There are plenty of "intelligent and articulate" rugby league players. Just because the media chooses not to concentrate on them doesn't mean they don't exist.

A good example would be Mark Flanagan at Saints. All the lads and coaching staff speak very highly of him.

Also, there's a danger here in over-emphasizing academic intelligence, "book smarts", call it what you will. Just because a player isn't in the habit of using three or four syllable words - it doesn't follow that they are any less "intelligent" than the likes of, say, Jon Wilkin, who, for all his polished "media" style and expanded dictionary says so little of note you kind of wonder why he bothered.

I don't know about anyone else but I find the notion that "regional" accents speaking in working class idiom is undesirable to be downright offensive.

Paul Sculthorpe is one of many players who takes abuse for repetitive region-specific "filler" (such as "you know.."icon_wink.gif, yet this is working class lingua franca.

Ask Clare Balding who she thinks is more interesting - "intelligent", "articulate" Jon Wilkin, or that dashing northern scoundrel and all-round best bit of "Northern Ruff" since Lady Chatterley's Lover? - "Scuuuuuulllly!"

Yes, it's great when players offer new and sophisticated insights into the game. But let's not forget our working class roots, eh?

It's interesting looking at the NRL and comparing Cooper Cronk with Jonathan Thurston. The latter takes a merciless (although good natured) ribbing on the Footy Show over his myriad gaffes over the years. It's even worse for poor old Mario Fenech!

But if you asked me whether I prefer Cronk to Thurston - I'd have to say no. Sure, CC is a switched on guy. But Thurston is nothing short of 22ct. GOLD on camera!

I think Peacock comes over very well as an intelligent, articulate orator.

You've forgot Mick Morgan - I can't speke !

I think it's more about character than being educated and articulate. Television at the moment is awash with a big, northern sportsman, who isn't the brightest, but has a bit of a connection with viewer, Andrew Flintoff. Sport needs these characters, people like Sam Thiaday and JT. They are likeble people, who you can tell enjoy doing it, rather than having a cardboard cutout of Robbie Paul mumbling through a broadcast, as 'presentable' as he may be.

For me, keep the characters in the game, the 'love to hate, hate to love' people, like Sean Long, Lee Briers and Sam Tomkins. NRL do it with Noddy, Gaznier and Tallis, football with Ian Wright and Robbie Savage, we should wheel out our charismatic guys on the sidelines of matches too.

Malcolm Alker was quite good in front of the cameras believe it or not, some of the guests on Super League Show make you wince.

Tom Armstrong at Leigh is currently completing a master degree in petroleum engineering.

His accent makes him almost unintelligible to people not from the north of England.

When you put Stevo on a list of intelligent, articulate people you're losing the argument from the start of the first stanza. There'll be claret spilled over this one, you might want to try something different like a little chip over the top or getting the link working for the second phase.

Stevo's a random cliche machine. He might have the sharpest brain in rugby league for all we know, but he has absolutely no idea of how to get what's in his head across to the viewing public without repeating himself endlessly even when it's perfectly clear to all concerned that he's wrong.

Having had the pleasure of listening to Peacock speak as part of his "No White Flag" business, he's far more eloquent than people give him credit for. Sinfield - if he could get over what appears to be some inherent shyness in front of the camera - is a deep thinker and a good communicator, like a less excitable Jon Wells. You can see why he gets on well with Brian McDermott, who's in a similar mould.

Isn't all you want from a player/coach in front of the cameras to be able to express the point they're trying to get across in a way that even non-fans of the game can understand, and to come across as a likeable, engaging character while doing it? They don't need to have the vocabulary of Will Self.

The problem I have is the people most often considered "intelligent" and "articulate" very often have little or nothing to say.

These are media-savvy career climbers who despite being paid to offer us the benefits of their experience and stellar acumen know only too well that controversy isn't conducive to a long and lucrative career at the BBC or SKY.

I use Wilkin because he is the classic example. When he first started to take an interest in journalism he really did have some interesting things to say. But the moment he'd internalised and assimilated the Beeb's complex and arcane politics he ceased to function as an effective pundit. These days the best he seems able to muster is affecting the forms of controversy but not its substance.

