What do you think of George Hook??

thomond2006

Always wondered what all you rugby fans think of Hooky? Do you find he is a good pundit?

One thing is certain though, he always talks up the French!!:D:D

Rich1691

What a hero, he might say something or make a prediction that will be completely wrong and when someone brings him up about it he'll somehow turn it around so it looks he was right, what a genius!

monaghanbiffo

i love hooky, its the only coverage worth waching, but in fairness i only watch it for the theatre of it all!!!

Hook knows F**k all from some of his crazy opinions but he is funny and he does articulate his viewpoint very well

The thing that really gets on my tits though is when some Norman starts repeating Hooks opinion as if it were fact on a Monday morning following an international. I hate that BS. The whole Tommy "No Pace" Bowe thing really pissed me off, but then that would!!!

villager

i think he is brilliant. oh how sky/bbc could do with him to liven their coverage.

I enjoy his political views and radio show but thats about it.

He has no clue about rugby.
Hates Leinster
Hates Bod
Hates Tommy bowe

He just waxes lyrical about Munster but seems to talk them down at the same time as talking them up,they then win and he makes it out as if he didnt expect it but predicted it right.

Uneeded jibes towards Leinster when Munster were playing the AB's and his hatrid of Bod and Tommy Bowe especially is horrific at times.
Tommy Bowe must have given georges wife one.

Overall a rubbish rugby pundit who would be better giving guides around the natural history museum on a saturday instead of in the RTE Studios doing the rugby.

He also gives the casual fan a distorted opinion and overly wrong views,which is not good for rugby in ireland.

Stev_o

One of the worst pundits in the world imo (Even worst then Murray Mexted and he's pure comedy) i very much doubt Hook even watches any rugby these days because he has little to zero knowledge about any Ireland play or infact any Irish players outside the big two.

Podge_irl

Stev_o wrote: »

One of the worst pundits in the world imo (Even worst then Murray Mexted and he's pure comedy) i very much doubt Hook even watches any rugby these days because he has little to zero knowledge about any Ireland play or infact any Irish players outside the big two.

Pretty much my feelings too. He has admitted to only watching internationals and HEC rugby (and probably then only when Munster/Ireland are involved). He spouts ill-informed nonsense with great regularity and its ridiculous that he is given a podium to do so. Absolutely appalling pundit.

myflipflops

villager wrote: »

i think he is brilliant. oh how sky/bbc could do with him to liven their coverage.

While I agree that the Sky coverage has an enormous amount of bad aspects, I think Stuart Barnes is a very good rugby pundit and a top qulaity journalist generally.

bleg

DAVID WALLACE IS NOT AN OPENSIDE FLANKER!!!!!!

themont85

Melon head.

Poor pundit, bad businessman and average on the radio. His redeaming features are is ability to come up with the odd gem of a line about players like Reggie Corrigan, comparing him to a yogurt left in the fridge too long. He's polished on screen too and ALWAYS gets in his preprepared lines, with something said by Winston Churchill a must for nearly every broadcast.

I despise the crap he comes out with about rugby, but one thing RTE do well and know it too, is how they promote entertainment style panels with Dunphy and Hook.

Stev_o

pwhite587 wrote: »

While I agree that the Sky coverage has an enormous amount of bad aspects, I think Stuart Barnes is a very good rugby pundit and a top qulaity journalist generally.

See the difference is if you watch Sky's analyst its exactly that some great insights into whats going on and some great opinions from the likes of Greenwood Fitzpatrick Quinnel.

On the other hand if you watch RTE's analyst its just a big circus where nothing gets discussed or nothing use full is said unless Conor O'Shea manages to get a word in between Pope and Hook.

themont85

bleg wrote: »

DAVID WALLACE IS NOT AN OPENSIDE FLANKER!!!!!!

One thing i've agreed with him in the past was Ireland's reluctance to even have an out and out 7 like Gleeson in the fold before retirement.

Sangre

I hate him with every fibre of my body. Well, as much you can hate someone who you've only ever watched on TV. I used to be amused by his antics, stories and phrases but not the cons far outweigh the pros:

He knows nothing about rugby.
He never has a good thing to say about Ireland/Leinster. Even in victory he has to get in a cheap shot.
I have to listen to his opinion from poorly informed rugby fans as if it was fact.
He unfairly targets players/tactics and refuses to shut up about them, even in their success.

