Six Nations pundits? David Flatman & Tom Shanklin

[davenewbloke]

Hi all

What do you think of this rugby pundit film with David Flatman and Tom Shanklin? Good bits, bad bits, sharable bits?

Would you like to see similar for the Six Nations?

thanks
Dave

https://vimeo.com/193056897

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Are......are you Dave Flatman?



I like the video, though - they're both knowledgeable guys, banter seems a bit...forced? prewritten? They're both funny on other shows, and in commentary and stuff, but it just feels a bit scripted.

 

[davenewbloke]

No! I'm only half his size

 

[davenewbloke]

Thanks or you input. Actually nothing was scripted but I take you point. Would you share a film like this? And if not could you tell me what would need to change to make you share it?

cheers!

 

[welshglory]

I really like Flatman, I find Shanklin a bit contrived and uninspiring. In my opinion a shake up is needed in the BBC pundits team. They are all dinosaurs and out of touch from the modern game, continuously setting false narratives. They need to bring in guys who have been involved in he professional era. We've had 20 years of professionalism and yet we're still using pundits who only know about the amateur game!

 

[anderton46]

I watched a lot of the Aviva prem round up program with Flatman on it. I think he's great. Seems to have a dry sense of humour which I enjoy.

Haven't seen much of Shanklin but just judging from this clip he's very wooden and a bit cringy.

 

[pridetobeshown]

Definitely better than their Scrum V video. Now that was wooden. Why on earth GWR are getting involved in rugby analysis I'd never know, but it's actually pretty decent!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrAo46H4y4Q&t=7s

 

[ratsapprentice]

Definitely better than their Scrum V video. Now that was wooden. Why on earth GWR are getting involved in rugby analysis I'd never know, but it's actually pretty decent!

Very low production costs, for a decent amount of advertising/PR.

 

[ALJ]

I really like Flatman, I find Shanklin a bit contrived and uninspiring. In my opinion a shake up is needed in the BBC pundits team. They are all dinosaurs and out of touch from the modern game, continuously setting false narratives. They need to bring in guys who have been involved in he professional era. We've had 20 years of professionalism and yet we're still using pundits who only know about the amateur game!

Pretty fair comment but the current crop are still a damn sight better than Austin Healey.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Pretty fair comment but the current crop are still a damn sight better than Austin Healey.

Rather like Davies, I think Healey is great given the right remit. His cheeky chappy act is cringe worthy, as are his lame attempts at trolling in print, but confine him to analysis of technical aspects of the game (back play in particular) and he's excellent IMO. Swap cheeky chappy act and trolling for biased, barely literate squeaking and the same goes for Davies.

 

[ALJ]

The video:
These guys are OK but like Olly, I'm not sure the chumminess works (although I should qualify: that sort of stuff irritates me anyway).

My personal view is that it doesn't provide any real insight so, while I don't have anything against it as such, I don't think I'd watch because there's nothing in it I wouldn't hear down the local pub.

- - - Updated - - -

Rather like Davies, I think Healey is great given the right remit. His cheeky chappy act is cringe worthy, as are his lame attempts at trolling in print, but confine him to analysis of technical aspects of the game (back play in particular) and he's excellent IMO. Swap cheeky chappy act and trolling for biased, barely literate squeaking and the same goes for Davies.

See this is where personal opinion counts for so much.

I understand why people don't like Davies but (imho) he knows his stuff, even though he gets carried away about Wales (both in the positive and negative sense).

Healey however just talks **** - I loved him as a player and I don't mind the cheeky chappy stuff but his observations on games, particularly in key phases and influencing factors are nearly always wrong (or he's right and I'm clueless - distinctly possible).

 

[AzaMatt]

i actually like healy on rugby tonight for the analysis parts. although i do not play rugby so he could be spouting nonsense most of the time when talking about technical aspects. might be a little biased but i really like Sean Holly's segments for scrum V and wales games etc. explains thing clearly and simply for the average viewer. i like flats on the aviva highlights program on ITV, him and the other guy (cant remember his name) have real rapot and does not seem scripted at all

 

[RedruthRFC]

I understand why people don't like Davies but (imho) he knows his stuff, even though he gets carried away about Wales (both in the positive and negative sense).

I'm not saying that I don't like him, just that co-commentator isn't his role. He gets overexcited, he's incapable of remaining impartial and his diction is nowhere near good enough to be paid for it for eighty minutes. As I say, get an electric pen in his hand and get him analysing key moves. This isn't a xenophobic crusade, Butler and McLaren are the two best rugby orators that come to my mind.

Healey however just talks **** - I loved him as a player and I don't mind the cheeky chappy stuff but his observations on games, particularly in key phases and influencing factors are nearly always wrong (or he's right and I'm clueless - distinctly possible).

To be fair, as a second row of the amateur days, I'm easily wowed by terms like weak shoulder and a colourful pair of boots, so it's just as likely that it's my BS filter letting me down.

 

[Raggs]

Flatman is a great co-commentator, very knowledgeable and engaging. Think Mullins, Flatman and Healy would be a superb team. Mullins with the lead obviously, then Flatman, with Healy discussing backline and interesting plays/analysis.

 

[Hulkster]

Hyper bowl.