terry j
Ron Walden (29)
The ideal person, I believe, would be Scott Allen because he has such an incredible understanding of the game and analyses it thoroughly.
Whilst I agree with you surely many other factors come into play. For a commentator I mean.
(absolutely no offense to you scott if you read this)
Would he be able to analyse on the fly? (during the call)
Would his commentary be coherent and concise? (a different skill than sitting down, looking at a game that has been played and working out what you want to say for a webcast)
Would he be entertaining?
I'm sure there are a thousand other 'skills' needed to be a successful commentator.
Many of you (as evidenced by the thread title) seem to think marto does NOT have what is needed, but I always put their shoe on my foot. You know it is easy to sit on the sidelines and carp (not directed at the quoter), we all do it, but honestly who could put their hand up and say they are certain they could do better?
Personally I don't mind him too much, he is there for a purpose (and must fulfill it else he'd be gone?) but as sure as hell I know there is no way I could do a better job.
Half of the problem is that just like scrummaging, one bad scrum (call) and the ref has formed an opinion that might perhaps be unfair. Real or not the ref is now on the lookout for what he himself has decided is an outpoint.
Scrum goes down, then a priori it is 'our front row' if you follow.
Maybe same deal here, one or two calls or habits from marto that someone did not like, the snowball grows and just like a ref the nitpicking and unfair emphasis on a given point starts whilst the bigger picture gets lost???
Sometimes the bandwagon is not a fair place or pleasant reflection on human nature.