eddie should be gone. he's past his sell by date.

carney as anchorman in the studio.
poach dave woods as commentator.
wells to do analysis

If we were to poach a commentator then i would go for Andrew Voss,he was outstanding on Premier Sports during the world cup

but would he come?

He hates Leeds more than Clarke.





To quote Meatloaf

He was asked this during the WC and he said he would love to work over here,he is already employed by Sky TV too in NZ

If Andrew Voss came even my wife would watch superleague.
She loved his commentaries during the world cup but hates Eddie & Stevo with a passion.
That is simply because of their commentary style since she doesn't know either of them from Adam.
Re O'Connor, I agree about his poor delivery & constant use of cliches.
I also consider Carney & Wells to be very good.
Clarke, really rated him as a player but now his bias really grates.
I think it's time for Eddie & Stevo to be put out to grass, in how many professions do you do the same job at the same level for over 30 years?
I think all commentary teams in all sports need to be refreshed far more frequently than currently occurs. Over time they tend to become parodies & caricatures of themselves.

Just don't like the set-up of having around 5 voices talking during the match. You have Eddie, Stevo, Clarke, one other guest (McDermott, Rea, Cullen etc) and then Stuart Cummins, also we have sideline reporters.

I don't see this in any other sport, football on all channels and RL on the bbc just have the normal 2 man team which will jump to the studio guest once or twice a half for 30 secs.

Even if they got new guys in it'll still have a problem of being overloaded.

OF-Vossy ,Rabbits and co are all top quality commentators as are their summerisers.

You don't say.

Cot damn it's like piccadilly ciricus in that commentary box. What an earth are they thinking? Well what we need to do is pack as many clowns and co-commentators in as is humanly possible.

At first i thought having cummins in was OK, for explaining decisions and stuff. But he has all the charisma of a dried out dog turd and he ends up having little squabbles with eddie and stevo about technicalities.....or worse, we get even more over the top scrutiny on e-v-e-r-y single call in the game.........was there a fingertip in there?

Not sure what Cummins is there for, to be honest.

He's put in a very difficult position of sometimes having to be critical of former friends and colleagues, and on occasion tries to convince himself black is white just so he doesn't have to.

Stevo just contradicts everyone for the sake of causing an argument. Unlike Phil Gould though, his points are more often than not total nonsense. He has a set of cliches that get rolled out every game.

Time to show both the door, and take the fat-headed oaf O'Connor with them. He can come back when he can put a sentence together.

A commentary professional to replace Hemmings - Voss, Dave Woods, Bill Arthur

One summariser - rotate McDermott, Wells and Cullen

One presenter - Carney and the two summarisers who aren't doing commentary.

Yep. Got to say I really enjoyed the BBC commentary and presentation during the World Cup.

2, sometimes 3 commentators.
Chappers as host with some knowledgeable guests who can have a bit of a laugh but it's not like a discussion down the pub.

I never LOL. Im more of a haha person but.

LOL

I like Cummins being there. It does clear up things a lot sometimes. He does still get things wrong, but is much clearer and more knowledgeable than the other clowns with it.

Im not sure what Clarke offers to be honest. His stats thing is massively under-cooked, he doesn’t have the time or the ability to convey the complex theories behind those stats so we just get relatively contextless numbers. He is massively biased but also will randomly decide something, keep pushing whatever that is even when is blatantly wrong, He seems to take himself very very seriously as well and comes off as a bit of a d1ck really.

Hemmings is past it, needs changing, not a great play caller. Stevo is fine when used right, his enthusiasm can be infectious and welcoming to new fans. Needs to be less controversial though.

Carney and Wells do a good job, Barrie Mac as well when he takes a step back from being a stereotype. Really like listening to Tony Rea as well, very positive and enthusiastic as well as knowledgeable. Paul Cullen is ok, just needs to stop swallowing a thesaurus before he goes on air

One for the future is Big Eorl C

Listened to him on radio and TV always seems to be fair and very enthusiastic

I like Cummins for his knowledge and input but his delivery makes me switch off half way through what he's saying. It's like listening to the constant drone of a diesel generator.

Stevo switches his view point every 5 minutes to try and be controversial, and if there was an award for 'Stating the bleeding obvious' he'd be world champion.

Eddie doesn't do a bad job when commentating but shouldn't ever get involved with any analysis.

Carney would make a great anchor - I really like the analysis stuff he does with Wells - Carney sets things up really well for Wells to do the in-depth stuff. As a pair their delivery comes across well.

Clarke shouldn't be let anywhere near a microphone - they man is an embarrassment.

I quite like Baz and Tez just for the comedic value, but I agree with most others on this subject... time for a refresh.

It was cringe worthy in the Hull v Cas game when just before 20mins, Stevo said Powell had to do something and he had to get Daryl Clark out there to change things. Several minutes Clark comes on (as he was always surely guaranteed to do around that time) and Stevo makes out as if Powell has agreed with him.

