I think he's using a JCB, not a shovel!

thinking twice is 200% better than your record, you only need look at your avtar to understand your mentality.

You’re being very judgemental you know, tut tut.

a judgement based on evidence, you keep digging, it is easy fodder for the rest of us.

Always thought Clare Balding did a great job for the BBC, and was sorry that she left as I thought she'd improve with time as her knowledge and understanding of the game grew. So yes, there's a place in RL for female broadcasters for me.

I agree but what I would I say is if they’re going to try and bring more female interest into the game by having female players as pundits then Sky should back that up with showing some games or at least highlights of the women’s SL.

Would love them to use the best commentators/presenters rather than ticking the pc box. Hopefully use someone with a bit of passion. Either that or have the option of turning the commentators off (still get the ref and crowd though)

The lady presenter you refer to is Yvonne Sampson who knows the NRL game backwards and is liked at all levels of the game.

My Wife got me into Rugby League when we started dating. Before meeting her I'd never taken an interest. She'd watched almost from birth.

Yet the number of conversations we got in where other male supporters would ignore her and try to get my opinion was embarrassing quite frankly. Her knowledge of the sport was vastly greater than mine but simply because she was a woman is was almost like she couldn't possibly have a valuable opinion.

Unfortunately another area the sport is stuck in the past, Just like the OP it seems.

I actually think Sky are doing a great thing here to try and improve the image for once.

The thing you are missing is that you are judging her skills as a pundit on her achievements in an area of sport she can't compete in.
Your Brian Cox example shows exactly why you are wrong.
Brian Cox is a very intelligent and well qualified scientist. But that is not why they put him on tv. He has that gig because he can present science better than most people. He doesn't present anything near the level he actually studies. None of us would understand a word he was saying because we are not at that level. So it doesn't matter whether he is the best at what he studies, it matters that he can present in an entertaining way and teach people who know less than he does.

A Rugby League Pundit is the same.
I am lucky enough to go to the Great Britain Lions Luncheon every year. The very very best rugby league players from this country attend that dinner and receive awards and talk on stage. I can't tell you how great it is to talk to those guys and listen to their stories. The qualifications in the room would be too great to list, but not many would be able to talk on camera to millions of people. That is a different skill altogether.

Trent Robinson is one of the most insightful pundits I've seen on Sky. Probably only Eddie has played less professional games on the Sky team.

Whether Lois Forsell was brought in because they needed to tick a box only Sky can answer, but I doubt they actually needed to tick a box at all. Viewing figures is what they are judged on, not diversity.
Personally I was interested to know what she had to say and found it refreshing. I had no idea who she was so I could only judge her on what she said and how she said it. For that she ticks a box. I've since looked her up and she is clearly a good rugby league player and leader. If she was rubbish and didn't know what she was talking about (like Terry) I would call it out, but she wasn't.

Sky don't feel the need to bring in someone who is not white European or white Australasian. That would tick a diversity box but they don't do that, so why instantly think this is the same? Maybe, they think she'll be good and will bring a different view point to the game based on her personality, her lessons learned as a player and her ability to talk in front of the camera.

The fact that this has to be explained in 2019 is really sad.

Cracking post