PDA

View Full Version : Brian Moore-WHY?



danny
03-11-07, 06:11 PM
Can someone please tell me why Brian Moore is still comentating on BBC. With the world cup being on i had forgotten what an unprofessional, clueless half wit the man is. He totally ruined the Tigers v Cardiff gametoday. Im sorry for ever having a go at Will Greenwood.

An Tarbh
03-11-07, 06:22 PM
I'm not sure where another Brian Moore thread is really going to get us, he seems to have that love-hate thing going on and there doesn't seem to be any in between with him.

He may make some idiotic comments at times, i.e. he does make racist comments against the French but the BBC seem to tolerate him, but other than that I find him quite good to listen to.

But really there isn't anyone better at the BBC, Davies is just a jumped up little twerp, Guscott just sits there and tries to look pretty, Wood seems to be chomping at the bit to say something but seems to be kept on a tight leash and as for some of the regional efforts, they're best left there.

danny
03-11-07, 06:54 PM
I'm not sure where another Brian Moore thread is really going to get us, he seems to have that love-hate thing going on and there doesn't seem to be any in between with him.

He may make some idiotic comments at times, i.e. he does make racist comments against the French but the BBC seem to tolerate him, but other than that I find him quite good to listen to.

But really there isn't anyone better at the BBC, Davies is just a jumped up little twerp, Guscott just sits there and tries to look pretty, Wood seems to be chomping at the bit to say something but seems to be kept on a tight leash and as for some of the regional efforts, they're best left there.
[/b]

What they need is a professional broadcaster backed up by a former international but not Moore. I know he's not British but Pienaar was an exellent orator throughout the WC.

Prestwick
03-11-07, 07:16 PM
What a bunch of miserable old Meldrews! Moore is only awful when he's paired with that abominable Eddie Butler.

He was pretty good today when paired with Andy Cotter and did a pretty good job, nothing outrageous (today anyway) and let Cotter take the lead most of the time.

Edwards is an excellent pundit, a happy and generally bright Welshman. Unlike Moore he tends to keep a tidy sheet and doesn't say anything too outrageous or sensational, keeps his cool and gets on well with Keith Wood.

Gusgott...er....I'd run out of words if I were to describe why he shouldn't be a pundit. Anaylsist yes, pundit...no.

Greenwood is the perfect choice for a commentator and with Andy Cotter I think you would have the perfect duo. But I do think that people do overreact with Brian Moore. Whatever he says about the French is repaid in kind by his opposite numbers in France when he was playing. You can call it racism if you want but to be honest, its just simple banter mentioned every now and then.

danny
04-11-07, 12:04 AM
What a bunch of miserable old Meldrews! Moore is only awful when he's paired with that abominable Eddie Butler.

He was pretty good today when paired with Andy Cotter and did a pretty good job, nothing outrageous (today anyway) and let Cotter take the lead most of the time.

Edwards is an excellent pundit, a happy and generally bright Welshman. Unlike Moore he tends to keep a tidy sheet and doesn't say anything too outrageous or sensational, keeps his cool and gets on well with Keith Wood.

Gusgott...er....I'd run out of words if I were to describe why he shouldn't be a pundit. Anaylsist yes, pundit...no.

Greenwood is the perfect choice for a commentator and with Andy Cotter I think you would have the perfect duo. But I do think that people do overreact with Brian Moore. Whatever he says about the French is repaid in kind by his opposite numbers in France when he was playing. You can call it racism if you want but to be honest, its just simple banter mentioned every now and then.
[/b]

Im not giving Moore a bad rap cause hes racist, I just think he doesnt help the flow of the game when he is commentating . All of a sudden play has continued and hes still talking about some illegal tackle that happened twenty minutes ago. If i thought for a minute that Moore (who in fairness was a tremendous combative hooker) was racist I would be the first person to condem him and have him removed from broadcasting. My beef is with his quality.

Prestwick
04-11-07, 12:15 AM
Oh no no, sorry Danny, the racist stuff was a seperate debate with An Tarbh.

danny
04-11-07, 12:20 AM
Oh no no, sorry Danny, the racist stuff was a seperate debate with An Tarbh.
[/b]

No worries mate I was just talking generally

Crackdown
04-11-07, 11:40 AM
I thought that was some of the worst commentary I've ever heard in all my life during the Blues v Tiggers game, how can anyone say it was good or even acceptable? :huh:

SaintsFan_Webby
04-11-07, 12:50 PM
I don't see the problem with Moore. He is concise, says what he thinks, and will always critiscise both teams as much as they deserve. I think people need to take some of his tongue-in-cheek remarks slightly less seriously.

Also been very impressed with Andrew Cotter recently, he's a far better holding man than Eddie Butler.

Prestwick
04-11-07, 01:33 PM
Cotter just does his job (i.e. jose what you see!) rather than trying to be a kind of quasi pundit like Butler does when he talks rubbish.

RC
04-11-07, 05:48 PM
I don't see the problem with Moore. He is concise, says what he thinks, and will always critiscise both teams as much as they deserve.
[/b]

Aww, come on.
You don't mean to tell me that he's not 100% biased towards England everytime he commentates. He can only see when others do wrong. If England do wrong he just so happens to have had a blind eye turned to the incident.
I don't think he's a very good commentator personally, and i question whether i really want to see a particular rugby match if Moore and Butler are commentating together.

