Jump to content

Dear Sky Sports... Tezza and Bazza


Recommended Posts

Jack Austin was a rough and tumble player not averse to getting his retaliation first, especially against Leeds. They interviewed him once on a midweek Radio Leeds show. He spoke like the managing director of the Savoy Hotel.

Lee Crooks is cut from the same cloth. Sky should snap him up.

Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police

Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, Chris22 said:

I don't have a problem with pundits having quite broad northern accents. The game is primarily northern and that's where its players and pundits will be drawn from. A strong accent isn't something we should be ashamed of. Rather than than a toned-down forced 'tv' accent.

What I have found on Sky is that it is almost a radio style commentary. There seems to be a need to fill every second with some comment. Of course, that is needed on the radio as there are no pictures. But on TV, if you don't have something to add, then just be silent for a while, the pictures tell you what is going on.

Like when Matty English was down injured for 10 minutes on Saturday. There was a desperation to fill every second with some comment, no matter how inane. If there isn't anything to say for 30 second or so, then fine. Everyday conversations have a natural silence now and again.

Pleased that Sky have started using people like Leon Pryce, Jon Wilkin etc, if for no other reason than having a variety of voices. Really, all pundits have a shelf life of 10 years before they become stale and repetitive. And that's the better ones.

The Sky lead commentators continually repeat the full names of teams (Catalans Dragons, Castleford Tigers), rather than shorten them to Dragons, Tigers. Might seem trivial, but it`s the sort of unwieldy, verbose style someone hauled out of the crowd would adopt. Imparts an amateur, DIY feel, a tell-tale sign that these aren`t the type of commentators other sports have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The Sky lead commentators continually repeat the full names of teams (Catalans Dragons, Castleford Tigers), rather than shorten them to Dragons, Tigers. Might seem trivial, but it`s the sort of unwieldy, verbose style someone hauled out of the crowd would adopt. Imparts an amateur, DIY feel, a tell-tale sign that these aren`t the type of commentators other sports have.

Yes, I would agree. That is trivial. 

  • Like 3

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/08/2020 at 17:50, Number 16 said:

Dear Sky Sports

Tezza and Bazza are inarticulate, offer only simplistic and often inane 'analysis' and are, quite frankly, an embarrassment. Please get rid (and take Phil Clarke with them). 

Yours etc

Rugby League

totally agree make me cringe every time they pipe up

  • Sad 1

I demand to have some booze, I want it here and I want it now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Premier sports had an Australian commentating during the last world cup and was brilliant.  These clowns on Sky make the sport look as plausible as the wrestling.

  • Sad 1

I demand to have some booze, I want it here and I want it now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, lingard said:

Premier sports had an Australian commentating during the last world cup and was brilliant.  These clowns on Sky make the sport look as plausible as the wrestling.

Vossy was the commentator when Premier Sports had the WC here. He talks about it to this day 

Edited by DavidM
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said previously that the whole Sky production is awful now and maybe that's deliberate?

I don't mind any of them as individuals but collectively they are terrible.

The graphics Sky use and the "try music" they use is outdated and terrible, how long did it take to update the last theme with the robots? they used to have good graphics back in the day with a little fact file type card of the player who had scored, now they just show endless replays and replays of coaches watching replays!

The main gripe i have is with the commentary team, the presentation team, Carney, Wells and Brooks are fine, I would like more of the debates and discussions and less of the tedious coaches interviews,  but the commentary is awful, it's like a competition to see who can talk the most, or like listening to banter in the pub between mates or rival fans, while they are genuinely enthusiastic about the sport it doesn't come across very professional sometimes, stuff like "SHOOOOOOTTTTTTTT" "GETTTT INNNN" "HAVE THAT!" etc are obviously genuine emotions, is that what a professional sport wants from it's commentators?

The action on the field is ruined by constant shots of coaches (why???) or replays of something mundane that happened 20 seconds previously (why???).

It almost feel like Sky can't be bothered with it anymore so are just leaving it to die a slow death.

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, cookey said:

It really is embarrassing listening to the two clowns stuttering and stumbling their way through 'commentary'. When they attempt to explain something their complete lack of education and use of english,really shows itself. Anyone who wants to see the sport progress,must agree that SL should insist to Sky that they go.

Just on the lack of English, capital E please, and a space between commas, and a new paragraph after a full stop, thank you 🙂 😛 

Seriously though, you're right, they are decent blokes, or should that be quality players? can be quite humorous, and you'd probably like to have a pint with them, but decent blokes and quality players don't always come across well as TV commentators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The Sky lead commentators continually repeat the full names of teams (Catalans Dragons, Castleford Tigers), rather than shorten them to Dragons, Tigers. Might seem trivial, but it`s the sort of unwieldy, verbose style someone hauled out of the crowd would adopt. Imparts an amateur, DIY feel, a tell-tale sign that these aren`t the type of commentators other sports have.

