I'm pondering what this thread might look like in a week's time, after a double dose of the BBC's offering.

Offiah would be better as a presenter than a pundit. He has presented a few small shows, is likeable and is more than capable of reading an autocue.

What I don't like is Phil Clarke's stupid rehed questions. For example "Well Gary, what goes through the mind of a rugby league player do in this situation?"

You should know, you were an international player? Why ask a 67 year old Australian coach who can't remember being 40 never mind playing.

bahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

You are joking right??

Brian Carney??

As a commentator???




'Well whots der big oidear to be sure'


Hes like (loike) an Irish version of Barrie McDougall (the one eyed guy who used to play for Leeds) or whatever his name is

McDermot?? McDougall??

I forget and I really can't be bothered to check

He sure is now hes got those new glasses

Like 2 coke bottle ends wrapped in a cut down wire coat hanger.

He should DEFINATELY have gone to specsavers

I think some posters on here are underestimating the challenges of the presenting job.

To be a presenter is not just about reading an autocue. It is pretty obvious that Offiah is an intelligent well spoken guy who knows a bit about rugby, and comes across as being a bumbling buffoon on Sunday night. It is high pressure and difficult to keep your flow and sound interesting when the lights are on.

Eddie has years of experience which is why he has the job on Sky but there are of course people who could cover/replace. These should be chosen from experienced presenters not ex players. Carney is good for short interview or filmed pieces but not long periods of live presenting.

As for the commentary job, this is even harder. To keep pace with the game is incredibly hard. It’s not the same as talking to your mate on the terrace or even summarising on tv when given a question. If you’ve ever seen the auditions of people applying for commentary jobs you’ll know. Try talking about the game, next time it is on sky, without having more than 2 seconds silence. If you manage it for more than 2 minutes you’ve done well, and if you record it and play it back you’ll sound like a robot.

Sky are spreading the wealth on BnA by changing the “guest” spot with Eddie managing the show. I think this is a move forward, so that we don’t get bored with Stevo. He is often outshone by Clarkey and Cullen who are intelligent, knowledgeable and up to date with their analysis, so should be used sparingly. I wouldn’t get rid though. He is a character and is passionate. That’s worth a lot from a marketing point of view.

So lets not be silly throwing names around. As said in other post, wait till the eloquent, experienced journalist and public school English teacher gets hold of the mike for the challenge cup. Then you'll see what a disaster putting the wrong guy in the chair can do.

Depends on how you define incredible .I suppose winning one cup with Dewsbury could be described as incedible.

If you knew what the set up was in those days you would know that WAS incredible.
He has a great record in Oz too.

Whilst Eddie's style lacks originality and his personality lacks eccentricity he is a perfectly good game commentator. I don't see any great need to get rid of him. Stevo kind of served a purpose when RL was trying to establish itself on SKY, but the last time he brought anything fresh and exciting to the table was when he was commentating on cave drawings.

The problem with Stevo is his single-handed (and largely successful) attempts to dumb down the game and lobotomise the casual observer. His understanding of tactics stops at "Take it up the middle", "Run from the dummy half" and "Get it out wide!". If a team is losing by eight points they should "Get it out wide". No expansion on this phrase is necessary. The number of people I hear parroting these lines in the pub at the weekend is truly depressing. It's like being deposited in the Murphy years at Saints circa 1988 when our game-breaking tactic was each man shovelling the ball five yards to his left and - if we executed the play perfectly - hitting the wingman four minutes later. If I didn't know he's not very bright I'd say he is some weird kind of ruggeroid agent whose mission is to render the game entirely without subtlety, a bit like the Newspeak of Orwell's 1984 was meant to erase dissent by erasing the word.

Thankfully, SKY - no doubt in response to a deluge of complaints - has decided to unearth the gritty details of the game and its tactics using guys like the unfeasibly slick Phil Clarke. Whether this is enough to counteract the ossifying effects of Stevo and educate the average pub moron in the ways of the sport remains to be seen.

Good points Mugwump

What I would say though is that Stevo does allow those people to feel involved. I too am iritated sometimes with the pub expert who repeats Stevo phrases but the question is, would they be able to talk about the game without him.
He throws lots of buzz phrases in that can just be recycled at will.

Having read his book though, I think he is pushed to do this to keep up his image. I don't think he is quite as thick as he comes across, just not a quick thinker.

Oh, he's smart enough to protect his interests at SKY by maintaining the persona. No doubt about that. I suppose it's difficult to be something you're not if you spread your facade too thin, and so he concentrates on a handful of core sayings and mannerisms which are easy keep reinforcing.

It's a triumph of schizophrenia really. But that doesn't do the game any favours at all.

The problem here is that some people have different views of what a commentator should do, in mine I mainly want them to comment on what is going on on the field and don't care to much for a lot of banter/personal opinion, where as other people enjoy the stevo/eddy banter and stevo giving his views on what should happen every 5 minutes! A lot of times this season I have had the sky game muted when I can and listen to rugby on the radio as that sort of commentary is what I'm after (and you get to hear from other games)

Sky should employ the guy who commentates on the Cas matches. www.superleague.co.uk/sltvlounge.php?

Sky should employ the guy who commentates on the Cas matches. www.superleague.co.uk/sltvlounge.php?