Bullitt
04-11-07, 05:59 PM
I can't think of many commentators who aren't biased in all honesty;

Barry Davies - Wales
Guscott, Harrisson, Moore, <strike>Webb</strike> Greenwood - England
Barnes - Bath
Morris - Bristol
Mexted - New Zealand

In fact, the last commentator I heard who didn&#39;t show blatent bias was Bill McLaren, and even then his voice would would go up an octive or two whenever Scotland did anything well!

RC
04-11-07, 06:16 PM
Very good point, Mite.

I just sense it more with Moore than any other commentator. I just don&#39;t like him.

And don&#39;t get me started on Mexted - worse than Moore (regarding bias, commentating capabilities etc.) by 10 fold!

SaintsFan_Webby
04-11-07, 06:58 PM
I seem to remember Moore spending most of the last Six Nations moaning about how **** England were.

The thing that sets him apart is that he openly lays into everyone else, not that he gives England any special praise.

Klarkash-ton
05-11-07, 11:19 AM
heh, all commentators are biased. Moore redeems himself now and then with bursts of honesty. I prefer ones who know they are biased (Moore and Greenwood) vs those that think they are &#39;impartial&#39; (Harrison and Butler are the worst). Mexted often acknowledges his bais on air with an apology or sorts.

Was it Stu Wilson that commentated on a crooked line-out at the ANZ semi-finals, saying "I&#39;ve know women who can **** straighter than than that standing up." :huh:

stormmaster1
05-11-07, 12:01 PM
I agree about commentators that know that they are biased. there is usually so much anti-english bias that it doesn&#39;t bother me. At least moore still picks up on english mistakes. the "racism2 with France i think is part banter, part left over issues from his playing days. I may be wrong but i think rugby in general and french rugby in particular was a lot dirtier when he was an international.

iansimcox
23-03-08, 11:14 AM
As far as BBC general standard of commentators goes, Moore is toward the top. He&#39;s still irritating and games on Sky are so much better.

At least we don&#39;t have John Motson on the rugby though.

Prestwick
23-03-08, 01:32 PM
Or Murray Walker.

<Murray> And there goes New Zealand on the attack!!
<Moore> ...thats Leicester Murray...

shtove
23-03-08, 01:54 PM
Anyone catch the Butler-Moore debate over the origins of the Cornish language? It was during the Tigers-Wasps game, I think.

It started off with a reference to Vickery, who is from Cornwall I guess. This inspired Moore to inform us that Cornish is akin to Basque, in that no one knows where it came from. Butler demurred, stating that Cornish is a celtic language, and then gave an exhaustive list of those languages. Moore told him he was wrong. Butler said, No you&#39;re wrong. Then there was a bit of a "shut up you old fool" exchange. Moore called a truce with some lame gag about pasties, or something, and they both returned their attention to a rather good game of rugby. Gripping.

An Tarbh
23-03-08, 01:56 PM
Or Murray Walker.

<Murray> And there goes New Zealand on the attack!!
<Moore> ...thats Leicester Murray...
[/b]

Murray - OH MY WORD HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT
Moore - that&#39;s a scrum Murray and a gay slap for you as well.

Macsen
23-03-08, 05:10 PM
I like Moore as a pundit, he&#39;s always honest enough, and the banter between him and Butler is class. He was talking ******** about Cornish being seperate from all other languages though. If you speak Welsh or Breton you can understand half of it.

Prestwick
23-03-08, 05:46 PM
Isn&#39;t Welsh descended from the Ancient Britons who used to inhabit the British Isles before first the Celts and then the Romans rampaged onto the scene?

Macsen
23-03-08, 06:51 PM
Isn&#39;t Welsh descended from the Ancient Britons who used to inhabit the British Isles before first the Celts and then the Romans rampaged onto the scene? [/b]

No it came from Proto-Celtic, a language spoken on the continent and carried over to Britain by the Celts. It also picked up a lot of latin words from the romans, which is why some words in Welsh and English are similar (car, for example, from the latin carra).

For future use by Moore:

Proto-Celtic ------ Gaulish (spoken in France by Asterix and chums, branch extinct)
>>>>>>>>|------- Brythonic ---- Welsh
>>>>>>>>|>>>>>>>>>>| ------ Cornish
>>>>>>>>|>>>>>>>>>>| ------ Breton
>>>>>>>>|-------- Goidelic -------- Irish
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>| ------- Scottish Gaelic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>| ------- Manx

shtove
23-03-08, 07:34 PM
Celtic only refers to the languages and what was quite a sophisticated system of industry and trading. We really have no idea about a celtic race. So reference to the Celtic nations is a load of arse.

Both islands presumably had their aboriginals after the ice age, but after that there weren&#39;t all that many population shifts, and no real evidence of celtic invasions (although I&#39;m not sure about Wales). The Britons certainly were pushed in to Wales later on, around the same time as the Irish invaded Scotland and the Saxons/Danes took over the north and east of England. After that the only big shift has been Scots planters in to Ulster.

There is an ancient origin myth that Ireland was invaded by the Basques, displacing the aboriginals. Everyone thought it was nonsense until recently, but genetic research seems to back it up in the west of the country.

Plenty for Butler and Moore to sink their teeth in to - preferably during extra time at the next RWC final.

Macsen
23-03-08, 08:17 PM
Celtic only refers to the languages and what was quite a sophisticated system of industry and trading. We really have no idea about a celtic race. So reference to the Celtic nations is a load of arse.[/b]

Even if there was a celtic race there isn&#39;t any more, this is an interesting article on that point (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/science/05cnd-brits.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin), but I think the &#39;celtic nations&#39; label is a more a reference to the cultural and linguistic roots that Wales, Ireland, Scotland, and parts of England and France, have in common.

shtove
23-03-08, 09:52 PM
Yeah, I read the article. Sooooo confusing - only lesson is we&#39;re all people! Profound, but then again not really.

