Can't abide Crabtree as a pundit, especially annoying yesterday was him continually bringing up his own views made before the game throughtout the match with 'i believe somebody said..' yeah we heard you the first time mate. loves the sound of his own voice. Wilkin is equally annoying but at least he has the knowledge behind it and talks a bit of sense.

Simms was brilliant, complementary and respectful to both teams on show, and came across as a likeable but knowledgeable bloke who loves his rugby. love to see him on the beeb again.

When you feel that that the pundits view is solely about causing a reaction it just becomes null and void in my opinion. His view should be honest, IF by chance it causes a reaction then so be it, but causing a reaction shouldn't be why he gives a certain view.

That's realistic for someone new to the game. But when you've been doing it for a while it's not so easy to keep churning out spontaneous reactions to events you have no spontaneous feelings toward - whatsoever.

What is the media but fakery, anyhow?

I mean, I do agree that pundits who seek solely to get a reaction quickly become tedious. Schoey definitely indulges in such. But he's sufficiently "self-aware" to know the old Arab maxim [i"All sunshine makes a desert"[/i.

And whether you like him or not - he WAS an outstanding player. One of the very few who wasn't intimidated by the breathtaking talents of the Kangaroos. Like Alex Murphy before him, he's EARNED the right to an opinion. And I respect that.

What he did as a player doesn't matter when he's a pundit if what he's saying is garbage. If what he's saying is nonsense I won't just sit there and say it's ok just because of what he did +20 years on the pitch.

Again, I think you are confusing an analyst with a pundit. Stevo is a pundit (if albeit a unique kind). Brian Carney is an analyst. In football Alan Hansen was initially an analyst and became a pundit. Admittedly there is some cross-over. But generally speaking a pundit's "stock and trade" is his CV (which means his achievements 20 years ago do count for something), his personality and the Patented "Argument From Authority", whereas an analyst is reliant upon in-house research which he must present in the most cogent and concise fashion possible. Generally speaking analysts don't possess the same CV and thus are unable to pass off the Argument From Authority. More importantly, pundits deal in rhetoric and actively attempt to foster a love-hate relationship with viewers whilst analysts express cold facts in sharp suits.

Whether you like Schofield or not - I really don't care. I'm hardly a fan myself. The point is he ticks the necessary boxes. Many others don't.

i must say, although he very rarely has anything good to say about my club, i do find myself agreeing with a lot of what schoey says,
as mugwump, rightly points out, he's not afraid to jump off the fence and offer his opinions on things, and i usually find he says the things that most people in the media would love to say but won't for fearing of causing offence.

apart from his very obvious Leeds bias, he is spot on with most things regarding the game.