But the thing I despise him most of all for is he doesn't treat McGuirk with the contempt he deserves. They removed the table because his knee-jerk reactions kept knocking it over. The guy is clueless.

I now stick with BBC for commentary and analysis. Even if its bland at least it doesn't boil my blood. Starting to enjoy Sky analysis. I'm starting to find Barnes and Greenwood's enthusiam and knowledge infectious.

youcrazyjesus!

Predictable twat. I'm sick of him. At least Dunphy provides entertainment.

Dob74

He's honest, never talks up ireland or munster.

Serenity Now!

thomond2006 wrote: »

Always wondered what all you rugby fans think of Hooky? Do you find he is a good pundit?

Contrarian, self-obssessed, over-reactive, attention-seeking fool. Guarantees I change the channel when on radio and guarantees that I record BBC coverage of rugby internationals.

eroo

Can't stand him, he does my head in!!

Does he actually have any coaching/playing experience?

anonymous_joe

eroo wrote: »

Can't stand him, he does my head in!!

Does he actually have any coaching/playing experience?

Coached the USA actually.

He can be amusing, but knows nothing compared to Pope and especially O'Shea.

chupacabra

He's a bit of craic really. He might be rather sensationalist in his views and his similes are outrageous at the best of times, but if you dont take things too seriously he makes the rte coverage watchable to be honest.

sm.org

Sangre wrote: »

I hate him with every fibre of my body. Well, as much you can hate someone who you've only ever watched on TV. I used to be amused by his antics, stories and phrases but not the cons far outweigh the pros:

He knows nothing about rugby.
He never has a good thing to say about Ireland/Leinster. Even in victory he has to get in a cheap shot.
I have to listen to his opinion from poorly informed rugby fans as if it was fact.
He unfairly targets players/tactics and refuses to shut up about them, even in their success.

But the thing I despise him most of all for is he doesn't treat McGuirk with the contempt he deserves. They removed the table because his knee-jerk reactions kept knocking it over. The guy is clueless.

I now stick with BBC for commentary and analysis. Even if its bland at least it doesn't boil my blood. Starting to enjoy Sky analysis. I'm starting to find Barnes and Greenwood's enthusiam and knowledge infectious.

You're a very angry person. Nice to have a life where George Hook is the most loathsome thing in it though.

Sparky14

Agree with the majority that hes entertaining, the problem is when ppl who don't know any better start taking his views seriously. Sky is so positive about everything but they give a well informed balanced view. BBC is usually pretty good, can't watch it whenever Guscott is on tho.

[Jackass]

As a rugby pundit and analysist of the game, he's a completely clueless clown and you'd get about as much insight into the game from a homeless junkie on the streets of Roscommon town.

As a TV personality i like him. Like "Popey", I enjoy laughing at him and wouldn't take a word he says with any sort of seriousness what so ever. Every show needs it's clown. He's to RTE rugby what Ian Wright was to BBC football coverage.

chupacabra

Sparky14 wrote: »

Agree with the majority that hes entertaining, the problem is when ppl who don't know any better start taking his views seriously. Sky is so positive about everything but they give a well informed balanced view. BBC is usually pretty good, can't watch it whenever Guscott is on tho.

TV3s RWC 2007 coverage deserves a mention also, simply due to the fact that Matt Cooper is an absolutley dead person inside, you can see it in his eyes, im convinced he has no soul.

Sparky14

chupacabra wrote: »

TV3s RWC 2007 coverage deserves a mention also, simply due to the fact that Matt Cooper is an absolutley dead person inside, you can see it in his eyes, im convinced he has no soul.

I suppose we better give a shout out for Setanta as well. I actually like Daire O'Brien (Spelling?) and Williams. Think Fitzgerald is very dull, find it difficult to believe he was an inspirational captain.

Quint

Hook is the Dunphy of rugby. But at least dunphy knows he's talking ****e and is just there for the entertainment, I don't think hook does.
He seems to want to see Ireland lose, just to prove him right.

big dan

The gas thing about George is that he's a real gent when you meet him. Nothing like the way he comes across on TV or when talking about rugby on the radio. He doesn't even sound like a grumpy old man!!

He serves his purpose as a WUM on rte.

Sangre

sm.org wrote: »

You're a very angry person. Nice to have a life where George Hook is the most loathsome thing in it though.

Spot on. Cheers for the psychoanalysis, I can give me anger therapy a miss this week.