Of all the languages Welsh is the stand out example - gaelic is becoming a relic, and the rest are faint memories.

Still, the English aren&#39;t going away any time soon - and they&#39;re always good for a laugh.

An Tarbh
23-03-08, 10:41 PM
No wonder the Irish language is struggling when people call it football :wall: :wall: :wall:

Macsen
23-03-08, 11:18 PM
Of all the languages Welsh is the stand out example - gaelic is becoming a relic, and the rest are faint memories.[/b]
Well the success of a language depends a lot on the attitude of people towards it. People were saying that Welsh was dead for years and that only old people spoke it until the 2001 census showed that the number of speakers had actually risen and that about 40% of speakers were under the age of 20.

Irish is the most spoken Celtic language of them all but not enough has been done to encourage the people who can speak it to do so. The difference with Welsh is that the people who can speak it tend to use it as a community language, especialy in the west of the country, and it is tied into the Urdd society for children, th national Eisteddfod event, and has strong links with rugby. But unfortunately it seems that with the Welsh language most efforts are now geared towards teaching it to the children it classrooms with little done outside school to promote it. The end result is that it is thought of as a chore rather than a gateway to an unique and rewarding culture and when they get to drop it at GCSE level most kids never look back.

MunsterMan
23-03-08, 11:38 PM
It&#39;s similar in Ireland. A lot of us leave school with good Irish and never speak it again. I am pretty much fluent and pretty much never use it. It&#39;s a shame really but I think they the language is taught is flawed. There is too much emphasis on written work and not enough on actually speaking.

sanzar
23-03-08, 11:43 PM
Brian Moore... yeah I had a bit of exposure to him in the six nations and he&#39;s hands down the most irritating commentator I&#39;ve ever heard. All commentators are biased, but Moore just comes across like some pisshead at the pub who&#39;s got the ****s with everything. In Australia we have Phil Gould in Rugby League as probably his closest equivalent, but the major differences are that Gould doesn&#39;t have that whiny quality to his voice, he gets irritated at things, but not for so long that he forgets a game is being played, and lastly, he actually knows what he&#39;s talking about.
Seriously, I would rather listen to someone take a sh#t than hear Moore commentate another game...

Prestwick
23-03-08, 11:49 PM
So you&#39;d rather prefer one of those bland commentators and pundits like those who plague American sports television?

Moore is great because he cares so much about the game he loves. He does know what he&#39;s talking about because for years he&#39;s been stating the obvious that Australia&#39;s scrum was just smoke and mirrors and lo and behold in 2005, he got the chance to say "told ya so"...twice.

Moore comes across as a character who reflects what we are all thinking. I think you would want someone like Andy Nichol for example, knows his stuff but is very bland, doesn&#39;t really say anything that would offend anyone outside of Scotland, etc. Moore on the otherhand gives two fingers to protocol and political correctness and says it how he sees it and that gets a huge amount of respect from me.

MunsterMan
23-03-08, 11:55 PM
One thing about Moore, It is nice to have a guy who understands what is going on in the front row. refreshing when you are used to listening to Ryle Nugent and Tony Ward/Ralph Keyes

Prestwick
23-03-08, 11:59 PM
One thing about Moore, It is nice to have a guy who understands what is going on in the front row. refreshing when you are used to listening to Ryle Nugent and Tony Ward/Ralph Keyes [/b]

Something which I think is lost in Australia. He&#39;s a forwards man and always will have a general dislike of backs, he showed that when talking to Will Carling and Ieuan Evans!

Cymro
24-03-08, 12:13 AM
Moore comes across at times as an utter fool and a tool at times!!! Yes he does know what is going on in the front row and yes so do I, it aint hard to see!

Uncle Brian makes some of the most stupid remarks and stupidest comments I have heared in recent times as a rugby commentator / pundit ... call him what you like. He aint great and sometimes his biasedness comes out, which is ok in limitations but not all the time (he aint as bad as Healey and Guscott!!!)

However Uncle Brian does make the effort and commitment to make the game sound more interesting, and for that I give him alot of credit! He is an arrogant **** but he makes listening to a game more entertaining, and for that I give him is due respect!

shtove
24-03-08, 12:16 AM
A lot to talk about there.

Irish gaelic is Scots gaelic and vice versa. So the language is not just Irish. But it&#39;s not Scots, because that&#39;s officially a version of medieval english - unless you&#39;re from Ulster, where it&#39;s a "separate" language: uniquely and deeply protestant - and dead as a dodo. A pretence for the purpose of "up yours" politics. I love it when things are simple!

Your take on Welsh is similar to gaelic in Ireland - the little uns get a strong dose with state support (probably ending at a younger age), but then it falls away. I guess the same goes for Scotland. The impression I have from Wales is that you have the issue sussed - not ideal, but people actually use the language outside of school to do business and make jokes in the pub.

Does rugby come in to it? In Ireland the GAA gives a lot of support - but there are weird issues over what is "Irish", both for the language and the two gaelic sports codes, and the whole thing sort of turns in on itself.

Rugby is truly international, and also a national sport for you guys. Does that make a difference?

p.s. Sorry, the reply is to Macsen. Brian Moore is brilliant.

Prestwick
24-03-08, 01:03 AM
A lot to talk about there.

