George Hook, Hero or not??

a_bomb

Im sick of people bad mouthing George Hook, I think he is an absolute hero!! He speaks his mind, is greaty entertainment and a pure gentleman!

I cant understand how anybody can detest him!

siochain

yeah I like him, good entertainment, calls it as he see's it, gets it wrong a good few times but so what, whos perfect, better that having a bunch of yes men on sky

Stev_o

You can measure in millimetres the amount of knowledge Hook has for rugby; its exactly 1mm. Sorry but he's good for a laugh but if i want a decent opinion when watching rugby on RTE by someone who knows rugby ill listen to Conor O'Shea.

RuggieBear

hook peddles ****e which the casual punter then takes for gospel...that's why he's bad for rugby in my opinion

Sherifu

He's not the best rugby analyst you'll ever see but I do enjoy his ramblings. A character, he is.

Inquitus

It's all about a mix of analysis and entertainment, and you cannot beat Hook and Popey imo. Yes the analysis may not be the best, but the entertainment is second to none.

If you had 3 Conor O'Sheas it would be dull as feck, the only entertainment he provides is when England are being shat on and he's getting ribbed.....

zAbbo

He's the Eamonn Dunphy of rugby, and at times turns RTE's coverage into a pantomime.

I'd rather see some analysis or some insight into the game, than his own personal uninformed opinion.

irishbucsfan

Yes, he's all about the entertainment. But to compare him to Dunphy is a crime, and an insult to Hook.

Hook, unlike Dunphy, does hit the mark the odd time, and is never nasty or intentionally controversial in his analysis or commentary. Dunphy says exactly what he think people will pay him to talk about, because he knows his entire reputation is built on being the controversial alternative attitude. Dunphy speaks to dubs in pubs, Hook speaks to everybody.

The problem is, as RuggieBear pointed out, people respect Hook's opinion a little too much. He's wrong way too much to be respected as a pure rugby analyst. (remember the Heino final 2006? He really stuck his kneck out on the line and was lucky that the Munster fans didnt take his head).

As someone said, I think, Hook is an absolute gentleman as well, and himself and popey are a good duo. As long as the keep O'Shea around for analysis, or maybe bring in Thornley or someone.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

quagmire69

RuggieBear wrote: »

hook peddles ****e which the casual punter then takes for gospel...that's why he's bad for rugby in my opinion

agreed. Talks complete rubbish most of the time.

there for entertainment value only.

razorblunt

Every panel needs someone like that in fairness, my complaint would be as many pointed out is that his opinion is respected a bit too much and also McGurk tends to give him more time at the expense of Pope.

Def. prefer him to the likes of Wallace, Greenwood, Barnes and co. on Sky.

marco_polo

RuggieBear wrote: »

hook peddles ****e which the casual punter then takes for gospel...that's why he's bad for rugby in my opinion

I do find him entertaining to watch on TV, but I would share the above view about him..

dc69

Hes is funny but his rugby talk is pure ****e.I mean this guy last week said tomy bowe doesnt have pace,then went on the talk about fitzgeralds pace.

Im a fitz fan but he doesnt have good pace ,in fact i would say he is slower than bowe.

Brent pope is the only reason I watch it on rte.He knows his rugby.

JWAD

RuggieBear wrote: »

hook peddles ****e which the casual punter then takes for gospel...that's why he's bad for rugby in my opinion

Well said.

phog

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He also mentioned that he doesn't watch the ML - some TV pundit he is. Yeah he's great if you want to hear him tearing the arse of someone but if you want hear how a team is performing then it's the Conor O'Shea and Popey you should listen to if they can get a word in between Hook and McGurk.

damnyanks

Who cares about his analysis. I watch rugby because I enjoy it. You can form your own opinions. The guy is simply entertaining.

Everyone reckons their an expert when talking about rugby in the pub. Think of it as something no different other then he gets paid a bundle to do it.

dc69

damnyanks wrote: »

Who cares about his analysis. I watch rugby because I enjoy it. You can form your own opinions. The guy is simply entertaining.

Everyone reckons their an expert when talking about rugby in the pub. Think of it as something no different other then he gets paid a bundle to do it.

People care about his analysis because as an ap said,he forms stupid opinions in average peoples head.He is a carbon copy of Eamon Dunphy,he has no clue and is there as a controversial figure.

The guy in the pub who reckons he is an expert would probably have more of a clue than Hook.

suppafly

RuggieBear wrote: »

hook peddles ****e which the casual punter then takes for gospel...that's why he's bad for rugby in my opinion

+3

razorblunt wrote:

Every panel needs someone like that in fairness, my complaint would be as many pointed out is that his opinion is respected a bit too much and also McGurk tends to give him more time at the expense of Pope.

Def. prefer him to the likes of Wallace, Greenwood, Barnes and co. on Sky.

I agree with u about McGurk giving him to much time. He frequently keeps going on and also interrupting popey and o'shea who actually have something intelligent and interesting to say. they should keep his parts to a minimum as he is only there for the small bit of entertainment he provides.

Def don't agree about prefering him to Greenwood. I think greenwood is a really good analyst. Very unbiased too(unlike barnes) and has a very good take on the game. Like him as an analyst or commentator

Stev_o

suppafly wrote: »

Def don't agree about prefering him to Greenwood. I think greenwood is a really good analyst. Very unbiased too(unlike barnes) and has a very good take on the game. Like him as an analyst or commentator

+1 Greenwood imo is the best analyst on TV has a real understanding for the game and calls it as it is and gets it right alot of the time. Eg Barnes and Morris bout thought Toulouse would win Greenwood response was "You got to be kidding doubting the men in red? Im going with Munster" and was right.

louthandproud

RuggieBear wrote: »

hook peddles ****e which the casual punter then takes for gospel...that's why he's bad for rugby in my opinion

-1 =2.

He does pedal sh1t but anyone that takes it too seriously is probably more "bad" for Irish rugby

For entertainment value I think Hookie is great, especially with Pope to bounce off of him and give some real expert analysis. The trio of Hook, Pope and McGuirk are hilarious IMHO.

nacho libre

Stev_o wrote: »

+1 Greenwood imo is the best analyst on TV has a real understanding for the game and calls it as it is and gets it right alot of the time. Eg Barnes and Morris bout thought Toulouse would win Greenwood response was "You got to be kidding doubting the men in red? Im going with Munster" and was right.

+2

he reminds me of Brian Moore only without the bias.