What's wrong/right with Stuart Barnes?

In another post, RedStag asked " Whats wrong with Stuart Barnes? I think he does a good job. Dont always agree with him mind you."

This is not intended to be general discussion on punditry - let's focus on Stuart Barnes.

Comparisons are inevitable but this discussion is all about Stuart Barnes.

I find him extremely irritating. He seems to have no spiritual/personal/moral backbone from refereeing decisions to challenging anything that questions anything in the established status quo. Given the choice (had there been one) for a given game between Sky and ESPN, I'd take the latter simply because I'd be free of Mr Barnes' flatulent dronings.

Portnoy, its a good discussion.

What I would say is that whether you agree with his views or not I feel he gives them honestly.

Rather than agreeing with the established status quo I think that simply because he is on the telly and is one of Skys main commentators the things he say seem to become the status quo.

I often disagree with the fella but I think some people are very over the top about him and were he to be removed from his position at Sky - he should be very aggrieved as he does a good job for them.

I like him. Sometimes he tries to be overflowery with his commentary, and at other times I am literally thinking 'wtf are you on about man?!' but he's a good guy to have on Sky, and his passion is unmistakeable. He also loves the Scarlets so he can't be all bad

He's really personable with fans as well, or at least he was with the Scarlets fans who travelled up for the Saints game in the HEC. I think he's a sound guy, could sometimes do with a guy to counterbalance him on Sky though.

red_stag wrote:Portnoy, its a good discussion.

What I would say is that whether you agree with his views or not I feel he gives them honestly.

Rather than agreeing with the established status quo I think that simply because he is on the telly and is one of Skys main commentators the things he say seem to become the status quo.

I often disagree with the fella but I think some people are very over the top about him and were he to be removed from his position at Sky - he should be very aggrieved as he does a good job for them.

Firstly let's get some facts straight : Barnes is not a commentator -that is primarily Miles Harrison's job.

Nor is he a front-man who just just hosts a show a. la Steve Ryder RWC 2011.

Nor is he an analyst who explains advantages/errors in tactical/strategic moves.

He's a Pundit. Someone who is there to express his views on what he sees. And there he just fails for me. Abysmally.

Stuart Barnes is just indulging in his role as a pundit spewing out some pseudo intellectual (occasionally sensational) nonsense whilst sipping a large glass of red. He sees himself as someone who is extremely important and for me he is almost cartoonish in his presentation. I have seldom witnessed a sporting pundit who is both full of self importance and full of shoite.

Ironically reading that, the style of writing reminded me of your best mate Barnes.

RubyGuby wrote:Stuart Barnes is just indulging in his role as a pundit spewing out some pseudo intellectual (occasionally sensational) nonsense whilst sipping a large glass of red. He sees himself as someone who is extremely important and for me he is almost cartoonish in his presentation. I have seldom witnessed a sporting pundit who is both full of self importance and full of shoite.

I was thinking about what write and then someone did it for me.

I've no idea what he's really like or what he really thinks. I get the feeling that he wants to be the focus rather than the subject he's talking about. He tends to overdo everything as well. Things are either great or terrible playing great or terrible. He possibly does a good job for Sky but the pundits and commentators on Sky were a big reason behind me dropping the sports channel (so in my specific case he did a bad job).

Stag, I'm not surprised you like him. He used to sound like he was giving himself jollies when commentating on Munster. In fact I'm pretty sure he had a happy ending when Munster came back to beat Clemont at TP a few years ago.

He spins a corporate line that NewsCorp can't complain about.

Trouble is that NewsCorp International is no better than my teenage ejaculations.

Hammer,

Yes he gets extremely passionate about good teams. Munster are no longer playing excellent rugby and are no longer what excites him.

Whats the issue.

Off the TV Barnes is a completely different fella to talk to, he's engaging, reasonably knowlegable and reflective and often self-deprecating when chanllenged. On Sky he's a Twxt and my great friend Scott Quinnell is falling into the same trap - the crap trap perhaps. Scott is delivering stuff on SKY in a very unatural manner which is a great shame. It's all very Americanised and just doesn't work. Both these fellas are good blokes with a mild - moderate form of post-traumatic Sky-Disorder

I like Stuart barnes personally. I don't think he's afraid of speaking his mind, even to the point of doing down his own nation, which can't be easy. But we've all go our favourites I guess which is why this post is a little pointless. It's no different to the 'I hate Jonathan Davies' threads that inevitably spring up during the 6N.

I don't want this to turn into a pundit comparision, but it is inevitable I guess. For me, I cringe when I hear Scott Quinell start talking (and I'm Welsh). He starts rambling and shouting, getting louder and louder until he's lost himself and the presenter quickly moves on to someone else. I cringe at Ieuan Evans too as he gets nervous and speaks faster than his little mouth will allow him and he gets tongue tied, which is not great for a TV pundit. Plus, when he gets flustered he gets a sweaty top lip which doesn't do him any favours. Will Greenwood, who I think is great, is moving further and further towards being a story teller or narrator than a pundit. He'd be good at giving a Braveheart-esque rousing speech at the start of a battle, such is is 'word smithery'. But this is over the top for rugby, so he could do with toning it down a bit. Dewi Morris for me just looks like he says the first thing that comes into his head, and unfortunately for him often that is nothing. He goes bug eyed like the child in the class who has been picked on to give an answer when they haven't read the book for homework. He tries to blag his way through, which isn't great to watch or listen to.

Therefore, Staurt Barnes is the best of a mixed bunch for me (maybe Greenwood pips him). He doesn't suffer some of these other pundits' weaknesses, so for me his clarity of speech and honesty make him a good pundit.

