Is it me, or do the BBC overreact to lower ranked players?

[SnookerFan]

Yesterday, Davis and Doherty acted like it would be surprise of the decade if Wenbo beat Higgins. I get Higgins is favourite for the match, and Liang has never beaten him. But the BBC made it sound like Liang was nothing. He is a top-16er, and did just make the UK final.

Saying that, he did lose. So am I overreacting to the BBC's overreaction?

I felt Hendry had the hump all through the finals weekend at the UK, because he saw lower ranked players. And one of my work colleagues who didn't know much about snooker watched some of The Crucible Final. He thought Bingham was an unknown player. He was a surprise winner, of course. But he's taken the BBC at their word, and thought it was Bingham's first match on TV, and that he was an unknown non-professional. When I told him how long Bingham had been playing,and that he's won two rankers before he asked why the BBC claimed otherwise.

Do Auntie Beeb just like making everything into David vs Goliath?

[jonny66]

I think someone somewhere has told the snooker team at the beeb to "make things more interesting", or something of that ilk. You can tell by the commentary, watch a few older matches on youtube, they hardly say a word, which is fine by me. These days they are constantly wetting themselves about something or other, which just gets on my nerves. If they are trying to jazz things up they're making a bit of a pigs ear out of it IMO.

[DeanH]

often they are covering the fact that they (you know the ones I am talking about) know absolutely nothing about the current crop of professional players, even if they have been on the tour for years already; more interested in their betting slips or their golf swing, and probably not watched a second of snooker between the last time they commentated and walking into the booth :wink:

[barrywhite]

They either completely ignore snooker until it's one of their shows or then come out with 'immense' commentary and analysis. Hazel 'can you put the enormity of that into words 7 times World Champion Stepheen Hendry' and Dennis 'the Great Stephen Hendry' Taylor, Virgo repeating everything in ever increasing decibels. Retards.

[Billy]

I think someone somewhere has told the snooker team at the beeb to "make things more interesting", or something of that ilk. You can tell by the commentary, watch a few older matches on youtube, they hardly say a word, which is fine by me. These days they are constantly wetting themselves about something or other, which just gets on my nerves. If they are trying to jazz things up they're making a bit of a pigs ear out of it IMO.

Well you don't say how far you're going back when you say 'older matches on youtube' so it could just be a different style of commentary because it's different people commentating now. Personally, I much prefer the enthusiastic commentary of today, to the guys of old who sounded more like adenoid-troubled anoraks talking about their model train collection.

But to answer the original question, I agree to a large extent. The David and Goliath analogy is a good one. I also agree with jonny's other point about them trying to drum up interest, but neither facts have ever bothered or irritated me. I think the health of snooker IS improving, and the enthusiasm is justified because of it.

[shmeeko69]

Yesterday, Davis and Doherty acted like it would be surprise of the decade if Wenbo beat Higgins. I get Higgins is favourite for the match, and Liang has never beaten him. But the BBC made it sound like Liang was nothing. He is a top-16er, and did just make the UK final.

Saying that, he did lose. So am I overreacting to the BBC's overreaction?

I felt Hendry had the hump all through the finals weekend at the UK, because he saw lower ranked players. And one of my work colleagues who didn't know much about snooker watched some of The Crucible Final. He thought Bingham was an unknown player. He was a surprise winner, of course. But he's taken the BBC at their word, and thought it was Bingham's first match on TV, and that he was an unknown non-professional. When I told him how long Bingham had been playing,and that he's won two rankers before he asked why the BBC claimed otherwise.

Do Auntie Beeb just like making everything into David vs Goliath?

They do seem to only think the favourite will win and are shocked when the underdog pulls it off. I suppose when you have the BBC key in your back then, a programmed response is expected. Still, it's better than listening to Joe Johnson on Eurosport

[jonny66]

If you watch the Jimmy White 147 on the best 147 thread, it's John Virgo and Ted Lowe (I think). No-one says a word till he hits 33.

[trains]

Yes it doesn't seem to make sense that they come across as pandering to an elite when snooker can't attract sponsors anyway.
But maybe snooker has always been like that,if they tried to be more inclusive in the 1960's I'm not sure if people like Perrie Mans would be making Crucible finals.
Just because the like's of Ted Lowe might not have overreacted it doesn't mean snooker was more inclusive in the past.

[DeanH]

Yes it doesn't seem to make sense that they come across as pandering to an elite when snooker can't attract sponsors anyway.
But maybe snooker has always been like that,if they tried to be more inclusive in the 1960's I'm not sure if people like Perrie Mans would be making Crucible finals.
Just because the like's of Ted Lowe might not have overreacted it doesn't mean snooker was more inclusive in the past.

it was, until the pro-listing was opened up in the early 80s with clear entry methods, it was a very closed-shop and very difficult to gain entry to the circuit. even more so before the 60/70s where if Joe Davis didn't like you then you were not in
maybe the above is generalised; but the pro circuit was a very exclusive "members-only" club.

[Welshsteve]

They do seem to only think the favourite will win and are shocked when the underdog pulls it off. I suppose when you have the BBC key in your back then, a programmed response is expected. Still, it's better than listening to Joe Johnson on Eurosport

HAHA Couldn't agree more with that. I'm amazed Joe Johnson was ever capable of winning the world title because his comments and reading of the game in his commentary baffle me constantly. He is a nice chap though

[SnookerFan]

You could say the same about Dennis Taylor.

[barrywhite]

You could say the same about Dennis Taylor.

That's utterly spot on. Johnson took that title off Davis, Davis was nowhere near his level. But Taylor was gifted a title when SD had a massive lead. SD fell apart against Taylor, he didn't against Johnson. Johnson was the form player of that tournament. I watched it all! Same way Bingo was the player of 2015 at the Crucible.

[SnookerFan]

Actually, I was talking more about the idea that he was a nice guy but a ****e commentator.

[barrywhite]

Actually, I was talking more about the idea that he was a nice guy but a ****e commentator.

That too, he is a nice guy and a nice commentator. He can even remember and pronounce the names of players. On top of that, he knows the names of the opponents they beat in the last round. He gets some research and manages to remember it. I know this is a bit of a revelation to Beeb watchers but seriously, it's true and he's not even a genius. lol

[itsnoteasy]

I honestly don't know the best way to commentate on the snooker, if you can play the game or have watched it for years you don't have to be talked through the whole bleeding game, yes I know he's the wrong side of the blue, it's obvious, or he's a bit low on the black,but if your a newcomer maybe you do need to be told more often, or be told " this is a tough shot" as not all tough shots are obviously so, unless you know a little about the game. The younger generation seem to need something happening all the time, so I think they are kind of forced to fill the time between shots. I think commentators are a bit dammed if they do and dammed if they don't.