Please, please, please dispense with the 'services' of Trevor Brooking. A man less qualified to keep viewers interested by his reminiscencing about West Ham is hard to imagine. Last night's game was poorly served by the commentary team who lambasted the Italians for being negative from the outset. This is a bit like complaining that rain is wet or that fire is a bit hot. What the bloody Hell do they expect??!?!

This puerile carping on about how the Italians were ruining the game was the main cause for dissatisfaction, not the actual tactics of the Italians at all. An English side that had played to their strengths and hung on like grim death for an hour and then another 30mins extra time with 10 men would have had them openly masturbating in the studio, let alone having the single-mindedness to beat their fancied opponents on penalties. We'd have had appeals to the Queen to fly out and knight them, but oh no, when Jonny Wop does it it's a disgrace. Sorry to be a party-pooper, but the expression 'if you want entertainment then go and watch clowns' has never been more true.

We have been spoiled rotten by the standard of some of the football at Euro2000, but that is no reason for trying to stage-manage it so that it's always like that. I love the fact that games so seldom become that open and end-to-end, it makes certain that you know when you are at a classic. I don't want basketball; goals should continue to be rare and wondrous things.

Last night we watched a technically gifted Dutch side fall apart against a mentally tougher outfit. The useless and biased commentary team continually whined about how the Italians had spoiled everything by closing up shop without ever once questioning the Dutch approach to the problem. Brooking's bizarre idea was that Zenden was at fault for keeping on cutting inside and dribbling into the box instead of going out wide and crossing. To whom was he supposed to cross?!?! Kluivert was on his own against FIVE Italians who need no lessons in clearing crossed balls as we saw on every corner. The dribbling into the box approach produced two penalties which some would have considered to be a good way to win the game: if Alan Shearer was a Dutchman it would have been 2-0. When the Italians did push up Bergkamp hit the postwhat would they have said about KK had he NOT pulled people back in the same situation?

Baresi had made the mistake of praising Nesta as the complete Italian defender before the match, so true to type, our sneering commentary team decided to pick holes in him. His first touch was to slice the ball clean out of play and so he was mocked for the next hour. As is usual in these situations, the quality starts to shine through, and Nesta made 5 World Class blocks and interceptions in the second half: the first 3 of these were greeted with silence from our mealy-mouthed experts who had already committed themselves to considering Nesta a liability and it was only grudgingly, at the fourth time of asking, that they applauded his efforts. This, more than any other, is the trait in our football commentary teams that I simply cannot bear. They make sweeping statements and predictions early on in games and then slavishly stick to them even though events have turned around on the pitch.

Why the Hell they aren't all made to attend Bill MacLaren master classes is beyond me. He keeps it plain and simple: he describes what has just happened - not what he thinks is about to happen, not what happened in 1966, not which racial stereotype he thinks best fits into the latest piece of action. Bill has the seemingly unique ability to credit his audience with the same love and passion for the game he has, and isn't there to tell you what is going on - he trusts you to KNOW that, it's a simple enough game - he is there more as a companion and just uses his wonderful grasp of our language to illustrate what you have just witnessed. A great pass is described as simply that: a great pass - there is no need to compare it to another pass by another player in another game years ago. He doesn't have that infuriating habit of listing the intended recipient of a pass before it gets anywhere near to him and is usually intercepted by another player, he tells you who HAS the ball. He NEVER makes predictions, leaving himself free to get on with his job which is to describe events which are sometimes so quick that the eye has taken them in before the brain has quite had the chance to translate them and that deep, calm voice tells you exactly what it was that you had barely been able to take in.

Instead, we have a pair of twats going on about 10 man Italy being negativeno sh*t Sherlock, why didn't they throw everyone forward, it's completely beyond me?!?! Since whe has a superlative save like the one Toldo pulled off from De Boer ever been a "missed penalty"? Bloody disgraceful and discourteous to a keeper who should be complimented on getting down and across so well. And as for tactics, Zoff read the situation to perfection. With 10 men and a resurgent Holland, he brought Inzaghi off who is perfect for hitting people on the break, but not the man you want holding the ball up. He brought Delvecchio on who straight away brought them the option of hoofing the ball up to him with a good chance of him controlling it and holding it up for any support to arrive. He then brings on Totti for Fiore just as the Dutch were again pushing up in numbers and forced Holland to keep three men back simply by the ability Totti and Del Piero showed to ping a 40 yard pass through to Delvecchio. 10 man Italy finish up with THREE strikers going into a penalty shootoutRijkard, on the other hand, took Bergkamp offhmmm.

