Brian Moore-WHY?

[Bullitt]

Well, there's an easy way to sum this up.

If you're biased and English, you like Moore because he's saying all the same things you're thinking.

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

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

 

[Macsen]

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't call Scottish Gaelic just 'scottish' because it's never been spoken by the majority of people in Scotland, just Irish migrants to the highlands, while Irish and Welsh are 'homegrown' languages that were spoken in every pocket of those countries a little over a century ago, so I think they deserve the ***les 'Irish' and 'Welsh'.

But it's not Scots, because that'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's fair to say it'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'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't considered a very Irish sport in Ireland and that's where all the fuss about using Croke Park stems from. In Wales, despite the sport'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's mostly because of the proximity of clubs such as Liverpool and Manchester and there'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]

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't worry. After the rumpy pumpy we'll surely burn in Hell for eternity."
Rump pump. Rump pump.
"Finlay ... oooh ...you complete me."
"Burn baby, burn! '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]

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]

Barnes?

:lol:

 

[Prestwick]

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]

Better get a doctor I think...

 

[danny]

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]

Really? I think Eddie and Stevo are bloody brilliant! Compare them to that other prat and Jonathan Davies on BBC's Challenge cup coverage.

 

[danny]

Really? I think Eddie and Stevo are bloody brilliant! Compare them to that other prat and Jonathan Davies on BBC'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]

Are those the English league commentators? If so, they are f***ing horrible. I'd rather take that whinging Aussie mascarading as a Kiwi who does the Warriors games over them.

 

[Fa'atau82]

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'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'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]

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'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't talk or be himself? The whole point of guys like moore is that they're meant to be biased and spoken. I'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]

Well, there's an easy way to sum this up.

If you're biased and English, you like Moore because he's saying all the same things you're thinking.

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

If you're neutral and not anti-English about every walk of life, you'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]

I find Moore amusing most of the time, and will always watch the BBC coverage rather than the RTE coverage because it'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 'handbags', but at least he knows what he'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]

<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'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't talk or be himself? The whole point of guys like moore is that they're meant to be biased and spoken. I'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't like you so much I'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'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'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's biased towards the Tahs and the Aussies, but not unreasonably. He's laid back, and he's also a bit of a joker that doesn't mind taking a shot at players and refs when necessary. So essentially he's all the things you say Moore represents, but without the unnecessary "******" ingredient (or spastic lisp).

 

[Prestwick]

OooOOOOOoooo...someone's gutted that they can't have Sam Kekovich as pundit for Aussie Sports Coverage! Quick! Someone flag Sanzar'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'd prefer someone who is essentially bland, dull and PC commentating which is perpetuating Sports Commentary these days.

I bet you'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'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]

OooOOOOOoooo...someone's gutted that they can't have Sam Kekovich as pundit for Aussie Sports Coverage! Quick! Someone flag Sanzar'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'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'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't be shut up"). If you'd ever heard the commentator I've been speaking about you'd agree he's none of these. He most certainly speaks his mind in fact. It's just that he manages to move on after he's made his point instead of going on for 15 minutes until he's about to drown in a pool of his own rabid saliva like Moore. That's my issue with Moore. Sure I guess you could say I'd rather he didn't speak his mind, but that doesn't mean I want boring and censored, it just means I don't want bloody Moore! Why can't you get Laurence Dallalio or Martin Johnson in there to speak their minds? I'm sure they'd manage to do that pretty well and also be interesting and constructive at the same time.

 

[Prestwick]

Comparing Brian Moore to "Hitler" doesn't exactly help your argument really to be honest. Also, exaggerating what Moore complains about doesn'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't say anything at all, he'd be castigated for not doing his job.



My definition of "bland, etc, etc" is someone who sits on the fence, doesn't offer an opinon and doesn't really have a personality of note.



I just don'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's dire performances.

 

[sanzar]

Comparing Brian Moore to "Hitler" doesn't exactly help your argument really to be honest. Also, exaggerating what Moore complains about doesn't really help.
[/b]

I wasn't actually comparing Moore to Hitler, what I was doing was illustrating that speaking your mind doesn'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'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's dire performances.
[/b]

I don't see a problem with being passionate and excited either, it's just that I (and a heck of a lot of other people it would seem) find Moore's particular brand of passion and excitement about as enjoyable as catching the flesh eating virus. That's been my point all along. It just seems as though you assume we want boring cause we think the guy's an irritating twat. Why can'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'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's bloody funny!

 

[Prestwick]

<div class='quotemain'> Comparing Brian Moore to "Hitler" doesn't exactly help your argument really to be honest. Also, exaggerating what Moore complains about doesn't really help.
[/b]

I wasn't actually comparing Moore to Hitler, what I was doing was illustrating that speaking your mind doesn'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 'subtle' I'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'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's dire performances.
[/b]

I don't see a problem with being passionate and excited either, it's just that I (and a heck of a lot of other people it would seem) find Moore'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's been my point all along. It just seems as though you assume we want boring cause we think the guy's an irritating twat. Why can'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'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'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: