(Tony Tea is BPL's latest footy columnist and renowned sports blogger. Find out more at http://aftergrogblog.blogs.com/)

Are you tired of the same-old, old-same way TV footy is called in Australia?

(Technically footy is "called" in America and "commentated" in Australia, and now even occasionally "broadcast", but let's not allow creeping Americanisms to get in the way of an opening paragraph. Plenty of room for you to deal with that in the comments further down the page.)

The commentary style may have changed since Ted Whitten, Mike Williamson, Butch Gale and their ilk covered footy back in the 1960s, but the commentary's essential architecture is the same: Tuddenham picks up the ball, hand passes to Dench who has a bounce, kicks long to Dunstall who taps the ball on to Voss, who runs into the open goal for a simple sausage.

Certainly the bells, whistles, garnish and condiments have changed.

Allan Sherman and Mr Peabody, jumping into their Way-Forward machine and travelling from 1966 to 2012, would not have a clue what contemporary commentators are talking about. Transitions, fat sides, kill shots, frothies (Billy Brownless has built a whole career out of one word), rotations, zones and forward presses were unheard of 40+ years ago, as were the technology and graphics. But ye Olde Timers would not have any trouble picking up the play since the game is basically the same, as characterised by Allan Jeans' timeless words: "we've got it, they've got it, be prepared to pay the price for the best shoes you can afford."

Are you a football watcher of a certain age? Well, ask yourself when was the last time a TV commentator told you something you had not just seen for yourself, or did not already know. Chances are your answer will broadly approximate "been a while". And yet there are now nine matches per week entailing nine sets of commentaries - surely someone, somewhere should make a comment that causes you to nod sagely (and smugly) and remark "good point".

Extrapolating with malice aforethought, it is reasonable to conclude that footy commentary is largely superficial and aimed at younger (or dumber - the two are not mutually exclusive) audiences.

Not that footy commentary is per se bad. Yes, some of it is appalling nonsense. But some of it is sharp, exciting and in the case of a couple of Friday nights covered by Bruce McAvaney, Dennis Cometti and Nathan Buckley, the best team of recent years, down-right sensational.

If every commentary team emulated those highs from a couple of seasons ago, there would be little to complain about. But the highs are often dependant on the quality of the game. You are unlikely to jump out of your seat, or even subtly manoeuvre your derriere in the general direction of the edge of your Jason rocker recliner if Melbourne is thumping GWS at a half-full Rooty Hill Colosseum.

What's more, with nine games to be covered on Seven and Foxtel, not every match will be covered by Bruce, Dennis and whoever gets the special comments seat in 2012. The radio stations and (soon) internet will further test the Aussie Rules commentary talent pool, which is guarded by a cautionary "no diving" sign.

That is why, to quote the famed footy pundit, Charlie Croker, in the Italian Job: "I've got a great idea."

Well, it is not my great idea, exactly; it was tried in the last millennium by C7. And I never actually saw it, I heard about it.

What is "it?" It is "conversational" commentary, and it is due an updated trial. If they can remake The Italian Job (which was okay), Rollerball and The Hitcher, they can certainly remake conversational commentary.

If you saw the C7 matches you will know where I'm coming from.

Instead of a running commentary a la, "Trengove dishes to Garland who shorts it to Jamar, who redirects fat side to find a wide open Spencer," the commentators - I think Dermott Brereton and Tim Lane were involved - took a big picture approach. It gave them greater freedom of expression, more time to think laterally while the viewer felt like he was part of a clever conversation with the footy on the TV in the background. You still got to see what was happening, you just had an interesting conversation while it was going on.

If you missed the C7 matches, like me, you will get the idea if you listened to John McEnroe, Pat Cash and Wally Masur commentate the Australian Open on Foxtel.

Foxtel's tennis coverage was superb, but it had one advantage - surely John McEnroe is the best commentator of any sport anywhere in the world; excluding those soccer commentators from hot blooded countries who scream "goooooooooollllll," of course.

McEnroe is informative, knows tennis back-to-front, immediately identifies problems, predicts tactics, doesn't need to shout to carry an exciting game, has a great rapport with his co-commentators, is funny, and has a historical anecdote for every occasion. (Not that the AFL would embrace McEnroe-style stories about rubbish umpires.) Listening to the Foxtel tennis was like sitting comfortably in the local with very knowledgeable mates.

And therein lies the problem. For conversational commentary to work it needs engaging commentators. How many commentators fit that bill?

My preference would be to go with a commentator, a special comments man and a journalist.

But I cannot imagine Seven embracing the idea. Their commentary formula is etched in stone. Foxtel would have to give it a whirl. Say, one match each round could be charged with conversational commentary. And nor can one or two teams be "featured". You can imagine the rumpus were one team continually "relegated" to the Petri dish. The technique would need to be shared around the league over the course of the season.

Of course, punters are bound to tune in and wonder what the hell they are listening to, but they would soon get used to it if it was done well and it would create a talking point to give Foxtel free publicity.

After fifty years of roughly the same style of coverage surely the time is right for some robust experimentation.

But please, no f@<%ing Spidercam.