Irish gaelic is Scots gaelic and vice versa. So the language is not just Irish. But it&#39;s not Scots, because that&#39;s officially a version of medieval english - unless you&#39;re from Ulster, where it&#39;s a "separate" language: uniquely and deeply protestant - and dead as a dodo. A pretence for the purpose of "up yours" politics. I love it when things are simple![/b]

Yeah, Scots was also known as "lowland English" and served to highlight the most obvious divide between the Celtic highlands and the largely Anglo Saxon and Scandinavian lowlands. Religion came into it later but by then the dye had been cast. What are seen as wars against England in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries were largely fought between armies of Lowland and Highland armies. Culloden was more the final battle of an informal Scottish civil war that had lasted for centuries.

Today though, Scots is indeed dead as a dodo. However, go to some of the castles around Scotland and you&#39;ll see things like Bible verses painted onto roof beams in Latin, Old English, Scots and Gaelic. Really interesting! :)

sanzar
24-03-08, 02:21 AM
So you&#39;d rather prefer one of those bland commentators and pundits like those who plague American sports television?

Moore is great because he cares so much about the game he loves. He does know what he&#39;s talking about because for years he&#39;s been stating the obvious that Australia&#39;s scrum was just smoke and mirrors and lo and behold in 2005, he got the chance to say "told ya so"...twice.

Moore comes across as a character who reflects what we are all thinking. I think you would want someone like Andy Nichol for example, knows his stuff but is very bland, doesn&#39;t really say anything that would offend anyone outside of Scotland, etc. Moore on the otherhand gives two fingers to protocol and political correctness and says it how he sees it and that gets a huge amount of respect from me. [/b]
You misunderstand me Prestwick... just because I don&#39;t to listen a whiny, lisping retard doesn&#39;t mean I want boring political correctness. Moore does not "come across as a character who reflects what we are all thinking", if he did why would a topic such as this have been started (and by one of your fellow Englisman no less)?
There are plenty of commentators out there who are politically incorrect and willing to take pot shots at teams without being as irritating and divisive as Moore.
Murry Mexted in New Zealand always has a fair go at most teams, but he doesn&#39;t bleet on and on and on about pointless little things that didn&#39;t go his way (seriously when England are playing badly Moore actually becomes even more irritating).
There are tonnes of commentators like that aren&#39;t politically correct though... Personally I like to listen to Phil Kearns&#39; commentary because he&#39;ll have a shot at the things a team is doing wrong, but mostly he just seems to enjoy sitting back and having a bit of a laugh while he commentates the game. He&#39;s Moore&#39;s polar opposite in that sense, because whereas Moore sounds like he&#39;s going to burst a blood vesel in his brain because of how spastic he goes over the tiniest thing, Kearns never really seems phased by anything and is generally just having a laugh.



<div class='quotemain'> One thing about Moore, It is nice to have a guy who understands what is going on in the front row. refreshing when you are used to listening to Ryle Nugent and Tony Ward/Ralph Keyes [/b]

Something which I think is lost in Australia. He&#39;s a forwards man and always will have a general dislike of backs, he showed that when talking to Will Carling and Ieuan Evans!
[/b][/quote]
You really never have heard Kearns commentate then... he&#39;s always giving the backs ****.

shtove
24-03-08, 02:56 AM
Culloden was more the final battle of an informal Scottish civil war that had lasted for centuries.[/b]
Tricky subject.


Today though, Scots is indeed dead as a dodo. However, go to some of the castles around Scotland and you&#39;ll see things like Bible verses painted onto roof beams in Latin, Old English, Scots and Gaelic. Really interesting! :)
[/b]
Multi lingual bible verses on the roof beams?
"Darling, lie back and think of ... the ethnic diversity that is the cultural heritage of these islands."
"Och, Finlay - you say the sauciest things."
"Aye, but dooon&#39;t worry. After the rumpy pumpy we&#39;ll surely burn in Hell for eternity."
Rump pump. Rump pump.
"Finlay ... oooh ...you complete me."
"Burn baby, burn! &#39;Tis almost as good as a Calcutta Cup match in a half empty stadium."

redunderthebed
24-03-08, 07:37 AM
Was it Stu Wilson that commentated on a crooked line-out at the ANZ semi-finals, saying "I&#39;ve know women who can **** straighter than than that standing up." :huh:
[/b]

:lol2tn: That is fooking classic.My most hated RU commentator would have to be Ben Darwin he.is.just.so.stupid. :angry:

An Tarbh
24-03-08, 10:44 AM
A few distinctions obviously need to be repeated for some people around here, GAELIC IS NOT WHAT WE CALL THE LANGUAGE IT&#39;S IRISH AND EVERYONE ELSE SHOULD DO SO ACCORDINGLY. Gaelic is a code of football and to see people using that as a synonym for Irish is quite insulting, football may be the language of something, but it&#39;s not the language of Ireland.

As for Moore, he&#39;s becoming more and more like a chav in the commentary box, there&#39;s no doubt he has the passion and the knowledge but his ranting and raving is becoming quite pathetic

Bullitt
24-03-08, 11:20 AM
Well, there&#39;s an easy way to sum this up.

If you&#39;re biased and English, you like Moore because he&#39;s saying all the same things you&#39;re thinking.

If you&#39;re biased and not English, you don&#39;t like him because you think he&#39;s either A. a whinging pom or B. a big mouth who&#39;s said you only beat England because they suck, therefore you achieved nothing.

