them telling us what they might consider to be an honest reflection of what they are seeing. However, Ed Dawes in particular is starting to drive me insane with his editorial comments and personal opinions on the game and on players in particular.  Ramage is there to be the expert pundit and summariser; while he repeats himself constantly and seems to only want us to play one way (running around a lot, kicking people and hitting it long) at least he has played the game.  Ed Dawes is a fan with a microphone; he is no more qualified to pass his opinion on about individual players or anything else than any of us, but he has a position of some responsibility as he is the main conduit for a lot of fans who probably never see us play. For that reason, I don't want to hear that he hasn't been impressed with Tom Huddlestone (for example) since he came (which, by the way, translates and creeps into his commentary... "turns like the titanic" was one description given).  All very colourful, but not exactly objective.  This type of thing is also why I can't stand the likes of Alan Green.

Some people might quite like this approach, but I want the commentators to be objective and to paint an accurate picture of what is happening on the pitch, without more subjective opinions colouring that picture and without those opinions being expressed so vehemently.  When he breaks away from telling us what is happening to shout/scream things like "they're just not working hard enough Craig!", to me that is not the voice of a professional commentator, it is the voice of a whiny fan.  Even if what he is saying is true, its not for him to say (in my opinion). It is for the pundit to put this out there (again, hopefully, constructively).  Good commentators would draw this out from the pundit, but when they get on their mardy little rolls, they also manage to wind each other up into a frenzy, which just gets shouty and comes across as quite unprofessional at times.  

In my experience, RD have never been happier than when the team is struggling, but even going back to Graham Richards and Ian Hall, I always thought there was some objectivity and constructive criticism in there.  At the moment, it just seems to be the same reactive and unconsidered stuff you get on the internet.  To me, its almost as if its done on purpose to drive the infamous "listener derived content" they have to pursue after games. Wind people up and set them free.

I must emphasise that I'm not suggesting that RD are to blame for us losing, or that RD should sugar coat anything or that we played so much better than RD said we did.  I just consider that RD's current approach to commentary, particularly when we are playing poorly, is not conducive to any form of enjoyment of what is supposed to be a form of entertainment afterall.  Losing is painful enough, without the commentary being torturous as well. 

Still, as some people will no doubt pointout, I don't have to listen and I probably shant for a while.  Nonetheless, I needed to get it off my chest.  Apologies if there are threads already in place to do this.  Feel free to merge, delete or whatever.

What did you expect of them from yesterday's performance? I'm sorry but if they are watching crap, what are they supposed to tell the listener? It's all right everyone, I'm sure we will be okay against Brum but this game is mildly annoying as we are hoofing it up the pitch. But never mind I am sure In a minute Gary will do some thing about it and we will win. If a team is failing as you say, they surely have to communicate that. 

Dont take this the wrong way but sometimes you happy clappers seem to think that if it's not spoken about it will just go away and a bad performance never happened. Well it doesn't go away and a crap performance is still a crap performance. They are not employees of DCFC they are there to report, warts and all. To be fair I have heard them be very positive when things are going well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

What did you expect of them from yesterday's performance? I'm sorry but if they are watching crap, what are they supposed to tell the listener? It's all right everyone, I'm sure we will be okay against Brum but this game is mildly annoying as we are hoofing it up the pitch. But never mind I am sure In a minute Gary will do some thing about it and we will win. If a team is failing as you say, they surely have to communicate that. 

Dont take this the wrong way but sometimes you happy clappers seem to think that if it's not spoken about it will just go away and a bad performance never happened. Well it doesn't go away and a crap performance is still a crap performance. They are not employees of DCFC they are there to report, warts and all. To be fair I have heard them be very positive when things are going well.

I had a feeling you in particular would have this opinion and would be making this exact point (particularly as I said I was a happy clapper).  As I was at pains to say, it isn't the message that we played poorly that grates, its the way this message is put across and the commentary style that I don't like.  I think you can tell people we are playing poorly without being shouty about it and without constantly repeating the same points over and over again.  You can accurately tell listeners that it is crap without the personal opinions, subjectivity and faux outrage at the team and individuals.  Most people are intelligent enough to be able to glean that we aren't playing well without it being rammed down my throat (geddit).

To be honest, they can be just as bad when we are playing well, whether it being over the top in praise or nitpicking about certain aspects of the game (I once heard ED complain that we hadn't won 6-0 instead of getting just the 4).  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was there an apology for Ramage's slip yesterday? I heard it, and Dawes just giggled and joked about it. I turned off at halftime so maybe they did apologise.

I do think it feels like fan commentary at times, which they are to be fair, but they're being paid to do the job and ought to be a little bit more professional, there's probably too much banter for some listeners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree with the opening post.

The problem with a lead commentator that projects personal opinion is that it doesn't pay the audience any respect.

If something is bad (or good) we can make our own minds up about what that means.

Proper commentary - "Johnson gives the ball away and Bristol City regain possession".

Bad commentary - "Johnson gives the ball away, his passing is awful!"

We know giving the ball away is bad, you don't need to impose the rest onto us.

The commentator is there to describe the action. It is the pundits role to give an opinion on the team and an appraisal of individual players.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

What did you expect of them from yesterday's performance? I'm sorry but if they are watching crap, what are they supposed to tell the listener? It's all right everyone, I'm sure we will be okay against Brum but this game is mildly annoying as we are hoofing it up the pitch. But never mind I am sure In a minute Gary will do some thing about it and we will win. If a team is failing as you say, they surely have to communicate that. 

Dont take this the wrong way but sometimes you happy clappers seem to think that if it's not spoken about it will just go away and a bad performance never happened. Well it doesn't go away and a crap performance is still a crap performance. They are not employees of DCFC they are there to report, warts and all. To be fair I have heard them be very positive when things are going well.

On the money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JoetheRam said:

Totally agree with the opening post.

The problem with a lead commentator that projects personal opinion is that it doesn't pay the audience any respect.

If something is bad (or good) we can make our own minds up about what that means.

Proper commentary - "Johnson gives the ball away and Bristol City regain possession".

Bad commentary - "Johnson gives the ball away, his passing is awful!"

We know giving the ball away is bad, you don't need to impose the rest onto us.

The commentator is there to describe the action. It is the pundits role to give an opinion on the team and an appraisal of individual players.

 

This!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JoetheRam said:

Totally agree with the opening post.

The problem with a lead commentator that projects personal opinion is that it doesn't pay the audience any respect.

If something is bad (or good) we can make our own minds up about what that means.

Proper commentary - "Johnson gives the ball away and Bristol City regain possession".

Bad commentary - "Johnson gives the ball away, his passing is awful!"

We know giving the ball away is bad, you don't need to impose the rest onto us.

The commentator is there to describe the action. It is the pundits role to give an opinion on the team and an appraisal of individual players.

 

This is a much clearer and more concise way of saying what I wanted to say! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...