The Breakdown (TV Show)
-
@nonpartizan Parsons works for the players union, so is very much not an independent commentator.
@Tim said in The Breakdown (TV Show):
@nonpartizan Parsons works for the players union, so is very much not an independent commentator.
Thanks, ok, that makes a lot of sense then. The minute TJ teed him up for a shot at the players/coaching team he shied away.
-
@nonpartizan Parsons works for the players union, so is very much not an independent commentator.
@Tim said in The Breakdown (TV Show):
@nonpartizan Parsons works for the players union, so is very much not an independent commentator.
And he’s played with or against most if not all of the players in the AB squad. It’s guys like Goldie, Mils etc that should feel no allegiance and be ripping in.
-
Ex-players in general are more likely to soft-ball it, because they feel sympathy for fellow players.
When you add in that 'nice guy for TV' persona required for TV, and the fact that most of them are kinda dumb as dogshit, it makes it a travesty that they are the backbone of our rugby analysis.
If we must have players, get Mehrts and Nonu. -
Faimuina started by suggesting that Lomax was brought back quickly - perhaps not ready (he said 'underdone').
I do like the way Karl tries to get the boys and guests to explain terminology. Faimuina talked about trying to keep Ox on his outside (if he were Lomax), and Karl asks him to explain that to a layman and basically he explains that this is the approach to those who are boring in. To be fair to this show, this is where they are at their best and when Gyp and Hall respond to Karl like this, the show is a good show. To be honest, maybe guests like this is the way forward as the two rugby players have stopped doing it to the same degree - very refreshing part of the interview.
Gyp clearly wants three locks - his question was about size and mass and then he clearly brought that back up again (I've heard him say this three times on different pods so he clearly likes this).
Best part: Faimuina explained that the certain criteria we may have for players (he cited a 5 minute Bronco) don't apply in France or to the SA, they are there to scrum and give the right 'pictures' to refs. This was a fascinating reply and it wasn't really followed up enough (Karl asked about it but didn't maybe hit the right point there by focusing on mass rather than criteria for selection).
At this point, Gyp tries to the emphasize the positive and things get boring.
-
Faimuina started by suggesting that Lomax was brought back quickly - perhaps not ready (he said 'underdone').
I do like the way Karl tries to get the boys and guests to explain terminology. Faimuina talked about trying to keep Ox on his outside (if he were Lomax), and Karl asks him to explain that to a layman and basically he explains that this is the approach to those who are boring in. To be fair to this show, this is where they are at their best and when Gyp and Hall respond to Karl like this, the show is a good show. To be honest, maybe guests like this is the way forward as the two rugby players have stopped doing it to the same degree - very refreshing part of the interview.
Gyp clearly wants three locks - his question was about size and mass and then he clearly brought that back up again (I've heard him say this three times on different pods so he clearly likes this).
Best part: Faimuina explained that the certain criteria we may have for players (he cited a 5 minute Bronco) don't apply in France or to the SA, they are there to scrum and give the right 'pictures' to refs. This was a fascinating reply and it wasn't really followed up enough (Karl asked about it but didn't maybe hit the right point there by focusing on mass rather than criteria for selection).
At this point, Gyp tries to the emphasize the positive and things get boring.
-
Man, you guys are 100% right in your observations on former players in the media..... I've just sat through 20 minutes of this and I thought of this thread.
The ex players (in this case James Parsons) really do act first and foremost as apologists and defenders of the current players and coaches. Its so unbelievably lame that they cant just offer honest and objective criticism.
Multiple times in this interview Tony Johnson asks probing questions to try and elicit some honest feedback from Parsons and what you get in return is "umm, ahh, don't throw the baby out with the bath water". They are categorically incapable of calling it as it is even though that is exactly their job.
@nonpartizan said in The Breakdown (TV Show):
Man, you guys are 100% right in your observations on former players in the media..... I've just sat through 20 minutes of this and I thought of this thread.
The ex players (in this case James Parsons) really do act first and foremost as apologists and defenders of the current players and coaches. Its so unbelievably lame that they cant just offer honest and objective criticism.
Multiple times in this interview Tony Johnson asks probing questions to try and elicit some honest feedback from Parsons and what you get in return is "umm, ahh, don't throw the baby out with the bath water". They are categorically incapable of calling it as it is even though that is exactly their job.
<In fact I thought Parsons was quite right about the scrum. Apart from the one at 42, where he missed a clear penalty against Boks.
Marshall is miles worse.
-
Ex-players in general are more likely to soft-ball it, because they feel sympathy for fellow players.
When you add in that 'nice guy for TV' persona required for TV, and the fact that most of them are kinda dumb as dogshit, it makes it a travesty that they are the backbone of our rugby analysis.
If we must have players, get Mehrts and Nonu.@reprobate said in The Breakdown (TV Show):
Ex-players in general are more likely to soft-ball it, because they feel sympathy for fellow players.
When you add in that 'nice guy for TV' persona required for TV, and the fact that most of them are kinda dumb as dogshit, it makes it a travesty that they are the backbone of our rugby analysis.
If we must have players, get Mehrts and Nonu.Why does anyone think ex players or commentators etc need to call players names etc to be relevant. The whole idea of analysis is to analyse, not get hysterical , we got us for that. The minute I hear someone say such and such was bloody hopeless, I wouldn't listen anyway. I want to see why there was cock ups. I actually thought Gypper's explanation of how Rassie and Boks played game on ARP was bloody good, and when I thought about it basically bang on. They accepted tackles, and set ball real quick, didn't try to go extra yard before et up.
-
@reprobate said in The Breakdown (TV Show):
Ex-players in general are more likely to soft-ball it, because they feel sympathy for fellow players.
