Rugby TV Shows

[Hugh Jarse]

I think the media unit will have got to Brand QC (Quade Cooper) and will have him primed to give appropriately vague non-committal statements.

What are we expecting? While some of his behaviours in the past have been that of a spoilt brat, he has matured and with what is effectively his manager in the studio, and most of the rest of the staff of his employer undoubtably watching, it is highly unlikely that he will say anything controversial or stray too far away from the party line.

It is not as if he has an independent source of income - yet.

Would you slag off your boss on National Television, when you are working for an effective Monopoly?

 

[I like to watch]

It's not like he will be asked any leading questions either.

 

[slydare]

I'm a bit surprised at the positive reception Canno seems to get - he drives me up the wall.

Marto and kearns do at times as well, but I guess I expect it from them. Canno makes so many basic errors in his commentary and it seems like he has never really thought through what he wants to say so I struggle to take him seriously. That being said, I suspect he'd be a great bloke to deal with in a one on one environment.

I'm also in the minority on Gordon Bray. Everyone seems to love him but his constant family tree and/or under 7s talking points grated on me. It felt it was awkward and took away from the game at hand. It was better than loig's "keno replay" or Ice Age 7 plugs though!

 

[Braveheart81]

I couldn't stand Gordon Bray either.

 

[AngrySeahorse]

I'm looking forward to Sir Henry.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

anyo

The rugby club is shit until Kafer has something to say. Foxtel or any television network would be better off bringing in neutral commentators for test matches. So we should have the Saffas call our game this week or bring in one of the six nations commentators to call the game.

anyone but the saffers

 

[brokendown]

& Mexted

 

[Jiggles]

Quade Cooper interview on right now. He is coming across as one classy individual. Never thought I'd say that about Cooper!

 

[AngrySeahorse]

Quade Cooper interview on right now. He is coming across as one classy individual. Never thought I'd say that about Cooper!

Agree, Cooper surprised me.

I really loved the quip Quade made about Graham trying to plug his book! Well played son!

 

[cyclopath]

Having played golf in the group behind Stu Wilson today (and Grant Fox) - completely by chance, snuck out for a sly round with a mate - I can confirm Stu is as good at that as captaining. Needed the 4 putts.

 

[Braveheart81]

I thought Robbie Deans reply to Marto about the number of Waratahs in the team was great.

Saying that the province they are from is irrelevant and that they're just looking for the playing group that they think will work best with the Wallabies makes perfect sense.

Quade was great. He's certainly continuing to mature and has become a good personality.

 

[gel]

I thought Robbie Deans reply to Marto about the number of Waratahs in the team was great.

Saying that the province they are from is irrelevant and that they're just looking for the playing group that they think will work best with the Wallabies makes perfect sense.

Quade was great. He's certainly continuing to mature and has become a good personality.

Seriously, what else could he possibly say to a question like that?

"yeah, we thought it would be really good to pick as many players from the franchise that least fulfilled it's potential and lacked overall fitness in order to piss off everyone else"? It was a stupid question and it got a stock answer with little depth.

Rod kafer's spot on the show is generally the only really good piece on the show

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Greg Clark had clearly pre-recorded the Graham Henry interview.

Dreams are free, but how good would it have been if GC had gone into that interview with Austin's analysis of the game penalty count, and thrown that out on the table for discussion?

Would GC have had the balls to ambush the Knight with an alternate take on Sir Henry's view?

Will the Australian rugby media pack pick up and run with the alternate take on the facts about the game?

 

[Braveheart81]

When Graham Henry spoke about having to do a review of the game as part of the RWC debrief to NZRU, he highlighted all the penalties that went unawarded to New Zealand. Obviously no mention that he even considered whether there were any decisions that went against the French.

I guess it's a good method to take. Nucifora might have heeded that wisdom in his RWC2011 review. He only looked at the things the Wallabies did well.

 

[waratahjesus]

Seriously, what else could he possibly say to a question like that?

"yeah, we thought it would be really good to pick as many players from the franchise that least fulfilled it's potential and lacked overall fitness in order to piss off everyone else"? It was a stupid question and it got a stock answer with little depth.

Sorry are you saying a question that has been asked a million times on this board and in the media was stupid to ask?

And then are you saying that they picked lots of Tahs players for some sort of conspiracy but Robbie is giving a fake answer as part of his plan?

What depth is there to an answer other than he was picking a team he wanted o be capable of carrying out his gameplan.

 

[Braveheart81]

When you're making selections you clearly compare one player against another.

If you're comparing Polota-Nau to Fainga'a you're working out which one you think is a better player, not which one played for a better or more successful team.

You'd be shooting yourself in the foot every time if you were trying to select who you thought was the best team but also trying to ensure that the provinces were represented in the Wallabies relative to their position on the table. It would be a near impossible task.

 

[gel]

Sorry are you saying a question that has been asked a million times on this board and in the media was stupid to ask?

And then are you saying that they picked lots of Tahs players for some sort of conspiracy but Robbie is giving a fake answer as part of his plan?

What depth is there to an answer other than he was picking a team he wanted o be capable of carrying out his gameplan.

I am saying it was a stupid question that shouldn't have been asked given there is no way he could possibly answer it in any way other than what he did, because it was an inflammatory (and frankly) insulting question to ask. The question is veiled at best, and outright confrontational at worst - and without a lot of preface before hand which is beyond Marto, should not have been asked. Perhaps if it was a post bledisloe interview conducted by a proper journalist then fine, it might have required an in depth answer that would possibly be a real insight into selection policies.

therefore:

IF there was a conspiracy to pick tahs (which I don't believe there is), then he would NOT answer it the way I mentioned - he would answer it the way he did and no one would know if he was lying or not - he is not human so normal body language techniques don't work with him .

IF there was no conspiracy to pick tahs, then he would NOT answer it the way I mentioned - he would answer the way he did.

In other words - Deans could ONLY answer the question in one way - the way he did, making the question meaningless to ask as it could only ever elicit one response (the response he gave).

I am not sure if I have made that clearer or not.

 

[scaraby]

Would having this function as an optional red-button foxtel thingy work in live games? Maybe have it on all the time but you can switch if off with the red-button if you want. Would definitely help educate the masses.

Unfortunately, as all who have done some kind of refs course would know,the commentators/experts have a very generalist understanding of the technical rules and quite often spend a whole lot of time bagging the refs and touchies when in fact they are the ones who get it wrong.

 

[No4918]

I am saying it was a stupid question that shouldn't have been asked given there is no way he could possibly answer it in any way other than what he did, because it was an inflammatory (and frankly) insulting question to ask. The question is veiled at best, and outright confrontational at worst - and without a lot of preface before hand which is beyond Marto, should not have been asked. Perhaps if it was a post bledisloe interview conducted by a proper journalist then fine, it might have required an in depth answer that would possibly be a real insight into selection policies.

Come on mate, it wasn't even Marto's question. He just asked it on behalf of all those people* who had asked him. Really very nice of him. Even referred to these people after the question. Top bloke.

*other people may or may not be voices in Marto's head which would explain a lot.

 

[Blue]

Stu Wilson.

The Rugby Club reaches an all new low.

Dear god the man is a clown.