EMMA HAYES ITV COMMENTATOR

[Moodybluebird]

I happen to think that her monotone delivery is absolutely awful. She might be very insightful but you have to make what you are saying sound interesting by using your voice. She has zero intonation and makes everything sound so unbelievably boring.

Btw, almost everyone on Twitter thinks that she is fantastic!

It was absolute torture listening to her two hour monologue delivered in an incessant London/South East drone. Practically every kick was followed by some form of technical analysis that was neither insightful nor necessary. A horrible experience for the viewer that tarnished an otherwise fantastic match.

Your last comment regarding Twitter has left me speechless !

[the other bob wilson]

She’s very knowledgable and well prepared but is dominating the commentating way too much. Every action doesn’t need a full technical analysis. Just let the pictures tell the story sometimes. Maybe trying a bit too hard to show she’s worthy of the job.

I’d rather listen to her before many of her male counterparts though.

I completely agree with you there, right down to the bit about her possibly trying too hard. I can understand it in a way mind because there will be some female co commentators who will think that, with a lot of the opinions you see from men on places like this and other social media platforms when it comes to woman in football broadcasting, they have to really prove how much they know and understand the game. Emma Hayes doesn't need to prattle on endlessly like she did yesterday, because what she says is, very often, interesting and informative - less is more would be a good motto for her I believe.

Also think Jayne Ludlow has been honest and intelligent on those Elis James programmes.

[UNDERHILL1927]

I think she's been the best by far, ten times better than that c*nt Tyldesley

[blue lewj]

I'm not a fan.

I am still at a loss as to what playing low means.
The nearest thing I can think is playing deep but that is used so much why would she not just say deep rather than low?

Another comment from her about balls being like balloons had me shaking my head for a while too.

[Ras Malai]

I was venting about this on our Euro WhatsApp group last night......she absolutely boiled my swede....

She wouldn't shut up.....she literally had to comment on every bit of play.....

And the whole Apple Quetta thing was just ridiculous....

[WJ99mobile]

I actually want the technical analysis but I can see why people just want silence.

I thought she was fine

[cyril evans awaydays]

I completely agree with you there, right down to the bit about her possibly trying too hard. I can understand it in a way mind because there will be some female co commentators who will think that, with a lot of the opinions you see from men on places like this and other social media platforms when it comes to woman in football broadcasting, they have to really prove how much they know and understand the game. Emma Hayes doesn't need to prattle on endlessly like she did yesterday, because what she says is, very often, interesting and informative - less is more would be a good motto for her I believe.

Also think Jayne Ludlow has been honest and intelligent on those Elis James programmes.

Think that is right. I found her informative but analysis should come as the game tactically ebbs and flows not after every move. Hopefully she will learn that less is more. Couldn't help thinking about this though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv0ueEI4OBQ

[Rjk]

I actually want the technical analysis but I can see why people just want silence.

I thought she was fine

Yeah I can understand why she's not for everyone, and the hoddle comparison is a fair one.

But I don't mind her talking a lot as long as she's adding something in terms of technical analysis - if there are a lot of interesting things going on tactically in a match then maybe she'll have more to point out. Presumably in one of our matches you'd forget she was there As long a she's not talking over the main commentator when significant things were happening on the pitch, which she wasn't.

I'd much prefer her to someone who maybe speaks less, but doesn't add anything. this tweet from last night sums it up for me.

https://twitter.com/SgtGilko/status/...914861061?s=20

[the other bob wilson]

I'm not a fan.

I am still at a loss as to what playing low means.
The nearest thing I can think is playing deep but that is used so much why would she not just say deep rather than low?

Another comment from her about balls being like balloons had me shaking my head for a while too.

Wasn’t she using that when talking about Moratta? I took it to mean that whereas a striker playing “high” means pushing up right on to the centre backs, a striker who drops into midfield to link with his team mates is playing low.

[LeningradCowboy]

I'd rather listen to Emma Hayes on co-commentary than John Hartson or Robbie Savage. Ally McCoist is the best of the bunch though.

[Bobby Dandruff]

It was absolute torture listening to her two hour monologue delivered in an incessant London/South East drone. Practically every kick was followed by some form of technical analysis that was neither insightful nor necessary. A horrible experience for the viewer that tarnished an otherwise fantastic match.

Your last comment regarding Twitter has left me speechless !

I was amazed (but not surprised given a lot of what you read on Twitter) - the praise was almost universal.

I am clearly out of touch as I think that she was awful, like lots of co-commentators. Most I can ignore, but not her for some reason. And most just spoil a game.

[blue lewj]

Wasn’t she using that when talking about Moratta? I took it to mean that whereas a striker playing “high” means pushing up right on to the centre backs, a striker who drops into midfield to link with his team mates is playing low.

