To be honest if it does not improve,I will not renew next time. I feel for you Pete F, but please speak to BBC on our behalf as I am sure you can see most of us want the same thing, commentry on the match, that's all cheers.
I understand Peter is 'one of us', but in this case, it misses the point. I think, like other subscribers, all I want is to know what is happening on the pitch. I can understand the difficulties of keeping going during barren spells, but not being told when a goal has been scored or not is pretty critical. I would like Peter to acknowledge our complaints/frustrations especially in respect of yesterdays game. I sympathise with his desire to defend himself, but listening to us is important too.
I understand Peter is 'one of us', but in this case, it misses the point. I think, like other subscribers, all I want is to know what is happening on the pitch. I can understand the difficulties of keeping going during barren spells, but not being told when a goal has been scored or not is pretty critical. I would like Peter to acknowledge our complaints/frustrations especially in respect of yesterdays game. I sympathise with his desire to defend himself, but listening to us is important too.
Pete is the summariser and not the 'pro' commentator, he is a volunteer and therefore cannot take the lead. I'm sure he understands what you want but surely you don't expect Peter to tread on their toes?
Give Peter a break! He volunteers, pays his own fare to get to the game & does his best. Lets just be happy we can listen to the game, and deal with it. Would love to hear some of the moaners do their own commentary, then we can all judge that.
Living overseas I just couldn't do without it. If it wasn't there then there would just be the match thread and that probably would be no more as, often, it's the only commentary out there. Hopefully people realise that Red Midland relies on the Player commentary like we all do. Agreed, the commentary often isn't the best but it's better than the alternative. I think some people should think of that before complaining too much.
Just wanted to add that people were moaning on the match thread that they were having to listen to the Wolves commentary & now moaning about the Charlton one - cant win!!
Oh, some of the spelling on the match thread is horrendous BTW, makes it unreadable....... ;-)
Just wanted to add that people were moaning on the match thread that they were having to listen to the Wolves commentary & now moaning about the Charlton one - cant win!!
Oh, some of the spelling on the match thread is horrendous BTW, makes it unreadable....... ;-)
Personally I always apologise in advance for the inevitable poor spelling and typos I make on the match thread, and would like to improve and minimise them.......;-). Thanks for the feedback.
Sorry to say but it drives me mad, had to switch over to the Wolves commentary yesterday after our goal, which was barely got a mention in between some inane Smashy & Nicey type banter. The Wolves commentaters described the action, gave you a sense of the ebb and flow of the match and kept the wittering to a minimum. I understand its not PeteF's fault - but surely just a refusal to get drawn into it would help. Jamie Reed i think it is, is the worst - as soon as i hear his voice the oppo commentary goes on.
You could say we're lucky to have any commentary at all, but the fact they're taking a decent wedge of cash from me and the other subscribers - and not even paying Pete - entitles me to at least a half decent service, which often it is not!!
Agreed, Jamie Reed is the worst and on many occasions I have sensed that Peter has wanted to get back to talking about the action on the pitch. However on the rare occasion when there is only one commentator, it has been so much better, because they concentrate on describing the action rather than interacting with their co- commentator. If there are two commentators it would be much better if they alternated describing the action rather than chatting to each other. It's so frustrating when you think there is no danger, then a second later we are a goal down!
Give Peter a break! He volunteers, pays his own fare to get to the game & does his best. Lets just be happy we can listen to the game, and deal with it. Would love to hear some of the moaners do their own commentary, then we can all judge that.
You say Peter volunteers, but RedMidland wrote in a post above that Peter gets asked by the BBC, one of you may have it wrong here. If the BBC asks Peter to do a bit of work for them they should offer to pay his fare in return. They can take the money from the money they get paid from our subscriptions to do so.
I don't think anyone on this thread is criticising Pete. We can all accept that he's at the mercy of his BBC counterpart and would probably be given the hook if he tried to take control of the commentary. For me at least, my criticism is of the direction the commentary is taken in, which is the responsibility of the play-by-play (ha) commentator
The problem that most people don't realise is that the money you spend on CAFC Player goes to FLi and the club.
The club does very nicely out of FLi and a main driver of the revenue it receives is the number of subscribers - in turn heavily driven by the match commentary. It doesn't - to my knowledge - invest in the commentary, because it can get it via the BBC and volunteers, but whether this is the right decision is debatable (in League One this was a non-decision because every cost that could be cut was). In fairness, the club has invested in extra staffing to deliver other aspects of Player.
