Whatever the pros & cons about the Sky commentary team at least all of us who subscribe get to see live Rugby League every week during the season apart from cup weekends.
I do agree though that it's time for Sky to ditch Eddie, Stevo & Phil Clarke.
They're all well past their sell-by date.
I'd also dump Tez & Baz.

Me too it too cosy a club and projects the wrong image - same goes for John Kear, Paul Cullen - thankfully Sean McRae is gone home or we would have to suffer him too

Sounds like the basis for a reality TV series.

Just watched the last 20 minutes when he came on, and in that time he touched the ball only twice. Completely boring, genuinely no idea why people find Union entertaining. I hope he himself gets bored and comes back.

I tuned in with 35 minutes left and I can honestly say I dont think I have seen a worse sporting occasion than that..maybe the grand national that never was runs it close but awful absolutely awful.

Burgess said he enjoyed it in his after match interview...I hope he was lying it was garbage.
Harlequins had the ball on three or four separate occasions in that last 35, and they passed the ball once...(and had three men sent to the sin bin!)

Burgess stats for 20 minutes play = two carries & no tackles.

Of the two passes he received the first was a hospital pass and the second was a yard forward....welcome to Rugby Union

Rugby Union hate it or hate it....!!!

But the majority of people around the world do find Union entertaining. Perhaps if you watched more than 20 minutes you would learn why! In this particular game in the final quarter the rain was lashing down, Harlequins had 3 players in the bin, Bath had the game won and nothing much left to play for. Sam made one good carry and laid the ball well and he also made a really impressive clear out. Eastmond scored a try and had a very good all round game.

Have you been messing with the Rugby Union Calculator? It's of interest to at most around 2% of the world's population. Being generous.

Any evidence to back up the claim that 3.5 billion people find Union entertaining?

The majority? That's a lot of people! I've watched my fair share of Union, and I see what you're saying.

Still boring though.

Is watching 20 minutes of a game not enough to make an informed judgement on?

Are you saying that you have to watch more than 20 minutes to ensure that something entertaining happens?

I don't understand...???? You seem to be saying that can sample 20 minutes of Rugby Union, watch nothing of any entertainment value, but because you didn't watch the full game you'd not understand why it is worth watching?

Do Rugby Union games often contain periods of up to 20 minutes where nothing much happens and if, for arguments sake, you just happen to watch THAT 20 minutes you'd not get a true understanding of the sport? If so then the remaining 60 minutes must be an action packed, roller coaster, end-to-end type of game, otherwise it would be a really drab, dull and tedious sport to watch.

Pfft you're just an uncomprehending fool who's in the minority of the worlds population that doesn't find Union entertaining. Yep, Juan has asked everyone.

He didn't ask me, I hate it.

Actually you don’t have to ask everyone – you can do sample extrapolation.

You simply pop along to Headingley on a Tykes (or whatever they’re called these days) game; ask 2 people you just happen to encounter on the Eastern Terrace if they are enjoying/understanding the game.

One says yes the other says no – from that you can simply extrapolate the results to the world’s population.

I had assumed we were talking of sports fans and rugby in particular. But if you make the same calculation for League fans it will make the same point.