12/21/24
March 03, 2006
Where were the Germans? And frankly, who cares...: The Times publish the shortlist (compiled by a straw poll of its sports writers) of 25 of the greatest commentary moments ever. They're mostly British (although the Norwegian's are well represented), but have a look anyway.
Nice call JJ. That has got to be the best try ever seen, just for the pick-up by Quinnell! And a good representation of some iconic commentators. Richie Benaud, Eddie Waring, Murray Walker, Frank Carpenter, truly old-school. They don't make 'em like that any more. The only one missing was Bill McClaren.
posted by afx237vi at 09:02 AM on March 03, 2006
No Bill McClaren and no Brian Johnson - surprising that. I suppose with the former, it was more his manner rather than anything specific he ever said that sticks in the mind. Still, anyone who would describe Finlay Calder as "Running round the ruck like a mad giraffe" is a legend. Brian Johnson's classic fit-of-the-giggles (well described here and listenable here [mp3]) should have been in the list.
posted by JJ at 09:24 AM on March 03, 2006
I would like to nominate two from the mouth of Bob Cole: "Yushkevich steps over the blue line and rips one!" "Biron's the hot goalie that Lindy Ruff wants to ride." Bob's got a million of them.
posted by fabulon7 at 09:36 AM on March 03, 2006
I recall some sports commentary I'll never forget. It was about 1996/97 HBO Boxing, The usual guys, Lamps, Foreman and Merchant. The fight had Mia St. John, who was absolutely gorgeous. When she entered the ring all 3 announcers raved about her beauty and Lamps said "if you think she's just a pretty face wait until you see her box." At least 20 seconds of silence followed. I still chuckle when I think of this.
posted by Termite at 11:05 AM on March 03, 2006
The Barbarians rugby call was a classic, and it is a great try, but seriously -- the greatest ever...? It was scored in a friendly -- which is sort of like getting more excited about the MLB's All Star game than the World Series. Be that as it may, it's certainly a great score, but there are others of equal value that were scored in important finals and tests. More memorable for me is the 1995 RWC semi-final (which the Times has conveniently forgotten) when Keith Quinn was reduced to gasps when Jonah Lomu scored a try by running over Mike Catt. The ball goes left, "He's got the bounce ... oh, uhh, oohhhh, TRY!!!" Quinn is ordinarily not-the-best commentator, but that minute he was gasping out loud what every viewer -- no matter what side they were rooting for -- was thinking inside their head. As far as the regular rugby commentator who spits out the most mangled language stuffed with double entendres, it has to be Murray Mexted. Here are some classic Mextedisms: The best quotes from New Zealand Sky TV rugby man, the ubiquitous Murray Mexted "You don't like to see hookers going down on players like that." "He's looking for some meaningful penetration into the backline." "Spencer's running across field calling out, come inside me, come inside me." "I can tell you it's a magnificent sensation when the gap opens up like that and you just burst right through." "I don't like this new law, because your first instinct when you see a man on the ground is to go down on him." "Darry Gibson has been quite magnificent coming inside Andrew Mehrtens, and I'm looking forward to seeing more of the same today." "There's nothing that a tight forward likes more than a loosie right up his backside." "Everybody knows that I have been pumping Martin Leslie for a couple seasons now."
posted by the red terror at 11:38 AM on March 03, 2006
The poll is also awfully Anglophilic. Where is Bobby Thompson's "shot heard 'round the world," or Vin Scully's call of Kirk Gibson hobbling 'round the bases, or Joe Carter taking Mitch Williams deep to win a World Series? Where is "Henderson scores for Canada," or "Do you believe in miracles??!!" What about Secretariat powering his way 31 lengths clear at the Belmont "like a machine"? Any of those are a thousand times more dramatic than wishing a snooker player good luck, sheeessh.
posted by the red terror at 12:00 PM on March 03, 2006
Man - you could fall in a barrel of tits and come up sucking your thumb, couldn't you? Likening the Barbarians vs All Blacks match in 1973 to an All Star game is just plain wrong. In those days, national teams played very few games, so every international was important to them - and every encounter with the All Blacks (who were then, as they are now, miles ahead of everyone) doubly so. Getting picked for the Barbarians then was a huge honour - these days, it's seen as an irritation by many players and coaches who already have hectic playing schedules to cope with. That score was massively important in the context of the game too - everyone was expecting the Barbarians to get stuffed (this was one and only time they have ever beaten the All Blacks), but they set out their stall early and the whole game was a classic.
