The commentators in NRL games have such a better and higher understanding of the game compared to ours. They understand the little niggles and the game isnt black and white, they are grey areas where yu shouldnt officiate to the letter of the law. As opposed to stevo who doesnt know his back side from his elbow. I think its because there commentators have played the sport at such a high level and are technically so far ahead of us.

Do you think that sky should start bringing through newly ex-players because of the technical ability, their depth of knowledge, understanding of the game and are far better educated? Brian Carney for one notices the little things that make up the current style of play, such as when a team it returning the ball they try returning it down the middle so defences cant stack down on them, where as stevo thinks its stupid to pass the ball between backs and just play face down and drive rugby?

If Peter Sterling was saying it fifteen years ago, Stevo is saying it now.

I agree totally, its the old style of rugby that just cannot be applied to todays game? You agree we need to media train newly ex-players?

I do think we need more variety.

I did without Sky from about 2007 until this year and most of the time I've seen a televised game over the years since has been in a pub with the jukebox blaring. I'm pleasantly surprised, having resubscribed this year, by how much a lot of the coverage has improved.

Carney is great, and I really like the little segments John Wells does. And the graphical elements they use now actually compliment what they're saying and are useful rather than just an exercise in "look what we can do with our technology".

I still have old tapes from the pre-Super League war days of Aussie games and every cliche that Stevo has been coming out with for years that you only ever hear him say ('claret', 'got to get the message out', etc) are things Sterlo and Blocker Roache and Fatty Vautin came out with in the early nineties.

I don't actively dislike Hemmings. He's not brilliant, but from a purely describing what's going on in front of him persepctive he's functional and adequate. Him plus an expert summariser who is actually an expert and can summarise would be pretty good imo. I think the people they have on the team can do this, but for some reason Stevo seems to have 'star quality'. Maybe Sky think he's a figure we love to hate?

It's no big deal to sack the football mob because the number of people waiting in the wings with experience and knowledge is pretty big really. Sky have many from the quantity of games and length of time they've been doing it, and every local radio station in the country has at least three people who regularly cover a game or two a week.

There's nobody from GMR, Merseyside, Cumbria or Leeds that I'd want to replace them and from the MM games each year I think Bill Arthur is a step down rather than up.

I did once suggest to sky that, if they aren't going to get rid of eddie and steve any time soon, that they might provide two commentary teams and allow us to select which team we want using that annoying red button that keeps appearing... got a polite reply saying thanks for the idea and we'll look at it.

Who, in your opinion, would make up the alternate commentary team?

Spot on re Sterlo he was saying 'nothing short of sensational' yonks back, was probably having a wow too

Rob Stud, Carney and John Wells maybe.
Stevo is really affecting my enjoyment of games now. He talks complete rubbish and focuses on the refs rather than the play. Phil Clarke is rapidly becoming equally annoying. McDermott and O'Connor are OK but don't give much insight.

The 'commentary' by Stevo is getting worse year on year unfortunately. If Neville Smith really wants to keep his old pal in a job then surely they need to be looking at reducing his air time. Alongside Eddie there should be someone knowledgeable who understands the game who will point out something that the average fan might have missed.

I've long wanted a 'no commentary' option so that the crowd noise isn't lost. God knows why Sky refuse to do it, they must actually believe that people enjoy listening to Stevo and Eddie.. crazy.

I hear Scott Naylor needs a job.......

Just need to media train some players, which i know super league now are training youngsters for life after rugby. But like simple coaching points that Eddie and stevo clearly miss, if anything Eddie spots and understands more about the modern game than the lacklustre pointless commentary that Stevo provides. He really doesnt understand the game at all. Like somebody has said he only focuses on refereeing decisions and is often wrong with video ref decision which clearly demonstrates his knowledge of the game is not the best.
But maybe an alternate commentary team is a good idea, but definitely cut his air time and give some ex players more chance to analysis the game, and also stop Phil 'Stat Man' Clarke giving useless points

Agree with the comments about Stevo, but I tend not to mind as much about him than Eddie. He is the least partisan of the lot, apart from favouring Yorkshire sides in general, which is no bad thing.

Perhaps this is deliberate to encourage debate, but Eddie often makes statements that I would expect from a 10-year old or someone who has only watched the game for a few matches. He also gets far too excited about Warrington (and latterly Saints) to a sickening degree, and seems to be getting the names of players wrong a lot more often (although a way to go before he meets the Ray French gold standard). I know Kevin and Lee Penny both played for Warrington, but getting them confused is pretty laughable.

As for the others, I still like Phil Clarke and enjoy his statistical analysis when it doesn't get too meaningless (e.g. do you know Eddeh, Wigan score more tries on the fourth tackle than any other side in SL). The Wigan bias is irritating but he seems to have calmed down since they won the GF. He's at his worst when Wigan aren't playing and just starts to go off on a tangent about them etc.

Carney and to a lesser extent McDermott are both very good.

O'Connor is just one ex-Wiganer too many. Wells is better but is also a tad boring. Bill Arthur was appalling at Millennium Magic, although he'd be fine if he stuck to the commentary and didn't try and tell jokes.

Just watching the Cas Dragons game and Stevo is just showing is inept knowledge and over opinionated commentary. He is frustrating to watch and spoils the enjoyment of the game in a way.
Sky really need to have a think about revamping the commentary team or like someone mentioned earlier offer a alternate commentary