• mhague@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    In F1 they’re usually great. More grounded observations / opinions, either former drivers or at least people who have been around the paddock for decades. They feel more “objective” regarding what they talk about and what they’ll allow themselves to hypothesize about.

    I don’t watch much NBA and NFL but the analysts / opinion guys seem goofy and way too loose with opinions. I think they’re all entertainment so the more outlandish their statements the better the engagement.

    In chess the players and analysts are all way above my level, but as far as I can tell, they do a good job at breaking down the position and giving you an idea of what super grandmasters are thinking.

    • PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Funnily enough, my mind jumped to Martin Brundle as a classic example of a good analyst - or at least he was in the 90s and 2000s. He’s still good, but it just isn’t as new or exciting anymore - he was a fantastic counterpoint to Murray Walker’s boundless enthusiasm with a lot of sensible chatter and in depth knowledge.

      Another guy I quite like is Jimmy Bullard, particularly on Sky Sports News or Soccer AM - no bullshit, everything in layman’s terms, and has a laugh with it.