Last night Liverpool took on Spurs in a League Cup match that promised to deliver a pulsating match between two teams managed by men who have a clear grasp on how they want their sides to play.
And despite the clear resting of key players, it was a decent game. Two goals from Daniel Sturridge, a late rally from the visitors, decent viewing for those watching at home... And yet all anyone was talking about was the co-commentator.
We focused on the reaction to Niall Quinn in the commentary booth in our post-match reaction, because as is often the case when the former Ireland international climbs up into the gantry, people were outraged.
But why?
Conor Neville suggested that the public image of Quinn appears to one of a goodie-two-shoes, and speculated as to where this came from.
Few are more reviled than the formerly inoffensive Niall Quinn. Perhaps only Michael Owen gets it worse and that's only because he does it more.
It's hard to know what happened but, at some point in Quinny's career, his inoffensiveness became so marked that it started to become offensive to some people.
Roy Keane it may have been who fired the starters pistol on this when he mocked him as 'Mother Teresa' on account of his caring and squeaky clean persona. Dunphy pushed along the process a fair bit when he dubbed him "a creep" on national television. Quinn has never once retaliated to any of this.
Not even Quinn's brilliant autobiography, which detailed his drinking excesses in his Arsenal and Man City days, could make a dent in his teacher's pet image.
But if you look at the reaction, the words 'painful' and 'boring' pop up more than once. It seems that many take issue with Quinn not imparting wisdom as much as the viewer would like.
"The way it comes up and down so quick" says Niall Quinn about a shot that went waist height and simply stayed there.
— Paddy Power (@paddypower) October 25, 2016
So, we want the co-commentator to talk... More?
No, that's certainly it. In fact, the topic was discussed on this week's episode of The Balls.ie Football Show, where myself, Gavan Casey, and Gavin Cooney all agreed that the key to being a good commentator is to pick and choose your moments, play a supporting role, and only chime in when you have something you actually think needs to be said.
Michael Owen and Robbie Savage are two glaring examples of this. Neither can resist over-analysing everything they see in the commentary booth, and both have a tendency to talk for minutes without letting the actual commentator, an experienced professional in the field, do his job.
In fact, I believe BT Sport have to shoulder a portion of the blame for viewers being so critical of co-commentators, as their "3 up top formation" of having not one, but two co-commentators which usually consist of two from Owen, Savage, Hagreaves, or Hoddle, is a clear case of too many cooks spoiling the broth.
They are fighting to talk over each other, and it's bloody annoying.
But are there any co-commentators that are liked?
I asked the question to both Gavin's on The Balls.ie Football Show this week, and they said "...No.", but when I suggested Jim Beglin, both agreed that he was actually quite good. (skip to 7:50 below to hear the discussion)
So what does that tell us? Does it mean that like referees, the sign of a good co-commentator is when you don't notice them?
That can't be right, as otherwise what is the point in them being there. There is a way to be a good commentator, and it involves speaking your mind, what you actually believe, and not just what you think people want to hear, don't talk too much, and pick your moments.
Of course, it helps if you can have fun with it as well, as seen by Beglin's finest moment:
Another example of standing out as a co-commentator, is finding your signature move. No, not like The Rock or 'Stone Cold' Steve Austin, but like disgraced Sky Sports personality Andy Gray.
I never really liked his analysis, as I always thought it was over the top, but the man knew how to play the supporting role in the commentary booth.
Andy Gray's signature was making up imaginary conversations between footballers, and it was absolutely glorious. I went into further detail on the podcast this week:
There was one aspepect that made Andy Gray's co-commentary legendary, and that was imaginary conversations between footballers.
So an example of this would be, he's watching a replay [of a goal] back, and he'll say something like...
"Frank Lampard has STOOD THE BALL UP THERE and he's said to Didier Drogba: "Go on and head me son!" and Drogba says to his pal; "Thank you very much, I will"
So after discussing how different individual co-commentators can be, and what they can do well or poorly, back to the original question.. Why do people get so upset?
We'll, usually they aren't really that upset and are bored during a game and fancy getting a few likes on Twitter, but honestly, if someone is droning on about the same thing over and over, it can hinder your enjoyment of the game.
Why am I watching Arsenal vs Ludogorets on my Tuesday evening? Because I want to be entertained. I want to see a shock upset, or some outstanding goals, and the last thing I want is Michael Owen in my ear banging on about how someone has picked the wrong pass or how it was never a penalty for him.
Also, people will complain when they just don't like the person. Regardless of what they say. That's probably the answer right there to be honest.
I think Michael Owen has value as a pundit. The guy knows a hell of a lot about the striker position and can make some good points, but he is just asked for his opinion on far too many things. Like the actual players, pundits have roles that suit there game.
You wouldn't put Sergio Aguero at left-back, but he's lethal up front. I don't want to hear Robbie Savage trying to be funny in the middle of a crucial Champions League match, but he was great craic on 'Fletch And Sav' in a more laid back environment.
Pundits and commentators have roles that they are suited to as well. It seems like Sky and BT simply think because a player was famous he will do a good job as a commentator or pundit, and I know for a fact that this isn't the case. They go through testing, and have trial runs, but perhaps they think that any publicity is good publicity in this regard?
It might seem like a big fuss over nothing, but time and time again you'll see whoever is doing the co-commentary being torn to pieces on social media, so it's something worth talking about.
If you would like to hear more you can listen to The Balls.ie Football Show if you somehow missed the numerous plugs I've inserted thus far, and feel free to get in touch and tell us your favourite co-commentator, and we'll talk about it next week.
