> Am I alone in thinking that this bloke is just about the worst rugby
> journalist in the northern hemisphere?
> Have Sky Sports employed him just to be an obnoxious ***?
> Every time he comments on a Leicester game he drones on and on about the
> times he remembers "being under that ferocious rolling maul with Dean
> Richards at the helm".He would go on and on about Leicester's one
> dimensional game that was in effect 10 man rugby. We have changed a bit
> since then.
> Admit it, it was sucessful... It won matches...
Certainly, but how many championships did it win!
You have to take these things into consideration ;
Stuart Barnes is incredibly biased given the Leicester side
were the biggest rivals he met at club level.
Barnes was an attacking player, who took a lot of risks.
Barnes happened to play in a side that was innovative and
often entertaining and exciting to watch.
By contrast Leicester had a terrific pack whose idea of
Rugby was to hide the ball up the jumper, this style of play
just totally baffled the Rugby League spectator and infuriated
the neutral Rugby Union fan.
Barnes also is extremely bitter and twisted concerning his
England career (justifiably so given the talents of Andrew).
Interesting how hois sentiments were quitly echoed by Catt
and Guscott following the World Cup.
> That is the most
> important part in league rugby. Nobody want to watch a losing team...
> That Would explain why Leicester has a membership that far outnumbers
> most of the first division put together! ( 16,000 last season!!)
That would explain Northampton then wouldn't it.
> The type of game Leicester are now playing puts most clubs to shame, and
> this was shown when they played bath in the cup. It was bath who chose
> to play 3 #8's in the back row. This just slowed their game down, and
> gave Neil Back & Co. the freedom of Bath. At least Barnsey had the sense
> to eat his words on air.
Yes Bath have not adjusted to the new era very well so far.
On the pitch and off of it they have taken a nose dive.
> Are there any fans of other clubs who think that he is too biased
> towards Bath?
Yes, I do. Though if you expect journalists to be impartial (particularly
those that have played it at international level) that is rather naive.
> Also, why don't Sky Sports show more Leicester matches...
Hold on a sec, I seemed to get the impression from your first paragraph that
Leicester matches with Barnes commentary was a weekly occurrence.
> We have he
> biggest support in the country, and by far the biggest group of
> travveling supporters, but time and time again they show matches
> involving NEC ( Nobody Even Cares) Harlequins, Bath and Saracens because
> they are the fashionable teams.
Bath have tended to be fashionable in the same way that West Indies-Cricket,
Brazil-Soccer, Agassi-Tennis are fashionable, i.e. they are entertaining to watch
and play with great style whilst being highly successful.
As far Quins and Saracens, get a clue.
Leicester have 16,000 members what is the average gate this season?
Now it seems Leicester are as fashionable as any other club in England.
> Rugby does exist north of Enfield!
Get a life and would you like some salt with that chip.
> James from Leicester
You don't say, now let me guess, you are a Leicester City fan as well.
Mart. who spent a couple of years in Leicester, so has come across
similar ramblings a few times before, though not usually from Rugby