And he's done it before with Leeds when Burrow's on the bench, we all know he'll be on around 25 minute mark but Stevo acknowledges the coach for agreeing with him from a few minutes earlier when he said that "the little guy has to be introduced soon."

Printer-That's Stevo all over though he actually thinks that the players listen to him as well when they go for the "one pointer" etc there's no doubting his playing status and WC winner is "Legendry"but he is just a cliché and an annoyance nowadays.
As for Cummings what really grates me is when he tries to defend the officials when every replay shows they got it wrong!

Cummings is effectively the main summariser. He has more airtime than Clarke, Carney or whoever else (Stevo isn't a summariser, Stevo is...I don't know what exactly). This means that the main subjects of the summaries are about refereeing decisions and process, not about play, skills or tactics. This is not a good thing, especially when Eddie and Stevo don't need an excuse to talk about a forward pass for five minutes at the best of times.

Whether Cummings' contributions are accurate or not it would be better for the viewer and the game if he wasn't there.

I can see why they brought Cummings in as he usually provides a more thoughtful (and obviously for his experience) view than the reactionary commentators. But I just don't like the "need" of having someone on the commentary team to solely explain referees decisions.

If the current commentary team and Sky as a whole wouldn't concentrate on the tiniest of infringements with constant harping back to it and endless replays then there'd be no need for Cummings and the whole thing would be a lot more enjoyable.

Agree about Eorl. In fact I have given up with Sky. Turn down the sound on the telly and use the radio instead.

Carney Wells and Cummins are spot on.

Eddie is very annoying and Stevo - a great rugby league man as he is - is too old school and as a pair they make RL seem amateurish with the stuff they come out with. I used to think this was a pro-rugbyunion ploy by Sky to make the sport seem like that on purpose but since they never really put up a fight to keep union on Sky I don't think that's what it is, I just think it's poor management/production. Their (what they think is humorous) prattle between each other is terrible! They used to be great in the 90s and 00s but their time is up now.

Clark thinks he works for Wigan TV. He links everything back to a postitive about Wigan, no matter who is playing. One game a few years ago, pre-game, in a game Wigan weren't playing in, he showed clips of Wigan scoring against both sides in action that night as his pre-match build up to show how each side could score against each other. No positives about either side on show that night, just negatives and linking it back to positives about Wigan. But he does this with everything, even little comments he makes have Wigan based undertows.

Barrie is okay but tries to be funny with the same kind of humour Eddie and Stevo do, Terry is too unintelligent (might be a great guy, just not for the tele) and doesn't provide enough insight.

Rod Studd should never be allowed to express an opinion!

It needs a shake up. Get Carney as the presenter on all shows. Bring in guest pundits each week, there are hordes of ex-RL players out there. Then have John Wells, Tony Rea plus the guest in the studio with Brian. Then bust a gut to get Andrew Voss as commentator with Cummins and maybe someone new in the gantry with those two.

And I wish Sky would stop showing replays of things that have just happened literally five seconds before - that we all saw - while play is going on. Or worse, shots of the coach or random people in the crowd with teeth missing (they always seem to pick out the village idiot, as if to say to the masses "this is your archetypal RL fan everyone"!), while play is going on.

I'd actually never thought of that until I read your post. You're spot on. There needs to be a more technical analysis of PLAY to the commentary, doesn't there. Good point.

It does sadden me that Stevo has become such an embarrassment, given everything that he's given to the sport. But he has. He's a caricature of himself now, and I'm actually embarrassed for him a lot of the time. His commentary is virtually all catchphrase with very little content, and along with Eddie he is intent on focusing most of his attention on negatives (errors, refereeing decisions, infringements) when they really should be talking the game up.

Phil Clarke is a terrible, terrible thing for broadcasting. For a long time he was partisan, but basically OK. Then, for reasons which no rational human can explain, he decided to reinvent himself as some kind of professor of rugby. His existence now revolves around shabby interpretation of inadequate numerical data. Best example being his "key performance indicators" which helpfully tell us that the team that does best on metres, clean breaks, missed tackles etc, more often than not wins the game. Amazing what you can do now with technology isn't it?

I like Carney and Wells. Tony Rea is always good value, and I don't mind John Kear for a bit as a guest.

On the radio, Eorl Crabtree is always very good. Is Jason Demitriou still around? He used to do decent punditry on West Yorkshire Sport as well.

A 'good professor' (like Koukash) or a 'bad one'..?



Incidentally, I have no understanding of those KPI graphics - was there an explanation when they were first used on what they actually meant? If so, I missed it. I assume green means 'better', yellow means 'even' and red means 'worse' but other than that, they have never meant anything.

There is no explanation how they decide that 'green, yellow, green' = '36 point margain' whereas 'red, green, yellow' = 'half a pint of shandy'. The whole thing means nothing!

But yes, it generally only illuminates us to the fact that the team who are winning 'should' be winning. Hmm...