Red devils paw.....how can my son play for the under 16s when my son is 21, you thick git..... i said my partners son.. get acts rite. thicko

I started the thread.
But to add to it,is he doing a Stevo or is it a Yorkshire thing ?

scoot,
It's his own thing.
He flip-flops more than any politician.All he wrote in the RLE was already done in his national press column
earlier in the year -[url=http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/324987/Salford-are-looking-for-the-quick-fixHERE[/url I am at a loss to understand how he is given these column inches,as all he does is condemn.
He has upset Andy Farrell,Jamie Peacock,Adrian Morley and a number of coaches [url=http://richarddelariviere.co.uk/?p=246Here[/url
It would seem he is a complete contradiction.

It seems the perception of RL in the national media is of a sport always beset by some form of controversy or other. The commentaries on Sky (from the little I've seen of them) tend to focus on refereeing decisions, injustices, things going wrong, etc. There seems to be little about the skills on display. Schofield's yearly column is another symptom of it. If he gave an in depth analysis of each club - strengths, weaknesses, likely tactics, etc. (the kind of thing you see at the start of the RU season in the 'quality' papers) - he wouldn't get invited back. It's controversy we need (apparently).

I think it's why Ashcroft and Murphy get trundled out every few months in the Evening Speculator.

That is one thing that really annoys me about the way Sky cover games: a try will be scored, and the first thing that is replayed is the knock on by the opponent 50 yards back up the field 4 tackles earlier. They dwell on negatives.

As for Schofield as a pundit, he seems to be just one of a number of ex-players who seem to do nothing but moan about modern RL. Did anyone hear Henderson Gill on Radio Manc prior to the cup final? Everything was better in his day; it was better when players didn't have to train hard; it was better when Wembley had two towers (and p*ss poor spectator facilities and views) etc. Now, these guys do have some valid points at times (semi-meaningful scrums, striking at the play the ball, ref actually making decisions) but the barrage of negativity just gets tedious.

Then contrast it with Aussie TV equivalents - Johns, Lewis, Stirling, Vautin, Fittler, Geyer, Hindmarsh, Ikin, Alexander etc. All from the last 30 years, all eloquent, and seemingly not embittered. Of the same period of GB players we only have Clarke as any kind of serious pundit, and "Baz n Tez" put forward as the jokey boys (when I bet both could probably do a decent serious job).

I wonder if this is because the people in the UK media - both commentators and pundits - are too far removed from the modern game to understand it. The impression we get from them is that the game is no more complicated than hopscotch, so the only thing worth talking about is the controversy surrounding it. And yet, as we saw from Aussieland's postings a few years ago, there's far more to it than there appears on the surface.

I sometimes get to hear bits of what passes for commentary on Radio Manchester (usually a quick, broad description of what's happening on the field followed by a lengthy trawl around scores elsewhere and what's coming up over the weekend, plus Jacko's analysis of traffic on Barton Bridge - "Flowing, for the first time ever", as it is every week) and Paul Rowley comes across really well. He seems to be able to add a bit of the tactical analysis that commentaries and punditry elsewhere lacks. We need more of him and less of the knockabout 'nuthen' stereotypes.