: Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:32 am  

rpw wrote:

Phil Clarke made those excellent points at saturdays game.

Probably Phil Clarkes only excellent points. If you knew nothing about RL and watcehd a Sky game you would be left wondering what the hell was going on. At no time do any of the three of them add any tactical analysis of attacking or defensive play (other than the occaisional "he's lost the plot" - or "time for soemthing different - maybe a chip over the top"). Clarke has his factoids pre-prepared ("Saints are the team that makes most metres on tackle 3 in the middle third of the field on a Friday when it's slightly overcast") but defensive alignment? attacking moves? Zippo. And what is the obsession with going back several plays to pick out a "controversial" incident after every score? It does the game no service whatsoever. I honestly believe Sky have cut down on the likes of Paul Cullen and Shaun McCrae being in the box because they make their resident team sound like morons. Barrie Mac did an excellent job when used on Saturday, and shows he knows more about the game than the three of them put together.
Come on Sky, treat your viewers like adults with a few brain cells (you can send a different commentry to Hull via the red button if you want).

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:55 am  

Indeed - the loss of the likes of Rea and Cullen from our screens to be replaced by more air time for Clarke, Offiah, Stevo and co has dumbed down Sky's coverage of the game dramatically.

While I realise you have to make the commentary accessible to those who are casual or new fans to the game, a little analysis of why things work (or don't) the way they do wouldn't go amiss.

As for Stevo, he no longer needs to be in the box for games. You can just set up his various cliches on a loop and play them randomly at given intervals and nobody would know the difference. Often what he babbles on about has little or no relevance to what is going on in the game itself. Time he was put out to pasture, along with Ray French on the BBC.

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:16 am  

Dave Heron's Moustache wrote:

Probably Phil Clarkes only excellent points. If you knew nothing about RL and watcehd a Sky game you would be left wondering what the hell was going on. At no time do any of the three of them add any tactical analysis of attacking or defensive play (other than the occaisional "he's lost the plot" - or "time for soemthing different - maybe a chip over the top"). Clarke has his factoids pre-prepared ("Saints are the team that makes most metres on tackle 3 in the middle third of the field on a Friday when it's slightly overcast") but defensive alignment? attacking moves? Zippo. And what is the obsession with going back several plays to pick out a "controversial" incident after every score? It does the game no service whatsoever. I honestly believe Sky have cut down on the likes of Paul Cullen and Shaun McCrae being in the box because they make their resident team sound like morons. Barrie Mac did an excellent job when used on Saturday, and shows he knows more about the game than the three of them put together.
Come on Sky, treat your viewers like adults with a few brain cells (you can send a different commentry to Hull via the red button if you want).

Agree 100%. Cullen and Mcrae are superb so is Barry Mac. The trouble is Clarke and co have probably been given contracts over a length of time and can't be removed without being taken to court...

Your so right about Clarkes 'stats' and eddie and stevos comentary. It pains me to say it but the RU team on sky are far better. So is the NRL... by a long way.

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:19 am  

Andy Gilder wrote:

Indeed - the loss of the likes of Rea and Cullen from our screens to be replaced by more air time for Clarke, Offiah, Stevo and co has dumbed down Sky's coverage of the game dramatically.

How bad is Offiah.... he's dreadful

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:22 am  

rpw wrote:

It pains me to say it but the RU team on sky are far better.

Given the way Sky use "The Front Line" in their Union coverage or "The Third Man" in cricket to illustrate key points in the game with video and graphics I'm surprised they don't do something similar for League. Just a couple of minutes at half-time with someone like Barrie Mac or Paul Cullen illustrating key plays in the game would be a refreshing change from listening to Eddie and Stevo basically filling time.

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:54 am  

Tony Rea was head and shoulders above the rest of the team. He's been a huge loss. I used to enjoy listening to him talk about the game, pointing things out I hadn't noticed. When I was new to the game, his analysis helped me learn to look a bit further than the flashy offload or the big hit all the time.

Barrie Mac talks a lot of sense. That's about it now.

'Tez' just says the same thing. "The forwards are dominant, getting the quick play the ball"

Stevo and Eddie have no clue at all.

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:27 am  

Dave Heron's Moustache wrote:

Probably Phil Clarkes only excellent points. If you knew nothing about RL and watcehd a Sky game you would be left wondering what the hell was going on. At no time do any of the three of them add any tactical analysis of attacking or defensive play (other than the occaisional "he's lost the plot" - or "time for soemthing different - maybe a chip over the top"). Clarke has his factoids pre-prepared ("Saints are the team that makes most metres on tackle 3 in the middle third of the field on a Friday when it's slightly overcast") but defensive alignment? attacking moves? Zippo. And what is the obsession with going back several plays to pick out a "controversial" incident after every score? It does the game no service whatsoever. I honestly believe Sky have cut down on the likes of Paul Cullen and Shaun McCrae being in the box because they make their resident team sound like morons. Barrie Mac did an excellent job when used on Saturday, and shows he knows more about the game than the three of them put together.
Come on Sky, treat your viewers like adults with a few brain cells (you can send a different commentry to Hull via the red button if you want).

I know its wrong sort of thread, but Clarke also made another excellent point on Saturday night.

Whilst those two numpties Eddie and Stevo were trying to make out that if a ref awards very few penalties, he has had a good game. Clarkey took the opportunity to challenge them, and aks how they can come up with that. Absolutely correct.

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:59 am  

Puig-Aubert wrote:

I agree - had he been signed by Leeds the majority of those now decrying his signing by Hull would have been proclaiming it as something wonderful.

There's 3 risk factors though - how well he recovers from injury, how well he adapts to the British game and how well he adapts to life in the UK.

Leaving those aside (and the 2nd two are there for any Aussie) its a quality signing.

By the same token, if he had have signed for Leeds then those saying it's a good signing would have been up in arms because we'd signed another Mullins/Clyde.

You're right in saying that there's risks, but judging by the reports of his performances at the Roosters and the season ending injury I'd say this was a big risk for any club, even more so somewhere like Hull where they appear to have an injury crisis every year.

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:05 pm  

Some on the Hull board are saying it's just an arthroscopy now, I don't know where they got it from. As the guy on SKY before the match (think he works for Hull?) seemed to suggesting it was a big one. I'm sure he said something about it being a good thing as he'll have a big lay off..

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:07 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

I know its wrong sort of thread, but Clarke also made another excellent point on Saturday night.

Whilst those two numpties Eddie and Stevo were trying to make out that if a ref awards very few penalties, he has had a good game. Clarkey took the opportunity to challenge them, and aks how they can come up with that. Absolutely correct.

Got the alias data yet?