Phil Liggett and his mate

[Noodley]

Cunobelin, you appear to be following rich and I across threads and be giving us special attention - I am flattered as I see this as being a result of me (and rich) calling you out as a "know nothing" with no interest in pro racing. It was not too difficult I admit, and many others have also done likewise but maybe not as repeatedly as they have decided you are not worth the effort.

The discussion at present relates to the lack of integrity which Liggett and Sherwen have as commentators, after many years of supporting and defending Armstrong (as well as shared financial interests). Now, this may very well be due to them being employed by a pro-Armstrong US company who then sell on their commentary to other broadcasters around the world; they provide the words for the pictures for millions, and their pro-Armstrong stance will have influenced millions of viewers. As an aside I also think Liggett is a crap commentator, Sherwen I can just about suffer when he is not reading out of the pictorial guide to the Tour handbook. But ITV have a good supply of much better commentators, which I think they need to deploy immediately or run the risk of people (like me) switching off and looking to other sources; I am in the unfortunate position of being severely limited in alternatives.

Armstong has fallen on his own sword, and it is only right that his squires Liggett and Sherwen are also slain.

 

[ceepeebee]

What I found myself doing last tour was watching itv whenever the good guys were on, then as soon as Waldorf and stadler appeared switching over to Eurosport to enjoy harmon and Kelly (the latter helping me perfect my Irish accent really well)

 

[just jim]

Isn't part of the problem is that liggett and sherwen are actually employed by the outdoor network, a long term supporter of stretch Armstrong? Thus their commentary is v v US biased and they were always pro-US riders especially stretch? From what I remember ITV just buy their commentary.

And yes, I'd pay a premium to get bolting, boardman, imlach and rendell tag-teaming the commentary duties, they're all great.

I'd add to the pot too. With cash money, mind.

 

[festival]

As the ITV coverage, generally has improved year on year, its commentary team have become more and more ridiculous.
Its time for them to go, but I feel the way the production company supplies to the English speaking world would prevent this.
While Liggett's views have made him look foolish at best, it has to be said that many long standing, well known print journalists have managed to duck the flak. Journalists who have chosen to only recount the romance,the heroic acts are just as bad. They either chose to ignore the dark side of the sport or were to stupid to see it (unlikely)

 

[rich p]

As the ITV coverage, generally has improved year on year, its commentary team have become more and more ridiculous.
Its time for them to go, but I feel the way the production company supplies to the English speaking world would prevent this.
While Liggett's views have made him look foolish at best, it has to be said that many long standing, well known print journalists have managed to duck the flak. Journalists who have chosen to only recount the romance,the heroic acts are just as bad. They either chose to ignore the dark side of the sport or were to stupid to see it (unlikely)

They did, but at least they had the sense to shut up and stop defending him after the evidence was made clear. Sherwen at least has kept schtum too.

 

[festival]

They did, but at least they had the sense to shut up and stop defending him after the evidence was made clear. Sherwen at least has kept schtum too.

That I am afraid has been the problem for far too long, too many journo's choose to say nothing as it will spoil the cosy relationship with the pro's while basking in the reflected glory.
But Liggett appears the biggest creep of the lot.

 

[Herbie]

I quite like things as they are and the odd Colemanballs moment just adds a little smile.

Change is part of the television landscape, but I quite like the 'old geezers smoking pipes' image that sometimes comes with Ligett and Sherwen, even if it is not an accurate image. I know the voices and know what to expect.

It's a very personal thing with sport commentary. I can't bear listening to Alan Green on the radio, but my boy loves him.

I never liked Murray Walker on F1, but many thought him a god. They were wrong, of course. Hunt was sublime.

I just adore Stavros Parrish on MotoGP. Charlie Cox justs sounds like a funny Aussie cliche generator.

Anyone who thinks differently on any of the above is not only wrong but super-wrong.

aye i quite like Ligget too...Bill McClaren was the best commentator

 

[Hont]

aye i quite like Ligget too...Bill McClaren was the best commentator

McClaren was awful (IMHO) unless you are Scottish. Another commentator who turned into a self-parody with all the "they'll be dancing in the streets of [wherever] tonight".

Isn't part of the problem is that liggett and sherwen are actually employed by the outdoor network, a long term supporter of stretch Armstrong? Thus their commentary is v v US biased and they were always pro-US riders especially stretch? From what I remember ITV just buy their commentary.

I think that is part of the problem - they are far too conscious of the fact that many are only watching because of Armstrong. Sherwen, in particular, seems to be convinced that he's broadcasting to idiots who need to be told things like the fact that cyclists descending an alpine pass are going quite quickly. And they need reminding of these type of facts every 20 minutes or so because their brains are incapable of retaining this information.

At least, I guess that's his motivation because I can come up with no other rational explanation for his constant repetition of the bleeding obvious.

 

[thom]

I think that is part of the problem - they are far too conscious of the fact that many are only watching because of Armstrong. Sherwen, in particular, seems to be convinced that he's broadcasting to idiots who need to be told things like the fact that cyclists descending an alpine pass are going quite quickly. And they need reminding of these type of facts every 20 minutes or so because their brains are incapable of retaining this information.