Oafley Jones

My uncle was in his class in Secondary school. He was actually cut out of a picture that is in his book as well. "The Greatest Bulls****er of all time" is how he remembers him. He's amazed at Hook's involvement in rugby given the fact that man never touched nor saw a rugby ball in his school days.

D.S.

Hook is the most biased pundit ever..if you can get passed that himself and Popey are hilarious and make a dull game v interesting...

chupacabra

Quint wrote: »

Hook is the Dunphy of rugby. But at least dunphy knows he's talking ****e and is just there for the entertainment, I don't think hook does.
He seems to want to see Ireland lose, just to prove him right.

He has a bit of Giles in him aswell. Whereas Giles would say "Hold it there", Hook would say "Hold awhile now."

NickNolte

I like Hook's show on Newstalk and I think he's an entertaining enough character in most respects. He doesn't seem to have the first clue about rugby though. I avoid his retarded punditry the same way like I avoid Jonathan Davies and Brian Moore's biased commentary.

Will Greenwood's child-like enthusiasm and cringe-worthy gaffs FTW.

LeeroyJones

Hook may be a bit extreme... but what RTE do is something I haven't seen on any other channel and that is allow their pundits- be it Gaelic Football, Hurling, Soccer or Rugby - speak their mind and actually give their opinion, whether the viewer likes the opinion or not..... watching the BBC or Sky and all I see are pundits saying what the viewer wants to hear-keeping everyone happy but ultimatly disillusioned-but that doesn't matter as long as their ratings remain high!

NickNolte

LeeroyJones wrote: »

Hook may be a bit extreme... but what RTE do is something I haven't seen on any other channel and that is allow their pundits- be it Gaelic Football, Hurling, Soccer or Rugby - speak their mind and actually give their opinion, whether the viewer likes the opinion or not..... watching the BBC or Sky and all I see are pundits saying what the viewer wants to hear-keeping everyone happy but ultimatly disillusioned-but that doesn't matter as long as their ratings remain high!

Agreed. But it helps if the pundits know what they're talking about.

chupacabra

NickNolte wrote: »

Will Greenwood's child-like enthusiasm and cringe-worthy gaffs FTW.

lol yes, ill never forget his antics at the sidelines for UTV's RWC coverage, especially the England v France game, he was emphatic.

Podge_irl

Sparky14 wrote: »

I suppose we better give a shout out for Setanta as well. I actually like Daire O'Brien (Spelling?) and Williams. Think Fitzgerald is very dull, find it difficult to believe he was an inspirational captain.

Emmett Byrne on Setanta is quite possibly the best pundit I've seen. He really is excellent.

Hook may be a bit extreme... but what RTE do is something I haven't seen on any other channel and that is allow their pundits- be it Gaelic Football, Hurling, Soccer or Rugby - speak their mind and actually give their opinion, whether the viewer likes the opinion or not..... watching the BBC or Sky and all I see are pundits saying what the viewer wants to hear-keeping everyone happy but ultimatly disillusioned-but that doesn't matter as long as their ratings remain high!

He does in my hole. Hook spouts the same nonsensical garbage that is spewed out by 90% of those with only a passing interest in rugby. He goes entirely with the "public" opinion, not against it. Of course he'll bash Ireland when its the done thing to do, but if they happen to win convincingly he'll convince everyone by the end of the game that he always saw it coming. As well as being a moron, he's spineless about it.

I avoid his retarded punditry the same way like I avoid Jonathan Davies and Brian Moore's biased commentary.

While I agree on Davies, I've never understood people's problems with Moore. He's probably my favourite commentator. He's an England supporter and he doesn't try to hide it, but he's just as critical of English players, if not more so. He'll point out when English players are committing fouls etc. I think he's great.

corny

Hook, O' Shea and Popey always make for a good show. You'd listen to Popey and O' Shea as people with an informed view but Hook is the Comic relief really, people shouldn't take him seriously at all.

I hate Sky. Barnes and Morris were only just tolerable but that Will Greenwood's an a***hole.

Shan75

I've never understood people's problems with Moore. He's probably my favourite commentator. He's an England supporter and he doesn't try to hide it, but he's just as critical of English players, if not more so. He'll point out when English players are committing fouls etc. I think he's great.

I think Brian Moore is excellent.He is probably the only person on BBC that is honest and not afraid to speak his mind.I might not agree with everything he says but I respect him for not towing the party line.
It's not just an English/British thing either as Keith Wood is as mechanical and banal as the rest.

