I've had gripes about Sky's coverage of RL for ages. And here they are:

- The intros look dated. In fact, it makes me think of some kind of rugby league day out in the Aztec Zone on the Crystal Maze.
- The video clips during games also look like Richard O'Brien is presenting live from the Aztec Zone.
- The presenting team. It might have plenty of years and experience, but it's not exactly fresh is it?
- Eddie Hemming's hair. No wonder I haven't seen any dubbin for sale in ages.
- Boots N All- great product, but why is it filmed in a box room?

Now, as far as I can see, it's not as good as yawnion's coverage. Their Rugby Club programme might well appear to be filmed in front of the ceiling in the Orient at the Trafford Centre, and might be full of smarmy ex-pros, but it feels more professional.

So, what ideas do you all have for improving it? My thoughts are:

- New graphics. None of this cod-ancient-statue-holding-up-screen nonsense. The man operating behind the screen is likely not to be Quetzecoatl or Horus, it's going to be Phil Bentham.
- Put Stevo out to pasture. Give his job to Phil Clarke. Then give the inane, short pitchside interviews during the game to someone a bit more glamorous, like Charlie Webster who does the speedway. If there's one thing that Sky seem to think works, it's putting an attractive young woman on the pitch side to conduct the less strenous interviews. If you want an ex-pro to do it instead, give it to Jon Wells or Brian Carney.
- Put Boots n All in a proper studio. Leave the current staff in place there.

I'd stick with Stevo 100%. He might be madder than a bag of squirrels but his passion and enthusiasm for the game in invaluable. I don't always agree with what he says, but he's a personality, everyone else is instantly forgettable and we can't afford to lose identifiable presences in the media.

Exactly, we don't want some generic commentator whose boring to listen to. He might be silly but he has a personality and is actually funny at times (even if he doesn't mean to). I'd think of giving people like Carney and Wells more exposure on the SL games.

Personally I think Hemmings is the one that ruins the commentary and analysis, get rid of him. I also think Clarke has become too much of an ego over the last couple of years, and is bordering on should he go.

I like the commentary and analysis of John Wells a lot, I also think Carney is a good addition also. More of these two would be a big improvement. As far as the guest commentator goes, I have always found Cullen the best and most neutral of the guests.

Stevo IS a generic commentator, he says the same things in every game. (i.e. saints will want to get off to a good start) REALLY??

When a team is on the attack near the line, he'll says watch out for (eg Wellens) and the play will go totally the other way.

The fella is useless on live TV, nice bloke in the "flesh" though.

I'm FURIOUS that this is being said

Yes but he doesn't sound like every other commentator out there which is my point. I remember when I first started watching SL I really enjoyed the freshness of listening to Eddie and Stevo compared to the often very dull football commentators.

The main issue I have with Stevo is his lack of understanding of the modern game and the laws.

If we genuinely want to attract new spectators to the sport through its television coverage then they need to be given clear, concise explanations of why a player or an official has done the thing he has - not someone who bumbles through an incorrect interpretation of the laws (he still believes you can throw a forward pass providing you run beyond the eventual receiver after you pass it FFS) or blaming every try scored out wide on the winger being "in no man's land".

I'm sure he's a really nice, genuine and enthusiastic bloke but he simply doesn't deliver the sort of information or analysis new viewers to the sport need to hear.

The thing is with Eddie & Stevo, they have become synonymous with RL commentary (whether you like it or not) and have a certain appeal to neutrals and first time viewers.

Nobody is arguing that they are the best but they do have a certain charm and easiness in front of the camera.

Send Phil Clarke to Alcatraz?

Isn't that kind of analysis supposed to be the domain of Clarke and the guest though? All commentators have bugbears, the momentum rule is Stevo's.

I think the move to 4 commentators has saved Stevo's career, there is less focus on him to fill time and as a result he's become less 'controversial', Eddie appears to have stepped up to fill that gap though unfortunately. I think the 4 together adds an almost fan style conversational style to the commentary that I prefer. I also like the fact that they argue with each other and have a bit of a laugh at times.

IMO what's missing is a seperate NRL tactics type of show which discussed tactial matters in depth, the best part of BnA is the Wells bit at the beginning, but it's a too short.

Ban Eddie from talking about Leeds or even better get Mick Morgan commentating with Barrie Mac. Subtitles may be needed for southern viewers but some of the quotes would be fantastic.

Barrie does come out with some cracking quotes and with Mick Morgan it would be brilliant.

After watching the doco about Eddie Waring the other night I can see a lot of similarities between Eddie's and Stevo's career. When he started out Stevo was very good at the time, but the game moved on, fashions changed and he lost touch. Eventually, in trying to stay true to what he was, what he knows and what he thinks the audience want he's become a bit of a parody of himself. This has alienated most RL fans who watch Sky, its clear he's lost touch and really infuriates more than anything.

There are lots of things about his commentary I dislike. If a big play is being set up in front of the try line he'll try to read it and say "Watch out for so-and-so". He'll read the play completely wrong. His point-match analysis irks me. I can't stand that really quiet, sage-like tone he uses as though he's some sort of stoical, omniscient elder stateman of the sport despite either talking at length about really basic issues or not really having a clue.

I don't mind Eddie too much; he's got a good clear voice that develops urgency and intensity and he's good at the straight talking, tackle by tackle name-drop style, but he is a bit repetitive. He doesn't vary his phrases (think "Wide to West"icon_wink.gif.

My favourite pairing is Dave Woods and John Kear. Woods does the straight talking bit and Kear combines both the in-deth, modern analysis and extremely passionate bluster. Its a joy to listen to Kear in full, gushing flow and you get the sense that Woods gets swept up in it as well.

Get rid of O'Connor!