And the constant referral to teams as "side"

Eg; "Great try by the Wigan side" or "The Wakefield side looking dejected"

Just call them Wigan and Wakefield, no need to keep using the "side" part.

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Yes, I would agree. That is trivial. 

Would you also agree the history of RL on UK TV is one of amateurish, inarticulate commentators traducing the game? And that this influences how RL is perceived. Any shortcomings cited will in themselves appear trivial, but they all add up to make the case. If you were advocating the removal of a pundit would there be one killer fact, or a myriad of tiny ones?

When fans used to complain about the BBC`s RL coverage they were characterized as being over-sensitive to trivial things, and their complaints were thus casually dismissed. Fans of other sports (one in particular), didn`t have amateurish coverage foisted on their favourite sport, so never had to risk an impression of trivial-minded hypersensitivity. They got appropriate treatment as of right.

Ray French had an RU background. It`s inconceivable that the BBC would have appointed him their main RU commentator. If they had, RU fans and interests would have secured his removal. The strictures of RU people would not be deemed trivial.

In the early nineties, at the end of another year of Wigan dominance, Steve Rider on Grandstand asked Ray to assess why Wigan were so good, and the prospects for other teams challenging them the following season. Ray responded thus - "Well Steve, this Wigan side is a very, very good side. And I think it`s gonna take a very, very good side to beat `em". Another trivial example maybe, but when this is what passes for RL analysis we are right to be concerned.

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Would you also agree the history of RL on UK TV is one of amateurish, inarticulate commentators traducing the game? And that this influences how RL is perceived. Any shortcomings cited will in themselves appear trivial, but they all add up to make the case. If you were advocating the removal of a pundit would there be one killer fact, or a myriad of tiny ones?

When fans used to complain about the BBC`s RL coverage they were characterized as being over-sensitive to trivial things, and their complaints were thus casually dismissed. Fans of other sports (one in particular), didn`t have amateurish coverage foisted on their favourite sport, so never had to risk an impression of trivial-minded hypersensitivity. They got appropriate treatment as of right.

Ray French had an RU background. It`s inconceivable that the BBC would have appointed him their main RU commentator. If they had, RU fans and interests would have secured his removal. The strictures of RU people would not be deemed trivial.

In the early nineties, at the end of another year of Wigan dominance, Steve Rider on Grandstand asked Ray to assess why Wigan were so good, and the prospects for other teams challenging them the following season. Ray responded thus - "Well Steve, this Wigan side is a very, very good side. And I think it`s gonna take a very, very good side to beat `em". Another trivial example maybe, but when this is what passes for RL analysis we are right to be concerned.

 

I have no problems with demanding a more professional and competent approach from from our broadcasters but I think you (and perhaps all of us) are being a little too sensitive and we certainly aren't the poor cousins that you make out and other sports certainly suffer from amateurish coverage and commentators.

Yes, the likes of Ray French was a bit of a Northern stereotype, as are the current Tez and Baz but I have spoken to enough Union fans to know that the likes of Nigel Starmer-Smith is perceived to be a bumbling twit while Bill McLaren is a text book example of a Scottish stereotype.  It doesn't harm the sport and they are considered as 'beloved' in wider sporting circles as Ray French is.  And then you have the likes of Stuart Barnes who is as derided as Phil Clarke is on these boards.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I have no problems with demanding a more professional and competent approach from from our broadcasters but I think you (and perhaps all of us) are being a little too sensitive and we certainly aren't the poor cousins that you make out and other sports certainly suffer from amateurish coverage and commentators.

Yes, the likes of Ray French was a bit of a Northern stereotype, as are the current Tez and Baz but I have spoken to enough Union fans to know that the likes of Nigel Starmer-Smith is perceived to be a bumbling twit while Bill McLaren is a text book example of a Scottish stereotype.  It doesn't harm the sport and they are considered as 'beloved' in wider sporting circles as Ray French is.  And then you have the likes of Stuart Barnes who is as derided as Phil Clarke is on these boards.

I do sometimes step back and examine for over-sensitivity. Ask whether, for instance, if it were an RL pundit rather than Soccerball, Martin Keown`s compulsion to end every statement with a question, would go from amusing to infuriating. I still think we have genuine grounds for grievance.

Would the BBC have employed someone who also appeared on "It`s a knockout" as their principle commentator on a sport they were taking seriously? The flaws of the RU commentators mentioned are qualitatively different from their RL counterparts. Especially in levels of articulacy.

Geoffrey Moorhouse wrote that he suspected Eddie Waring lapsed into playing up to the Northern stereotype the BBC and Southern viewers were primed to expect. I once had a book out of the library written by Eddie. I liked him a lot more at the end of reading it than I ever did listening to his commentaries. He came across as a thoughtful man, and true RL fan.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I do sometimes step back and examine for over-sensitivity. Ask whether, for instance, if it were an RL pundit rather than Soccerball, Martin Keown`s compulsion to end every statement with a question, would go from amusing to infuriating. I still think we have genuine grounds for grievance.

Would the BBC have employed someone who also appeared on "It`s a knockout" as their principle commentator on a sport they were taking seriously? The flaws of the RU commentators mentioned are qualitatively different from their RL counterparts. Especially in levels of articulacy.

Geoffrey Moorhouse wrote that he suspected Eddie Waring lapsed into playing up to the Northern stereotype the BBC and Southern viewers were primed to expect. I once had a book out of the library written by Eddie. I liked him a lot more at the end of reading it than I ever did listening to his commentaries. He came across as a thoughtful man, and true RL fan.

 

I must admit I used to feel the same way about Eddie Waring and I would be angry that our sport was represented by what was considered a comic figure.

But on reflection my views have changed.  As well as being a host of It's a Knockout, Waring was a serious newsreader and a very well liked and respected character.  Heck, It's a Knockout was a national institution and even the Royal Family appeared on it and you can't get much more establishment than that.

I guess as with all things as you get more comfortable in your skin you tend to be less sensitive about what you believe other people will perceive as negatives.  And I think our sport should be the same.  Should we expect confident, knowledgeable and articulate presenters; yes.  Should we worry about Northern stereotypes in our commentary and summarizing teams and the perception of that.  In my opinion; no.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, meast said:

I'm fine love, I'm just responding to a discussion on a discussion forum, mad, I know!

This happens on many threads, where some members think it worthwhile hitting the keyboard to offer the opinion that others shouldn`t have opinions.

When a prosecuting counsel is building a case, most of the details adduced are individually insignificant. What`s at issue is whether taken as a whole they amount to guilt. If the response from the judge to every point was "are you ok hun?", only open-and-shut cases would ever be taken.

Unless critics of Sky pundits are to fill pages with voluminous, forensic evidence, all we can do is cite particular tropes as representative of wider failings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/08/2020 at 07:50, gingerjon said:

Quite often their cricket commentary drifts into 'banter' (oddly Shane Warne always manages to steer the conversation around to hair) but that's balanced by the in depth discussions they have that can be genuinely insightful plus cricket, like football, gets an hour long 'debate' where people talk - and the attrition rate is very high. You don't get to stick around in the latter because you're funny, a bit of a character or, even, were a good player.

We have all of the banter but none of the depth. The only time I can remember Sky consistently allowing for the fact that rugby league has tactics and teams that exploit them was when they allowed Tony Rea time to explain what was going on occasionally. I think Jon Wells could do that but he's usually given about thirty seconds to run though how six first half tries were scored...

Tony Rea was class.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/08/2020 at 18:52, Big Ask said:

Just embarrassing and actually quite annoying with some of their nonsense and repetitive theories 

Surely some level of intelligence would be part of the requirement rather than ‘I’ve played the game’. 

Well they did play at the dopey end of the spectrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/08/2020 at 07:50, gingerjon said:

Quite often their cricket commentary drifts into 'banter' (oddly Shane Warne always manages to steer the conversation around to hair) but that's balanced by the in depth discussions they have that can be genuinely insightful plus cricket, like football, gets an hour long 'debate' where people talk - and the attrition rate is very high. You don't get to stick around in the latter because you're funny, a bit of a character or, even, were a good player.

We have all of the banter but none of the depth. The only time I can remember Sky consistently allowing for the fact that rugby league has tactics and teams that exploit them was when they allowed Tony Rea time to explain what was going on occasionally. I think Jon Wells could do that but he's usually given about thirty seconds to run though how six first half tries were scored...

 

1 hour ago, TBC said:

Tony Rea was class.

Brian Smith and Tony Rea have been the most insightful and articulate analysts we have seen over here. I guess it says something that they are both Aussies. 

But I agree, Jon Wells could become that given the opportunity. 

