Trying not to swear. But this is excrutiating. What has to be done to get Sky to get shut of him?

Terry is absolutely quality.

He's the worst pundit I've heard in any sport. And that includes Robbie Savage and Phil Neville.

If Sky were to sack Terry O'Connor, there would be 1 fewer Terry on their commentary team - Michael Owen

I like Terry but in the sense of having a chat about RL with him over a pint in the pub. As a commentator he's awful.
Unfortunately a few years back Sky got Barrie & Terry in to do a bit of light-hearted stuff in some short videos on Boots n All and pre-match. And that's where they should've stayed.




Lovely stuff.

Nah,,Phil Clarke for me....

I get that a lot of people dislike the content of Phil Clarke's commentary, but in terms of delivery and articulation he's probably the best Sky have, although I wouldn't argue with anyone putting Carney's name in the hat as he's really come on in leaps and bounds in the last few years. O'Connor still sounds like a man being interviewed outside the pub, even after all this time.

If anything i would say Carney started off very good but has gradually been dragged down to the depths of the rest of the clowns that spout continuous nonsense throughout the match. I enjoy his segments with Wells though.

O'Connor, McDermott and Cummings are truly awful though most of the time but i guess we have to put up with them for the sake of live RL.

I don't understand the criticisms of Phil Clarke, as I find him eloquent and accurate. To a certain extent I feel he's having to do more and more of the Stevo role, which is why he occasionally strays into meaningless hyperbole. But I think Stevo's departure (and perhaps Eddie's) will allow a reboot of the whole concept, with the dropping of the Straight-Man/Funny-Man model of Eddie and Stevo, and it's replacement with something closer to Australian commentary teams. Phil can then slot into a more natural role, perhaps with Carney joining him as co-analyst in the studio.

I think Carney and Wells are excellent, and I greatly enjoy their segments. Likewise, I think Wilkin is a future addition to the team once he stops playing.

I do agree, however, that Baz and Tez were suited to short comic segments in a magazine programme, but not remotely to commentary.

I find myself agreeing with Carney the most, and Clarke when he isn't trying to be ridiculous. Barry and Terry say nothing of real value and shouldn't be on the commentary team.

A few years ago Carney was very amateurish and came across like a fish out of water. His transformation into a proficient pundit has been one of the best imo, but I do know what you mean by getting dragged down - I think they get caught up with their own cliches and even start to believe half of what Stevo says!

I actually don't mind Barry Mac myself, he has his moments of decent commentary and quite a lot of useful insights, but he does make quite a few gaffs. As long as he's not trying too hard to be funny he's ok.

As for Cummings, he surprised me when he first entered the commentary box by providing some useful insights into decisions but he's gone so far downhill it's embarrassing. He's as bad as Stevo for making his mind up before he's seen a replay and he'll just say something like "yep, no evidence of a knock on there" when the video is clearly showing one. Pointless having him there anymore.

Where am I and what's my job" Sheer quality.

Agree about O'Connor, he doesn't offer much other than buffoonery. McDermott has a potential future. Clarke is OK until we get to him commentating on Wigan in a big game and it often becomes embarrassing. Wells is undoubtedly the star of the show though.

I find criticism of Cummings unwarranted although his role may be superfluous once Stevo retires - he was brought in precisely because the commentary team seemed utterly confused by the laws a lot of the time and were criticising referees based on their misinterpretation of them. I for one value his insights - he certainly doesn't stand behind the refs as some would have you think (the RFL refereeing dept was and is full of people who are not necessarily that fond of each other). I suspect some of the criticism comes from people wishing the laws were different once tight calls are explained.

The problem for me is they all seem to think twenty words are needed when sometimes a short comment would say more.
Agree at times O'Connor does come across as son of Stevo.

I've just watched Ellery Hanley conducting an excellent interview of Frank Bruno on Sporting Heroes on SS1. Ellery would be a fantastic addition to Sky's RL commentary team.

He's God-awful, at one point last year he predicted Catalans to miss the top 8 when it was mathematically impossible.

The biggest problem for me is having so many voices during a game. Should be a normal two man team with the odd jump to a studio guest for opinions. Not 5/6 voices fighting to get a word in. Eddie and Stevo were much better back in the days when it was that setup.

Even without the Wigan bias thing I don't think Clarke is as good as some think. I think McDermott can be OK when separated from O'Connor who is poor and is only there because of the Baz Tez combination which isn't any good anyway. Get rid of Cummings, ok at first for something different but just stupid now.

O'Connor: you might not be old enough to remember the "yes, no" interlude. But please test your IQ for us by attempting to do the next commentary SKY pay you to do without using the words "you" or "six". Bet can't do it. Durrrr. Do the game a favour and resign.

he's desperate for a warrington win!

He's obsessed with saying "turning up" and "big man"

He's more of a soundboard than Stevo. Literally just repeats the same stuff every game. He has no analytical knowledge of the game, just "drives", "shots" and "turning up".

And usually starts a sentence with "sorry Eddie/Bill/Rod/Brian/Baz"

He likes Matt Russell, is he trying to line him up as his son in law or something?

Apparently next season will see Brian Carney and a new face take the reigns from Eddie and Stevo.

Bloody hope so