Clive Tyldesley talks to F365 on the art of commentary, sh*t soundtracks and more
We spent an hour talking to Clive Tyldesley about TV football commentary, where itâs headed and its place in the modern game. It was brilliant. Hereâs what he had to say â once we had taken out all the swears and all the names.
Weâre not expecting the same kind of audience with Peter Drury after this: Super Sunday drowning in Peter Druryâs scripted whimsy and maelstrom of awfulness
On footballâs unique challenges
Cricket and golf coverage is very different from football and rugby coverage. There is no need for a name-caller in cricket or golf. Every commentator in cricket or golf is really a co-commentator; there is almost a requirement to have played the sport to a reasonably high level. Because all you are adding is insight.
Football and rugby are less structured. If I was pressed to name my favourite commentator it would be the late Pat Summerall, who was John Maddenâs straight man on NFL. I like him for lots of reasons, but I would say NFL is a little easier because it has that bit of structure somewhere between the two.
I think in football or rugby there is the need for the Guy Mowbray or the Nick Mullins who hasnât played the sport to an exceptionally high level, but who can identify the players, build the drama, give it some journalistic and editorial context and then leave it to the Gary Neville or the Lawrence Dallaglio to add some expertise that we will never gather because we will never go across that white line.
The job of the co-commentator is to go across that white line and come back and tell us what itâs like, how football matches are won and lost. In cricket and golf I think all commentators need to be able to do that, because we can see what weâre watching so all the commentary is reflective.
Iâm not saying itâs easier, but itâs different. Skyâs cricket, with a bit of technological assistance, is excellent. But it will never have that uncertainty that comes the moment the referee blows the first whistle in a game of football.
On saying it as you see it
Somebody once said to me about the late, great Peter Jones that he could make a bad game sound good. And I in my rather stubborn and perverse way said âThatâs not a quality, thatâs a weaknessâ. But also Peter Jones would not be guilty of that. Youâve got it wrong. I donât think itâs a crime for any commentator to call a bad game a bad game. I do think itâs a crime to make it sound like itâs wasting your time and youâd rather not be there, because there are thousands and probably millions of people who would change places with you in a heartbeat.
But I think you do need you need to editorialise. The most important people in this entire relationship are your audience.
READ MORE: BBC dominate John Nicholsonâs list of 10 best football commentators
On the challenges of pitching a commentary to different audiences
Youâve got to identify your audience and talk to them. And that audience is different for a World Cup semi-final on ITV or BBC when itâs touching 30 million than it is for a Europa Conference game with a 5.30pm kick-off on TNT between two mainland European clubs.
There is an argument for explaining the offside law at some point during that semi-final, because your Uncle Joe and Aunty Edith who donât watch football are watching this game. Itâs one of the two or three games theyâre going to watch.
Reg Gutteridge had this thing about not talking over peopleâs heads. I think sports like, say, F1 are very difficult for a commentator. Iâve got a passing interest in F1, and I donât really know what the DRS zone is. Iâve got a rough idea, but I donât really know. Yet if Martin Brundle explained it every time he referred to it, then the petrolheads would all switch off. So when your audience is a big one it truly is diverse â not just in terms of race, or gender or sexual orientation â but in terms of football fans and those whoâve just heard something big is happening. And youâve got to be able to talk to all of them.
The truly great sports broadcasters â and not just sports broadcasters â have that. It really is quite a skill to talk down a microphone or into that little hole in a camera in an aircraft hanger of a studio and make it seem like youâre talking to that one person sat alone on their sofa or in bed with their tablet.
READ MORE: Clive Tyldesley writes for F365 on a Disney World Cup that leaves him anaesthetised not hypnotised
On warmth
Warmth is the most important quality in any great communicator. Why is Ally McCoist as popular as he is? Because you feel as if you know him and you feel as if youâd like him â and by the way youâd be right. And yet he is a true legend of the game.
