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!!'