  • Like 1

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I do sometimes step back and examine for over-sensitivity. Ask whether, for instance, if it were an RL pundit rather than Soccerball, Martin Keown`s compulsion to end every statement with a question, would go from amusing to infuriating. I still think we have genuine grounds for grievance.

Would the BBC have employed someone who also appeared on "It`s a knockout" as their principle commentator on a sport they were taking seriously? The flaws of the RU commentators mentioned are qualitatively different from their RL counterparts. Especially in levels of articulacy.

Geoffrey Moorhouse wrote that he suspected Eddie Waring lapsed into playing up to the Northern stereotype the BBC and Southern viewers were primed to expect. I once had a book out of the library written by Eddie. I liked him a lot more at the end of reading it than I ever did listening to his commentaries. He came across as a thoughtful man, and true RL fan.

 

It's all too easy to be snootily dismissive of Eddie Waring, but he was a beloved national figure who transcended Rugby League.

How many of those do we have now?

Ye Gods! He dabbled in light entertainment!! The horrors!!

But that's no different to Martin Offiah turning up on Strictly Come Dancing or the dozens of other tacky celeb shows he's appeared on over the years. Or the legend himself Ellery Hanley doing Dancing On Ice. And when that happens these days everyone gets giddy about how it means Rugby League is being accepted into the mainstream. 

I watched It's A Knockout before I ever watched Rugby League. My earliest memories of him alongside that are of him reading the Rugby League results on TV on Saturday teatime just before Doctor Who came on. To me, it was 'that bloke off It's A Knockout' talking about Featherstone Rovers playing Bradford Northern, not 'that Rugby League bloke doing It's A Knockout'. Maybe that gives me a different perspective.

Eddie was impersonated by Mike Yarwood. That's an honour not an insult.

He appeared on the Morecambe & Wise Christmas Show, the most watched programme in the country at the time, alongside the likes of BBC newsreader Richard Baker who didn't get accused of making a mockery of his profession for doing so. And appearing with Eric & Ernie didn't do Glenda Jackson or Andre Previn (Preview) any harm reputationally either. Why pick on Eddie?

Too many Rugby League folk are so po faced and joyless about their sport, dragging every aspect of it down all the time. Eddie Waring wasn't one of those people. I'd wager he got more people to watch and enjoy the sport during his career than anyone else of his generation.

Sky's not as bad as this thread is making out either.

Lighten up everyone!

  • Like 3

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

 

Brian Smith and Tony Rea have been the most insightful and articulate analysts we have seen over here. I guess it says something that they are both Aussies. 

But I agree, Jon Wells could become that given the opportunity. 

Tony Rea has moved on from RL. Works in London’s money sector 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, John Drake said:

It's all too easy to be snootily dismissive of Eddie Waring, but he was a beloved national figure who transcended Rugby League.

How many of those do we have now?

Ye Gods! He dabbled in light entertainment!! The horrors!!

But that's no different to Martin Offiah turning up on Strictly Come Dancing or the dozens of other tacky celeb shows he's appeared on over the years. Or the legend himself Ellery Hanley doing Dancing On Ice. And when that happens these days everyone gets giddy about how it means Rugby League is being accepted into the mainstream. 

I watched It's A Knockout before I ever watched Rugby League. My earliest memories of him alongside that are of him reading the Rugby League results on TV on Saturday teatime just before Doctor Who came on. To me, it was 'that bloke off It's A Knockout' talking about Featherstone Rovers playing Bradford Northern, not 'that Rugby League bloke doing It's A Knockout'. Maybe that gives me a different perspective.

Eddie was impersonated by Mike Yarwood. That's an honour not an insult.

He appeared on the Morecambe & Wise Christmas Show, the most watched programme in the country at the time, alongside the likes of BBC newsreader Richard Baker who didn't get accused of making a mockery of his profession for doing so. And appearing with Eric & Ernie didn't do Glenda Jackson or Andre Previn (Preview) any harm reputationally either. Why pick on Eddie?

Too many Rugby League folk are so po faced and joyless about their sport, dragging every aspect of it down all the time. Eddie Waring wasn't one of those people. I'd wager he got more people to watch and enjoy the sport during his career than anyone else of his generation.

Sky's not as bad as this thread is making out either.

Lighten up everyone!

I would reiterate the point that the Eddie Waring I encountered in print was strikingly different from the one on TV. More of that side of him would have made for better commentaries.

A lot of 70s celebrities had their public image moulded by Mike Yarwood, for good or ill. Denis Healy reckoned it helped soften his.

Angela Rippon`s legs did incur some reputational harm after they appeared alongside Eric and Ernie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...