When I work with him I keep reminding him who he is. Probably only just behind Dalglish and Law in terms of legends in Scottish football. So in terms of lived experience, heâs up there with most of them. I actually try to cut down on the conversational, chummy banter part of commentary with him. Thereâs always going to be an element of that, because people love that, but I think his views are strong and I think they resonate with people because heâs able to cut through with his warmth and charm and his humour. And that is such a quality.
I do think that finding that ability to communicate, and a lot of it is instinctive, is the true skill of broadcasting. You can start to rattle off names from football or cricket or golf or tennis that we just feel as if weâd like, and that is a fantastic talent to bring to communication.
I think that is a really important quality in football commentary. You can lose that if you try to get too clever or too flowery or too poetic. Try to use the words that people use. If I hear a word recurring in my commentary when I watch it back, or a word that I think is inappropriate or a word that is becoming a bit clichĂ© or passe Iâll start thinking of what other words I might say in their place. But I wonât go to a thesaurus for those. Iâll try to think of an everyday phrase that is appropriate and usable to illustrate a moment of a football match.
On thinking before you speak
I hear lots of commentators who think and speak at the same time. Itâs stream of consciousness. Theyâre just saying whatâs on their mind. Now there are times in a commentary when youâve got to do that. But there are times when you donât.
Reg Gutteridge used to say the silences are not resting times, theyâre thinking times. What are you going to say next? And how are you going to say it? How are you going to say it in the most concise and precise way that will illustrate something or give viewers something else to think about it.
Now how many commentators do you really hear now who are really considering what theyâre going to say before they say it. Itâs terribly arrogant of me to say it, but let me say I donât hear enough of it.
Itâs a test of concentration. Itâs a staring competition, youâve got to watch the game. The best piece of advice and the most simple. In cricket, whatâs the best piece of advice for a batsman? Watch the ball. Commentary is the same. Watch the game. Okay, youâve got to look down at your notes from time to time, youâve got some prepared thoughts or maybe some information you want to introduce. But watch the game. Think about the game and then add something to the game. Thatâs all the job is.
On the same old cliches in the same old style
I believe too many contemporary commentators suffer from an inability to find the vocabulary and the editorial thinking to build a game.
Itâs really depressing to hear a 30-year-old commentator talk about âturning on a sixpenceâ. They went out of circulation in 1971! Youâre just regurgitating the same cliches that we were warned against a hundred years ago.
Actually, football commentary hasnât changed a great deal. Youâre using the same style, and tone and phrases that were ridiculed in Private Eye 40 years ago.
I donât want to name specific names, but I am more than happy to say that too many contemporary commentators â whatever their age or background â are just parroting the commentators they grew up with and I donât think this â itâs not an art form â but this method of communication is actually moving anywhere.
I donât hear them improving, and Iâm not sure they have the time or inclination to listen back to their content which I think is the only way to learn. I donât think theyâre getting much in the way of feedback, editorially, because thereâs always another programme on the slates.
On schedules and workloads
Some of the commentators, perhaps simply because of the economics of their life, cover three or four or five games in a week. I donât think it can be special enough for that viewer or listener for whom this is the most important game of the month if youâve done commentaries the three previous nights.
I donât think thatâs enough time for you to gear yourself up, for you to think about the words youâre going to use, to think about the editorial background to the game, to listen to your previous commentary and to think about how you can improve on it.
And I donât hear improvement in enough of the commentators that Iâm listening to on a regular basis, and that troubles me an awful lot more than it does their editors â or possibly even the public.
And theyâre not listening to other commentators, because youâre always working. Youâre not being the person you need to be for the consumer and this applies in any industry; if youâre making liquorice sticks from time to time you need to go and taste your rivalsâ liquorice sticks so you can appreciate what theyâre doing and what youâre not doing. And I just donât think thereâs now time for enough of that.
I did two games in two nights twice during December for Amazon Prime because thatâs the work they offered me. Iâd have been much happier because the games were spread over three nights to do one on the first night and one on the third.