If you&#39;re neutral and not anti-English about every walk of life, you&#39;ll find Moore amusing while the game is on then pay him no more mind after the game.

Macsen
24-03-08, 11:59 AM
Irish gaelic is Scots gaelic and vice versa. So the language is not just Irish.[/b]
I think the languages are quite different, two branches of the same tree as it where. But you don&#39;t call Scottish Gaelic just &#39;scottish&#39; because it&#39;s never been spoken by the majority of people in Scotland, just Irish migrants to the highlands, while Irish and Welsh are &#39;homegrown&#39; languages that were spoken in every pocket of those countries a little over a century ago, so I think they deserve the titles &#39;Irish&#39; and &#39;Welsh&#39;.


But it&#39;s not Scots, because that&#39;s officially a version of medieval english[/b]
Some may not agree but I think Scots is a dialect. If you can understand 95% of it without a single lesson, I think it&#39;s fair to say it&#39;s a dialect rather than a seperate language. I can understand some 25% of Cornish and Breton, slightly more than an English speaker could understand of French, so they&#39;re probably seperate languages rather than dialects.

I think Ulster Scots has a lot to do with unionists there thinking Irish was being used as a weapon to hit them with and they just wanted their own language to hit back. :)


Does rugby come in to it? In Ireland the GAA gives a lot of support - but there are weird issues over what is "Irish", both for the language and the two gaelic sports codes, and the whole thing sort of turns in on itself.[/b]
From what I can see though you probably know better than me rugby isn&#39;t considered a very Irish sport in Ireland and that&#39;s where all the fuss about using Croke Park stems from. In Wales, despite the sport&#39;s origins in England, rugby is considered the welshest sport. Possible because a very similar game called Cnapan was played in Wales since the middle ages, which contained scrummages and lineouts and the like.

Despite football being the more popular sport in the north of wales that&#39;s mostly because of the proximity of clubs such as Liverpool and Manchester and there&#39;s little welsh speaking culture surrounding football like there is rugby. So you have the irony of a region where most people speak welsh enjoying a game with no welsh and a region where few people speak welsh enjoying a game with strong welsh speaking roots.

Prestwick
24-03-08, 10:45 PM
Multi lingual bible verses on the roof beams?
"Darling, lie back and think of ... the ethnic diversity that is the cultural heritage of these islands."
"Och, Finlay - you say the sauciest things."
"Aye, but dooon&#39;t worry. After the rumpy pumpy we&#39;ll surely burn in Hell for eternity."
Rump pump. Rump pump.
"Finlay ... oooh ...you complete me."
"Burn baby, burn! &#39;Tis almost as good as a Calcutta Cup match in a half empty stadium."
[/b]

Who knew they had such exciting pursuits in those days!

darknasty
30-03-08, 10:28 AM
brian more wosrt rugby pundit ever. Ido think BBC do not put enough money to get the right people in to even challenge Barnes on sky

Bullitt
30-03-08, 10:31 AM
Barnes?

:lol:

Prestwick
30-03-08, 10:40 AM
brian more wosrt rugby pundit ever. Ido think BBC do not put enough money to get the right people in to even challenge Barnes on sky [/b]

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/222/heartattackec9.jpg

Better get a doctor I think...

danny
30-03-08, 11:41 AM
I`ll never complain about Moore and Butler again after hearing those idiots Eddie and Stevo on Friday night during super league. They argue like school children and take away any enjoyment that can be got from watching rugby league.l

Bullitt
30-03-08, 12:19 PM
Really? I think Eddie and Stevo are bloody brilliant! Compare them to that other prat and Jonathan Davies on BBC&#39;s Challenge cup coverage.

danny
30-03-08, 12:39 PM
Really? I think Eddie and Stevo are bloody brilliant! Compare them to that other prat and Jonathan Davies on BBC&#39;s Challenge cup coverage.
[/b]
To be fair I can tollerate Eddie but Stevo talks constant **** and has never got a call right when its gone upstairs.

Ripper
02-04-08, 06:47 AM
Are those the English league commentators? If so, they are f***ing horrible. I&#39;d rather take that whinging Aussie mascarading as a Kiwi who does the Warriors games over them.

Fa'atau82
05-04-08, 01:52 PM
A decent commentator will not talk endlessly about stats, or whinge about a decision or waffle on about something else teniously linked to the rugby. They should be fairly conservative but never dull.

The trick is with commentating is that you don&#39;t come across too patronising. You have to sit on the fence most of the time and come out and say something constructive.

When i watch a game, i think guys like Pienaar are quite good in their analysis. He delivers it in a way that is neutral and says what he thinks, but in a way that it gives you an idea of why something is happening in a game. Conservative with a bit of grrr.

The only one who i really detest is Jeremy Guscott. He looks like he&#39;s just sat on a wasp for most of the time, making these faces and generally gives the impression that HIS time would be much better spent playing golf or something, rather than watch the sh*t he has just moaned about that would never happen at Bath.

He just comes across as a miserable ponce IMHO.

Prestwick
06-04-08, 09:03 AM
A decent commentator will not talk endlessly about stats, or whinge about a decision or waffle on about something else teniously linked to the rugby. They should be fairly conservative but never dull.

The trick is with commentating is that you don&#39;t come across too patronising. You have to sit on the fence most of the time and come out and say something constructive.

When i watch a game, i think guys like Pienaar are quite good in their analysis. He delivers it in a way that is neutral and says what he thinks, but in a way that it gives you an idea of why something is happening in a game. Conservative with a bit of grrr.
[/b]

What exactly is the point of the pundit then if he essentially can&#39;t talk or be himself? The whole point of guys like moore is that they&#39;re meant to be biased and spoken. I&#39;m sorry, but you want bland, PC and dull.

