Great reply, don't know how I can argue with that.

listening to Vossy for the last two years on premier sports is really good IMO. he dosent just talk about what he had to eat in a local pub eg: the three pigeons

he does offer a really good opinion of the game and more importantly he is up to date with the modern game.

Ok let's take the ardent RL fans out of the debate (seen as you can't understand our opinion).

How useful do you think the Sky team (I'm being careful not to single out Stevo as it's a bigger problem than just him - although he clearly plays a big part in the sky team) are at commentating and explaining the action for the blind audience, or the casual viewers who need more of an explanation of what's happening and why?

Clarky actually dumbs down the game all the time e.g when someone kicks a 40/20 he says " that means a player has kicked...." Etc etc then find myself thinking "shut up you patronising to$$er"

I find that Sky RL provide the most informative and varied commentary of any sports broadcasts I see, and I include soccer in that. They provide a mixture of discussion of tougher issues, as well as explaining things for the new viewers (as the poster above says, though he seems to consider it 'patronising'???)

Serious question Jon - Do you work for Sky? Or have a personal allegiance to somebody that does?

In my experience, you are very much in the minority with that opinion. The actual in-game commentary is absolute minimal, with very little description of what is happening, and much more of the subjective opinions of the crew.

I keep harping on about the blind, as the blind rely solely on the commentary aspect of the coverage to understand what is happening, and I know from my involvement with certain organisations, the sky commentary of rugby league is not highly rated by the blind audience.

I'm all for having balance, and a mixture of commentary, opinion and even a touch of sensationalism are needed, unfortunately the Sky team at the moment focus mainly on the opinions far too heavily and this has a negative impact on the coverage for most viewers.

All commentators need to show their personality, but this shouldn't be at the expense of being descriptive of what they are seeing - the viewers tune in for the sporting occasion and the drama that brings, not to hear the opinions and pseudo arguments of the 'commentators'.

I have to say, whenever i speak to a new fan, floating fan, or not-really a fan of the game, they are almost universally positive about Stevo and they find his enthusiasm infectious and his excitement brings them into the game.

Im ot a huge fan of Eddie, i think he and stevo together doesnt really work the 'banter' is sometimes a little cringeworthy,

but i like stevo, i think if directed to be a bit more positive, and with a new play-caller he would be a lot better, but i do think he is a good colourman.

The annoying traits of individual commentators on Sky are far outweighed by the far superior overall broadcast they deliver IMHO. They're still light years ahead of the BBC, who manage somehow to still make exciting games appear dull because of their unexcited commentary and terrible sound mixing (a problem they don't seem to have when broadcasting 6 Nations matches I've noticed).

It's noticeable that Sky go out of their way to try and present the games in the best possible light. My only real issue is their obsession with refs which at time overshadows the skill from the players.

If people are that bothered why don't you mute the commentary and have your local BBC Radio commentary on your stereo instead? Or you could just keep moaning about it on a message board in the hope that Sky realise they would increase their audience by MILLIONS overnight if they just sacked Stevo...

I think that is probably the crux of the matter - there needs to be a new play-caller, and Stevo just needs to be wound in a little.



That's not really the solution is it - particularly when people pay alot of money for sky.

I remember watching the first few episodes of BackChat and I thought Stevo was ok on there and trying to make good points but then Rod Studd (who is head and shoulders the worst person involved in RL programming and I worry that he might get the gig of taking over Eddie one day) started to wind him up to get 'Stevo the character' out and it worked. That's the problem, those around him spend their time trying to give us 'Stevo', let him be Mike Stephenson and he can still be a good commentator.

Why encourage Sky to make this change to a highly successful formula (as proved by the hundreds of thousands who tune in every week) because a few people on here don't like it? If I was running a business I'd tend to go with the majority, and at the moment I'm seeing a few moaners vs 200,000 who enjoy the service every week.

Stop paying for it if you're that unhappy, no one is forcing you to give them your money.

Presuming that everyone who doesn't post on here loves the commentary?

Its been said elsewhere (and raised just above) but Eddie doesn't cut the mustard for me.

Too little calling the play, too much time winding Stevo up, and every time there is a contentious reffing decision, asking Cummings for his view.

Eddie is the problem for me. Yes Stevo can be OTT, but who doesn't love a game of Stevo bingo? The Eddie bingo card would consist of "the (select country) international", "the former (select country) international" and "what's your opinion Stuart?".

And while we're getting rid of Eddie, get him to take Clarkey with him. Carney presenting, Bill Arthur commentating with Stevo summarising, Wells, Barrie and Terry as the expert opinions having a sensible discussion with Carney.

Seems a strange attitude - Things in life don't have to be 'all or nothing'. I still want to watch the rugby, but have an opinion on how the coverage can be improved - an opinion that people are discussing on a forum, you know, the place for discussing opinions....

Sky do have a successful formula as you've pointed out - but it could be improved further with a better standard of actual commentary.

Everyone I've spoken to who's not a regular hate eddie and stevo, especially eddie, and say that he is ruining coverage of the game and that he put's them off.

If he loves the game so much, he should hang up his mic.

