Must admit I actually like the TV version in S Tomkins, it's just the on pitch one I can't stand.

I have just caught the second half of the football tonight and was going to turn off after the match but I was genuinley Interested in Jamie Carragher and Gary Neville's after match discussion. Both not neccessarily agreeing with each other but both making very interesting comments on the match just played, the season so far, and other points.
Two very good media friendly individuals....... despite the Manc and Scouse accents

normally I wouldnt give a monkeys about after match discussions but their genuine passion and knowledge for the game was quite refreshing...........and not an ounce of gibberish or gobtery....it was very good TV.

compare that to the crap we get served up there is not a chance I can agree with any of your above comments on the fecktards I wish them an early retirement.............

I've heard this argument put forward before, and it might (just) have held for Waring, but why does consistency f commentators on Sky attract southern/non-RL fans exactly? I'm not sure why you think they would appeal to that particular audience more, or why you assume they want to hear an argument about the offside rule.

Now I don't know the demographic of Sky viewers for SL games, but I'd take a punt most are RL fans in the heartland. If you are trying to appeal to your minority audience at the expense or your core you're surely doomed to fail, rather than grow your 'product'.

Contrast the NRL guys on PS, or EPL men on Sky, and they enhance and complement the coverage; they are not a sideshow it themselves. I think that's the point that's being made here.

Maybe the Queen, as one of the casual southern viewers E&S are supposed to appeal to, has actually heard his commentary, and disagrees that taking one point at any opportunity is a valid play in modern RL?

Those are good examples. With ex players its always a risk because you get guys like Shearer who just talk up their personal friends in the game and give boring cliches, Savage who just wants to be controversial for the sake of it, and then players that have interesting insights that reveal things to the fans, like Neville, Carragher and in the international coverage Clarence Seedorf.

I think RL is lacking this. Tomkins is OK. I remember once (and I think only once) about 12 years ago Martin Masella did a stint in Sky and came over as a good articulate and interesting voice about the game, but they never had him back, which was a shame.

Laughing along is about right, especially in Eddie Waring's case. He may have been a good guy and a great servant to Rugby League but I would suggest that his style of commentating perpetuated a certain image of the game and its roots and not always in a positive light. At the end of his tenure perhaps aided and abetted by the Mike Yarwood "OOOOP and UNDERRR" vocab he may just have held us back?.

I don't have a problem with Ray French the follow up 'act' but he is similarly parochial.

Perhaps we need to accept what we have and get on with it and in time as ex players become more media savvy Tomkins etc then things will improve.

BTW despite the "biased SKY commentary" we won the bloody game