Another good 'un IMO is Dean Ryan. Very articulate, good knowledge of the game and great at analysis. What more could you ask for?!

Dean Ryan, Michael Lynagh. Paul Wallace and Phillip Mathews are top pundits worth listening to IMO.

Guscott, J Davies and Nicholl are just overly defensive about their own nations and find it difficult to praise other nations.

I actually like Stuart Barnes. Man knows his stuff.

That is all .

They all know their "stuff" Rodders, often the argument is how they deliver it - The 4 I mentioned are able to deliver opinions in a measured fashion without the hyperbole of the others (bit like my posts)

I'm not sure they all do know their stuff Ruby...for instant I'm not sure that keith Wood or Jerry Gusgott have watched a game of rugby since they hung up their boots and Jiffy...well....I think he had too many knocks to the head in RL.

Mathews, Ryan and Lynagh are ok...Wallace talks complete tom kite.

I am not a great fan of Stuart Barnes, he seems more interested in having it all be about him.

Barnesey's newspaper columns are far more well thought out and interesting than his punditry. Also his weekly column on the sky website isn't bad.
Most of the time I don't have a problem with him, just the persistent negativity does my head in a bit!

L E G E N D

I really like both ESPN and Sky's rugby coverage and pundits*. I actually find it painful having to go back to watch the Six Nations on the BBC with John Inverdale and Johnathan Davies, who know absolutely nothing rugby and are so biased and poorly informed it's a surprise that you don't see Keith Wood face-palming a lot more often. Jeremy Guscott gets a hard time but I think he's actually moderately clued up.

* Scott Hastings being the obvious exception. He should not be allowed on TV. I still can't believe he used the word 'Scotland' interchangeably with 'Edinburgh' throughout this year's Heineken Cup.

Cryptoyourisan wrote:I really like both ESPN and Sky's rugby coverage and pundits*. I actually find it painful having to go back to watch the Six Nations on the BBC with John Inverdale and Johnathan Davies, who know absolutely nothing rugby and are so biased and poorly informed it's a surprise that you don't see Keith Wood face-palming a lot more often. Jeremy Guscott gets a hard time but I think he's actually moderately clued up.

* Scott Hastings being the obvious exception. He should not be allowed on TV. I still can't believe he used the word 'Scotland' interchangeably with 'Edinburgh' throughout this year's Heineken Cup.

I'm sorry, but you can't say that both Indverdale and Jonathan Davies know absolutely nothing about rugby. Inverdale yes, he's just a presenter. But Jonathan Davies??? Why would he know nothing? He's played at the highest level in both codes, with some top top players. At least he offers his analysis of what he thinks a player or team is doing wrong and makes sggestions about what they might like to change. Unlike other pundits who just mumble on in 'sportsman talk' about 'physicality', 'putting down a marker' and other tired old sayings. Yes he's whiny, yes he's biased, but to say he knows nothing about rugby is probably one of the stupidest things I've ever read on here. No offence.

I like Jiffy as a pundit and commentator. His passion for the game really comes out when he is commentating.

I like Barnes newspaper columns. Very thoughtful and doesn't always say what's popular. For example he doesn't indulge his English audience with the false idea that they're not winning Heineken Cups because they're tired and it's unfair.

He tells it how he see's it. The current champions are playing more innovative attacking rugby and are more intelligent at the breakdown, and the English sides should take note and catch up.

As a pundit he can come across as far to in love with certain teams. But it's true, as posted above that good teams excite him. He used to gush over Munster. He doesn't any more.

During the World Cup,Barnes was down here working for NZ SKY tv,I always got the impression that he just couldnt "talk" rugby as opposed to the likes of Ian Jones,Justin Marshall or Melanie Robinson,But I wouldnt question his passion for the gamee.

What's wrong with Barnes? Nothing, apart from the fact that his lips always remind me of liver (don't ask why - I don't know), and I absolutely HATE liver...

Yeah, he talks some shoite every now and again, but so does everyone else... apart from me.

Stewie is fine. A bit over the top, thats all.

He loves his rugby. Seems to me he focuses on the wrong point from time to time. And sometimes makes his mind up in advance. But thats OK, at least for me.

I've no problem with Barnes. He knows rugby and speaks his mind. I don't always agree with him but then I don't always agree with everyone. I played with and against him as a school boy - he was a real talent and a decent bloke.

I like to see a variety of pundits with different views. At the moment I particularly like Moore and I've a downer on Nicholl and Jiffy.

I have to say Barnes isnt my favourite pundit, I much prefer Greenwood or Kay, who both seem to offer much more detailed comments, possibly due to them being a product of the proffesional game and being more up to speed with the training and moves that teams use. Dean Ryan is also a good pundit I think, as a former head coach he knows exactly what to look for.

My issue with Barnes is that every week he seems to have a new favourite player who would walk into his England XV, he will hype them up for a few weeks and then drops them for another player. But I enjoy reading his articles and he clearly causes debate, so he must be doing something right!

Sometime you might disagree and say "our fly half is kicking away too much ball!" and "he is useless!" and "drop him for someone who is running more!". But in the end it might be the coach game plan.

Staurt Barnes and his producer might be just like this fly half and the coach.

Dafuq did i just read?

what do people think of Tyrone Howe?

hes someone who does not no where hes from ask him hes english yet brought up and played in gwent must be very confused why anyone would admit to being english is beyond me

cardiffcider wrote:hes someone who does not no where hes from ask him hes english yet brought up and played in gwent must be very confused why anyone would admit to being english is beyond me

Another one

I hope Stuart had a box man-sized hankies with him on Saturday.