Give Peter a break! He volunteers, pays his own fare to get to the game & does his best. Lets just be happy we can listen to the game, and deal with it. Would love to hear some of the moaners do their own commentary, then we can all judge that.
You say Peter volunteers, but RedMidland wrote in a post above that Peter gets asked by the BBC, one of you may have it wrong here. If the BBC asks Peter to do a bit of work for them they should offer to pay his fare in return. They can take the money from the money they get paid from our subscriptions to do so.
Read what Peter himself posted, at the very least he should get his expenses.
Give Peter a break! He volunteers, pays his own fare to get to the game & does his best. Lets just be happy we can listen to the game, and deal with it. Would love to hear some of the moaners do their own commentary, then we can all judge that.
You say Peter volunteers, but RedMidland wrote in a post above that Peter gets asked by the BBC, one of you may have it wrong here. If the BBC asks Peter to do a bit of work for them they should offer to pay his fare in return. They can take the money from the money they get paid from our subscriptions to do so.
Read what Peter himself posted, at the very least he should get his expenses.
Yes, you're right, and RedMidland has it wrong on this (rare) occasion, Peter says above he volunteers.
Hold the front page because RedMidland is right and you are wrong on this (rare) occasion because Peter also says:
'I was heavily involved in Charlton Live and was asked through that.'
If he gets asked, ask for expenses to be paid in return. If he volunteers then the landscape is different.
I think it was the Watford match when the commentary was by a good BBC man and the expert was an ex player, Jamie Scocroft I think, and it was the best this season. This was mainly due to the main commentator keeping to the game and the expert keeping his comments concise, I doubt Scocroft was doing it for free.
As for Peter F he annoys me at times but I am grateful for what he does and agree that he is at the mercy of the commentator.
Give Peter a break! He volunteers, pays his own fare to get to the game & does his best. Lets just be happy we can listen to the game, and deal with it. Would love to hear some of the moaners do their own commentary, then we can all judge that.
You say Peter volunteers, but RedMidland wrote in a post above that Peter gets asked by the BBC, one of you may have it wrong here. If the BBC asks Peter to do a bit of work for them they should offer to pay his fare in return. They can take the money from the money they get paid from our subscriptions to do so.
Read what Peter himself posted, at the very least he should get his expenses.
Yes, you're right, and RedMidland has it wrong on this (rare) occasion, Peter says above he volunteers.
Hold the front page because RedMidland is right and you are wrong on this (rare) occasion because Peter also says:
'I was heavily involved in Charlton Live and was asked through that.'
If he gets asked, ask for expenses to be paid in return. If he volunteers then the landscape is different.
Seriously, does it really matter! Getting a bit pedantic now
I thought I had better come on and defend myself, First and foremost I am a volunteer and take no payment for my summary, I also have to pay my travel expenses.
What happened when you gently asked for travel expenses?
I think it was the Watford match when the commentary was by a good BBC man and the expert was an ex player, Jamie Scocroft I think, and it was the best this season. This was mainly due to the main commentator keeping to the game and the expert keeping his comments concise, I doubt Scocroft was doing it for free.
As for Peter F he annoys me at times but I am grateful for what he does and agree that he is at the mercy of the commentator.
Can't say Pete annoys me, I think you can tell he's a bit reticent about being drawn into the hilarious inanity by this Reed character..
Thought the commentary for the Leeds game was ok. I think that Froggatt was the co-commentator for that particular match. Wolves was piss poor to be honest with you. Way to much nattering and not enough focus on what was happening on the pitch IMHO.
Thought the commentary for the Leeds game was ok. I think that Froggatt was the co-commentator for that particular match. Wolves was piss poor to be honest with you. Way to much nattering and not enough focus on what was happening on the pitch IMHO.
who was the Wolves co-commentator on their commentary yesterday? - he was very complimentary about us & our second hand performance..
Thought the commentary for the Leeds game was ok. I think that Froggatt was the co-commentator for that particular match. Wolves was piss poor to be honest with you. Way to much nattering and not enough focus on what was happening on the pitch IMHO.
who was the Wolves co-commentator on their commentary yesterday? - he was very complimentary about us & our second hand performance..