No, it wasn't about Morata.

If that was what she meant then surely deeper would have been the right word to use.

The fact I still don't know what she meant now tells me she used it wrongly or didn't explain it very well while talking more as a co-commentator than the main guy and also over analysing almost every play.

[the other bob wilson]

No, it wasn't about Morata.

If that was what she meant then surely deeper would have been the right word to use.

The fact I still don't know what she meant now tells me she used it wrongly or didn't explain it very well while talking more as a co-commentator than the main guy and also over analysing almost every play.

I’m sure that’s when I heard it mentioned.

[Hot Shot Hamish.]

It takes me back to Brian Clough tearing a strip off John Motson back in the 70s when he said (paraphrasing), cut out all the analysis and let those of us sat in our armchairs just watch the football.

[surge]

No, it wasn't about Morata.

If that was what she meant then surely deeper would have been the right word to use.

The fact I still don't know what she meant now tells me she used it wrongly or didn't explain it very well while talking more as a co-commentator than the main guy and also over analysing almost every play.

Is that the main guy who said Croatia had been in two World Cup finals? Or the one from the Portugal game the night before who was still on about Ronaldo being fantastic from free-kicks until Ian Wright corrected him at half-time?

I think some co-commentators are there to entertain but risk going over the top and being silly, some are there to analyse but risk going over the top and over-complicating or over-speaking, and the best (McCoist) are able to balance their output avoiding each of these risks.

[Rjk]

No, it wasn't about Morata.

If that was what she meant then surely deeper would have been the right word to use.

The fact I still don't know what she meant now tells me she used it wrongly or didn't explain it very well while talking more as a co-commentator than the main guy and also over analysing almost every play.

Or perhaps you just aren't familiar with modern tactical terminology

She wasn't talking more than the main commentator either.

There are clearly far worse co-commentators out there.

[blue lewj]

Or perhaps you just aren't familiar with modern tactical terminology

She wasn't talking more than the main commentator either.

There are clearly far worse co-commentators out there.

Can you explain what the Croat player playing low means then?

Just so I know for next time.

[surge]

Or perhaps you just aren't familiar with modern tactical terminology

She wasn't talking more than the main commentator either.

There are clearly far worse co-commentators out there.

Surely people familiar with modern tactical terminology don't need it pointed out to them and those aren't familiar need it explained in more basic terms?

A commentator who confuses the average viewer isn't doing a good job in that moment. I don't think this commentator always gets the balance wrong and is much better than the "entertaining but often silly" Savage or Hartson or the "tries to be entertaining but is dull" Danny Murphy.

[Bobby Dandruff]

She may know her onions football wise, but her constant wittering is driving me nuts. Don't these people realise that less is more, instead of beating your eardrums into submission.

As I said in a previous thread, she sounds like Glenn Hoddle, has the same poor pronunciation as Hoddle and I'm sure like Hoddle believes she's a tactical genius.

Tuerto has the right attitude. Press the mute button or at the very least turn down the sound to its bare minimum.

Your 'less is more' comment is SO true - do you think that ANY commentators even consider this? Look at this:

https://youtu.be/eFZNB9vJS1w

Go to 4:31 and listen to the following 22 seconds of zero commentary immediately after the goal. Brilliant broadcasting IMO.

[Rjk]

Can you explain what the Croat player playing low means then?

Just so I know for next time.

I'd need to know the context - i.e. was she talking about the defensive line, the pressing or a specific player's positioning?
But in general terms LOW means closer to your own goal - High means closer to the opposition goal and mid is somewhere in-between the two.

[blue lewj]

I'd need to know the context - i.e. was she talking about the defensive line, the pressing or a specific player's positioning?
But in general terms LOW means closer to your own goal - High means closer to the opposition goal and mid is somewhere in-between the two.

So deeper then?

So she is unnecessarily overcomplicating it as I thought.
I tune in to watch a game and have the odd tactical breakdown, not watch a game like I'm making notes for my coaching badge course. Each to their own though.

Care to explain the balls are like balloons comment? Which tactical school did she pluck that gem from?

Thanks

[cardiff55]

Ally mcCoist is the best co commentator

I thought in was Sean Connery as James Bond.

[cardiff55]

No commentator should be allowed to commentate on a football match until they have listened to a hundred hours of Barrie Davies.

StT.
<><

Very true.

[willo1927]

I have haven't I. I thought it would be Budapest as per the group games. Makes me even more annoyed Cardiff don't get a tie.

We've all had a mare on here at some point.
Just take it on the chin ;-)

[J R Hartley]

Anyone who doesnt understand what low / high means shouldnt be watching international football in 2021