Mark Messier's revolutionary approach to hockey commentary???

Question

What do you think about that?

Answer 1

His comments are informative and coming from someone who was an elite player and leader for many years (compare his stats to Engbloom's or Keith Jones's and you'll know what I mean) they actually have worth. Don't get me started on "Clement Clement, hands of Cement"

Answer 2

Flyers fan or not, I'll take the Clement/Thorne game calling over Emrick any day. I don't like excitable acts like Doc, or Jim Jackson - just call the game dammit.

I don't think Jones does play-by-play, but he's acceptable as an analyst. He's not as eloquent as Clement but Bill has been at it for much longer than Keith.

Answer 3

I've heard a lot of criticism about Messier's commentary, and while he's sure not an exciting guy, I'll take correct and concise over flashy any day.  I'd watch him before Melrose or Cherry, that's for sure.

Answer 4

When has Mark Messier EVER been interesting to listen to as a commentator, the guy is just plain DULL.  Charisma on the ice and in the lockerroom doesn't necessarily translate to the booth.  Steve Yzerman would be the same way, a little better, but probably not that entertaining.

I'll tell you who would be GREAT when he retires.  Brendan Shanahan.  This guy is hilarious and knows his stuff.

GO WINGS!!  (in 5 still)

As far as Clement goes habsfan... I didn't mind putting up with him because Gary Thorne was with him.  That made it all worth while.