I go further, I don't think we get enough stats, and TBH, my complaint, not that its a major one, would be that Phil Clarke dumbs things down like he's been told to imagine he's talking to new viewers all the time. Doesn't need to do that, people don't need spoon feeding. For example, watching NFL, I don't know what all the American Football commentators are on about, but it adds to the enjoyment rather than detracting from it.

I understand the stats, Its not rocket science. what he says in 10 mins could be done in about 30 seconds
He gets boring

Give an example...

My favourite:
"It's interesting to note that a significant proportion of tries in rugby league are scored in the opposition's half".
That would be because the try line is in the opposition's half, Phil.
And it's not a significant proportion, it's all of them.

I like Clarke. And his stats.

that would be "from" not "in"

I get the impression the stats thing is given to him to give him something to do.

I like him, I'd replace Stevo with him and he wouldn't need the stats.

It's Stevo that has got to go. "That looked forward, either way, got away with it, as far as I'm concerned, it's as simple as that."

But they've got to get the message out that his commentary has become stale. When they finally change the team around it will be like manna from heaven.

Imo the commentary and punditry in rugby league comes across as amateurish and paints the game in a poor light. Compared with 6 nations union coverage and you can see what I'm talking about.

It undermines the rfls desperate attempts to attract more trend-conscious southerners to the game.

I like Clarke and I appreciate most others don't. However, given that Super League now goes out live all over the world his input gives new audiences a way of looking at the game.