What do you think about David Croft?
Discussion
Fundoreen said:
You need a dumb everyman to ask the stupid questions so the knowitall will answer.
They would both sit in silence otherwise.
However, its unlikely a bloke that travels around all year in the F1 world knows eff all. So its probably an act.
Better Croft than karen who just frankly talks like its a new thing he just discovered.
Karen!? They would both sit in silence otherwise.
However, its unlikely a bloke that travels around all year in the F1 world knows eff all. So its probably an act.
Better Croft than karen who just frankly talks like its a new thing he just discovered.
carl_w said:
Badgerboy said:
Best combo was Brindle/DC, but we sadly only ever had that for a year.
Walker/Hunt
Crofty's ok, it's not an easy job.
He's knowledgeable enough, and has Brundle alongside for when he isn't, and if he gets a bit carried away sometimes it's hardly a crime. Never forget Jonathan Legard. Be careful what you wish for.
I enjoyed the recent quiz series featuring the Sky F1 team, which showed another side to their personalities, apart from Paul di Resta, obviously. Karun Chandhok is a proper F1 nerd, very knowledgeable, and he's also done some good tests of contemporary cars. And Natalie Pinkham is a bit of a contortionist! Now there's a thought...
On the subject of "other commentators who are better", I always enjoyed Toby Moody and Julian Ryder (and Dennis Noyes in earlier years) commentating on MotoGP. Properly knowledgeable on both the technical side of the sport, and the major personalities involved, and just the right amount of light-hearted banter. Toby Moody wasn't the same when he covered the BTCC for ITV, there was something "missing".
He's knowledgeable enough, and has Brundle alongside for when he isn't, and if he gets a bit carried away sometimes it's hardly a crime. Never forget Jonathan Legard. Be careful what you wish for.
I enjoyed the recent quiz series featuring the Sky F1 team, which showed another side to their personalities, apart from Paul di Resta, obviously. Karun Chandhok is a proper F1 nerd, very knowledgeable, and he's also done some good tests of contemporary cars. And Natalie Pinkham is a bit of a contortionist! Now there's a thought...
On the subject of "other commentators who are better", I always enjoyed Toby Moody and Julian Ryder (and Dennis Noyes in earlier years) commentating on MotoGP. Properly knowledgeable on both the technical side of the sport, and the major personalities involved, and just the right amount of light-hearted banter. Toby Moody wasn't the same when he covered the BTCC for ITV, there was something "missing".
Crofty was OK in the early couple of seasons, then we had a couple of (relatively) dull seasons, where he had to try and inject faux excitement into paint-dryingly boring races.
However, once real excitement returned in the last few years, he seems to forgotten that sometimes the pictures speak fro themselves and has had to try to top the previous seasons' shouting and screaming.
However, once real excitement returned in the last few years, he seems to forgotten that sometimes the pictures speak fro themselves and has had to try to top the previous seasons' shouting and screaming.
Truth is, he's the man for the job. The more you know about the sport (or even which cars belong to which teams..) the less likely you are to appreciate his input. But rest assured if sky keep him, it's because he's ticking the right boxes for the majority.
We're not the majority - we're a nerdy collection of F1 geeks in the land of the interweb
We're not the majority - we're a nerdy collection of F1 geeks in the land of the interweb
TheDeuce said:
Truth is, he's the man for the job. The more you know about the sport (or even which cars belong to which teams..) the less likely you are to appreciate his input. But rest assured if sky keep him, it's because he's ticking the right boxes for the majority.
We're not the majority - we're a nerdy collection of F1 geeks in the land of the interweb
What is right for Sky Sports is not what is right for F1. Sky Sports are obviously trying to appeal to the beer-drinking football fans who just happen to want to casually watch a bit of racing, but I don't think this helps F1 reach a wider audience beyond the type of people who will spend 20 or 30 pounds monthly to subscribe to a channel which is primarily focused all around football. We're not the majority - we're a nerdy collection of F1 geeks in the land of the interweb
10 or 15 years ago F1 was much more popular among the general population, there was no need to appeal to just a particular group of people, someone like Croft would be inappropriate for free-to-view broadcasting and in my opinion this style of broadcasting cements F1's position as a niche sport.
