Alternatively, Phil Clark, who does his absolute best to appear articulate and intelligent, but runs out of words part way through many of his tortured points and just tails off into garbled nonsense.

I know the feeling well. There's even a name for it but I'm buggered if i can remember it. Anaphasia google tells me.

And at this point Tez'll feel qualified to add a comment or two.

Tez is painful to listen to and trots out the same garbage week after week. Clark is a pseudo intellectual and believes he is talking sense, but we know differently. Barry I can cope with as he usually offers something worth listening to.

Look at the difference between the lot on Sky and then someone like Mick Ennis on Fox. He's only been doing the media gig for just over a season, and he looks and sounds like an absolute pro - he calls the game action, he gives insight into the tactics that are being used, gives an opinion, and isn't afraid to be honest about how teams/players are playing, all well presented, understandable and sounding well educated - our lot are abysmal in comparison.

Bill Arthur is absolutely shocking as a commentator, has referred to Luke Briscoe as Luke Burgess all night Tonight. Gets players names wrong at least once a set and clearly has no understanding of the game.

I think finally something might be done about it since every man and his dog were on social media complaining about it.

Powers interviewing Jake Connor " you got your next win and your on your way to Wembley again"

Christ she is so bad she makes "set a six" sound like a genius.

Yep heard that one

In rare praise of the sky commentary team, I thought it was 100% better with Brian Carney in the commentary box last night. I've always thought he's a bit wooden as a presenter, but excellent when talking about the game.

It was good to hear a voice that won't simply tow the line. He's the only one on the sky team that isn't afraid to be critical, I found myself pleasantly surprised to hear him call out the level of gamesmanship (or cheating as it used to be called) in the sport at present. On the rare occasions he does commentate, he's not afraid to critcise the skill or product where justified.

It's so frustrating that they have articulate, knowledgable pundits like him and Tony Rea on their books that they never use. Instead we have to put up with O Connor, who seemingly thinks that every player and match no matter how average or mundane is magnificent and McDermott, who can't make a point in less than 60 seconds or refrain from explaining the same thing but in three different ways, usually leading to him trailing off or getting tongue-tied.

Why is it that the Aussies are so much more charismatic than our players?

Do they get more media training? Is it because the sport is higher profile there so they get used to the attention earlier? Is it just the culture?..

The whole SKY package is abysmal. The presentation cries out marginal sport trying to create fake or WWE style hyperbole that looks and sounds so small time. Its like SKY want to prsent rugby league in the same light as British Ice hockey, speedway and netball.

The try music is an embarrassment- what self respecting sport would feel the need for such a nonsense? Notwithstanding the ridiculousness of it all, its about three decades old and belongs in an era of Joe Bloggs Jeans and glowsticks. Garbage.

The commentary team are a nightmare - failed football commentator Hemmings holding court like a pompous monarch who seems to think he is the arbiter of whats good for the sport. His snide criticsims of the challenge cup are a disgrace.

Resident daft lads O Connor and McDermott offer little but talk over the game and appear to be the producers attempt at chuckle brothers style humour.

Angela Powers and Bill wouldnt get a job in any other sport on SKY. A grade C GCSE media studies student could do better.

Phil Clarke likes to find new and arcane ways to sound the fool than the (pseudo) intellectual he is so depserate to be. Chris Eubank and Phil would be a lovely meeting of minds. The sad thing is when Clarke first got a gig with Sky he was a reasonable pundit.

Oh and finally can someone please tell mouth full of wasps Wells that there is a a T in Catalans.

That sums the whole thing up perfectly.

Why does Sky do it? Do they not want to grow the audience?

Why impose the awful Terry O'Connor on committed RL viewers, let alone potential new viewers, especially when you compare possible alternatives, including the knowledgable, intelligent and erudite Tony Rae?

And again yesterday, you hear worse in a school playground and that's the so called prep schools round here (tbh most kids are the same no matter what the upbringing when out of earshot of the grown ups)
Either SKY simply stop listening in on what the players say or they delay the feed and bleep/mute it out.
yesterday Carney was again a breath of fresh air, Hemmings can pack it in now and as for when McDermott was in on the commentary with him the contrast to the first match was night and day, just absolutely awful.
As others have said he just waffles over the action instead of what we want which is a flowing commentary, summise during breaks in play not when it's still happening, ffs it isn't rocket science!

I don't hear much of the commentary at all - I spend all the match saying Ah Shut Up aloud whenever O'Connor is on. The wife thinks I'm mad.