posted by JJ at 12:18 PM on March 03, 2006
"Getting picked for the Barbarians then was a huge honour - these days, it's seen as an irritation by many players and coaches who already have hectic playing schedules to cope with." You're right, it was an honour, but if nobody really cares now because it's equally true that the team was always never anything more than an all-star invitational side. A Welshman who represented his nation, the Lions and the Baabaas always placed the Baabaas as a distant third in priority and honour, and that has always been so. Even moreso now. That Baabaas team was loaded with talent from a purple patch in Brit rugby, whereas the AB team was arguably the worst to ever tour Britain. "That score was massively important in the context of the game too - everyone was expecting the Barbarians to get stuffed (this was one and only time they have ever beaten the All Blacks)," Bah, utter nonsense. The ABs were so bad that era, consider: - A year earlier they lost a test series *at home* to the Lions (same players dressed up as Baabaas -- why does anyone pretend it would have been different when the triumphant Brits were now playing at home, and the losers in the 71 Lions series were playing on the road?); - Just weeks before the ABs loss to the Baabaas, they barely scraped past the Welsh by three points (Wales hadn't beaten them in 20 years), only just narrowly beat Scotland (ABs have never lost to Scots in 100 years), tied against Ireland (!!!! ABs have never lost to Ireland in 100 years), and the week after the Baabaas friendly they got their arses handed to them by France. Again, the '72 ABs are generally regarded as the worst AB team to ever leave their shores, and they got beat by arguably the best British team ever assembled in a one-off invitational friendly. The game wasn't so much "massively important in the context of the game" so much as it was a massive boost of confidence for British rugby, and is always revisited as being an era of "glory days." Nothing wrong with that, but no need to gild the lily. And none of this is sucking my thumb, it's purely my observation and reading of the games as I have viewed them several times, and reading the facts and weighing those teams. If you don't want reactions to the stories you post, then why bother posting them?
posted by the red terror at 02:13 PM on March 03, 2006
NBC announcers screaming "9.79!!!" in Seoul '88 was also one for the ages.
posted by the red terror at 02:14 PM on March 03, 2006
Man - you could fall in a barrel of tits and come up sucking your thumb, couldn't you? My tongue just fell out laughing at that. Oh shit, there goes my nose!
posted by Hugh Janus at 03:05 PM on March 03, 2006
"if nobody really cares now because it's equally true that the team was always never anything more than an all-star invitational side." I'd disagree that it was "equally true" then - at that time the Final Challenge was considered a part of the tour for South Africa, New Zealand and Australia; these days, it is very seldom still played, and if it is, the visitors tend to field a second string team. "the AB team was arguably the worst to ever tour Britain" That is arguable. The team left New Zealand in 1972 having just beaten Australia three times (twice very handsomely, and once just comfortably). Before the Barbarians match, they: * - beat Wales, who were one of the best teams in the world at the time - between 1964 and 1979, Wales either won or shared the Five Nations 11 times * - beat Scotland * - beat England * - drew with Ireland, who fielded a team including Mike Gibson and Bill McBride, both of whom tend to walk onto any all time fantasy team In other words, they were unbeaten on their tour of Britain until they faced the Barbarians. Compared to the AB team that didn't manage to win an international on the 1983 autumn tour, or the team that shat on a dreadful Scotland team in 1993 only to lose to a mediocre England team the following week, or even the team that came in 2002 and managed just one victory (against maybe the worst Wales team ever) in three games, those 1973 All Blacks look pretty good to me. "- A year earlier they lost a test series *at home* to the Lions (same players dressed up as Baabaas -- why does anyone pretend it would have been different when the triumphant Brits were now playing at home, and the losers in the 71 Lions series were playing on the road?)" If you compare the teams from this match and the teams from the third (vital) test of the New Zealand tour of '71: Ten of the Barbarians in '73 had played in '71 Three of the All Blacks who played in '71 were also involved in '73. That's hardly a re-run. Before the Barbarians game, the All Blacks had gone unbeaten against all four of the teams who made up the "triumphant Brits" - teams who undoubtedly played better together than any invitational side ever could - the Final Challenge was Britain and Ireland's last chance to get something from the mighty All Blacks before they disappeared back to the Southern Hemisphere, but no one was expecting the Barbarians to win. The Barbarians were a team with a licence to play differently - they might score a few tries, but they weren't seen as a team likely to win very often. They could never have been the favourites you seem to be suggesting they should have been. The game wasn't so much "massively important in the context of the game" Sorry - I was a bit unclear with that maybe - I meant that Edward's try was massively important in the context of that particular game of rugby. It set the tone for the freeflowing match that followed, a rarity in an era dominated by forward play. I certainly wasn't intending to gild any flora. I love the reactions! And the reactions to the reactions... and on and on, but that's not why I post links. If I just wanted reactions I would just shoot my mouth off. Believe it or not (and I'll admit it's often hard) I tend to think about what I write before I write it sometimes. As for that Edwards try being the greatest try of all time? I didn't say it was - nor did anyone else here. As an Irishman, I'd prefer to watch Jonah run over Mike Catt any day. The Barbarians one had a lot of impressive moves in it, but it also had a final pass that looked suspiciously forward from Quinell. It gives me shivers of delight and I could watch it again and again, but I wouldn't call it the best ever - then again, neither would I dismiss it like you did as a meaningless score in a meaningless match. Don't even get me started on why "Good luck, mate" was a piece of commentary genius in the snooker in 1983.
