Accrington Stanley (a): Michael Appleton | Vital Football

Accrington Stanley (a): Michael Appleton

You took the two fullbacks off what was your thinking with that decision. Please ask some questions about the game. We all get the 1600 mile road trip or whatever it is. Where do you see Grants best position where he can influence games more.

If you want me to prepare some questions for Tuesday call me !
 
domski2017 said:
I listened to the home commentary. They knew every Lincoln Player and the tactics.
Click to expand...
Yes they did and knew the history of most of our players too. They were very good and pretty impartial. They thought it was a harsh sending off and thought the penalty was stonewall. They called it as they saw it with no smart arse comments or guffaw laughter, makes watching any game so much better.
 
johnolbe said:
Yes they did and knew the history of most of our players too. They were very good and pretty impartial. They thought it was a harsh sending off and thought the penalty was stonewall. They called it as they saw it with no smart arse comments or guffaw laughter, makes watching any game so much better.
Click to expand...

Can you switch the commentary? I have to say Hortin is beginning to grate so much it’s becoming unbearable to watch.
 
Radio commentary and TV commentary are different skills.

Even the Great John Arlott, who was peerless on the radio, was slightly wasted on TV. You don't have to describe every ball, when the viewer can see what is happening, in the same way that you do on the radio when the listener can't see what is happening.

Equally, on the radio, when Hortin is behind the play, describing a great ball that has been intercepted by an opponent, or gets the name of a player wrong, no-one on the radio notices. On the TV, every foible is glaringly obvious. Mark Hone's commentary was' better suited to TV, which is why it was quite refreshing to hear it.

That said, the commentary doesn't unduly concern me.
 
cherryexile said:
Radio commentary and TV commentary are different skills.

Even the Great John Arlott, who was peerless on the radio, was slightly wasted on TV. You don't have to describe every ball, when the viewer can see what is happening, in the same way that you do on the radio when the listener can't see what is happening.

Equally, on the radio, when Hortin is behind the play, describing a great ball that has been intercepted by an opponent, or gets the name of a player wrong, no-one on the radio notices. On the TV, every foible is glaringly obvious. Mark Hone's commentary was' better suited to TV, which is why it was quite refreshing to hear it.

That said, the commentary doesn't unduly concern me.[/QUOTETherefore on the premise described we probably need a commentary for radio and one for ifollow.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.