Neville Smith probably reminded him that there are actually two teams playing, not just Huddersfield.

Remind me, what did he actually say that was either 1. anti-wire, 2. biased towards hudds, 3. non-factual stats 4. poor tactical analysis 5. creaming over pies.
He's a wiganer, so what? Get over it !

I thought his intro on King was good and he used the stooges in the South Stand booing him perfectly.

He gets booed because he's a pr1ck!

[iStands up sheepishly.[/i

Hello group.

I'm a Warrington supporter and I like and appreciate Phil Clarke's detailed statistical analysis, insightful comments and ability to pick aspects out of the match that your average supporter wouldn't even begin to notice on Sky's rugby coverage.

Do I need to acknowledge that I require help or is my minority view actually the correct one?

Oh, and I cringe whenever McDermott or O'Connor are part of the presentation team.

Thanks for listening to my story.

[iSits down with a slight blushing of the cheeks and the hint of a tear forming in the eye.[/i

His reaction to the 40-20 from Hudds was pathetic and needs looking at by Sky bosses if they think he's unbiased. Aside from that, his pro-warrington comments sounded forced and overdone.

His reaction to the 40/20 was based out of excitement at the prospect that Huddersfield might score that would set the game up for an even bigger finale. Sky are there to provide entertainment and for the nuetral another try from Hudds would have made a great last 10 minutes. I am sure if we were behind by 6 points with 10 to go and we kicked a 40/20 his reaction would have been the same. He is paid by sky to do a job and hype up the product just like his comments about the 3d coverage and I have no problem with that.
One good thing about Clarke is he says it as he sees it, He will disagree with other comentators if he thinks they are talking poop as he did with stevo last night. If anything it is his honesty that gets him into trouble.
I quite enjoy watching him to be honest and he sees a lot more in a game than Stevo does. I like the way he bigged up Grix, Grix does not always get the headlines but does lots of things very well which most supporters do not see, Clarke is able to point thing out like that and educate people like myself. Viewers will learn more about the game from Clarke than they will off Stevo and Terry any day.

pathetic by stevo to say that giants 54 minute try was a consolation try , .. what with 26 minutes left to play ,

I'm sorry mate, but that was a fantastic 40-20 at a time where it could have been an absolute game changer. Hudds were chasing the game but were at the wrong end of the field, and that was an absolute gem of a kick. If you think that was anti-wire you need to think again. If Monaghan had done that kick in the opposite circumstances you'd have had to clean up after yourself.

Phil Clarke didn't say anything biased against Wire last night, cringeworthy comments yes but thats what the entire sky team are like. Eddie is the one that gets on my nerves because he just spunks over Wire like he did when Saints were at the top. Stevo just winds me up cos he hasn't got a clue, first penalty of the game where O'Donnell "knocked on", claims there wasn't a hand anywhere near it at the exact moment Carvell rips it out. Clueless.

And on another note, I'm so sorely tempted to buy a 3D tv, and subscribe to the 3D sky service if it means I can get a commentary team of Brian Carney + Bill Arthur.

You lot are making up now. Classic example of if you say something enough then people will start to believe you.

It was an exciting moment and potentially a match winner. He'd only just previously said how exciting the game was. For a neutral that was one of the biggest moments of the game.

I note your not moaning about Brian Noble creaming over Monaghans video ref effort.

It's not PC that has that bias problem. It's you.

Clarkey is eons better than either Eddie or Stevo.

I like Phil Clarke too and on the whole his anlysis and comments on the game are brilliant, he does see the things the mere mortals like us dont as lets remember he was a n awesome player that graced the rugby field in his daya nd he would fit into ay top team right now.

My only gripe with him is that he just cant take his cherry and white coat off (which he needs to do from time to time) when he's commenting on games, I am sure he is proud of his Wigan background and he has every right to be but he needs to remember his enthusiasm, knowledge, understanding and insight into the game would be met with the big plaudits if he could remember that evrey team doesnt need to be compared to Wigan. I think he makes a real positive difference to the game on the whole. His comments on Grix show how he spots areas of the game that other just dont see.

Phil Clarke gives accurate and incite full commentary week i week out. Wire fans remove your cherry and white bias and acknowledge somebody who knows the game inside out.

He may be a geek with all the stats and he may be an ex-wigan captain with a slight bias but he knows more about the game than we ever will and in my eyses he's never spouted anything but the truth however unpallatable to us Wire fans

Look, I agree that Clarke is incredibly biased towards Wigan. Absolutely. But Eddie is equally biased against Wigan and as such creams himself over whoever is challenging around Wigan. I imagine it's equally as annoying the other way around.