Is it time the commentators on Sky were rotated or chosen depending on who was playing?

Today's game saw Phil Clarke burst a blood vessel or two in his fan-like paddy when Stevie G didn't give the penalty decision the way he wanted it to be given. He was also encouraging the normally calm Carney into a bit of a bitter rant as well. Notice the difference in his/their reaction today to the philisophical approach they took to 'the' pass in the recent Wigan - Saints game. Clarke in particular got so wound up it sounded like he was going to cry today and you can imagine him hopping up and down and turning purple.

Contrast to John Wells, who as a neutral, had no reason to cry about it and merely gave his opinion on it, i.e a bit harsh but no major drama and said in a calm, professional tone.

Stevo's retirement will probably bring about the next change to the Sky team and I realise they are no doubt under contract, but is Mr Clarke starting to make SL viewing rather sickly now Wigan aren't completely rubbish anymore? And the whole Sky team in general just seem to have rather obvious club/regional allegiances. It's rather different to the NRL coverage and other sports in the UK.

Phil Clarke was right! The hull player was going for the ball!

nothing to do with who was playing, just what is right.

enough said.

Bar Carney and Wells, and the guest coach summariser, the standard of commentary and discussion offered on Sky is pretty poor.

I think 'Baz and Tez' have found their level on a Thursday night, with an invariably slower game and a more relaxed approach.

Im not sure who else is available to be honest.

Nonsense. Clarke usually goes out of his way to praise Saints. His issue isn't with clubs at all. I think the only thing I think I've noticed about Clarke is that he occasionally has gentle digs at Ganson in particular. The idea he's biased against Saints is laughable.

Ah Saddened! and his hatred of all that is even remotely connected to Wigan. Eddie is way more biased against Wigan than Phil Clarke could ever be towards us.

The commentators aren't the biggest issue I have with Sky's coverage. Its the amount of random replays they show, or shots of the coaches all the time when the ball is in play. Today they decided to show a replay of a ball steal and missed pretty much all of Briscoes run for his try. All the commentators were describing it as the best thing they'd seen in ages, yet because of the replays being shown we pretty much missed it live (bar the last 10 metres as he went over) and had to watch replays afterwards. Why can't they just focus on the action and show the replays when there is a break in play?

Yeah I thought the same. They kept showing replays of the Richard Horne "strip" that disallowed the try (had we not seen enough on the video ref decision?!) and then completely missed the tackle into touch.

As for Saddened, well... not much point listening to his opinion as he thinks Ganson cost Saints the win!

You know what they say: opinions are like *rseholes... everyone's got one!

Why do they need 4 (sometimes 5) people in the commentary team?

We look for negatives by micromanaging via slow motion.
The game is played at pace, it has little stoppage time, line calls will be right or wrong and we have video ref if a score is the result.
Eddie, Stevo, McCrae, Baz n Tez hold our game back - get rid. We have natural media friendly people like Millward, Wells, Carney and others.
RU continually talk the game up, focus on the good bits and are far more professional in the presentation.

to give a range of perspectives in case you don't like, say, Phil Clarke.

I detest the pies, as is my duty as a Leyther. Clarke is the best analyst on Sky.

I agree.

Why is it Stevo has to make things "controversial"? The amount of times he says things like "should be a penalty", when actually it shouldn't and "got away with it" is really irritating.

I don't mind Stevo as he's a bit of a Rugby League Cartoon Character, adds a bit of volume to a game. Wouldn't miss Eddie in the slightest, just a generic media bod, does a good service but adds nothing more. Clarke is a bit of a tool IMO but obviously does his work. His calls during play or commentry when put on the spot is a bit suspect, but his prep for games is second to none.

I wouldn't mind Clarke to be left out of the commentary side and do the half time and post match analysis only, when he's had time to think and evaluate - that's when i feel he has the best results.

Wells could easily take over from Eddie as the calming influence to Stevo, but I think we will struggle when Stevo retires. For me, you need someone with the passion he shows for the game in the commentary box.

Don't mind a bit of Davies on BBC, but as for characters someone like Goulding (missed supermen so dont know how he was infront of the camera) could be good if he can transport his on field character to the commentary box

Carney was very green when he started, but has come on leaps and bounds and is now very watchable and has a lot of sensible things to say. Wells shows similar early potential. Nobby could do the Stevo role for fun.

On this occasion I thought Clarke and Carney were correct, he was going for the ball.

Also agree on the incessant replays on decisions/knock ons etc when play is on going. The amount of times something is missed in "live" play whilst we see a knock on/steal from 5 different angles is getting tedious and frustrating for the viewer,

Stevo's a poor man's Gus Gould.

Gould might go off on one occasionally during commentary, but it's usually based on something that has actually happened rather on something he thinks has happened and won't change his mind on no matter how much evidence to the contrary you throw at him.

Case in point being the alleged forward pass on Friday in the build up to Jamie Jones-Buchanan's try. Sky showed a number of replays from different angles that were inconclusive at best, including two where Joe Arundel completely obscured the ball leaving McGuire's hands. Yet still Stevo insisted that the replays backed up his original call.

He's become a exaggerated parody of himself and needs putting out to pasture. His constant search for mistakes from either players or officials talks the game down rather than putting the focus on the positives.

I think the reason why Clarke and Carney were getting wound up was that Eddie (in particular) and Stevo couldn’t see that it was a perfectly fair challenge for the ball

Clarke was not winding Carney up as Carney was more incensed about it anyway

This would be the case irrelevant of the teams and players involved