Personally they don't really effect my enjoyment of watching a game one way or the other because I tend to turn the volume down. I will say though that when you do talk to either friends or people at the games about them, there is an increasing amount that don't particularly like them and what a change, it seems to get more every season as well.

Eddie especially is a poor commentator imo, tends to go on forever about referee calls during the game instead of moving on with play and tbh should be left in the studio to do the pre game and post game bit.

where to start.
patronising, inaccurate (One example is in that they fail to identify what is clearly obvious), can't actually commentate (either of them). Limted ability to use descriptives.
Eddie can present to camera but that is about it, Stevo is a luddite of epic proportions and is so bad it's scary.
Both of them spout sycophantic e and with Clarky too it's a proper w@nk fest when either the goons or whinos are on (add Wanky to that of late)
Neither are 'characterful', just two old farts with next to zero talent with viewpoints/phrases that are so repititious and bizarre that it annoys the viewer and cannot help any newcomers to the sport.
We need a keith Macklin, now he could commentate...

And apart from that, you love them?

I like 'em....and there is no one better waiting in the wings

That's the problem mate.

How do you know ther's no one better.
When they come to be replaced IMO they should try and recruit some of the local radio commentators. Take away their bias and some are really good.
I'm quite sure that if SKY looked around they'd find some very good replacements.
Once listened to a BBC Radio London commentary on a Quins/Broncos game, that was excellent.

Eddie should stick to commentating and not analyzing. Stevo has been regularly showdown up this year by Cummings when all can see he has clearly got things wrong. The sooner Stevo goes the better, despite his passion for the game, which cannot be questioned. Clarkey, give it a rest, even us Wiganers get tired of it.

Yep, if Eddie would stick to commentating he's not bad, but he keeps on going into analysis rather than commentary, and he's rubbish at it.
Have Eddie commentating with a max of 2 others analyzing (Carney, Wells, McRae & McDermott are usually pretty good) then just have Stevo's input pre game, half-time and post game.

Forgive me if you are a leading light in sports media, but if this black and white description is the case, why have Sky Sports management stuck with them for 23 years? Maybe, just maybe it is because they recognise the important work they have done in developing the channel since its early days and that they continue in their eyes to justify keeping them on.

Hemmings is poor, but Stevo would be fine - alongside a different commentator. The self-regarding 'banter' they generate between them is just embarrassing. Carney is the best by far.

I'm not sure why but I just can't bring myself to like Carney, I think he sounds miserable at best and his presentation of origin games etc in the past has been wooden. I think Wells is great when in the studio, and Clarkey has the hallmarks of a good pundit but is tasked with presenting pretty dull stats.

Right because all big organisations get things right. How do you know what the goings on with the 'management', do you not think that they know that RL fans will watch/pay subscriptions pretty much no matter what even if they had chimps doing it..hang on that's an insult to chimps.

Please do tell what 'important' work Eddie & Mike do and how does their shocking presentation/match commentary have any bearing on that 'important' work'?

I know a darn sight more about presenting to an audience & am able to commentate on what I'm watching in an accurate & interesting way more than the clowns we presently have as have many past & present commentators. I also have a decent command of the English language, something Stevo is limited in & it shows hugely.
Having to put up with such garbage is IMO detrimental to the actual sport itself in its entirety & not just the match commentary or lack thereof.

For whatever reason,clearly Sky aren't going to change,until they are forced to for some reason but the solution is relatively clear to me and is essentially what Sky do with every other sport.

The studio presenter has to be different to the commentator.
They only need two people in the commentary box,not four.One commentator and one expert/analyst.Others can provide comment before,at half time and after a game.
When more than one game is covered in a week,a different commentator should be used.

Frankly,Sky have more than sufficient people covering the game,they are just not used well.Stevo doesn't know whether he's supposed to be a co commentator or an expert analyst,the others randomly interrupt to justify their presence,Hemmings is well over exposed.Ofcourse,none of this excuses the lack of research by Hemmings and the illiteracy of Stevo.

So basicay you are just jealous because you want their jobs?

Im presuming with your huge natural talent for commentating and presenting live sports we've seen you on TV?

Sky Sports is a huge organisation. When they first started out people said the concept of paying for satellite/cable TV on top of the license fee would never work, yet here we are today with people paying out ludicrous amounts for Sky +/HD/3D/Sports/Movies/multiroom etc etc. When Eddie first started working for Sky RL was one of the only sports they had and over the past 23 years they have popularised the sport and played a big part in bringing about summer RL, play offs etc. We have the second most watched sport on Sky, with 35% of viewers living down south and plenty elsewhere. If Eddie and Stevo made such insulting television would that be the case?

Please do share with us your experience presenting live television? I am intrigued.