This survey raises an interesting point. Are commentators who have never played the game at any significant level (Rabs, Hadley, Andy Raymond, Warren Smith) better than ex-players and their hyperbole about their halycon glory days ?
It would make sense that having played at a significant level, one would be entitled to more insight into the intricacies of the game, thus making their commentary more worthwhile. However I find that they (ex players) treat the viewers like idiots and overcomplicate their game analysis. Gould is the master of making a simple game/play sound like rocket science. He has a good footy brain no doubt, but I find his commentary insulting on so many levels. The other thing that annoys me with him is that he is like a dog with a bone when something he predicts occurs. He goes on and on about it ad nauseum, case in point the way Dave Taylor was utilised against the Dragons. We all heard you the first time, no need to remind us 30 times during the game, just let the game unfold and the viewer appreciate the insight. The one thing I will give Gus credit for is his stance on video referees and their inability to apply the laws of the game in the correct \"spirit\", rather than the black/white interpretation they always seem to go for.
By far the most annoying commentator imo is Laurie Daley. First you have too get past that woeful hairstyle. Then you have to listen to him bumble his way through sentences as he tries to sound intellectual. He doesn't even understand the correct use of tense with the words \"did\" and \"done\".