What I did have before those was a week or 10 days free beforehand, so I could at least do a lot of the research. So that on the day of the second game all I was doing was adding a bit to that and thinking about the context of that game, the jeopardy of that game, what victory would mean for either side. Actually turning my attention to the kind of things that are likely to come up in the commentary rather than that comfort blanket of having notes on every player that I will probably only ever use 10 per cent of. But I wouldnât have wanted to do it again the following week, because I donât think you can give enough attention to that game.
Editors and heads of sport need to look at how they use their commentators. Because I think you need a full day ahead of matchday to make that game as imporant to you as to your audience.
On techniques and technicals
I think commentary is a technique. Itâs a technique that you need to learn and improve and hone. Itâs often said that commentators talk too much. Okay, thatâs a sweeping generalisation, but where I hear football commentators over-talking is where they describe action and events that donât require description and get behind the play. So instead of shouting âHaaland!â as he hits it, theyâre still saying âItâll come to his right foot!â or âHeâs found himself in space!â.
Itâs a technicality and maybe it matters to nobody other than me that theyâre not saying that playerâs name as he sends the ball goalwards but that is a technique that I think is important. And I think itâs a feature of good commentary. But unless youâre watching your work back and seeing it in your own work⊠I think they could improve in half and hour of sitting and watching that. But I donât think that half-hour exists in the treadmill that theyâre on.
I donât think enough editors can identify that as being a technical issue which could be easily corrected. But I think in terms of improving as a commentator, which we should all be striving to do, that is one thing quite apart from vocabulary, or editorialising, or your ability to set a scene and give something a sense of occasion â simply on those technicalities I think they could improve if they had time to sit down and review their material.
It is a profession. And like any profession you need apprenticeship, you need tuition, you need mentoring, you need to review it with experts and you need to try to improve.
And Iâm not sure thereâs enough time and perhaps even the will â and I know this sounds arrogant but I donât hear too many of you improving. I think itâs partly down to circumstances, but I think the onus is on you to listen to your own work and identify and correct those technical issues.
I would say to everyone, maybe watch the next few games you watch thinking about these kind of technical points Iâm making and decide whether, subliminally, actually it does matter to you.
On commentaryâs importance
On at least half-a-dozen occasions Iâve had abuse on social media for a game Iâm not at. Iâm sat at home with a glass of wine. Itâs not me! Iâve never even worked for that channel! And of course the abuse grows and the monstrous nature of X or Twitter is that once youâre identified as being that tw*t whoâs just said this, everybody starts to comment on it and thereâs one lone voice going âI donât think thatâs Clive, actually.â
But thatâs how important we are â weâre not, really. Itâs obviously the pictures that are important. But I think commentary is still important to people. Weâre the soundtrack. Nobody ever goes to the cinema to listen to the soundtrack. If the soundtrack is sh*t, though, youâre aware of it. But as long as the soundtrack augments the pictures and captures the spirit of the movie, then itâs a great soundtrack. And thatâs what we provide, the soundtrack.
The analogy with referees I think is very nearly spot on. You donât notice a referee until theyâve got a big call to make. You judge the referee when thereâs that big call to make, and I think you judge the commentator when thereâs a big moment, and whether that person can find the words that will become a part of that moment for time immemorial.
On his most famous line
When people say âOh, 1999âŠâ I go âI didnât score the goals you know, I didnât make the substitutions.â And actually âAnd Solskjaer has won itâ commits the biggest crime any commentator can commit, because I called United the winners before theyâd actually crossed the line. If Bayern had gone up the other end and equalised and then won on penalties â and the Germans always won shootouts then â there would have been effigies of me hanging from the Arndale Centre that night.
On the peril and privilege of a huge audience
I would never do a commentator top 10, but when thinking about commentators I will always factor in â especially in the modern era â those whoâve shared the privilege and the peril of commentating to more than 20 million people. A big Sky audience is three or four million. A big BBC or ITV audience in a big tournament is 20 or 25 million.
I just think when youâve been up to the top diving board then you can talk about it. Thatâs where the peril is, thatâs where the jeopardy is. When youâre exposed to that kind of audience, which with the greatest respect the leads on Sky or TNT never would be.
Ok
Ok