I prefer the WWF ringside theory with an impartial commentator and a pundit who is outspoken and generally an arse. Mite & RC will know what I mean as they watch allot of cage matches from the attitude era.

RC
06-04-08, 11:07 AM
Well, there&#39;s an easy way to sum this up.

If you&#39;re biased and English, you like Moore because he&#39;s saying all the same things you&#39;re thinking.

If you&#39;re biased and not English, you don&#39;t like him because you think he&#39;s either A. a whinging pom or B. a big mouth who&#39;s said you only beat England because they suck, therefore you achieved nothing.

If you&#39;re neutral and not anti-English about every walk of life, you&#39;ll find Moore amusing while the game is on then pay him no more mind after the game. [/b]

That is actually spot on!
I think Moore is hillarious - "Give that man a chocolate egg!"

stevemagoo
21-04-08, 09:09 AM
I find Moore amusing most of the time, and will always watch the BBC coverage rather than the RTE coverage because it&#39;s far more entertaining.

Sure, he prattles on about a crooked line-out for 20 minutes, or brushes off a shoeing to the face as &#39;handbags&#39;, but at least he knows what he&#39;s on about, and has experienced it.

The Irish commentary, half the time, trying not to look biased, ends up being biased IN FAVOUR OF the other team!!! BBC until half time - Hook et al for a laugh at the break, then back to BBC.

Stuart Barnes should be hung by his testicles over Guscotts smug, lifeless corpse - both on fire......conspóideach.........ach réasúnta

sanzar
21-04-08, 11:16 AM
<div class='quotemain'> A decent commentator will not talk endlessly about stats, or whinge about a decision or waffle on about something else teniously linked to the rugby. They should be fairly conservative but never dull.

The trick is with commentating is that you don&#39;t come across too patronising. You have to sit on the fence most of the time and come out and say something constructive.

When i watch a game, i think guys like Pienaar are quite good in their analysis. He delivers it in a way that is neutral and says what he thinks, but in a way that it gives you an idea of why something is happening in a game. Conservative with a bit of grrr.
[/b]

What exactly is the point of the pundit then if he essentially can&#39;t talk or be himself? The whole point of guys like moore is that they&#39;re meant to be biased and spoken. I&#39;m sorry, but you want bland, PC and dull.

I prefer the WWF ringside theory with an impartial commentator and a pundit who is outspoken and generally an arse. Mite & RC will know what I mean as they watch allot of cage matches from the attitude era.
[/b][/quote]
Wait, did you just say you prefer the "WWF" ringside theory? **** Prestwick... If I didn&#39;t like you so much I&#39;d have neg repped you for suggesting that something the WWF thought up could be mentioned in the same breath as anything rugby related. Someone seriously needs to find a deep dark chamber for those roid munching show pony actors... and then fill it with gas.
But seriously, I think you&#39;re way off mark here. You assume that anyone who thinks Moore is a tool (which he is) and finds him irritating only wants bland PC commentating and that&#39;s just not the case. I personally like the second commentator to be a little cheeky. Phil Kearns is 100 times the personality commentator that Moore is. He&#39;s biased towards the Tahs and the Aussies, but not unreasonably. He&#39;s laid back, and he&#39;s also a bit of a joker that doesn&#39;t mind taking a shot at players and refs when necessary. So essentially he&#39;s all the things you say Moore represents, but without the unnecessary "******" ingredient (or spastic lisp).

Prestwick
21-04-08, 11:29 AM
OooOOOOOoooo...someone&#39;s gutted that they can&#39;t have Sam Kekovich as pundit for Aussie Sports Coverage! Quick! Someone flag Sanzar&#39;s post as "R-R-R-R-ROID RAGE!"

I think I find myself bang on the mark because you essentially objected to Moore speaking his mind and then went on to talk at length about how you&#39;d prefer someone who is essentially bland, dull and PC commentating which is perpetuating Sports Commentary these days.

I bet you&#39;d like a Female commentator, not because she is better qualified on either knowledge or experience in Rugby, but on the basis of equal opportunities and affirmative action.

I&#39;m not an out and out defender of Moore because he can be a total arse. However, I respect the guy for having the guts to speak his mind and not make excuses for either the England team or for what anything he says.

The guy is controversial, he fosters debate and for that he has my (mostly worthless) respect.

sanzar
21-04-08, 12:10 PM
OooOOOOOoooo...someone&#39;s gutted that they can&#39;t have Sam Kekovich as pundit for Aussie Sports Coverage! Quick! Someone flag Sanzar&#39;s post as "R-R-R-R-ROID RAGE!"

I think I find myself bang on the mark because you essentially objected to Moore speaking his mind and then went on to talk at length about how you&#39;d prefer someone who is essentially bland, dull and PC commentating which is perpetuating Sports Commentary these days.
[/b]
No, what I essentially object to is the idea that speaking your mind equals colourful and interesting. Hitler rather liked to speak his mind, but the man was a raving lunatic and I wouldn&#39;t like him commentating my footy. As for "what I spoke about at length", I think this comes down to your definition of "bland, dull and PC" commentating (which it seems for you is anything outside of "****** who can&#39;t be shut up"). If you&#39;d ever heard the commentator I&#39;ve been speaking about you&#39;d agree he&#39;s none of these. He most certainly speaks his mind in fact. It&#39;s just that he manages to move on after he&#39;s made his point instead of going on for 15 minutes until he&#39;s about to drown in a pool of his own rabid saliva like Moore. That&#39;s my issue with Moore. Sure I guess you could say I&#39;d rather he didn&#39;t speak his mind, but that doesn&#39;t mean I want boring and censored, it just means I don&#39;t want bloody Moore! Why can&#39;t you get Laurence Dallalio or Martin Johnson in there to speak their minds? I&#39;m sure they&#39;d manage to do that pretty well and also be interesting and constructive at the same time.