When you add in that 'nice guy for TV' persona required for TV, and the fact that most of them are kinda dumb as dogshit, it makes it a travesty that they are the backbone of our rugby analysis.
If we must have players, get Mehrts and Nonu.Why does anyone think ex players or commentators etc need to call players names etc to be relevant. The whole idea of analysis is to analyse, not get hysterical , we got us for that. The minute I hear someone say such and such was bloody hopeless, I wouldn't listen anyway. I want to see why there was cock ups. I actually thought Gypper's explanation of how Rassie and Boks played game on ARP was bloody good, and when I thought about it basically bang on. They accepted tackles, and set ball real quick, didn't try to go extra yard before et up.
@Dan54 said in The Breakdown (TV Show):
@reprobate said in The Breakdown (TV Show):
Ex-players in general are more likely to soft-ball it, because they feel sympathy for fellow players.
When you add in that 'nice guy for TV' persona required for TV, and the fact that most of them are kinda dumb as dogshit, it makes it a travesty that they are the backbone of our rugby analysis.
If we must have players, get Mehrts and Nonu.Why does anyone think ex players or commentators etc need to call players names etc to be relevant. The whole idea of analysis is to analyse, not get hysterical , we got us for that. The minute I hear someone say such and such was bloody hopeless, I wouldn't listen anyway. I want to see why there was cock ups. I actually thought Gypper's explanation of how Rassie and Boks played game on ARP was bloody good, and when I thought about it basically bang on. They accepted tackles, and set ball real quick, didn't try to go extra yard before et up.
I'm not interested in name and blame as such, the focus should be on the actions - but these guys pretend nothing is wrong and nothing needs to change and emphasise the positive etc - after literally our worst beating ever.
For example you can't really say we are doing stupid chip kicks and giving the ball away without it reflecting badly on the guy doing it - so if you're going to critically analyse the performance, it will always come back to players (and coach). -
@Dan54 said in The Breakdown (TV Show):
@reprobate said in The Breakdown (TV Show):
Ex-players in general are more likely to soft-ball it, because they feel sympathy for fellow players.
When you add in that 'nice guy for TV' persona required for TV, and the fact that most of them are kinda dumb as dogshit, it makes it a travesty that they are the backbone of our rugby analysis.
If we must have players, get Mehrts and Nonu.Why does anyone think ex players or commentators etc need to call players names etc to be relevant. The whole idea of analysis is to analyse, not get hysterical , we got us for that. The minute I hear someone say such and such was bloody hopeless, I wouldn't listen anyway. I want to see why there was cock ups. I actually thought Gypper's explanation of how Rassie and Boks played game on ARP was bloody good, and when I thought about it basically bang on. They accepted tackles, and set ball real quick, didn't try to go extra yard before et up.
I'm not interested in name and blame as such, the focus should be on the actions - but these guys pretend nothing is wrong and nothing needs to change and emphasise the positive etc - after literally our worst beating ever.
For example you can't really say we are doing stupid chip kicks and giving the ball away without it reflecting badly on the guy doing it - so if you're going to critically analyse the performance, it will always come back to players (and coach).@reprobate said in The Breakdown (TV Show):
@Dan54 said in The Breakdown (TV Show):
@reprobate said in The Breakdown (TV Show):
Ex-players in general are more likely to soft-ball it, because they feel sympathy for fellow players.
When you add in that 'nice guy for TV' persona required for TV, and the fact that most of them are kinda dumb as dogshit, it makes it a travesty that they are the backbone of our rugby analysis.
If we must have players, get Mehrts and Nonu.Why does anyone think ex players or commentators etc need to call players names etc to be relevant. The whole idea of analysis is to analyse, not get hysterical , we got us for that. The minute I hear someone say such and such was bloody hopeless, I wouldn't listen anyway. I want to see why there was cock ups. I actually thought Gypper's explanation of how Rassie and Boks played game on ARP was bloody good, and when I thought about it basically bang on. They accepted tackles, and set ball real quick, didn't try to go extra yard before et up.
I'm not interested in name and blame as such, the focus should be on the actions - but these guys pretend nothing is wrong and nothing needs to change and emphasise the positive etc - after literally our worst beating ever.
For example you can't really say we are doing stupid chip kicks and giving the ball away without it reflecting badly on the guy doing it - so if you're going to critically analyse the performance, it will always come back to players (and coach).Ok, well I must of missed bit where they said nothing needs to change, I may need to watch it again. But as I said I wouldn't watch a show if they called out someone for as you put it stupid chip kicks,(as I said we got here for such enlightening stuff) but I have heard them criticise the kicking strategy at times. Though I will agree the Breakdown doesn't claim to be an analytical show as such, it's aimed more at the general public than just rugby people. I watch Between 2 Posts from Aussie, and they pretty similar. I do prefer podcasts like ARP etc, which are aimed at just the rugby people, and so go perhaps into a bit deper stuff with stats etc.
-
I think the show would be markedly improved by selecting a different presenter, e.g.
-
I think the show would be markedly improved by selecting a different presenter, e.g.
@antipodean said in The Breakdown (TV Show):
I think the show would be markedly improved by selecting a different presenter, e.g.
That would go so far as getting me to care about football
-
I think the show would be markedly improved by selecting a different presenter, e.g.
-
I think the show would be markedly improved by selecting a different presenter, e.g.
@antipodean or this guy!
:beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes: -
Mental midget Wilson asking if because chop tackles (i.e. no arms) are common in try line defence, whether it should be penalised in open play as Wilson was twice on Saturday.
How is this retard on a televised rugby panel?
