The Sky team get a massive slagging, in particular Stevo & Eddy.

While I agree with a lot of what is said, I question who is the southern-based clown
who wrote it ? Jonathon Liew ?
He obviously can't even be bothered to get off his back-side to go and
watch the game before delivering his pathetic comments.

He finishes with the comments below:

=#4000FFThe reality, of course, is quite different. Sky’s team may be entertaining enough on the first few watches, but regular viewers who have been exposed to their loud-man shtick for two decades are entitled to expect a little more insight and a little less incitement.

Sky may reckon that the homespun patter of Eddie and Stevo plays well in the agnostic south. In fact, their habit for overstatement undersells the product, perpetuating the myth that rugby league is a simple game for simple people. And I’ll tell you that for nothing.

Although I question his qualifications for commenting on RL, or anything else for that matter, it does give an insight into how our game is viewed in the Capital.

It really is about time Sky rang the changes, Stevo & Eddy are well passed their use-by-date.
At least Stevo has some knowledge of the game, even if it is dated. Eddy is totally
out of his depth, which he constantly tries to cover with endless, irrelevant whittering about statistics from yesteryear.

I also agree with the comment that John Wells's ranting and raving at half & full time is embarassing and unnecessary. I find his comments very knowledgable and interesting but the shouted delivery is awful.

John Well's brings excellent insight and analysis to the games best employer Sky have for out sport excluding Sam Tomkins

I wouldnt trust anything written in that Tory rag - even if it was true!!

My bird's dad (who goes to more games than me) says that he watched John Wells at half time (in the stadium) and said that he spent five minutes or so reading from a sheet, preparing, then went off on one. I do wonder how much of what he says is actually his knowledge/opinion/work, or whether it's done for him and he just has to put a rugby player's spin on it.

Either way, I made a comment the other day on a thread about Phil Clarke. Basically, I think that Sky seem to let their pundits take it in turns in saying the stupidest of things, Clarke more so than most, but it seems that they will go through the pundits, if, say, there's four of them, Eddie will ask Stevo for something, he'll say the obvious, Eddie will agree, Cullen will then agree then add a bit more, then Phil Clarke will chuck his bit in, completely different to everybody else, but often the most stupid of things. It seems they want to have Clarke there either to get a rise out of the pundits or a rise out of fans, sometimes it will be something so clear cut, but he can't help but have the other opinion, no matter how stupid.

The problem with Eddie and Stevo is both of them have continued on well past there sell by date, they remind me a bit of Richard Keys and Andy Gray where both of them were pretty good in the early days of sky sports but both were allowed to hang around for too long giving the programmes a stale and old fashioned feel.

We certainly need a new presenter/ commentator and a new co commentator, Brian Carney and John Wells are 2 superb additions to the sky sports SL team, they give the programme a modern feel as well as giving us some great, knowledgeable insight. Barry and Terry are 2 decent additions as well, i'm not a fan though of either Ben Proe, Bill Aurthur or Phil Clarke.

Carney is head and shoulders above them all

Rob Wire is bang on.

Unfortunately the argument that "the viewers like continuity" gets used to justify jobs for life, and Eddie and Stevo are just like Gray and Keys were. Even back in the early 2000s I think Eddie and Stevo were starting to go stale, and at the time Phil Clarke was quite a good pundit and freshened it up but now Clarke has just become another stooge like them.

Continuity is OK if you have quality pundits, like the ones they have in Australia.

With hair like his,its beacuse he is worth it.

Carney is ok as a pundit but he is a god awful presenter, wooden and constantly fluffing his lines.

Personally I dont mind Eddie as the presenter but if sky were to replace him it would have to be with a naturally gifted presenter with a good knowledge and love of the game. I think Claire Balding does a good job on the beeb but not sure she could/would be tempted away.

Stevo is a baffoon and needs to be replaced.

Phil Clarke makes a mockery of the whole sport with his poorly thought out gimmicks and protestations. He likes to go against the grain no matter how much of an idiot it makes him look.

Jon Wells is a welcome addition and his observations pre, post and during the games are insightful and relevant. As the OP says he needs to refrain from delivering his pitch in the manner he does.

Barry and Terry are likeable and fairly comical and should be used accordingly but they are no presenters.

Bill Arthur is ok as a pitchline reporter but thats as far as it goes. His commentaries are woeful.

Paul Cullen for me is an ideal replacement for Stevo. He does speak clap trap sometimes but generally he is articulate, honest, fair and knowledgable. He speaks with plenty of passion and obviously loves the game. He also has a good sense of humour which I like.

As long as they don't get rid of the margin meter then I'm happy.

Have to say, watching some of the "stat-attack" gubbins that they show during matches doesn't half leave me cold. We have the clunky presenting of Waldorf and Statler crashing headlong into a graphic designer's wet dream. Unintelligible, overblown and without substance - it's just flashy tech for the sake of it, the CG quivalent of fur-coat-no-knickers. For a moment the other night I thought I was watching The Day Today.

Bill Arthur is no match for Peter O'Hanraohanan

'Peter; you've lost the news!!'

