I agree, I'd love Sky to bring Andrew Voss over, I even think the Superleague could pay him. His knowledge and enthusiasm is infectious. I did ask him when he was over here for the World Cup in 2013
Sam Tomkins will be very good when he retires, but again he will be an analyst rather than a commentator/presenter. Carney is a good front man and not afraid to ask the awkward questions, the rest would have to go.
Hopefully along with you.
Carney and Wells at pitch side are very good, presenter and analyst, we know it is the commentary that lets it down, when the fans are back could pitch presentation work?
Along with the speeding up of games, no scrums etc, due to the situation, is this by-product of double headers the answer?
"A suthper league thstormer"
He is one of ours as well !!
As Belgian and yourself gave examples previously we have a lingo all to ourselves that can come in useful sometimes, poor Stuart is just following on from that except he is commentating, his elocution lessons have left him with the wonderfully described as speaking with a"werthers original."
He sounds like i do when ive left my retainer in, he would be the best Sky commentator by far if he could just speak properly, because he has knowledge of the game and doesnt get the players name wrong all the time like Bill Arthur. To be honest i found the Wish fm commentary rather good, maybe Sky should be trying some of those sorts of commentators.
The “buying each other a coffee” variations was embarrassing last night.
If there were awards for worst pieces of commentary that would be among the nominees. No problem with an odd attempt at humour or anecdote as an aside but it's just endless babbling nonsense throughout a game.
I just don't get how Sky can possibly be happy to keep shelling out on their wages when they're just so so bad at their jobs. Or how the RFL/SL can be happy that this is how the elite level of our sport is represented. It's way past a joke now.
Unfortunately I doubt that Sky care that much. As per the stuff I posted about ratings on another thread, we seem to have a potential maximum audience of 250,000, most of whom are loyal RL fans who will not cancel their subs whilst Sky have the rights. RL is relatively cheap for Sky, it gets a maximum of a quarter of a million people on their books (a decent proportion have it for football and other stuff as well) and this number is not going to increase by them forking out for better analysts and commentators. They could poach Ray Warren, Gus Gould, Peter Sterling, Andrew Voss and Matty Johns and have the best combination of analysts and commentators in the world, but the ratings would not change and their subscription levels wouldn't change. So, they will go with what they've got and not change unless one of their 'stars' quits or applies for a better job in the company.
I’m sure it gets more painful by the week, listening to these lot. I’d sack the lot. Every single one.
St Helens Rugby League Football Club
I'm not sure I buy that given they've starting introducing new faces pre-match with Hanley et al. They'd just continue using the three numpties if cost was the driver.
They don't even need to find better ones to improve it. There is no reason at all to have so many different (nonsensical) voices in a single game. Commentator, analyst and pitchside. That's it.
And I find it hard to believe that replacing Baz, Tez and Clarke with say just Wilkin or JJB would somehow cost them more money. Even just using Jon Wells, who's already on the books, to do the analyst bit in place of the other morons would be an improvement.
If cost and subscription numbers is the reason why these clowns continue to be employed then SL as a collective should offer to fund the ingame presentation team for Sky as part of the next deal.
But isn't that the problem, Gray? The fact that there seems no coordinated approach from anyone within the game to grow the sport nor any understanding of how important media presentation is to achieving this...?
Growth and media presentation work hand in glove. It is depressing that there seems no push from anyone to get rid of the oafs who in my opinion are reducing the commercial appeal of the sport and do nothing to attract new audiences.
What on earth are Elstone and Rimmer doing. Surely the likes of McManus cant be happy. There are times when the future of the sport looks desperately bleak and it would be depressing if McManus, Lenigan etc thought that the current state of affairs is ok and tolerable.
Of course it's the problem mate. But it's hardly a new one. Saying that, do you think the RFL or Super League have ever asked Sky about their coverage? Do you really think the RFL were happy with Hemmings talking down the Cup given its history, prestige and of course its financial worth to the RFL? Do you think they were happy with Sky showing the LLS arriving and then being wrapped up and taken away that night, making the thing look even more of a joke than it already was? Sky don't act like the broadcaster of something going on independently of them. They act like the sport is going on because of them, and that is the big difference between us and other 'established sports'. They never treat the PL as theirs, but act like it is something they are delighted to cover, and the same with test match cricket and events like The Open. These are things that they respect and treat with reverence. BT are the same with the RU Premiership, they treat it as something that adds to their channels, not that they add something to the sport of Rugby Union. Us? Sky have no such feelings, and who can blame them when we are the only 'established' sport that allows one broadcaster to complete dictate how its elite league is structured and covered.
You and I are NFL fans and will have noticed that 'Sky Sports NFL' has just started this week, with wall-to-wall filler all week, some live games in the middle of the night and two live games every week on Sunday evenings for only five months of the year that no more than 100,000 will watch. They would never even think of having a 'Sky Sports Rugby League' channel, but they've got a 'Golf' channel which is watched by hardly anyone outside of the four major championships, a 'Cricket' channel which is watched by hardly anyone outside of the 10-12 weeks when England are playing. But a channel for a sport played over multiple evenings every weekend for nine months a year? No chance. Because we are already locked in. They've squeezed us and realised that there are no new viewers other than the ones they've already got, and no matter how many times they come back and tell the sport what to do, how to change the structure, change the nights the games are on, how crap the Cup is compared to 'their' competition etc, the viewers stay and keep paying. So, they don't care anymore. They may tweak it here and there, they may bring in a few guests for whatever reasons, but they'll do nothing drastic to change things, and nobody in the sport will dare tell them otherwise.