Someone needs to tell him to stop dipping into Harry Hill's wardrobe.

No idea why anyone would complain about Crabtree when we have to listen to Barrie and Terry every week on Sky.

It seemed like Crabtree thought he needed to say a lot to justify him being part of the commentry team.
You got that with Cullen, he'd realise he'd not said anything for 10 minutes so spend 30 seconds saying something he could have done in 10.

I think Eorl's problem is he's too enthusiastic at times which comes across as a bad way, i'm sure with more experience etc he will improve.

Or, Y'Know, Andy Y'Know Gregory, Y'Know

I quite enjoy Eorl Crabtrees's comments and i enjoyed Ashley Sims comments as well.

Okay, I'll be the lone voice standing up for Garry Schofield.

Obnoxious? Yes. Exasperating? Hell, yeah! Over-inflated ego? Absolutely.

But (and trust me, I'm FORCING this out through gritted teeth), he grasps more about the essentials of punditry than most of BBC & SKY put together.

I might not like what Garry Schofield says - but I respect the fact that he's prepared to stick his neck out and take the consequences. Schoey understands that punditry is not just about making observations. It's about theatre, too. Ian Millward is another who grasps this intuitively and I really do miss him on the Beeb. Phil Clarke is part way there - but he's just too square to make a good pantomime villain.

I must have been one of the half-dozen people who actually bothered to tune into that Radio Yorkshire video podcast that seems to flit in and out of existence like an apparition. The same can't be said for The Super League zzzzzzzzzzshow.

If a pundit isn't stirring half the sport to pick up pitchforks each weekend then what's the point? Yes, Garry has tasted more of his own foot than anyone else in the game, but the idea that he's some kind of brainless dingbat is completely mistaken. Schoey was a very clever player on the pitch. And he's smarter than the average bear off it.

Yes I feel dirty saying this but I'd rather Schoey on his own than that hackneyed, artificially contrived screwball combination "Barrie & Terry" who've never said anything interesting or memorable in all the years I've watched them.

Schofield is one of them that you feel his comments are aimed just to be controversial (and for a reaction) and not a true reflection. Therefore I can't take him seriously if what he says is intended for 'reaction value'.

Hello? Pitching for "reaction value" is a pundit's bread and butter. That said, the better ones (and I include Schofield in this very small group) understand that you also need to counterbalance the baiting with some intelligent insights. The absolute master of this strategy is Geoff Boycott who's still driving England captains to four-letter tirades in his seventies? Eighties?

As I said, Schoey is no dingbat. If you listen to him when he's not being "Garry Schofield" he really does come across as someone who understands the game to a far deeper level than "Barrie & Terry" ever will. Would I chum about with him? Probably not. But I like the fact that he has something, ANYTHING to say which is eminently more interesting than the lifeless, soulless nothingness generated by Jon "The Career Climber" Wilkin, Brian "Wry but Dull" Noble, Jonathan "Shocking Defence" Davies, Robbie "Ever-so-eager" Paul, Kevin "Better than Benilyn" Sinfield etc. etc. snooooooooze.

Let's not forget that a pundit and an analyst are two different animals, also.

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.