posted by JJ at 09:17 PM on March 03, 2006
"That is arguable. The team left New Zealand in 1972 having just beaten Australia three times (twice very handsomely, and once just comfortably)." That is a not-so-great comparison. The Australian Wallabies never got any ascendancy or superiority into their global game until 1978. Prior to that, New Zealand and South Africa ruthlessly owned the Wallabies. Take the previous 40 years of competition between NZ and Australia -- NZ won 34 of their 44 tests, two were tied, and the Wallabies won only 8 of the 44 tests. 34 wins (77%) to 8 wins (17%) is hardly a fair comparison. That NZ was dominating Oz in rugby union was a huge yawner, as the record had been the same for most of the century. You are correct that Wales was a top tier nation. The 1971 Lions that defeated NZ *in NZ* was loaded with Welshmen. Wales was the power of the 5N at the time. The ABs defeated them by a paltry three points on the road. That's great, but not really *that* great. 'Cos they barely beat lame Scotland and England sides, and tied a decidedly average Ireland, and then lost to France. (And that same terrible England team beat NZ *in NZ* the next season -- that's how bad NZ was at the time.) Also, the math -- the 1972 ABs conceded more points than they scored in their tests -- ask yourself if that test record was a sign of a good AB side in games that didn't involve South Africa or the Lions.
posted by the red terror at 11:24 AM on March 04, 2006
"Ten of the Barbarians in '73 had played in '71 Three of the All Blacks who played in '71 were also involved in '73." I think you are making my point for me. The Baabaas were loaded with veteran winners, whereas the ABs sent a shoddy inexperienced team that suffered from a retirement of many veterans the year earlier. Today we expect teams like that to lose and call it a rebuilding program. Again, that was hardly the strongest team NZ ever sent overseas, it is probably their weakest. What France did to NZ in 1999 impresses me, because that AB side was loaded with talent. Whereas the Baabaa win in 1973 is exciting, yes, but they did it against an inferior team. Which is to say, at least in my mind, win an important game against the 49ers with Joe Montana at pivot, and I'll be impressed; but beat the current version of the 49ers by the same score and I'll probably yawn. I'll pay compliment to the victory, just don't expect the compliment to be as effusive as if they'd done it against a champion Montana team.
posted by the red terror at 11:39 AM on March 04, 2006
Well, you can't have it both ways - if you're agreeing with me that the AB team in '73 wasn't the same team that the Lions beat in '71, then using that Lions victory to back your argument that the Baabaas were favourites for that match doesn't stand up. It may be unfair (and certainly nothing to do with what we're talking about), but I'm beginning to wonder if the ABs are a bunch of bottlers. They should have won the '95 world cup (but didn't), they got turned over on the day by an on-paper inferior french team in the '99 semi final, they had (for my money - literally unfortunately) the best team in '03 and didn't make the final... when is it OK to say they're not performing? Even in '91, they lost that semi to Oz through sheer refusal to try something a bit different against what must be described as a stunning defence. They are so far ahead of all the other rugby nations right now - if they don't win next year, big questions will have to be asked.
posted by JJ at 11:09 PM on March 04, 2006
“This is great stuff! Phil Bennett covering, chased by Alistair Scown. Brilliant, oh that’s brilliant. John Williams. Pullin. John Dawes . . . great dummy. To David. Tom David. The halfway line. Brilliant by Quinnell. This is Gareth Edwards . . . A dramatic start . . . What a score!” That gives me shivers that does.