Then we come to the shootout. Most people would have been impressed by Di Biaggio stepping up to take the first after missing in France98but no, not when you have decided that the Dutch are goodies and the Italians are baddies. Notice too how the Italians are all standing together, arms around each others' shoulders to show that they are all in it together whatever the outcome.the Dutch - distancing themselves from one another, all that team spirit from the earlier rounds evaporated. They were beaten during extra time. The missed penalties during the 120 minutes had already sucked all the confidence out of them. Three cheers for the Italians, that's what I say. Why the Hell should they have to open ranks so that the Dutch could look good the way that the Yugoslavs had? This isn't synchronised swimming: if you can't beat the Italians then you don't deserve to be in the Final. Simple as that. I expect a damn sight more from the BBC than partizan, wishy washy crap like that. It's football. It's always been like that and, God willing, it always will be.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000

Answers

We had this argument at work this morning Softie. I sit next to a man called Bruno Amalfitano who as you may have guessed is Italian. Anyway one of the Directors came in and started lambasting the Italians and saying that they were like a "pack of dogs".

However he was quickly rebuked by the obvious, "well we've got further than England did". How bloody right, if England had defended as well as the Italians do, they might be still in this competition.

I say applaud the Italians on some absolutely world class defending. World class is a phrase used too much these days when talking about English players and it clearly applies to the Italian defenders and not the English back four.

There are many facets to a football game and attacking is only one of them. Why don't they applaud excellent defending?

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000

I couldn't believe the whining when they brought Delvecchio on instead of Montella. Jesus, if they thought Totti was a diver then they don't want to watch him at work. The constant moaning about the Italians asking for players to be booked completely ignored the fact that they picked up 3 yellows for their first 8 tackles and the Dutch were getting away with identical challenges without so much as an dmonishing finger wagged at them. When De Boer yanked Delvecchio down outside the box as last defender after we had seen a card and a pen up the other end and recived nowt for it I would have at least expected some concern for the underdogs. I thought both sides were ridiculously keen to fall over and couldn't have slid a fag- paper between them when it came to gamesmanship and was sickened by the fact that our 'neutral' boys in the studio were only interested in calling the Italians for it.

I may be out of kilter with the media, but I'm hoping that the Italians bully Zidane into getting himself sent off and win the game with a Del Piero freekick after Le Bouef comes on as a sub in the 90th minute and allows Totti to dive over him. I can't stand those strutting French cockerels. They are the least gracious winners I've ever seen outside of a red shirt and cannot be hacked down quick enough for me. Forza Italia!!!

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000

No doubtthe Eyeties played a good tactical game and top marks to them for defending so well. I remember what was said under similar circumstances when we played the Argies. However, what p*ss*s me off aboutt the Eyeties is their blatant cheating. Despite their great defensive work, I'd rather Holland had gone thru if only because every time the wind blew or a bout of flatulence then they simply crumbled to the ground. I don't like that.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000

Having watched Scooby Doo on cartoon network in readiness for the match I was disapointed to see, that when I turned it to BBC 1, I had in fact missed the match and the headless spectre was none other than Mr..... I'll not spoil it for you.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000

The Dutch would have won it too if it weren't for them pesky kids!

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000

..pesky kids - is that a typo for penalty kicks?!

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000

Serie A - mind numbingly dull. Italians - cheats to a man. They'll get football done away with.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000

One-sided BBC commentaries have been a feature of Euro2000 for me. However, unlike Softie I don't blame Trevor Brooking. Mr feeling is that the real culprits have been Barry Davis and John Motson. Both of these guys believe they are now 'experts' rather than simply commentators: they don't commentate on the match any longer, they simply jibe footy-speke to an fro with the Experts who were actually hired as experts (whether they are or not is another matter entirely).
I've found both Davis and Motson extremely irritating, more so than usual, and its about time they were both pensioned off - the truth is they know bog all about football, and talk total gob-rot.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000

Clarky - I agree about Motty and Davies. Well past their sell-by dates. I know we debated this on the old HMS Communicata but who do you rate as a good commentator?

