Link courtesy of B3TA.
Good Lord!
You’re not kiddin’, bub.
I liked the idea, assuming the idea is what I think it is. The Test Match Special techniques of spicing up a (voice) commentary have become fairly cliched for me, the “red bus moving down whatsit road”, the “thank you for the lovely cake…”. etc, etc.
I think this is an idea that merits supporting, at least for a while, as it could lead somewhere interesting … a new genre style or summin’, maybe.
The Indian Reply, by Sean Ingle is different but also a reasonable effort, IMHO. Maybe they just need more talented writers, as opposed to hack reporters.
What’s wrong with this dude’s verbs? “India are already through? New Zealand have to win?” Since when are these things plurals?
IT’S FREAKIN ME OUT, MAN!
Weird.
I’ve actually seen something similar in print. A year or so ago in my local paper the journalist wrote that he knew no-one read his column and basically filled his inches talking about his cat (this was meant to be an auto column).
It’s a bizarre anglo-hibernian English habit - the team, while a single object, is a collection of individuals, and therefore a plural noun. I don’t do this myself as I think it’s silly.
Those are among the funniest series of articles I’ve seen in ages.
Here , they have a debate/discussion about weasels while reporting the innings.
Here, their favourite Blackadder quotes. That whole section of the site’s a scream! 
Is it a journo suicide? A pretty far-ranging one, if so!
Maybe it’s the real time, online, interactive aspect that has the most potential. Nice links, Ice Wolf. I do like the idea of the listening (Internet) audience contributing to the commentary / days proceedings, the whole being some joint creative exercise as well as a valid sports commentary.
Well, we can hardly blame the poor lads. Cricket couldn’t be made interesting or exciting even if it were played by naked women with live grenades. Having to write about it, week after week, must be mind-numbing. They must find something to do to keep their sanity.
C’mon. Those guys (Scott Murray, Barry Glendinning and the other chap whose name temporarily escapes me) have been doing semi-amusing commentaries for ages. Murray was the chap behind the famous “Americanised” World Cup commentary that Gary Lineker ripped off for the BBC.
It maybe a genuine “bad day” moment, but their commentaries have always been more fun than informative, so I’m a little surprised at the fuss.
I know virtually nothing about cricket, except that in some aspects it has a rough similarity to American baseball.
I hadn’t properly understood til this thread that boredom was among those aspects. 
FWIW, that’s how I was taught English in school as well. The police are looking for a suspect, et cetera. I still do it to this day, I’m afraid. Mr. Van Eijndhoven was a tough teacher.
Other than that, that link is hilarious. Didn’t The Guardian do a similar style of reporting with the last footie World Cup? It was too funny. Since the games were played in Japan and South Korea, the reporters had to get up early.
Stuff like this:
“It’s 7 AM in the morning here in London, I’ve got a hangover the size of Scotland, and I am going to report the Denmark versus bleeding Uruguay match for you. Ugh. Bear with me, please.”
Great stuff.
Definitely, Coldie, it’s exactly the same three or four journos that write all of their live commentaries (all sports).
That was some of the funniest writing I’ve ever read.
If sports commentary was like this more often, I might actually get into sports.
<hijack>It’s more along the lines of an English/American split as to what are collective nouns taking the plural. “The police” would be recognized as plural by speakers of all dialects; “the L.A. police department” would likely be considered plural by speakers of English, and singular by speakers of American.</hijack>