DOCG said:
TheDeuce said:
Truth is, he's the man for the job. The more you know about the sport (or even which cars belong to which teams..) the less likely you are to appreciate his input. But rest assured if sky keep him, it's because he's ticking the right boxes for the majority.
We're not the majority - we're a nerdy collection of F1 geeks in the land of the interweb
What is right for Sky Sports is not what is right for F1. Sky Sports are obviously trying to appeal to the beer-drinking football fans who just happen to want to casually watch a bit of racing, but I don't think this helps F1 reach a wider audience beyond the type of people who will spend 20 or 30 pounds monthly to subscribe to a channel which is primarily focused all around football. We're not the majority - we're a nerdy collection of F1 geeks in the land of the interweb
10 or 15 years ago F1 was much more popular among the general population, there was no need to appeal to just a particular group of people, someone like Croft would be inappropriate for free-to-view broadcasting and in my opinion this style of broadcasting cements F1's position as a niche sport.
DOCG said:
Yes, I am just making the point he is bad for F1 as a whole (in the UK at least).
Fair play. Tricky one though - is it best to dumb it down to drag in the casual viewer or adopt a more technical attitude to commentary and reward those that do tune in with deeper detail and insight?I'd imagine sky have had some pretty good minds focussed on that question. Probably why they settled on crofty to scream like a 9 year old when something is/is not happening and paired him with brundle to confirm that, actually, something else happened - or that nothing at all had happened
thegreenhell said:
I find the best viewing option is Sky's pictures with the sound muted, and BBC R5Live commentary.
Good option, Is to run the live timing app whilst watching the TV, as you get the Nicholls/Palmer commentary from 5 Live, it’s slightly delayed but intelligent commentary.Alex Jacques on the pitlane channel was my choice for last season.. 1st Class..
TheDeuce said:
Fair play. Tricky one though - is it best to dumb it down to drag in the casual viewer or adopt a more technical attitude to commentary and reward those that do tune in with deeper detail and insight?
I'd imagine sky have had some pretty good minds focussed on that question. Probably why they settled on crofty to scream like a 9 year old when something is/is not happening and paired him with brundle to confirm that, actually, something else happened - or that nothing at all had happened
It is not necessarily just the way he dumbs things down, but also his mannerisms, analogies, the way he mispronounces foreign names like Perez at puts emphasis on every syllable. I'd imagine sky have had some pretty good minds focussed on that question. Probably why they settled on crofty to scream like a 9 year old when something is/is not happening and paired him with brundle to confirm that, actually, something else happened - or that nothing at all had happened
Problem is Croft is a good commentator, but suffers from the race commentary.
When you listen to him in FP, he is more relaxed, and quite enjoyable, but then has to 'ramp' it up for the race. Even Bundle had to do it it when he was lead, but he was far more measured. (He is naturally a pundit though, so it was more restrained)
It's an expectation somehow, perhaps for the casual viewer but it winds me up a tad. I'd prefer a laid back style personally.
When you listen to him in FP, he is more relaxed, and quite enjoyable, but then has to 'ramp' it up for the race. Even Bundle had to do it it when he was lead, but he was far more measured. (He is naturally a pundit though, so it was more restrained)
It's an expectation somehow, perhaps for the casual viewer but it winds me up a tad. I'd prefer a laid back style personally.
Croft is ok but only ok, I think the problem is the whole sky ethos that sport must always be spectacular, it's great when it is but don't pretend a crap race is good with false enthusiasm it discredits the team.
C4 coverage is much better, even during a dull race Edwards and Coulthard have a decent chat or we get some technical detail from the pitlane. Someone winning a grand Prix when it's been obvious they would for well over an hour is not something to get all shouty about. Although thinking about it sky have far more airtime to fill so that's probably an issue for them and the fact that it's live, but the C4 team seems much more like a bunch of knowledgeable fans got together to watch the race and we're listening in and I think that's the key difference.
C4 coverage is much better, even during a dull race Edwards and Coulthard have a decent chat or we get some technical detail from the pitlane. Someone winning a grand Prix when it's been obvious they would for well over an hour is not something to get all shouty about. Although thinking about it sky have far more airtime to fill so that's probably an issue for them and the fact that it's live, but the C4 team seems much more like a bunch of knowledgeable fans got together to watch the race and we're listening in and I think that's the key difference.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff