Rugby TV Shows

[Stands]

It would be interesting to see the ratings on the Rugby Club at the moment. I was talking to a bunch of mates at the footy on the weekend and no one in the group watches it anymore. I know I just watch the weekend highlights on Monday night now, just sick of the garbage on the Rugby Club.

 

[tigerland12]

It would be interesting to see the ratings on the Rugby Club at the moment. I was talking to a bunch of mates at the footy on the weekend and no one in the group watches it anymore. I know I just watch the weekend highlights on Monday night now, just sick of the garbage on the Rugby Club.

I'm exactly the same, can't stand it anymore. McArdle is the only worthwhile person on the show, and they seem like they have no clue about anything other then the headline in the paper that morning. No insight or any sort of analytical expertise. I know its an Australian based show but it frustrates me how they know nothing about NZ and South African sides, or their players for that matter.

 

[waratahjesus]

I'm exactly the same, can't stand it anymore. McArdle is the only worthwhile person on the show, and they seem like they have no clue about anything other then the headline in the paper that morning. No insight or any sort of analytical expertise. I know its an Australian based show but it frustrates me how they know nothing about NZ and South African sides, or their players for that matter.

There isn't enough coverage in Australian rugby fir them to cover everything to the level you and I might want. With only an hour to fill, if they don't mix in some entertainment or general discussion then they are ignoring casual viewers. They really need a second show like the NRL tactics one ir AFL one that us basically kafes chalkboard for the entire show. A the moment they have to cater for everyone, the guys are Knowledgeable

 

[tigerland12]

There isn't enough coverage in Australian rugby fir them to cover everything to the level you and I might want. With only an hour to fill, if they don't mix in some entertainment or general discussion then they are ignoring casual viewers. They really need a second show like the NRL tactics one ir AFL one that us basically kafes chalkboard for the entire show. A the moment they have to cater for everyone, the guys are Knowledgeable

Martin and Kearns? They sure aren't showing it.

I know what you mean, but its more or less the quality which is frustrating. I understand that the content must try and reach a large variety of viewers, but the way it is exicuted is poor. The funny segments aren't funny, the analytical segments arent very analytical (or get no air time) and the expert opinions tend to be immature and un-informative (ie: Kearns and Martin).

I would have no problem if they could exicute those segments properlly.

 

[Dan54]

Yep I must admit to of stopped watching, which for me is something as I normally hang on anything rugby. I have just got to the point where I can't make up my mind if Kearnsie and co only know as much as they appear on the show, or they just taking the piss. I actually find Kearnsie more interesting when he talks before and after games on match day. Marto I find as a rugby person , completely offensive, as he does so much damage rubbishing rugby on breakfast radio, I don't think he should even have anything to do with tv work in a rugby capacity.

 

[wamberal]

I record it every week, fast forward to Kafer's segment, which is usually worth watching, then plays of the week.

Sad story for rugby, when this is the best that Fox Sports can do. Agree totally about McArdle, he comes across as a well-informed, balanced individual. The rest of them, bar Kafe, are just poor.


If I hear Greg Clark use the phrase "that's not the start they were looking for" once again I will throw something at the screen.

 

[waratahjesus]

Martin and Kearns? They sure aren't showing it.

I know what you mean, but its more or less the quality which is frustrating. I understand that the content must try and reach a large variety of viewers, but the way it is exicuted is poor. The funny segments aren't funny, the analytical segments arent very analytical (or get no air time) and the expert opinions tend to be immature and un-informative (ie: Kearns and Martin).

I would have no problem if they could exicute those segments properlly.

Kearns and Martin are "color commentators" every sport has them and while they have knowledge, experience and understanding they are employed to come up with sound bites during games and keep viewer interest.

As I said before, this might get under some people's skin as like with most on this website we look at the game a bit more in depth than the averag viewer by pretty mch every sport in the world has people like them, it's a pretty tried, true and tested way to go about it.

We like rugby because it's sport but the reality Is of professional sport that the money poured into it by fox and other channels is in return for programming that matters no more than an episode of a sitcom to them. The more broad and accessible the programming for it, the higher the ratings and th greater the return on there investment.

 

[Brisbok]

Kearns and Martin are "color commentators" every sport has them and while they have knowledge, experience and understanding they are employed to come up with sound bites during games and keep viewer interest.

As I said before, this might get under some people's skin as like with most on this website we look at the game a bit more in depth than the averag viewer by pretty mch every sport in the world has people like them, it's a pretty tried, true and tested way to go about it.

We like rugby because it's sport but the reality Is of professional sport that the money poured into it by fox and other channels is in return for programming that matters no more than an episode of a sitcom to them. The more broad and accessible the programming for it, the higher the ratings and th greater the return on there investment.

I disagree completely. Particularly in reference to commentating of games. Maybe the Rugby Club has the aim of being light-hearted in attempt to win over more fans that wouldn't usually watch rugby, but commentary of games should have a completely different aim. I cannot think of another sport that I have watched where the commentators think their role is a part-time comedy skit. They are employed (or should be) to comment on the game in front of them and to provide insight's on the players/tactics etc. They should also be instructed to comment on the game as a whole not what the Reds/Waratahs are doing well or poorly only.

Agree that it is almost impossible to eliminate bias from commentary completely, but those two are extreme examples IMO. Those two specifically should only commentate on games not involving the Reds (Marto) or Waratahs (Kearns).

 

[Ignoto]

Kearns and Martin are "color commentators" every sport has them and while they have knowledge, experience and understanding they are employed to come up with sound bites during games and keep viewer interest.

I completely agree with what Brisbok has pointed out. But I'd like to add that if you want someone to bring a difference/humor to the team then I'd suggest bring back Cannon. He seemed to know what he was talking about but at the same time, he didn't make a jerk out of himself while commentating.

I have absolutely no idea what Marto actually brings to the table. He seems to know bugger all about the rules (and if he's commentating during the games is any indication, he knows SFA about the players).

I'd much rather the Rugby Club helps educate the "average" viewer by exposing them to the game rather than dumbing it down so a three year old can understand it.

 

[waratahjesus]

I disagree completely. Particularly in reference to commentating of games. Maybe the Rugby Club has the aim of being light-hearted in attempt to win over more fans that wouldn't usually watch rugby, but commentary of games should have a completely different aim. I cannot think of another sport that I have watched where the commentators think their role is a part-time comedy skit. They are employed (or should be) to comment on the game in front of them and to provide insight's on the players/tactics etc. They should also be instructed to comment on the game as a whole not what the Reds/Waratahs are doing well or poorly only.

Agree that it is almost impossible to eliminate bias from commentary completely, but those two are extreme examples IMO. Those two specifically should only commentate on games not involving the Reds (Marto) or Waratahs (Kearns).

A color commentators job is to ad color, every time a commentator remarks about something other than the match (not just talking kafe and marto here) they are adding color, without the game (any game) becomes pretty lifeless.

South African commentators spend ages discussing towns were games are being played, supporters, cheerleaders, how many brothers a player has, commentators from every countr in every sport do it, it's nothing new and it doesn't actually distract all that much at all.

People who are really into things and study them tend to deconstruct things to much and try to force there standards onto others. I not like everything the aus commentators say, far from it, but occasionally they find gold and I'm thankful for it.

It really isn't that much of an issue.

 

[tigerland12]

In regards to colour commentators, there I agree they are needed on a team, but lets look at the difference. Who sounds the more professional and informed Justin Marshall (NZ) or Kearns/Martin. I know they're instructed to be colour commentators, but bottom line, they are shit at it.

 

[gel]

I cannot think of another sport that I have watched where the commentators think their role is a part-time comedy skit.

Rugby League - almost all of them fall back into their "The Footy Show" behaviour at quieter moments in any game...

In yesterday's city vs country game, one of the commentators spent 5 minutes bringing up movies in which Tommy Lee Jones had chased someone/something.

Wasn't funny or entertaining. I wonder if they sort of look at the footy show and think that is what is needed/desired by the viewers? It's a shame if they do - the footy show is an abomination.

 

[mjw]

I think the problem with Kearns and probably Martin is they have a day job and anything they say is just off the top of their head. No time to research or think about it. Whereas Kafe has obviously taken some time to put together his piece. Not sure if Cannon and Horan are in the same category but maybe someone could help me out there.

 

[rugbysmartarse]

I am certain they do - league is a sport these guys would have all grown up watching, and to some extent probably still watch if not actively support. The Footy show is very successful in terms of ratings and popularity and I can see Marto in particular emulating the slant of that humour

 

[p.Tah]

I think the problem with Kearns and probably Martin is they have a day job and anything they say is just off the top of their head. No time to research or think about it.

why doesn't fox get a fan on board, someone from here who is knowledgable (obviously rules me out). Everyone one else in rugby has an intern, why can't the rugby show!

 

[ChargerWA]

I think they are too close the clubs. Can be a good thing, but the problem being they are the only dedicated media covering rugby they have no ability to step back and properly criticise without fear of losing their special rights.

"Call it like Clarkie" is an abomination and needs euthenasia. The best segment I saw when they were doing their silly "Piggys Vs Princesses" was the one where they had the Lions on with Todd Clever commentating. They should include the international players more and definately still cross to NZ and SA (just not to Hugh Bladen, Warren Brosnihan(?) was good).

 

[tigerland12]

Is there any Kiwi's or Saffas who can enlighten us on their rugby show programming (if they have one)?

 

[SaderCheif]

Is there any Kiwi's or Saffas who can enlighten us on their rugby show programming (if they have one)?

'Reunion' is a good show, great analysis of all the conferences. I like the host Tony Johnson, Unfortunately Murray Mexted is on the show often with his poems but other than that its good. I miss that show.

 

[wamberal]

I think the problem with Kearns and probably Martin is they have a day job and anything they say is just off the top of their head. No time to research or think about it. Whereas Kafe has obviously taken some time to put together his piece. Not sure if Cannon and Horan are in the same category but maybe someone could help me out there.

A bigger problem is that both Kearns and Martin apparently think that they are genuinely amusing. They are not.

For a former Wallaby captain, Kearns appears to know remarkably little about the game. It took him years before he could say anything vaguely informative about the scrums, which is truly amazing, and an indictment of whoever put him on the show, and keeps him there.

The biggest single difference is that Australian commentators do not understand what a commentator should do. First, let the pictures tell the story, secondly, explain what the average viewer might not understand or see properly because of the distance/angle etc, and thirdly interpret and explain tactics and strategies. Do not fill the silence with incessant chatter, less is more when it comes to good commentatory.

Tell us a bit more about the background of new Australian players, particularly older players who have just appeared on the scene at this level.

Do not tell us what is going to happen next. When it happens, we will all see it, and in the meantime you are usually wrong. Greg Martin in particular is always calling the next move, and he invariably gets it wrong. The definition of insanity..........

Finally, take the time to watch games commentated by the better British and New Zealand commentators. You might learn something worth learning.

 

[BPC]

A color commentators job is to ad color, every time a commentator remarks about something other than the match (not just talking kafe and marto here) they are adding color, without the game (any game) becomes pretty lifeless.

We may have to agree to disagree about the need to colour commentators during a match but surely there is no reason for the same silly ad-libbed nonsense during an "analysis" program like the Rugby Club. Colour commentary isn't needed during a weekly wrap-up and analysis.