Here's my take on Sky's presenters

Eddie.....no problem. Make's a few mistakes in commentary, but then, it's a fast moving sport, with a lot of players occupying a small area, around the ball.

Stevo...again, no problem.

It could be worse, we could have some of the faceless droids that currently do Match Of The Day, etc

Pundits
Clarke...... half the time, his insight is fantastic, it's the other 50% where he might as well shout "LISTEN TO ME, I'M GOING TO SAY SOMETHING CONTRAVERSIAL/STUPID/WRONG", when I bang my head against the wall.

Barry and Terry are merely a poor man's Eddie and Stevo

Arthur....far too dull, just have him doing his touchline stuff

Wells, nah, not for me

Carney....please, NO. I can't bear his "take me seriously. I'm an articulate Irishman" demeanour

Shawn "Frank Cannon" McRea and John "Norris Cole" Kear.....letr's get someone else. Sky don't have to keep the dole queue down by two, by employing these pair.

Cullen and Powers.....not bothered.


One side point, why do Sky need to have FOUR people on commentary. IT'S TOO MANY
Eddie
Stevo
Clarke
and guest....too many opinions on the same game

Sorry but Eddie is far too politically correct with his opinions, there isn't an ounce of controversy in him.

If a fight breaks out on the pitch where its little more than handbags at dawn we usually get the Eddie line "We don't need this sort of thing in our game".

Wake up Eddie, its a masculine, virtually full contact sport thats played by men that are pumped up with testosterone, what else is he expecting in the heat of the battle ?

He's too much of a company man for me, far too affraid to be slightly controversial with his opinions. Give me Ray "Rabbit's" Warren any day of the week, he makes a live NRL game really enjoyable with his passion and style of commentary.

i watched a video yesterday from a number of years back and noticed jeff stelling doing some presenting for rugby league and he was in an interview with paul cullen. i think we need someone like him to replace eddie.

There was an article in the League Express a week or so ago which also appeared to round on Sky and its pundits, and the point which resonated with me the most is the sheer amount of pundits on every match.

Elements of this are good, such as hearing from someone on the sideline with injury update, but on the main commentary is it really necessary for 4/5 people throwing in haphazard points. As for Stevo and Eddie, I think their knowledge of the game is superb, but do sometimes question whether they do perhaps need to edit their styles to please a wider audience.

I don't even think Golf has that many commentators over 18 holes, and our rival sports such as Football would laugh at such a concept. For a sport such as ours the system used in American Football is perfectly fine - two commentators on the match, and a further person to liase with on the bench/sideline.

It's an issue that just seems to find another person added into the mix on an annual basis and really does make you wonder if we will have one person commentating per 10m of the pitch.

One thing that did annoy me, even though I'm English, is the WCC game commentary.

When i watch a game i want impartiality, i don't want partisan chest beating patriotism i find it annoying, the only time i enjoy that is if there is a foil, if there was an Aussie beating the Manly drum that would have been fine.

I ended up watching the game through my nokia ear phones (which somehow take the the commentary off yet leave crowd noise on?)

They should be banned from using the term 'world class'. They bring it out during the WCC every year, then persist with using it every time an English player that's been in decent form. Briscoe last year was 'world class' and Ryan Hall is now world class. I can't wait for the next international tournament, just so I can be told by the blokes at Sky that our players are world class. I'm sure they get it from the football pundits, as they often use the term, particularly big premier league games and champions league games.

Ahh World Class. Oh the fun we used to have on here winding Saints up with that.

Get Chris Kamara on the touchline. Unbelieveable Eddie!!!!!!!

I think he's pretty spot on to be honest and my interpretation is that he is saying positive things about the game but that it's let down by the presentation .

The whole presentation of the game on Sky reinforces the Northern stereotype - even to the opening credit sequence with the robots running into each other and the pre-season adverts about Super League making you tough - all reinforce the 13 blokes running into each other. Compare with the promos for Sky F1, which are brilliant. (Motor racing is my favourite sport so they may be singing to the choir with me).

Stevo when he's allowed to is actually a good reader of the game. Phil Clarke is terrible and adds nothing, ditto McRae.

It shows how far Sky's coverage has fallen when I would say the BBC's coverage is now better - it treats the audience as intelligent adults and has a great team on it - Claire Balding's enthusiasm with Nobby and Jiffy providing good analysis. Dave Woods is a great commentator particularly with John Kear alongside.

I wouldn't get rid of Eddie and Stevo but it's probably time Eddie was just the presenter and Stevo being allowed to do some analysis.

The truth probably is that rugby league on Sky probably has a relatively small production budget. For example on the RU coverage Jon Wells' equivalent analyst piece is done from a VT truck rather than freezing his off on the pitch - he's probably shouting to try and keep himself warm!

Which other sport on Sky has the main presenter doubling up as the commentator?

phil clarke and paul cullen to replace eddie and stevo! either that or have the red button option to cut out the presenters totally.

( i hate phil "stupid graphics" clarke by the way but would love to hear cull put him down every week)