Jon Wilkin

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

Overall I like him. His podcast is good, he's intelligent and often funny 

He is of course an annoying **** sometimes though 

Last night was interesting. He was clearly trying to address the accusations he is a Saints fan boy. Early over excitement for Leeds plays etc 

The real him came out for the the Konny Hurrell one though. I've just watched it again and he says 

"He just catches him in the chin with his shoulder" .....this is as he is watching the slow motion replay 

This happens after Hurrel drops all his 17stone compacted weight from his shoulder into the side of a 12 stone full  backs unprotected and unsuspected head (after he has passed the ball and wasn't looking ). Myler's head whiplashes back and he gets thrown to the floor....potentially seriously hurt 

Wilkin says something like 

"Myler knows if he stays down he'll get a penalty " 

Wow.....just wow

 

Edited March 4 by Bedfordshire Bronco

[Jughead]

Players know that if they stay down the likelihood of receiving a penalty is higher. It gets called “gamesmanship” these days but it’s really just a nice word for cheating, in most cases. 

As for Wilkin, he is what he is. Smug, arrogant, annoying. 

[Dave T]

Wilkin's comments were appalling on that incident last night. 

Too many of the panel are vying to be funny/controversial/relevant. The actual model isn't working. The lead commentator should be speaking and then the others chirping in, yet the secondary guys are often taking the lead. Wilkin was discussing it before he had watched the replay. And made an idiot of himself. 

[hunsletgreenandgold]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Wilkin's comments were appalling on that incident last night. 

Too many of the panel are vying to be funny/controversial/relevant. The actual model isn't working. The lead commentator should be speaking and then the others chirping in, yet the secondary guys are often taking the lead. Wilkin was discussing it before he had watched the replay. And made an idiot of himself. 

That’s exactly it. They’re like over excited puppies. Often shouting and talking over each other. Hoped Wilkin would break up the Baz and Tez style of ‘brutes and bants’ but all that has actually changed is the accent. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Wilkin's comments were appalling on that incident last night. 

Too many of the panel are vying to be funny/controversial/relevant. The actual model isn't working. The lead commentator should be speaking and then the others chirping in, yet the secondary guys are often taking the lead. Wilkin was discussing it before he had watched the replay. And made an idiot of himself. 

Yeah I find Wilkin unbearable at times. He tries too hard to be funny and "one of the lads" all the time. It's the wrong audience for it.

I watched the Out Of Your League podcast the other day and he was just constantly cutting people off with attempts at humour. Fitzpatrick did very well to just crack on. He needs to tone it down a lot.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

Commentary teams just need two. Play by play and colour commentry. Just rotate the man you have with the proper commentator 

I think one of the problems is that it's not as if they offer anything different. They are just a group of blokes presenting the same view. Clarke can be a bit weird at times, but he does offer an alternative view at least. 

Just having another two or three blokes who just say the same things makes it all feel a bit boys club.

[Dunbar]

I'm not sure I can be too critical of Wilkin in this instance. 

It is true that players stay down in TV games after they feel contact with the head in order to receive a penalty.  The penalty may be justified within the laws of the game but I am not keen on players staying down to ensure it is replayed/reviewed on tv before the game moves past the incident. 

That was heavy contact from Hurrell and a clear and obvious red card (once reviewed of course) but we all know that the seriousness of any injuries incurred are not always in direct correlation to the seriousness of the incident. 

I like the fact that ex players call out gamesmanship.  What we are essentially saying here is Wilkin needs to judge the seriousness of any situation first.  And that's a difficult line to draw.

[gingerjon]

17 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think one of the problems is that it's not as if they offer anything different. They are just a group of blokes presenting the same view. Clarke can be a bit weird at times, but he does offer an alternative view at least. 

Just having another two or three blokes who just say the same things makes it all feel a bit boys club.

I know I'm saying the obvious thing but this is all set up by the production company and, quite often, they will take their lead from the sport/league they are covering. The commentators/presenters then fit into the model required.

A way to follow this working is to watch the same people who go around the world presenting cricket. You can see how they change their style, what they focus on (and, dare I say it, their opinions) based on what is required. Dominic Cork talking at the Pakistan Super League is a very different Dominic Cork to the one who gets all laddish at the Blast, even if his essential observations remains the same.

So, short version, we have what we have either because Super League like it that way or because they can't really be bothered to sort it out.

[Chrispmartha]

Remember when we all used to moan about Eddie and Stevo, watch any old game back, Stevo was a bit annoying but Eddie was light years above anything we have now, in their prime they were great (Eddie got a bit grumpy after stevo left IMO)

 

[Damien]

He was terrible again last night and as others have said his commentary is unbearable. His bias is there for all to see, whether that is weird rants against individual players like Eloi Pelissier, accusing players of faking injury or just being pro Saints. It's not a good look in my opinion.

I didn't rate him on the BBC and he is getting worse the more airtime he gets

Edited March 4 by Damien

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Remember when we all used to moan about Eddie and Stevo, watch any old game back, Stevo was a bit annoying but Eddie was light years above anything we have now, in their prime they were great (Eddie got a bit grumpy after stevo left IMO)

 

Eddie was very good in his prime but had somewhat faded by the time he retired. I never really felt I learnt anything about what was going on from Stevo, which is (IMO) what a co-commentator is really there to do, and it was always helpful when someone like Tony Rea would turn up and, with really simple explanations, break down a play and how a try as scored or stopped.

[Just Browny]

Wilkin also shouted 'it's fine!' in relation to the Walters incident before deciding it was the most heinous crime ever seen on a rugby field.

I'm also not sure he ever recognised how bad the Hurrell tackle was, however I might be corrected on that.

In both cases he dived straight in with an opinion and looked a berk.*

 

 

 

*Stands back and awaits the "oh the irony" replies from one of my followers on here.

Edited March 4 by Just Browny

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Remember when we all used to moan about Eddie and Stevo, watch any old game back, Stevo was a bit annoying but Eddie was light years above anything we have now, in their prime they were great (Eddie got a bit grumpy after stevo left IMO)

 

I've always said it but Stevo and Eddie were fantastic when they first started,  and were for many a year, and were a breath of fresh air at the time. As often seems to happen they just went on for a little too long.

Carney does a decent job as the Eddie like anchor but Stevo at his best has never been replaced. Neither has the dynamic that the pair had. Now it's like everyone is trying to copy what Eddie and Stevo turned into at the end rather than be like what they were for a good 15 years before that.

[RigbyLuger]

8 minutes ago, Damien said:

I've always said it but Stevo and Eddie were fantastic when they first started,  and were for many a year, and were a breath of fresh air at the time. As often seems to happen they just went on for a little too long.

Same happened with Ray French. Dave Woods should have taken over years earlier.

Channel 4 have it spot on with Mark Wilson and whoever is alongside him. Not a million voices adding nothing that just one wouldn't.

[Jughead]

We went down the “too many cooks” route years ago and tried stupid stuff (the margin meter and bringing in Cummings to explain a rule only for the referee to give something completely different and then him backtracking to defend them) and have never really recovered. 

There should be three people at an absolute max, ideally two, though I wouldn’t want any of the permanent Sky team to be any of those two or three, if I’m honest. 

[Oxford]

Wilkin sounds like a social media poster where having an opinion is compulsory, having a dramatic one more important and having a controversial one essential, otherwise what's the point?

 

[RigbyLuger]

1 minute ago, Oxford said:

Wilkin sounds like a social media poster where having an opinion is compulsory, having a dramatic one more important and having a controversial one essential, otherwise what's the point?

 

Perfect for the writers of the main site to get stories from. 

[Dave T]

38 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I know I'm saying the obvious thing but this is all set up by the production company and, quite often, they will take their lead from the sport/league they are covering. The commentators/presenters then fit into the model required.

A way to follow this working is to watch the same people who go around the world presenting cricket. You can see how they change their style, what they focus on (and, dare I say it, their opinions) based on what is required. Dominic Cork talking at the Pakistan Super League is a very different Dominic Cork to the one who gets all laddish at the Blast, even if his essential observations remains the same.

So, short version, we have what we have either because Super League like it that way or because they can't really be bothered to sort it out.

I can sort of see their logic tbh. I get that Sky may like the 'lads in a pub' kind of presentation, I think it's a valid choice. 

I have two issues with that. Firstly, it's not my personal preference, I think it's too dumbed down. But that is preference. 

Secondly, I just don't think they have made good choices. As I say, I don't think we have a good variety of opinions. Wilkin, Wells and Clarke are probably trying to offer the more intellectual view, but often they merge into the prop forward chat to get their voice heard. 

[Dave T]

20 minutes ago, Jughead said:

We went down the “too many cooks” route years ago and tried stupid stuff (the margin meter and bringing in Cummings to explain a rule only for the referee to give something completely different and then him backtracking to defend them) and have never really recovered. 

There should be three people at an absolute max, ideally two, though I wouldn’t want any of the permanent Sky team to be any of those two or three, if I’m honest. 

Too much poor execution (an RL tradition). 

Margin metre was ahead of its time, and is now presented in various sports as % chance of winning or similar. Clarke did an OK job of trying to bring it to life, but the others around him just made a mockery of it. I think it has a place. It would have been an interesting thing at the last 2 TV games where they swung throughout the game. 

But I agree with your point. For years when it was literally just Eddie and Stevo we cried out for more opinions, and they went too far. A rotation is what was needed, not up to 8 or 9 people on each show. 

[bobbruce]

27 minutes ago, Jughead said:

We went down the “too many cooks” route years ago and tried stupid stuff (the margin meter and bringing in Cummings to explain a rule only for the referee to give something completely different and then him backtracking to defend them) and have never really recovered. 

There should be three people at an absolute max, ideally two, though I wouldn’t want any of the permanent Sky team to be any of those two or three, if I’m honest. 

Think you missed the c out. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, Jughead said:

Players know that if they stay down the likelihood of receiving a penalty is higher. It gets called “gamesmanship” these days but it’s really just a nice word for cheating, in most cases. 

Yes mate 

But Myler had just been absolutely battered to the head with a shoulder charge....his head goes back violently like on a serious car crash and he hits the deck like a sack of spuds

It wasn't an incident to mention anything  related to gamesmanship ....it wasn't at the time and isn't now on the topic of this thread 

 

Edited March 4 by Bedfordshire Bronco

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Wilkin's comments were appalling on that incident last night. 

Too many of the panel are vying to be funny/controversial/relevant. The actual model isn't working. The lead commentator should be speaking and then the others chirping in, yet the secondary guys are often taking the lead. Wilkin was discussing it before he had watched the replay. And made an idiot of himself. 

His comment were awful 

I disagree on using humour in general though....I like the banter (just not for serious stuff like this)

[Wakefield Ram]

59 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I'm not sure I can be too critical of Wilkin in this instance. 

It is true that players stay down in TV games after they feel contact with the head in order to receive a penalty.  The penalty may be justified within the laws of the game but I am not keen on players staying down to ensure it is replayed/reviewed on tv before the game moves past the incident. 

That was heavy contact from Hurrell and a clear and obvious red card (once reviewed of course) but we all know that the seriousness of any injuries incurred are not always in direct correlation to the seriousness of the incident. 

I like the fact that ex players call out gamesmanship.  What we are essentially saying here is Wilkin needs to judge the seriousness of any situation first.  And that's a difficult line to draw.

This all assumes that Myler was unaffected by the foul from Hurrell. So it would have been better if he leapt to his feet and Hurrell got away with it?

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Yeah I find Wilkin unbearable at times. He tries too hard to be funny and "one of the lads" all the time. It's the wrong audience for it.

I watched the Out Of Your League podcast the other day and he was just constantly cutting people off with attempts at humour. Fitzpatrick did very well to just crack on. He needs to tone it down a lot.

As I say I like the podcast and him in general (even though I agree he can be a *** sometimes) 

I'd rather that than the blandness of Phil or others 

[sweaty craiq]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Wilkin's comments were appalling on that incident last night. 

Too many of the panel are vying to be funny/controversial/relevant. The actual model isn't working. The lead commentator should be speaking and then the others chirping in, yet the secondary guys are often taking the lead. Wilkin was discussing it before he had watched the replay. And made an idiot of himself. 

That should be made an even bigger idiot of himself