I have made similar comments before, but here goes again.



At the England v South Africa cricket match at Centurion near Pretoria, bad
light stopped play Saturday afternoon. (The more sensible reason would have
been the risk to all and sundry by the severe thunderstorms that were
developing rapidly)



The commentators had not understood the early signs of the rapidly growing
cumulus clouds. Anyone with a smattering of knowledge would have realised
how these clouds might rapidly grow into far less friendly cunims.



Remarks were being made such as: "It's not coming our way because there's no
wind". And then: "There's quite a wind suddenly" (the outflow from the
storm). I must admit that didn't hear the usual one today: "At least the
clouds are high" (their understanding being that high clouds are not going
to cause problems - have they have never watched a warm frontal sequence?)



TV spends a fortune on sporting coverage; it is often to a very high
standard. Surely they could afford a few pence to speak to a local
professional weatherman? A video link to the local met office would be even
better and give a forecaster the opportunity to add some sensible words
about how the weather is developing and what the chances of bad light, etc,
might be. At present, a first rate set of commentators let themselves down
by repeatedly making asinine remarks about the weather. Cricket is perhaps
affected by weather more than most sports - light levels, humidity, and so
on; but exactly the same arguments apply to motor racing for example.



I have thought (not too seriously) of setting up "teach-ins" for sports
commentators at a rate of £1000 per day per client.



Jack

"Jack Harrison" wrote in
:

A video link to the local met office would
be even better and give a forecaster the opportunity to add some
sensible words about how the weather is developing and what the
chances of bad light, etc, might be. At present, a first rate set of
commentators let themselves down by repeatedly making asinine remarks
about the weather. Cricket is perhaps affected by weather more than
most sports - light levels, humidity, and so on; but exactly the same
arguments apply to motor racing for example.

Jack

Funny you should mention this - I was watching some highlights of Aus vs
Windies at the pub last night (match was abandoned I think) and they showed
the latest radar during the game which indicated a storm coming their way.

Also talking of commentators and weather I noticed a few flakes falling
behind Alan Smith at Birmingham this afternoon...!

Richard

In article ,
Richard Dixon writes:
Also talking of commentators and weather I noticed a few flakes falling
behind Alan Smith at Birmingham this afternoon...!

The Talksport reporter at the game said that the snow was the only thing
of interest.
--
John Hall
"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts;
but if he will be content to begin with doubts,
he shall end in certainties." Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

"Jack Harrison" wrote in message
.. .
I have made similar comments before, but here goes again.

At the England v South Africa cricket match at Centurion near Pretoria,
bad light stopped play Saturday afternoon. (The more sensible reason
would have been the risk to all and sundry by the severe thunderstorms
that were developing rapidly)



The commentators had not understood the early signs of the rapidly growing
cumulus clouds. Anyone with a smattering of knowledge would have realised
how these clouds might rapidly grow into far less friendly cunims.

snip

It's worse than you know, Jack. Sports broadcasters (and I include
editorial and production staff) are the most unreconstructed
misometeorologists of them all, beating even the proudly innumerate
arts graduates who run the so-called science strands on TV.

I tried to interest Test Match Special practically every year from
about 1980, and regularly got the answer that the match
introduction was already filled with team and pitch information
without 'cluttering it up even more with speculation about the
climate' - yes, those were the words I got back on one occasion.
Fair enough when Radio 3 coverage began at 11.25 for an
11.30 start, I suppose, were it not for the patronising and
illiterate dismissal.

Only when they had the oppurtunity of using someone 'famous',
off the telly, iow Mr Kettley, did they change their minds. On
the rare occasions I sub for him, I am conscious of the
surprise in their voices that I know almost as much [sic] about
both the weather and cricket as someone as well-known as
John. And that after six years of writing a couple of pages in
Wisden (thank you Matthew).

Even now, they treat the 60-second weather slot at the
beginning of TMS as an opportunity for weatherman-bashing.
If the showers that you said there was a 30% probability of
fail to turn up, it's "Got it wrong again, didn't they?" and
"I'd rather ask the groundsman about the weather than a
forecaster."

There are one or two noble exceptions who express an
intelligent interest in things meteorological: Simon Hughes
(Ch4), Matthew Engel (Wisden), and to a lesser extent
Christopher Martin-Jenkins.