What I'm trying to say is why would a company like Sky decide to change what would appear to be a winning formula on the basis of a few message board warriors having a moan? What evidence other than 'my mates don't like it either (but they still appear to be watching)' do you have to suggest there is a significant groundswell of people on the verge of cancelling their subscriptions if they don't make a change to their line-up? The only way there would be a change is if a significant number of people cancelled their subscriptions in protest (I'm talking more than 50,000 subscribers) or if Eddie & Stevo does a 'Ross & Brand'.

I just find it crazy that on the one hand you have people moaning that there aren't enough 'personalities' in the game to help promote it, and on the other hand you have people wanting one of our most high profile advocates for the sport thrown out of the game to be replaced by someone only a handful of Premier Sports subscribers have ever heard of.

I have no affinity to Stevo, or Sky, but I do appreciate the efforts they make to present our sport in the best possible way, especially compared to the BBC.

To the first question... no and no. I just happen to like the Sky coverage (and far more than BBC coverage for that matter).

And as I said earlier, the only people I have met that seem to despise the coverage with such force are those on this forum; in fact I have not heard a single person in real life tell me they have been 'put off' RL by the Sky coverage, most find it entertaining and find watching the sport on TV better than ever.

We obviously mix in different circles - from the organisation I'm involved with for the blind, amateur rugby league teams, pro-players etc etc I never hear a positive word about they sky commentary. Hell, just take a look on twitter when super league is on, it's littered with pro-players bad mouthing the sky commentary team, followed by plenty of people re-tweeting, agreeing with the comments.

On a positive note, I think Jon Wells is pretty decent, Talks sense, very knowledgeable and articulate.

No, not really, because not much of that is anything to do with forwarding the game at all.

Stevo's try was superbly set up by Sullivan & Lockwood, it secured the draw which we needed, it has however no bearing on the game nor has improved it through that try, nor has leading Dewsbury to a championship win, nor has his alledged bringing set plays to Australia.
The Heritage centre/Museum managed to get into financial difficulties for various reasons, I applaud his efforts but hardly a big deal in the grand scheme of things, certainly not a big enough deal that fans went flocking to it but whatever a good effort.
Countless amatuer clubs & charities, rugby charities? I wouldn't know about him personally dipping into his pocket but I've given money to various rugby clubs (pro & amatuer) & rugby charities plus given plenty of hours as a volunteer & dipping into my own pocket to help my own club so does that mean I've contributed to the game in a notable way, no, not really because many hundreds/thousands do the same week in, week out.

I respect that he played the game at the highest level, I respect the fact he is enthusiastic about the sport but in reality he has done nothing to forward the sport of any note, in fact after watching his inadequate/embaressing 'discussion' with Stuart Barnes on the League V Union switching, it was cringeworthy at best and made him look like a buffoon at worst.
His 'commentary' is more like inane musings, it's a total put off for pretty much everyone but we have little choice other than to switch to a local radio station or mute it which is a double edged sword.
There is no real 'commentary' in the real sense though Hemmings is just about okay though never really did a commentating apprentice in the true fashion and was really just a sports reporter for Radio Merseyside.

I'd rather have someone from one of the regional stations whom actually can describe the game properly with a modern 'Stevo' summerising in between a la Brian Noble.

Pathetic.

LOL, so you've no actual comeback to that then, is that because I'm right and you're wrong and you've no way of actually showing what Mike Stephenson has contributed to RL aside from his playing credentials (he got paid for that and it was his job btw) and a few handouts to amateur rugby league teams that thousands of people across the country do week in week out?
What of that is incorrect/inaccurate?
So, I ask again, what has Mike Stephenson ACTUALLY done for the game of RL over and above many others that has a positive contribution to the sport as a whole. I've given him credit for backing the heritage museum, so what is left???
You going to say his devotion to sporting commentary/summerising, purleeease, he gets paid a lot of money to spout a load of old crap and has done for years.

I can't even say he's past it because he was never there to begin with as he's always being shockingly poor throughout..got lucky on the back of his past career, nothing more.

So come on, please come up with a better comeback than 'pathetic' which is what your response was...

You asked what he had done and I gave you answers, to which you made peurile attempts at dismissing each one. I have much better things to do with my time on a Sunday afternoon fortunately!

I think that Stevo often gets stuck about what to say hence the amount of rubbish/invention he comes out with. At least he is contradicted by the other commentators who clearly disagree with him - they too are not always blameless.

Stevo aside my big moan is about radio commentaries.

I recently crossed radio boundaries from Hull to Leeds and Manchester whist listening to game commentaries.
I would like to know from the radio where on the pitch the team in possession are, which player has the ball, which number tackle of the six and regular score updates. I realise that there are stoppages and then I am happy to listen to chit chat until the game gets going but please commentators keep me informed!

An example of my issues about radio commentaries is when listening to a Salford versus Widnes game last season at one point of what sounded like strong Widnes attacking the commentator announced that Widnes were one yard from the Salford line. He then immediately announced that "this is Radio Manchester on frequency blah, blah, blah......." then never mentioned the specifics of the game for approx a minute when he finally mentioned a scrum on the 20 metre line. Clearly there was no score at that time but they never commented on the missing detail.

I accept the local support aspects of radio commentaries and even enjoy the bias sometimes but please can they keep me informed.

For the last couple of seasons i have watched the Sky coverage, but listened to any radio coverage i could find. I found that increasingly i was just listening to the radio.. I have not renewed Sky Sports this year, and i'm not missing it thus far.