Hughson and Simpson are basically the Joe Buck and Troy Aikman of Canada. They're neutral (when it comes to non-Canuck games. In that case, god help us all when Hughson calls Canuck games) and have been tolerable since that cancer Healy got axed... but they're absolutely, infuriatingly boring and bland. I don't think Simpson has shown an ounce of emotion in his life when analyzing something, no wonder how amazing the play might've been, or made a witty remark/joke. He's smart, but he has no personality at all. Hughson will not show much emotion for most goals either and will sometimes get so lost in his train of thought that a goal happens and he waits to finish off his thought before going "oh, there's a goal".
Man, this is so true. Craig Simpson was a great player I cheered for as a kid, but listening to him do "color"
(there is none)-commentating is the excitement equivalent of sitting alone in a chair to watch paint drying on the wall for three hours. He simply has no personality.
Jim Hughson always seems like a nice, smart, fair guy... and he's also unbelievably boring. It would help if he didn't try to show off his vocabulary during the broadcast. Jim, your job is to call the game and make it sound exciting, not to micro-analyze every play. I DO NOT WANT THE PLAY-by-PLAY GUY TO ANALYZE THE GAME. Okay? Okay. It's fine for the color guy to do it -- that's sort of his job and it's why the color-commentator is often an ex-player.
If you've only experienced Bob Cole since, say, the 2005 Lock-out, then you completely missed his salad days, which was around the late-80s. Today, he is the broadcast equivalent of Jaromir Jagr -- on his last legs, a pale shadow of his former self. He was really great back in the day, and part of what made him great is that he could make reading the phone book sound exciting and important. (Jim Hughson cannot do this.) Also, he fell into that 'old-skool' type of broadcaster where he was chummy with the players, chain-smoked, called it straight (no stupid anecdotes, no in-depth analysis), and went by pure heart. Cole and ex-coach Harry Neale were maybe the best team I've heard, back in those days, because Neale was incredibly witty and funny, as well as having a lot of respect for the players.
I must say I prefer the "manly" type of announcer. The announcer, like a soul singer, needs to be able to convince the listener of their authority. This is where someone like Paul Romanuk fails miserably, because he sounds like a 10-year-old school girl who invents words to try to sound cool. Gord Miller is a really good broadcaster and 'host'-type, but a poor play-by-play guy because he talks way too fast and sounds like a chipmunk when someone scores. I think Gord Miller would be perfect in a role like Ron McLean's on Hockey Night in Canada, but he doesn't work as a play-by-play.
Ray Ferraro has some good insights and speaks well. (The only issue with him is he's
too serious and intense -- his tone suggests he's talking about the assassination of a President when he's actually discussing an offside. Also he tells too many stories about his '93 playoff hot streak.)
Chris Cuthbert is fantastic. His voice has gotten a little more 'shrill' now than in the 1990s or back in the day, but he's still first-rate.
I really respect Doc Emerick and like him, but I always wonder why he always starts sentences with long noun-phrases as subjects. Examples:
- Not knowing he had scored was Ovechkin!
- Coming around the boards quickly is the puck.
- Failing to notice his teammate and going offside was Kessel.
He's not quite Yoda, but he's nearly there...
Rick Jeanneret is a legend, though he's getting a bit too old now. I really like him -- seems like a super nice guy. So funny. Buffalo fans love him. We could never accuse him of not having a personality.
Who's the ex-player who does the color-commentating for Pittsburgh? He's quite good.
I also really like Louie Debrusk for Edmonton and Hockey-Night-in-Canada broadcasts. Terrible player, but a great broadcaster (sort of the opposite of Craig Simpson).