Philip Eden

"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote in
:

Even now, they treat the 60-second weather slot at the
beginning of TMS as an opportunity for weatherman-bashing.
If the showers that you said there was a 30% probability of
fail to turn up, it's "Got it wrong again, didn't they?" and
"I'd rather ask the groundsman about the weather than a
forecaster."

Philip

I get the impression (from watching too much cricket!) that the Australian
commentators actively take an interest in the weather and what may be in
the vicinity. I've often heard the Australian test matches refer to
information they've been given from the Bureau of Meteorology - and this
in a country where weather is probably a lesser concern for cricket match
disruption.

Whilst on this topic - interesting to see how much the weather has
disrupted the current series in South Africa.

Cheers
Richard

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:44:31 -0000, "Jack Harrison"
wrote:

I have made similar comments before, but here goes again.



At the England v South Africa cricket match at Centurion near Pretoria, bad
light stopped play Saturday afternoon. (The more sensible reason would have
been the risk to all and sundry by the severe thunderstorms that were
developing rapidly)


I recall a match a few years ago, at Leeds I think, when there was
clearly a danger of lightning as the player's hair was actually
standing on end.


Remarks were being made such as: "It's not coming our way because there's no
wind". And then: "There's quite a wind suddenly" (the outflow from the
storm). I must admit that didn't hear the usual one today: "At least the
clouds are high" (their understanding being that high clouds are not going
to cause problems - have they have never watched a warm frontal sequence?)


The "clouds are high therefore it will not rain" is a puzzler. It
took me a fair while as professional observer to estimate cloud height
to any degree of accuracy, how the Test Match commentators manage it
I've no idea, quite apart from the fact that steady, match-stopping
rain is more likely from high clouds.

Martin

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:32:58 -0000, "Philip Eden"
philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote:


"Jack Harrison" wrote in message
. ..


It's worse than you know, Jack. Sports broadcasters (and I include
editorial and production staff) are the most unreconstructed
misometeorologists of them all, beating even the proudly innumerate
arts graduates who run the so-called science strands on TV.


"proudly innumerate" - what a good expression for those people, and we
have all met them, who seem to consider being "educationally
sub-normal" in maths and the sciences a badge of honour.

I severely take to task those who proudly say to me "I was useless at
maths at school", as this attitude is part of the reason we have a
right-wing, god-bothering dimwit as leader of the most powerful nation
on earth.

Martin

"JPG" wrote in message
snip
is part of the reason we have a
right-wing, god-bothering dimwit as leader of the most powerful nation on
earth.

Wow Martin! Wonderfully off topic, but so very, very true.

Don't forget that the tsunami in Sumatra was a "punishment from god".

So what about the (inevitable) damaging equinoctial gales in a few weeks
time?
God will have become really p-ssed off with us by then and we will deserve
all we get.

So blame me for upsetting said god with this irreverent posting. It will be
all my fault when the March gales result in damage. God will be punishing
me (and as a by-product, the rest of you as well!) My apologies in advance.

Jack

"Jack Harrison" wrote in message
.. .

"JPG" wrote in message
snip
is part of the reason we have a
right-wing, god-bothering dimwit as leader of the most powerful nation
on
earth.

Wow Martin! Wonderfully off topic, but so very, very true.

Don't forget that the tsunami in Sumatra was a "punishment from god".

So what about the (inevitable) damaging equinoctial gales in a few weeks
time?
God will have become really p-ssed off with us by then and we will deserve
all we get.

So blame me for upsetting said god with this irreverent posting. It will
be
all my fault when the March gales result in damage. God will be punishing
me (and as a by-product, the rest of you as well!) My apologies in
advance.

Jack



Jack, I wish you wouldn't keep raking over this topic. If you want to
dicuss this topic, go to the relevant group where it is permitted. You have
your beliefs, at least allow those with theirs some respect. If you can't
show respect for others beliefs then don't raise the subject.
--
Rob Overfield

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:55:05 -0000, "Rob Overfield"
wrote:


"Jack Harrison" wrote in message
. ..

"JPG" wrote in message
snip


Sorry, my fault. I take my defending of science and rationality a bit
too seriously at times.

Martin