by Phil Clarke. Does he know he's working for Sky and he is supposed to be neutral, or does he think he's working for Hull TV? Because that's the way it came across. Everything he said was from a Hull perspective. He was asking questions on behalf of Hull and how they can respond and how it would impact on their game and season.

He was willing Hull on through every phase of the game. It became unacceptable when he and Brian Carney began to moan like children with exaggerated moans when decisions went against Hull. And when Hull appeared to have scored the winner they sounded pleased, even sharing a joke together. Clarke has been like this against Saints ever since Wigan's resurgence and I think Sky seriously need to look into it today by reviewing that 80 minutes.

Oh shut up. People like you just say things like this because it's popular opinion and you can't think for yourself. Why not talk about the decent game of rugby that was just played.

Its ok Eddie and stevo were creaming every time Ea$tmond and foster got the ball and said washy never attempted to get the ball

we have phil clarke, you get steve ganson, think that's how it works

Could say the same about the reffing

pity it was towards Hull though. Home team bias.

I think they need to look at it. Especially when Clarke ruins the normally excellent Carney by encouraging him to follow his lead.

He was having a right paddy over that penalty. I didn't see the same reaction over the forward pass at the Pie Dome the other week.

Couple of people here need to go on the Steve Ganson bias thread, this is the Phil Clarke bias thread. Are we not allowed to have an independent opinion about something without the suspicion that we're favouring the team we support? I've thought about this Phil Clarke bias for sometime, should I just keep biting my tongue and never state my opinion on it? Given the 80 minutes that have just preceded, it is perfect, fresh evidence.



You really have gone out on a limb here, I'm talking as an intelligent adult about an issue I believe in. I wish I could think for myself like you, then I could make presumptions. Mate, this is a forum where we have the freedom to talk about all aspects of the game, by your logic we should have 10 posts about how good todays game was and we would all agree with each other.

Thats what you get when you half have a commentary team that consists of a couple of pie eaters and a couple of sensationalist morons. I used to like Clarky but lately he's been shocking

I thought the point of Phil Clarke was to provide some balance given Eddie and Stevo's long running love affair with the self-styled "Entertainers"...

No, the point of Phil Clarke is a "job for the boys". He is there to give us pointless stats that mean nothing, nor does anyone care about.

by balance you mean Cherry and White tinted bias?


And as for Eddie ' wouldnt it be nice to have 2 different teams in the grand final this year *COUGH Warrington *COUGH ... yeah , real saints bias