I can still remember when in a match in the early days of Superleague we were holding a narrow lead over Bradford in the closing stages. As Bradford mounted an attack under our posts and were held back Eddie and Stevo yelled in unison "come on Bradford!". They can argue til they're blue in the face that they aren't biased but I for one will never believe them.

Since they have been in the game and commentated on the game for such a long time, no wonder they are biased at times. Is it a 'sin' to prefer a certain team over another. Most fans of Rugby League will support or prefer a team over another. Can't take away their freedom to like and dislike certain teams.

They've never referred to a club as 'we' though, unlike Clarke. Funnily enough he never gets slagged off on here, I wonder why...



I'd expect every person involved in the game to be biased in some respects, for clubs they used to play for or clubs they support. You don't get involved with a sport for over 10 years and stay distant from it, which a completely unbiased person would have to be.



They are far from the most embarrassing commentators on tv, some of the football commentators are far worse. A major bonus of Setanta going under is that I woun't have to listen to Craig 'No nothing' Burley.

When you're being paid not to, then yes, basically.

sometimes it's all well and good to have a little banter but on the other hand you go onto any other board than your own and all of a sudden your point isn't valid and everyone rounds in on you. It works both ways.

Sometimes i actually want to discuss something and you get an equally moronic and predictable "get on your own board" response.

I like Clarkey but he's every bit as bad as Stevo and Eddie. The other week he was fizzing at the bunghole when the latest score showed the Rhinos losing in Perpignan. He said something like it would be a great result and then after a pregnant pause added 'for Super League'.

Anyway it was good watching him squirm in the 2nd half versus 'Quins after he said no one would put 50 on them again.

oh get on your own board !

Nobody is disputing that. What we're saying is that when you're employed as THE voice of rugby league you have a duty to appear impartial, and you should not let your feelings influence what you are saying.



Eddie Hemmings arguably has this responsibility even more than Stevo, Clarke and the rest of them due to him being the presenter and commentator. He is not paid to give opinions, he's paid to call the match.

If Eddie Hemmings has bias it is toward Widnes, the club he has followed for years. He cares about St. Helens as much as he cares about Wigan, or any other club that isn't Widnes.

Dear oh dear.

The discussion isn't about who he supports but him letting his perceived dislike of a team he doesn't support boil over into his job.



Dave

In fairness to Eddie, the fact that the conventional wisdom of TV commentary is that commentators should adopt a neutral stance is not a guarantee that those are the terms he was hired under. It's possible that Sky are perfectly happy for their commentators to show a little bias or preference. It's certainly true that Eddie rarely praises Wigan even when they earn it but at least Stevo, for all his faults, will praise good play (as he sees it) no matter where it comes from. Personally, I like Eddie and Stevo because they have the balls to have opinions and express them, which is more than you get from most of the commentators in this country.

I dont think it is the fact people dislike you for the dominance you once had. I was at wembley for your cup final wins in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 as well as 2002. That didnt make me dislike you and each time me and the group I was with stayed to watch you lift the cup and applauded what was a truely special side.



What does make me dislike you is the fact you think the game is weaker just because your once mighty club dosent rule the game anymore.