Prestwick
21-04-08, 01:08 PM
Comparing Brian Moore to "Hitler" doesn&#39;t exactly help your argument really to be honest. Also, exaggerating what Moore complains about doesn&#39;t really help. Yes, sure he complains during the scrum about something relevant to the scrum (i.e. crooked feeds) and sure he does rant on a bit about something that might have happened a few minutes ago but he usually talks about a major incident which needs to be addressed. If he didn&#39;t say anything at all, he&#39;d be castigated for not doing his job.



My definition of "bland, etc, etc" is someone who sits on the fence, doesn&#39;t offer an opinon and doesn&#39;t really have a personality of note.



I just don&#39;t see what exactly the problem is with being passionate and excited about the game thats all, why should he be condemned when he gets reflects what an entire rugby nation is thinking when commentating on England? Its a damn sight better than watching Andy Nichol trying to explain away Scotland&#39;s dire performances.

sanzar
21-04-08, 01:26 PM
Comparing Brian Moore to "Hitler" doesn&#39;t exactly help your argument really to be honest. Also, exaggerating what Moore complains about doesn&#39;t really help.
[/b]
I wasn&#39;t actually comparing Moore to Hitler, what I was doing was illustrating that speaking your mind doesn&#39;t necessarily equal colourful and entertaining and an extreme example was the only thing I thought would work after you seemingly ignored my more subtle attempts to make the same point in previous posts - the same goes with my exagerations of Moore (though I think it works in contrast to your own assertions that essentially anyone not like Moore is bland and dull).


I just don&#39;t see what exactly the problem is with being passionate and excited about the game thats all, why should he be condemned when he gets reflects what an entire rugby nation is thinking when commentating on England? Its a damn sight better than watching Andy Nichol trying to explain away Scotland&#39;s dire performances.
[/b]
I don&#39;t see a problem with being passionate and excited either, it&#39;s just that I (and a heck of a lot of other people it would seem) find Moore&#39;s particular brand of passion and excitement about as enjoyable as catching the flesh eating virus. That&#39;s been my point all along. It just seems as though you assume we want boring cause we think the guy&#39;s an irritating ****. Why can&#39;t we find him irritating while still wanting colourful and passionate? You make it sound like the guy has a mortgage on those words the way you talk about him and that&#39;s just not how it is.
And anyway, you want colourful and passionate, then listen to the Jedi from Alternative Rugby - he know a f#ckload more about rugby than Moore, and he&#39;s bloody funny!

Prestwick
21-04-08, 02:39 PM
<div class='quotemain'> Comparing Brian Moore to "Hitler" doesn&#39;t exactly help your argument really to be honest. Also, exaggerating what Moore complains about doesn&#39;t really help.
[/b]
I wasn&#39;t actually comparing Moore to Hitler, what I was doing was illustrating that speaking your mind doesn&#39;t necessarily equal colourful and entertaining and an extreme example was the only thing I thought would work after you seemingly ignored my more subtle attempts to make the same point in previous posts - the same goes with my exagerations of Moore (though I think it works in contrast to your own assertions that essentially anyone not like Moore is bland and dull).
[/b][/quote]

I dont think exaggerating about what Moore does in a game and ignoring what I defined as bland and pc counts as &#39;subtle&#39; I&#39;m afraid. Colourful as it was, it doesnt make any sense to include a dictator as an argument against Moore, only then to claim that you were not comparing Moore with him despite the fact that such a comparison is all but inevitable in the route you have chosen.




I just don&#39;t see what exactly the problem is with being passionate and excited about the game thats all, why should he be condemned when he gets reflects what an entire rugby nation is thinking when commentating on England? Its a damn sight better than watching Andy Nichol trying to explain away Scotland&#39;s dire performances.
[/b]


I don&#39;t see a problem with being passionate and excited either, it&#39;s just that I (and a heck of a lot of other people it would seem) find Moore&#39;s particular brand of passion and excitement about as enjoyable as catching the flesh eating virus.[/b]

Well, by the same token, a heck of a lot of other people like him it would appear and enjoy his brand of punditry!


That&#39;s been my point all along. It just seems as though you assume we want boring cause we think the guy&#39;s an irritating ****. Why can&#39;t we find him irritating while still wanting colourful and passionate? You make it sound like the guy has a mortgage on those words the way you talk about him and that&#39;s just not how it is.
[/b]

I find this "make it sound like its prestwick vs everyone else" strategy amusing. Mostly because it is a total sham. The truth is more in line with along the lines of what Mite said. However, I am satisfied that on what you have said you wanted in a pundit, I found frankly dull. Didnt find everyone else&#39;s suggestions dull, just the one person who seems most stung by some admittedly harsh remarks.



