I’m gonna speak purely from an American football (NFL/NCAA DI) standpoint, which will probably interest like 2 other people on this site, but whatever:
If you’re talking about those who provide “analysis” between games, I don’t think there is a more useless way to spend your time than listen to these guys. I put analysis in quotes because it’s all really just speculation. Speculation about a fucking game. People already speculate about real world stuff like politics way too much, but I feel like I know too many grown adults who treat consuming sports “analysis” as a hobby.
Now, as for the play-by-play and color commentary, there was a time when I felt like it actually added to the experience, like the 90s to the mid 00s. Of course, there was the great John Madden who had the talent of providing interesting commentary for both experienced fans and people who were watching their first game. Once he retired, I feel like it all went downhill. Now, the commentators only cater to the lowest common denominator of fans who are more into sports for the tribalism aspect than actually understanding the game beyond what is happening on the screen. Everyone always goes “but what about Tony Romo?” Ok is it really that surprising that a quarterback who played professionally for over 10 years can occasionally predict plays pre-snap? It was his job long before he was a commentator. He doesn’t even really explain the thought processes behind his predictions either. He’s just flexing to impress people.
In F1 they’re usually great. More grounded observations / opinions, from either former drivers or at least people who have been around the paddock for decades. They feel more “objective” regarding what they talk about and what they’ll allow themselves to hypothesize about.
I don’t watch much NBA and NFL but the analysts / opinion guys seem goofy and way too loose with opinions. I think they’re all entertainment so the more outlandish their statements the better the engagement.
In chess the players and analysts are all way above my level, but as far as I can tell, they do a good job at breaking down the position and giving you an idea of what super grandmasters are thinking. But this is more commentator and less analyst.
Funnily enough, my mind jumped to Martin Brundle as a classic example of a good analyst - or at least he was in the 90s and 2000s. He’s still good, but it just isn’t as new or exciting anymore - he was a fantastic counterpoint to Murray Walker’s boundless enthusiasm with a lot of sensible chatter and in depth knowledge.
Another guy I quite like is Jimmy Bullard, particularly on Sky Sports News or Soccer AM - no bullshit, everything in layman’s terms, and has a laugh with it.
I don’t find the designation to be that much of a thing. There are former players that are great and there are former players who are completely awful clickbait clowns. Same is true for non former athletes.
The good former pros definitely have a valuable perspective though I think there’s also something to be said for a bit of a removed perspective.
You may compare both as, is possible to share the same profile between the 2 apps. Actually I rely on Thunderbird, as I use it since the beginning, and it has the functions I need. Perhaps I will give a try on the Betterbird as well.
Ublock origin Ghostery Containers (so darn useful) Tampermonkey if you know JavaScript, little tweaks can make some sites much more usable
Custom Context search (forgot the actual name of it and I’m on mobile now). It allows you to add custom searches to your right click, so if you select text and right click, you can search for it on any site with search functionality.
I think it’s not cool unless it’s funny. I’m trying to think of a good philosophical reason for that. I agree most of the time I am annoyed and don’t even look at them, scrolling past as if they were advertising.
asklemmy
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.