I can testify from experiences I had on the radio alongside Ray French - once you give your heart and soul to the BBC you are a "company man" from start to finish. If you even dare to criticise the Beeb in their presence you become Public Enemy No. 1.

Call me old-fashioned but I've always subscribed to the Brian Clough school of punditry in which you say what's on your mind without fear or favour.

The closest I think we came was with Ian Millward who has everything you could ever want from a pundit. He's smart - but not aloof. He's funny. He's both likeable and dislikeable. But most important of all - he has SOMETHING NEW to say.

The Beeb really has let its standards slip - across the board. Match of the Day used to be THE premier football show on TV with intelligent, articulate and opinionated guests. Today it's riddled with ostensibly "intelligent" people who have nothing to say. Worse still - they are now in the practice of defending the indefensible.

In the recent Challenge Cup tie at Leeds against Huddersfield I literally did a double-take when I saw Brian Noble. The guy looked like he'd just staggered in half-drunk and without sleep following a heavy night on the booze.

And don't get me started on Jonathan Davies.

Would have to disagree regarding Sinfield and Peacock.
Sinfield has a delivery that sounds like the drone of a Lancaster Bomber. He may have some intelligent things to say but would be more suited to presenting it in writing.
Peacocks face (or is it just that flannel gob)is ideal for Radio work.

Unfortunately the game is ill served in the media. I agree with Mugwump above. If Robbie Paul and Jon Wilkin are the best the BBC can come up with then heaven help us. The SL Show is cringeable. When poor Matty Smith is on I dive for cover. I really like Matty. He obviously a good bloke, but he has absolutely NOTHING of interest to say. The person I feel most sorry for is Tanya Arnold, who is a brilliant presenter, she must yearn for someone to say something, anything!!

Also the argument that intelligent people are the best pundits is disproved by Phil Clarke every week. Clearly a thoughtful man who is also handsome (so my wife says). He is obsessed with 'sounding' intelliegent. And really- is it necessary to call people by their full name ("Matthew Smith has kicked more 40/20s than anyone except Daniel Brough!!"icon_wink.gif? There is a role for his stats, but try to use them to explain. For example why the obsession with completing sets? Explain why it is important, especially when you have just watched 5 drives and an aimless kick.

Stevo is beyond parody. I must say I quite like Barrie McDermott, who can articulate his thoughts with a bit of humour, and perhaps just needs to relax a bit. Sky would do well to have LESS people on their shows. Give people room to give their views instead of having to fight for air time.

The problem Barrie Mac has is that Sky seem to think he can only work as part of a double act with Terry O'Connor, who has the charm, eloquence and ability for rational, engaging thought of a B&Q side table.

Matt Gidley did his MBA while still playing, and bought his first business with virtually his first paycheck.

When his career was over he started a trainee position at the Newcastle Knights and after 2 years he became a glorified football manager under Nathan Tinkler's rule. He had the title of CEO, but all major business decisions were out of his hands.
At the end of the Tinkler era he was appointed CEO, but again he doesn't have full powers because the club is under administration of the NRL.
But anyway, he has virtually gone from player to CEO, and is fully qualified for the position. In his first few years of being CEO he was doing training sessions with the players, and outdoing some of them.

I'm a little more sympathetic toward Phil Clarke than maybe I should be. I do think he's been incredibly influential in SKY's attempts to modernise its analysis component - even if such change has been at a glacial pace.

Perhaps more than any other presenter he intuitively understands the limits of what can be said and what cannot.

We can agree or disagree on what he says. But he's very professional, works hard at his image and is generally respected.

I get a particular kick out of the patented "Phil Clarke Sidelong Glance" (always delivered with that little twinkle in his eye).

And I can't forget arguably the single funniest gag ever pulled on SKY which was the night at Castleford when he donned that outrageous wig. Seriously, my sides felt like they'd been worked over with a baseball bat the next day. I've never laughed so much during a match in my life.

I wish I could source a copy of that broadcast. I've tried repeatedly to root out a clip on YouTube but it seems no one was recording that night.

Pity.