In any case, the fact that everyone is talking about Brian Moore proves my point that he starts great arguments! :lol:

sanzar
21-04-08, 03:32 PM
<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'> Comparing Brian Moore to "Hitler" doesn&#39;t exactly help your argument really to be honest. Also, exaggerating what Moore complains about doesn&#39;t really help.
[/b]
I wasn&#39;t actually comparing Moore to Hitler, what I was doing was illustrating that speaking your mind doesn&#39;t necessarily equal colourful and entertaining and an extreme example was the only thing I thought would work after you seemingly ignored my more subtle attempts to make the same point in previous posts - the same goes with my exagerations of Moore (though I think it works in contrast to your own assertions that essentially anyone not like Moore is bland and dull).
[/b][/quote]

I dont think exaggerating about what Moore does in a game and ignoring what I defined as bland and pc counts as &#39;subtle&#39; I&#39;m afraid. Colourful as it was, it doesnt make any sense to include a dictator as an argument against Moore, only then to claim that you were not comparing Moore with him despite the fact that such a comparison is all but inevitable in the route you have chosen.

[/b][/quote]
Seriously, it&#39;s like the 10th time I posted on this topic and each time you said I wanted dull so I thought "f#ck it I&#39;ll just make it bloody obvious". And hey, you stopped suggesting Moore was the sole representative of opinion and personality in commentary so I guess it kinda worked :P .


Well, by the same token, a heck of a lot of other people like him it would appear and enjoy his brand of punditry!
[/b]
From the sounds of it that&#39;s more a reflection of pretty bad NH commentary across the board... and even then it&#39;s fairly even. Haven&#39;t heard many SH boys cheering for Moore.


The truth is more in line with along the lines of what Mite said. However, I am satisfied that on what you have said you wanted in a pundit, I found frankly dull. Didnt find everyone else&#39;s suggestions dull, just the one person who seems most stung by some admittedly harsh remarks.
[/b]
How would you know? you don&#39;t even know who I&#39;m talking about from the sounds of your responses. On the other hand I know full well who you are talking about.


In any case, the fact that everyone is talking about Brian Moore proves my point that he starts great arguments! :lol:
[/b]
Arguments, sure. But great arguments? We&#39;ve spent pages basically arguing over whether or not this guy has any place in a commentary box... a great argument would have been one about the state of the game.
But hey, I guess starting arguments is something... which I guess kind of makes Moore the Bill O&#39;Reilly of Rugby - he may not have a single useful thing to say, but he sure as **** knows how to **** people off.

Prestwick
21-04-08, 04:04 PM
Seriously, it&#39;s like the 10th time I posted on this topic and each time you said I wanted dull so I thought "f#ck it I&#39;ll just make it bloody obvious". And hey, you stopped suggesting Moore was the sole representative of opinion and personality in commentary so I guess it kinda worked :P . [/b]



Its funny because you&#39;ve misunderstood what I was saying about Moore and it wasn&#39;t that he was the sole representative of opinion and personality in commentary. Que sera I guess :P



Maybe it was just you not getting the message about your idea of a pundit, maybe?



From the sounds of it that&#39;s more a reflection of pretty bad NH commentary across the board... and even then it&#39;s fairly even. Haven&#39;t heard many SH boys cheering for Moore.[/b]



From the sounds of it, you&#39;re just confirming that you agree with what Mite said without actually saying that you agree with what Mite said.


How would you know? you don&#39;t even know who I&#39;m talking about from the sounds of your responses. On the other hand I know full well who you are talking about.[/b]



Sorry, you read what I said incorrectly. I was talking about what you said you wanted to see in a pundit!



Arguments, sure. But great arguments? We&#39;ve spent pages basically arguing over whether or not this guy has any place in a commentary box... a great argument would have been one about the state of the game.
But hey, I guess starting arguments is something... which I guess kind of makes Moore the Bill O&#39;Reilly of Rugby - he may not have a single useful thing to say, but he sure as **** knows how to **** people off. [/b]



Essentially, we&#39;ve spent pages with you emphatically thinking that you&#39;re right and rejecting any argument that might dispute that idea and me suggesting that he isn&#39;t so bad as you make out and that the alternative isn&#39;t as amazing as you make out. A circular argument in which we end in a stalemate.



At this point, I await your reply which will no doubt make the point essentially saying, "yes! We are at a stalemate! Only the difference is that I&#39;m right!"

sanzar
21-04-08, 04:30 PM
Hmmm? I thought I&#39;d posted a reply to Teh Mite earlier... Must never have gone through. Oh well, yes, I 100% agree with Teh Mite. He&#39;s bang on. I never argued with his point... I really only ever disagreed with you because it just seemed that most of your responses had you labeling people who disliked Moore&#39;s style of commentary as wanting dull and boring PC stuff.

As for the rest, well the use of the word "pundit" is pivotal. The word isn&#39;t ever used in reference to rugby "commentary" as far as I&#39;m aware of, but fair enough, you want a fox news style pundit to commentate your rugby. That to me starts to overshadow the main game itself. Personally I don&#39;t mind them being a bit bias, but applaud the personality commentator who can be a smart arse that calls a spade a spade yet manages to apply that somewhat evenly. I also like them to be a little less serious and sound like they&#39;re enjoying themselves. I never tried to make this "alternative" sound "amazing" mind you, I was merely trying to say "hey there&#39;s this guy who commentates the S14 and he aint PC, and he&#39;s pretty funny too, so you don&#39;t have to be like Moore to break away from the PC mold". Though in my zeal I probably made it sound more combative than that :P .

So yes, that&#39;s what I want and you&#39;re right we&#39;ve reached the obvious point - what I want equals PC and boring to you and what you want just annoys the **** out of me... guess we&#39;ll call it a day ;) .