Sky Sports Punditry : Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:23 pm  

having watched the re-run of the entire game, its clear and has been for a while that there is little love for our club from the majority of the expert pundits. Even Bill Arthur chipped in with some of the "poor Liam sutcliffe - Bad Ben Westwood" nonsense....

I shouldn't get overly arsed about it really because lets be honest there's an IQ point between the lot of em and Phil Clarke's got it, so most people take their bilge with a pinch of salt.

but my one point of irritation is why did they not harp on about a player leaving the field concussed and not returning while the offender came back on ten minutes later, when it happened against Warrington.... at Leigh...?

they just shrugged it off as 'tough game' when Kevin Brown was sparked out by Glenn Stuart, we didn't benefit from his 2 match ban ...Wakefield and Widnes did....!!

guess what its been like that forever...but Ben Westwood hits Leeds Royalty high & marginally Late and the rules have to change....

Last night Jon Wells was spitting on about having some kind of new law that you can bring the 18th man on as a replacement for the concussed player ....!!! or wanting the ever so reliable and always 100% correct, video ref chipping in mid match......... love off

they are an absolute embarrassment and there would be no noticeable difference if we had ordinary everyday drunken fans in front of the microphone, giving their expert opinions.

and weve got Hemmings personal favourites Widnes next week

[Winslade's Offload]

Re: Sky Sports Punditry : Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:39 pm  

It is utter twaddle 95% of the time. I am boycotting Sky and going to live matches instead.

Re: Sky Sports Punditry : Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:44 pm  

O'connor and Mcdermott are the best of a bad lot. Makes you long for the days of Eddie Waring....he's a poor lad.

Re: Sky Sports Punditry : Sat Apr 08, 2017 7:49 pm  

the flying biscuit wrote:

having watched the re-run of the entire game, its clear and has been for a while that there is little love for our club from the majority of the expert pundits. Even Bill Arthur chipped in with some of the "poor Liam sutcliffe - Bad Ben Westwood" nonsense....

I shouldn't get overly arsed about it really because lets be honest there's an IQ point between the lot of em and Phil Clarke's got it, so most people take their bilge with a pinch of salt.

but my one point of irritation is why did they not harp on about a player leaving the field concussed and not returning while the offender came back on ten minutes later, when it happened against Warrington.... at Leigh...?

they just shrugged it off as 'tough game' when Kevin Brown was sparked out by Glenn Stuart, we didn't benefit from his 2 match ban ...Wakefield and Widnes did....!!

guess what its been like that forever...but Ben Westwood hits Leeds Royalty high & marginally Late and the rules have to change....

Last night Jon Wells was spitting on about having some kind of new law that you can bring the 18th man on as a replacement for the concussed player ....!!! or wanting the ever so reliable and always 100% correct, video ref chipping in mid match......... love off

they are an absolute embarrassment and there would be no noticeable difference if we had ordinary everyday drunken fans in front of the microphone, giving their expert opinions.

and weve got Hemmings personal favourites Widnes next week

IMO Westwood's was much worse than Stewart's. And don't forget, we benefited from Brown going off, whilst Leeds lost Sutcliffe

Also, whilst I've not yet seen just what Wells said, I've a lot of time for him, and the 18th man for a concussion point is a live discussion in the NRL right now.

Re: Sky Sports Punditry : Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:01 pm  

What a strange board...for the last 7 weeks we have been blaming everybody from Tony Smith, through Chris Hill down to the office cat for our lack of wins & when we finally get a result we have to take away the lustre by saying the Westwood foul won the match.
Very similar to the pundits when we win,it is because the other team had an off day.

Re: Sky Sports Punditry : Sat Apr 08, 2017 9:09 pm  

ninearches wrote:

What a strange board...for the last 7 weeks we have been blaming everybody from Tony Smith, through Chris Hill down to the office cat for our lack of wins & when we finally get a result we have to take away the lustre by saying the Westwood foul won the match.
Very similar to the pundits when we win,it is because the other team had an off day.

We won because we were the better team on the day. However, you've got to be honest and say Westwood should have walked. If that had happened, I don't think we would have won (and I consider myself an optimist!). I wouldn't say the Westwood foul won us the game, but it could have lost it us. We've got to be pleased to get the luck, and happy the players took their chance and performed much better. Well, we don't have to, we could continue to look for faults and moan a lot; but others are better equipped than me to do that

Re: Sky Sports Punditry : Sat Apr 08, 2017 9:19 pm  

i watch sky games with the volume down.....the bias is that bad.

Re: Sky Sports Punditry : Sun Apr 09, 2017 6:41 am  

Everyone of them are GROW UP, NO NEED FOR USING THAT TERM, ITS NOT WELCOME ON HERE
Wells must be the most ridiculous person on TV, in any genre. He can't complete a sentence without an errrr, ummmm or an embarrassing 5 second silence. And the waffle he comes out with..... Unbelievable. One such gem from about a year ago, was "that try was scored, because of the way the tackled player got up, and planted his lead foot down"... what utter bo11ocks.

In commentary, there's too many of them.
Friday was Hemmings, Clarke, O'Connor and McDermott plus the thoughts of SCUMmings, should there be need for it. Then there's the input of either Powers or Arthur, who apparently have been told what the coach's tactics are. Add to that, you've got Brian "one for the ladies" Carney and Wellzzzzzzz. So that's EIGHT people per broadcast, and don't forget, we've "lost" Stephenson. Too many cooks, etc.

Thank God for the Amazon firestick, so I could cancel my subscription, and not contribute to these muppet's salaries. Life feels a tiny bit better, just for that.

As I've said before, but I've known Hemmings for about 10 or 12 years, and in all that time, he's NEVER had a good word to say about Warrington to me. His "dislike" for us couldn't be more obvious, on or off screen. Shame, as he's quite a nice bloke.

Re: Sky Sports Punditry : Sun Apr 09, 2017 7:09 am  

Oxford Exile wrote:

i watch sky games with the volume down.....the bias is that bad.

FC fan (I come in peace), over the seasons when it's gone well for Warrington Eddie gets all excited, when it's Wigan, Clarke needs a tissue, SKY commentary is a joke, for all teams.

Re: Sky Sports Punditry : Sun Apr 09, 2017 7:20 am  

PCollinson1990 wrote:

FC fan (I come in peace), over the seasons when it's gone well for Warrington Eddie gets all excited, when it's Wigan, Clarke needs a tissue, SKY commentary is a joke, for all teams.

It's interesting to hear this perspective from an "outsider". I don't think the pundits let all that much bias slip out (nor do I care if they do) but I have gotten an anti-Warrington bias from Eddie a number of times. I do think that sometimes it could be attributed to him being neutral and me having my primrose and blue specs on; a good example is the 2013 SF against Hudds - when Grix went over to pretty much seal the game Eddie legitimately said "Oh no!". It could be that he wanted to see the underdog win, just like no neutral really wants Wigan to win.