Much against many folks' opinions, I quite like Andy Red Gray. At least he has the credibility of having played the game at the top level.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000

Brian Moore, of course, was the dogs bollox. I think the Sky commentators are OK (Martin Tyler & Ray Parry?), and Andy Gray usually provides good technical insights even if he can occasionally be insufferable.
Big Fat Ron is usually amusing and knowledgable, I'm not keen on Trevor Francis, can't stand Alan Brazil, and simply detest Prat Lawrenson. Alan Hansen was OK, but has developed an over-inflated opinion of himself recently, and I think Martin O'Neill and Andy Gray are perhaps the best of the 'experts' right now.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000

I agree, Andy Gray at least has some enthusiasm for the sport, but he does need a good foil to calm him down. Perhaps they could learn from Formula 1 of all places where Muddly Talker's undoubted love of motor racing and 50+ years in the job still haven't taught him the first thing about the sport, but his ability to enthrall the listener is beyond question - love him or hate him - while the introduction of Martin Brundle as a definite expert and mine of information whilst helping to curb Murray's excessive jingoism is a near perfect match.

I was really upset during that Semi, though, anyone who knows their football knew how the Italians were going to play, so why not take it at face-value and watch it for what it was: 2 completely different styles of football meeting head-to-head. The constant whining about the Italians 'spoiling it' was downright insulting to our intelligence. If they want staged sporting contests then they ought to watch the Harlem Globe Trotters or professional wrestling, I think they'd be better suited to it.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000

I suppose that the problem with getting football commentators is that anyone who really loves the game is either lucky enough to be playing it or simply wouldn't dream of missing watching their own team play, hence the only people available don't seem to have any affinity for the game or are ex-pros of one form or another.

It speaks volumes, however, when the deeply inarticulate likes of Kenny Dalglish and Dion Dublin are called in as the best available pundits. I did find John Gregory amusing, mind, with some deeply wicked observations and found that session with Hansen, Cruyff, Lineker and O'Neil absolutely enthralling - shame it wasn't longer.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000

Softie,
I found the Holland v Italy game enthralling, and several times found myself wondering if I was actually watching the same game as Barry Davis. He had clearly come with a set agenda and simply blathered on about the "negative Italian tactics" ad nauseum.
Davis' commentary actually significantly detracted from the true quality of the game, which of course was entirely created by the fascinating contrast in styles.
The problem I had with Trevor Brooking's performance was that I got a sense that he really didn't agree with much of what Barry Davis was prattling on about, but he didn't have the balls to just disagree with him and perhaps get the balance of the commentary back on track.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000

I'm glad it wasn't just me who was howling abuse at Barry Davies (and previously Mottie). Davies was watching a different match to me, or reading from a previously prepared script. He was an insult to the viewers intelligence. The Italians were still lucky though Softie, despite their admittedly magnificent defending, they still conceded two penalties, one of which even I would have given.

As for experts, the only ones I've really enjoyed were BR and Venners (and even Hod when he was on with them). David O'Leary wasn't bad. I'm afraid Martin "I wouldn't disagree with you" O'Neill really got on my tit. Still his personal war with Hansen was fun to watch. Lineaker certainly enjoyed it.

I agree about Sky. They've got the best by far (Francis excluded - muppet).

We'll have to listen to them prattling on about the beautiful Gallic skills and vicious Italian divers in the final now. It's really tough when you want both teams to lose!

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000

Brooking hasn't got the balls to argue with anyone.....he seems to like being Mr Niceguy all the time.

Hanson is Alsitair MacGowan in reality, but I must say I enjoyed his tiff's with Martin O'Niell......I thought he was great.....I didn't alwys agree with what he was saying but at least he stuck to his guns and wasn't afraid to put his neck on the line.......I though he was going to deck Hanson a couple of times.......and Gary was....well Gary....solid, dependable Gary.........

Now get onto Radio 5 Live, and start me on Alan F***ing Green at your peril.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000

Barry Davies is the ONLY commentator who not only knows what he's talking about but isn't afraid to speak his mind! He's also the only one who hasn't got his head stuck up the fundament of anyone from Newton Heath. I really am surprised at you lot!

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000