Hull v Plymouth Argyle

SteelCannon wrote:

Angry wrote:

akagreengull wrote:

Tony Cannan just called Michael Cooper, George Cooper when discussing the goalie performance, he is rubbish as a summariser.

why is he doing it i want to know he knows jack shit.

Thanks for the 'constructive' feedback. Nice. Having two people on the pitch with the same surname, sometimes there is a slip, but I should just hang for that, right? And it's actually when I was discussing George that I said Michael as we were discussing the left side and I did actually correct myself as I knew I'd slipped, which you'll have heard if you listened properly.

What position does Jack Shit play?

SteelCannon wrote:

Angry wrote:

akagreengull wrote:

Tony Cannan just called Michael Cooper, George Cooper when discussing the goalie performance, he is rubbish as a summariser.

why is he doing it i want to know he knows jack shit.

Thanks for the 'constructive' feedback. Nice. Having two people on the pitch with the same surname, sometimes there is a slip, but I should just hang for that, right? And it's actually when I was discussing George that I said Michael as we were discussing the left side and I did actually correct myself as I knew I'd slipped, which you'll have heard if you listened properly.

you were shit throughout tony, please never do it again.

When you come up with some constructive feedback, I'll take it on board.

Until then, not interested.

SteelCannon wrote:

When you come up with some constructive feedback, I'll take it on board.

Until then, not interested.

i gave you constructive feedback you shouldn't do it again as you were shit! or if the bbc insist on hiring you again declare it on here so i can know so i can load up the other teams comms and save me the trouble of listening to almost the equivalent of a rabbit in headlights.

till then stick to what you know an thats how to save a sinking ship that just sprung another huge leak in the size of a nool.

Well clearly something has gotten you today. You've always been really pleasant before so don't know what's brought that on. "You're shit" is not constructive feedback is it? Think you need to look up the word.

And sinking ship? What on earth are you on about? What's Ian Newell got to do with it?

Leave it Steely, FFS! Don't argue with anybody who thinks a spell checker is a character from a Harry Potter story.

seadog wrote:

Leave it Steely, FFS! Don't argue with anybody who thinks a spell checker is a character from a Harry Potter story.

oh do one, you snidey cnut.

SteelCannon wrote:

Well clearly something has gotten you today. You've always been really pleasant before so don't know what's brought that on. "You're shit" is not constructive feedback is it? Think you need to look up the word.

And sinking ship? What on earth are you on about? What's Ian Newell got to do with it?

for a guy who works or had worked in the wrestling industry how the hell do you sound so dull on the microphone and not sell a match your involved with did you have with a bit of pomp in your voice?  im not the bbc i dont waste my money so this give me constructive criticism bollocks you keep bringing up is no cop out for me you shouldn't be allowed to do comms again.
The one thing i would say then i shall move on is whoever thought it was a good idea to give you a live microphone should named in the lawsuits that are no doubt going to arise from the accidents involving heavy machinery from listeners you put to sleep. Christ who needs to watch/listen to those AMSR videos when you trust put on hull vs argyle and listen to you

No punctuation was harmed in the making of these posts.

Angers, I would say, your comments about Steel cannon are somewhat OTT. 

Wow....clearly rattled his cage...and still didn't answer what Ian Newell has to do with it.

I'll be carrying on. You think I'm packing up and calling it a day based on YOUR say so? Angry is the perfect name for you, though never seen this side before. Don't know you, or what you're like away from a keyboard, though I get the impression you're used to getting your own way. Well, until me that is!

seadog wrote:

No punctuation was harmed in the making of these posts.

No no be fair...there were two full stops....but I must admit it's good lung exercise trying to read that without gasping for air.

I listened to the match on Saturday and here is my feedback - hopefully constructive!

I think ex-players should try to add to the commentary by telling us stuff we fans would never see. I once heard Sturrock de-construct all the work Steve Adams had done in a match which gave me a new view on what he brought and a new appreciation for his value to the team - I am sure people will disagree with his qualities or otherwise but Friio himself (at a dinner where he was guest player on our table) credited Adams' work with giving him the freedom to roam the park. I would never have spotted this myself (as a pleb!) so this is the kind of insight I want my summariser to bring (tactical stuff, etc).

As a fan who is listening to the game, I want the "fan" summariser to bring those aspects I would look for myself if I were there. I know we're all different but for me that would be something around the ref's decisions, picking out good perfromances by our players, telling us what the managers are doing on the touchline, etc. I think the problem comes when fans try to be footie experts!

On Saturday, I enjoyed the commentary on the whole and I liked the fact that the summariser brought local colour in terms of accent and green tinted spectacles - that's what I want rather than a bland, even-handed summary. In terms of improvement I would say think about what you want as a fan and focus on that but, as I say, we're all different and you can't please everyone.

I'm sure it's like answering all the questions on mastermind while sat at home on your sofa, put yourself in the hotseat with lights, camera/mics and an audience and it's a totally different ballgame, some handle it better than others, some are completely unaffected by it but they are few and far between. A tad harsh imo Angry.

Les Miserable wrote:

I'm sure it's like answering all the questions on mastermind while sat at home on your sofa, put yourself in the hotseat with lights, camera/mics and an audience and it's a totally different ballgame, some handle it better than others, some are completely unaffected by it but they are few and far between. A tad harsh imo Angry.

Agree with this. There are far more anger-worthy things to get miffed about at the minute in life.

I also like the fact that Steely pops in and out and contributes to this site.

He won’t be doing it for long anyway !! Once fatty takes over the trust the slimey fat shit

By the way does the fee from it go to the trust or steelys pocket

Mark Edwards wrote:

I listened to the match on Saturday and here is my feedback - hopefully constructive!

I think ex-players should try to add to the commentary by telling us stuff we fans would never see.  I once heard Sturrock de-construct all the work Steve Adams had done in a match which gave me a new view on what he brought and a new appreciation for his value to the team - I am sure people will disagree with his qualities or otherwise but Friio himself (at a dinner where he was guest player on our table) credited Adams' work with giving him the freedom to roam the park.  I would never have spotted this myself (as a pleb!) so this is the kind of insight I want my summariser to bring (tactical stuff, etc).

As a fan who is listening to the game, I want the "fan" summariser to bring those aspects I would look for myself if I were there.  I know we're all different but for me that would be something around the ref's decisions, picking out good perfromances by our players, telling us what the managers are doing on the touchline, etc.  I think the problem comes when fans try to be footie experts!

On Saturday, I enjoyed the commentary on the whole and I liked the fact that the summariser brought local colour in terms of accent and green tinted spectacles - that's what I want rather than a bland, even-handed summary.  In terms of improvement I would say think about what you want as a fan and focus on that but, as I say, we're all different and you can't please everyone.

I think Sturrock was making excuses for not signing someone with much more quality than Adams had tbh. He was definitely a weak link in that team although to be fair to Adams he was in that team as it rose through the leagues and held his own but in the CCC was way out of his depth. You couldn't fault him for effort which did redeem some of his lack of ability. He was one of those managers players that get picked all the time but the fans aren't as keen on as he is.

Bring back Sparksy with Pieface as guest summariser. Dream team.

You are joking, yeah?

Listening to the Eastleigh v Gulls game, on radio Dem, Gulls one nil up playing well, Martin Gritton giving yet another excellent commentary in his summarising role.