At least, I guess that's his motivation because I can come up with no other rational explanation for his constant repetition of the bleeding obvious.

Part of the issue is that they are doing dual commentary when they come on ITV, in that :
1) Liggett and Sherwen are not talking to the same stream at the same time
2) The commentary is taken by multiple broadcasters in different locations
That will inevitably lead to a head-scrambling sense of what is going on and what the current commentary narrative is.
But now the UK broadcaster should have a go with a dedicated broadcast team and find some fresh talent - the audience has changed & dinsoaurs become extinct.

 

[BJH]

The problem with PL is a major credibility gap.

Having your tongue half way up certain peoples jacksies is one thing, but this guy went out on a limb when even the fan boys finally got the message and just kept on digging

He now looks very foolish indeed and therefore his expertise is questionable and athst being generous to him

 

[Herbie]

McClaren was awful (IMHO) unless you are Scottish. Another commentator who turned into a self-parody with all the "they'll be dancing in the streets of [wherever] tonight".



I think that is part of the problem - they are far too conscious of the fact that many are only watching because of Armstrong. Sherwen, in particular, seems to be convinced that he's broadcasting to idiots who need to be told things like the fact that cyclists descending an alpine pass are going quite quickly. And they need reminding of these type of facts every 20 minutes or so because their brains are incapable of retaining this information.

At least, I guess that's his motivation because I can come up with no other rational explanation for his constant repetition of the bleeding obvious.

If you ain't happy with the commentry i suggest you just press your mutr button and watch in silence...your eyes will tell you whats occuring

 

[Herbie]

McClaren was awful (IMHO) unless you are Scottish. Another commentator who turned into a self-parody with all the "they'll be dancing in the streets of [wherever] tonight".



I think that is part of the problem - they are far too conscious of the fact that many are only watching because of Armstrong. Sherwen, in particular, seems to be convinced that he's broadcasting to idiots who need to be told things like the fact that cyclists descending an alpine pass are going quite quickly. And they need reminding of these type of facts every 20 minutes or so because their brains are incapable of retaining this information.

At least, I guess that's his motivation because I can come up with no other rational explanation for his constant repetition of the bleeding obvious.

I think McClaren did say that occasionally about "dancing in the streets" but hes widely accepted in Rugby circles that he was the best....he was very unbiased...top bloke and much missed

 

[Boris Bajic]

The counter-revolutionary spake thus.

It isn't about style so much as being a stinking Armstrong apologist.
We deserve better than to have these dim-witted dinosaurs lingering on.
Give someone new a chance - long live the revolution !

It's odd that a sports broadcaster garners ill will for its choice of commentator or pundit on the grounds that said expert speaks or has spoken in favour of a proven cheat.

LA is certainly a cheat. Maybe one of the worst and most corrosive... Maybe we are yet to find worse.

I just don't see it in terms of the viewer (in this case) deserving better. What have the mass media to do with anyone deserving anything or getting what they deserve.

That people are jolly cross about LA is understandable. That there is a strong undercurrent of ill-will turned on LA is also understandable.

But I'm not sure I want broadcasters to choose commentators on the basis of what I or they think I deserve.

It's just a chap talking while they show moving pictures of bicycles. For all I care Liggett and Sherwen could be UKIP voters and I'd still watch them.

No... that might be a bold statement.

 

[thom]

It's odd that a sports broadcaster garners ill will for its choice of commentator or pundit on the grounds that said expert speaks or has spoken in favour of a proven cheat.

Really ?

Boris, this isn't about the surface of the sport, how things appear and tradition.
This is about integrity. This is about journalists in denial, of beyond incompetence and lack of perception.

Do you trust what they say ? Do you trust Liggett's motive when he describes himself as the "voice of cycling" ?

I don't, I'm bored of him serving up the same reheated faux excitement and I'm tired of old stagers telling me that this is the way it has to be because this is the way it has always been. The memories of Lance climbing cols to his obsequious sound-track may be something your rose-tinted glasses still cherishes but to me and to many, enough is enough, a line must be drawn in the sand and the future embraced with passion.

Long live the revolution !

 

[just jim]

Really ?

Boris, this isn't about the surface of the sport, how things appear and tradition.
This is about integrity. This is about journalists in denial, of beyond incompetence and lack of perception.

Do you trust what they say ? Do you trust Liggett's motive when he describes himself as the "voice of cycling" ?

I don't, I'm bored of him serving up the same reheated faux excitement and I'm tired of old stagers telling me that this is the way it has to be because this is the way it has always been. The memories of Lance climbing cols to his obsequious sound-track may be something your rose-tinted glasses still cherishes but to me and to many, enough is enough, a line must be drawn in the sand and the future embraced with passion.

Long live the revolution !

2001 Alpe D'Huez. Lance, Sherwin, Ligget. Lance really "knew" that climb by then.