A trick question ??

Enrico_Misso · Sat 27 Mar 2010 10:11pm

Which of those Ahole commentators was worst ??

Tim "Go Swans" Lane
Luke "I hate StKilda" Darcy
or Robert F'ing Walls ??

saintsRrising · Sat 27 Mar 2010 10:11pm

Lane...................

saintDal · Post: # 897295Post **saintDal** » Sat 27 Mar 2010 10:12pm

It's a trick question because they're not really commentators but barrackers. Do I win?

bobmurray · Post: # 897296Post **bobmurray** » Sat 27 Mar 2010 10:13pm

Darcy...knob

bergsone · Post: # 897304Post **bergsone** » Sat 27 Mar 2010 10:15pm

saintDal wrote:It's a trick question because they're not really commentators but barrackers. Do I win?

Got that right

Hurricane · Post: # 897305Post **Hurricane** » Sat 27 Mar 2010 10:15pm

Dersy without a doubt. He might as well have been wearing a Sydney scarf for the barracking he did. The Sydney cheer squad leader would be hard pressed to have out done him.

BANG BANG

meher baba · Sat 27 Mar 2010 10:16pm

Always and forever Walls. At least the other two have a point: they both really, really hate the Saints.

With Walls, it's just random word generation.

Enrico_Misso · Sat 27 Mar 2010 10:17pm

saintDal wrote:It's a trick question because they're not really commentators but barrackers. Do I win?

Absolutely correct SaintDal.

My blood pressure is still through the roof.
Close games are always tense.
But this was worse with the umps plucking free after free from nowhere to Sydney and especially that whingeing Goodes parasite.

Then on top of that we had to endure 2 hours of barracking from three inane "commentators" who didn't offer one inciteful comment all night.

Enrico_Misso · Sat 27 Mar 2010 10:20pm

meher baba wrote:Always and forever Walls. At least the other two have a point: they both really, really hate the Saints.

With Walls, it's just random word generation.

Seems like it, though Walls has a vested interest in Lyon succeeding given he was part of the selection process.

MB-sorry for duplicating your "commentator" thread - didn't notice it till after I posted

mullet · Post: # 897317Post **mullet** » Sat 27 Mar 2010 10:21pm

Enrico_Misso wrote:
saintDal wrote:It's a trick question because they're not really commentators but barrackers. Do I win?
Absolutely correct SaintDal.

My blood pressure is still through the roof.
Close games are always tense.
But this was worse with the umps plucking free after free from nowhere to Sydney and especially that whingeing Goodes parasite.

Then on top of that we had to endure 2 hours of barracking from three inane "commentators" who didn't offer one inciteful comment all night.

It was on the cards before they even bounced the ball. They were talking sydney up , so I hit the button that says mute, so much better, if only the umpires had mute buttons

maverick · Post: # 897334Post **maverick** » Sat 27 Mar 2010 10:27pm

Lane by the length of the street, so past it the old codger....

skeptic · Post: # 897341Post **skeptic** » Sat 27 Mar 2010 10:31pm

Walls call it like he sees it... that's the scary part

Tim Lane is easily the worst... there's no aspect of his commentary that is in any way, shape or form, that's appealing.
He's stupid, bias and sarcatic

saint66au · Post: # 897458Post **saint66au** » Sat 27 Mar 2010 11:42pm

Tim Lanes call of the first 20 mins of the Carlton Richmond game on Thurs night was up there with the most blatant pieces of barracking during commentary Ive ever heard. Nothing Eddie has done at Pies games has been as bad as what I heard Thurs night. It was like he was in the Cheer Squad

StSteven · Post: # 897461Post **StSteven** » Sat 27 Mar 2010 11:46pm

Worst part was watching those painful GF moments. Brought it all back. Do we have to watch them all year.

linz · Post: # 897471Post **linz** » Sat 27 Mar 2010 11:50pm

Tim Lane has and always will support whoever plays against the Saints.

How many times have we beaten the blues in a row again? 10...11...12

plugger66 · Post: # 897474Post **plugger66** » Sat 27 Mar 2010 11:51pm

Yes it seems they all hate the Saints. We always get picked on.

Enrico_Misso · Sat 27 Mar 2010 11:59pm

plugger66 wrote:Yes it seems they all hate the Saints. We always get picked on.

You obviously didn't listen to the Ch10 "commentary".
It was as biaised a call as I can remember.
Intensely irritating.
You would really have to question their impartiality on tonights performance.

plugger66 · Post: # 897495Post **plugger66** » Sun 28 Mar 2010 12:00am

Enrico_Misso wrote:
plugger66 wrote:Yes it seems they all hate the Saints. We always get picked on.
You obviously didn't listen to the Ch10 "commentary".
It was as biaised a call as I can remember.
Intensely irritating.
You would really have to question their impartiality on tonights performance.

No I would question people who think they would rather the Swans win.

Verdun66 · Post: # 897498Post **Verdun66** » Sun 28 Mar 2010 12:02am

Lane....shocking.

goodie · Post: # 897500Post **goodie** » Sun 28 Mar 2010 12:02am

Whoever the bozo was that asked 'Are we talking about the hand in the back or the chopping of the arms?' while trying to rubbish a free kick.

Dishonourable mention (if it's someone else) to 'Push in the back doesn't always apply' jackass.

Enrico_Misso · Sun 28 Mar 2010 12:02am

They were openly barraking for them

plugger66 · Post: # 897502Post **plugger66** » Sun 28 Mar 2010 12:04am

Enrico_Misso wrote:They were openly barraking for them

Well you would know. How did the Vics go and collapsing in the crickets finals. I really trust your judgement.

Enrico_Misso · Sun 28 Mar 2010 12:18am

plugger66 wrote:
Enrico_Misso wrote:They were openly barraking for them
Well you would know. How did the Vics go and collapsing in the crickets finals. I really trust your judgement.

Seems everyone on this site that endured that commentary has the same opinion except you.

The Vics did collapse in session 1 almost to the point of no return , but then staged one of the best fightbacks in the history of Shield cricket. Yes I did declare them "gorn" at that point before being very very very pleasantly proved wrong. But I don't quite see any relevance of this to the pathetic barraking commentary on 10 tonight!!

Beej · Post: # 897518Post **Beej** » Sun 28 Mar 2010 12:20am

Yeah, it was much better when we were languishing at the bottom of the ladder and the commentators were trying to get us over the line.

We didn't win many games, but the commentary was a lot better.

Ahh, the good old days.

plugger66 · Post: # 897521Post **plugger66** » Sun 28 Mar 2010 12:22am

Enrico_Misso wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
Enrico_Misso wrote:They were openly barraking for them
Well you would know. How did the Vics go and collapsing in the crickets finals. I really trust your judgement.
Seems everyone on this site that endured that commentary has the same opinion except you.

The Vics did collapse in session 1 almost to the point of no return , but then staged one of the best fightbacks in the history of Shield cricket. Yes I did declare them "gorn" at that point before being very very very pleasantly proved wrong. But I don't quite see any relevance of this to the pathetic barraking commentary on 10 tonight!!

All right then. Just explain to me why any of those commentators would what to barrack for an interstate club ahead of a vic club. Maybe it is that obvious I just have missed it.