That was Pete. See previous post on this thread mate.
Thought the commentary for the Leeds game was ok. I think that Froggatt was the co-commentator for that particular match. Wolves was piss poor to be honest with you. Way to much nattering and not enough focus on what was happening on the pitch IMHO.
who was the Wolves co-commentator on their commentary yesterday? - he was very complimentary about us & our second hand performance..
That was Pete. See previous post on this thread mate.
I meant on the Wolves commentary stream, not the Charlton one
Yesterday's made me doze off actually and I felt a bit drowsy for a couple of hours afterwards.
Perhaps PeteF should simply not bother. If he left it to one guy then I think it would be interesting to see if he decides to commentate on the game or if he brings in an imaginary friend to talk to.
The problem that most people don't realise is that the money you spend on CAFC Player goes to FLi and the club.
The club does very nicely out of FLi and a main driver of the revenue it receives is the number of subscribers - in turn heavily driven by the match commentary. It doesn't - to my knowledge - invest in the commentary, because it can get it via the BBC and volunteers, but whether this is the right decision is debatable (in League One this was a non-decision because every cost that could be cut was). In fairness, the club has invested in extra staffing to deliver other aspects of Player.
As you obviously can't see the match, you need to commentator to put the picture in your head as to what is going on. Some are better at this than others. This isn't easy and sometimes they can be describing an attack for instance without you getting a sense of which team is attacking. I think, when there are breaks in the play - that is the point when the co-commentator should be brought in for his views. The listener should be told this so they appreciate they aren't missing anything. Conversations during play can be frustrating as it's a bit like somebody covering your eyes when you are at a match - very irritating. The commenators may see that not much is happening on the pitch but you at home think you might be missing something. Then when something develops, they break into the commentary and you don't have a sense what is going on.
However, I think it was a fair comment to say Hulse lacked confidence in front of goal. He may have played well on Tuesday and got into goal scoring positions on Saturday, but a more confident player would have nabbed at least a couple. I felt Pete made a good analogy comparing with what he thought Fuller or BWP would have done. That gave me a sense of how bad the misses were. We all have our perferences, I don't like idle chit chat personally, but you can't be critical when somebody does it as a volunteer.
I would guess the paid for commentator is the senior partner here and Pete comes in and responds when invited to so we shouldn't be hard on him.
Comments
Give him a break, jeez.
Oh, some of the spelling on the match thread is horrendous BTW, makes it unreadable....... ;-)
However on the rare occasion when there is only one commentator, it has been so much better, because they concentrate on describing the action rather than interacting with their co- commentator.
If there are two commentators it would be much better if they alternated describing the action rather than chatting to each other. It's so frustrating when you think there is no danger, then a second later we are a goal down!
If the BBC asks Peter to do a bit of work for them they should offer to pay his fare in return. They can take the money from the money they get paid from our subscriptions to do so.
Hold the front page because RedMidland is right and you are wrong on this (rare) occasion because Peter also says:
'I was heavily involved in Charlton Live and was asked through that.'
If he gets asked, ask for expenses to be paid in return.
If he volunteers then the landscape is different.
As for Peter F he annoys me at times but I am grateful for what he does and agree that he is at the mercy of the commentator.
(Shame the game was postponed).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Murray
He was very complimentary towards us.
Yesterday's made me doze off actually and I felt a bit drowsy for a couple of hours afterwards.
Perhaps PeteF should simply not bother. If he left it to one guy then I think it would be interesting to see if he decides to commentate on the game or if he brings in an imaginary friend to talk to.
Do take the points about side tracking
Maybe some kind of weekly feedback could be organised to be sent to the bbc?
they are the ones employing the commentators, so it is them we need to feedback to
Any volunteers?
However, I think it was a fair comment to say Hulse lacked confidence in front of goal. He may have played well on Tuesday and got into goal scoring positions on Saturday, but a more confident player would have nabbed at least a couple. I felt Pete made a good analogy comparing with what he thought Fuller or BWP would have done. That gave me a sense of how bad the misses were. We all have our perferences, I don't like idle chit chat personally, but you can't be critical when somebody does it as a volunteer.
I would guess the paid for commentator is the senior partner here and Pete comes in and responds when invited to so we shouldn't be hard on him.