I also like Stuart Barnes on Sky.He has a great knowledge of rugby and although can be a touch biased now and again, especially in Bath and Munster's favour, he also is not afraid to point out poor play.Also has a good sense of humour which some pundits lack.It must be a pain in the ass for him having Dewi Morris following him around all day and trying to copy everything he says.

Greenwood can be a bit annoying but there is no denying his passion for the game.It is great to see somebody thoroughly enjoying it when there are magical pieces of play unfolding.

As for the lads on RTE: Hook is a big mouth and just loves trying to be controversial.Pope actually can speak some sense but too often gets caught up double acting with Hook.Conor O'Shea actually has interesting points to make but can't get a word in usually because that other clown McGurk has little interest in genuine rugby debate and cuts across him too much.You just have to take the RTE rugby show for the comedy act that it is.

As for the match commentary on RTE: Ryle has improved over the years I guess but sometimes he still is unsure of what's going on in the game.Ward is a royal pain in the ass.

sm.org

Ryle Nugent despite commentating for nearly ten years has still to utter an original thought on a rugby match, its fairly clear he has no love for the sport at all. At least Ward knows the difference between a ruck and a maul.

bamboozle

Stev_o wrote: »

See the difference is if you watch Sky's analyst its exactly that some great insights into whats going on and some great opinions from the likes of Greenwood Fitzpatrick Quinnel.

On the other hand if you watch RTE's analyst its just a big circus where nothing gets discussed or nothing use full is said unless Conor O'Shea manages to get a word in between Pope and Hook.

are you serious?? sky's analysis is an oxymoran as they do not analyse they merely fudge around the issues for fear of upsetting their mates on the rugby pitch, sky's rugby coverage is so bland and boring its beyond words, its just a former players turned pundits club where big rugby names make a nice career for themselves by sitting on the fence and boring all with their smug grins and neatly pressed shirts, Hooky may not be right much of the time but at least we get opinions and debate on RTE. Throw in Apres Match and its pure quality on RTE....Hook spouts drivel and its up to the boys to make sense!
Will Greenwood....pathetic...verbal diahorrea at its best

Chucky the tree

bamboozle wrote: »

are you serious?? sky's analysis is an oxymoran as they do not analyse they merely fudge around the issues for fear of upsetting their mates on the rugby pitch, sky's rugby coverage is so bland and boring its beyond words, its just a former players turned pundits club where big rugby names make a nice career for themselves by sitting on the fence and boring all with their smug grins and neatly pressed shirts, Hooky may not be right much of the time but at least we get opinions and debate on RTE. Throw in Apres Match and its pure quality on RTE....Hook spouts drivel and its up to the boys to make sense!
Will Greenwood....pathetic...verbal diahorrea at its best

Well that the biggest load of **** I've ever read on thhis forum, and that really says something.

Nukem

Rubbish rugby pundit but for sheer entertainment I would have no one else. Excellent on the radio though IMO

Serenity Now!

bamboozle wrote: »

are you serious?? sky's analysis is an oxymoran as they do not analyse they merely fudge around the issues for fear of upsetting their mates on the rugby pitch, sky's rugby coverage is so bland and boring its beyond words, its just a former players turned pundits club where big rugby names make a nice career for themselves by sitting on the fence and boring all with their smug grins and neatly pressed shirts

Will Greenwood....pathetic...verbal diahorrea at its best

They're mainly ex-professional players and their opinions are more than qualified and valid.

bamboozle wrote: »

Hooky may not be right much of the time but at least we get opinions and debate on RTE. Throw in Apres Match and its pure quality on RTE....Hook spouts drivel and its up to the boys to make sense!

You don't get debate. You get one overweight egotist spouting contrarian poop to two or three guys who have forgotten more about the game than he'll ever know. All of this anchored by a smug business journalist who looks like he has tic-tacs for teeth as well as knowing eff-all about the game (and HE was in a rugby documentary??? LOL!). McGurk signing off the programme after Ireland defeated England one season with "you know where you can stick your chariots" was cringeworthy and typifies the low-standards of the programme.

I don't want some know-nothing arguing for the sake of arguing on a rugby union panel. Hook should stick to radio because 1) his show is bilge and 2) we can't see him.

BBC might have a moody nut such as Guscott on their panel but their coverage is streets ahead of RTE's. Always has been and as long as McGurk and Hook are on RTE's version, it always will be.

Noopti

For sheer entertainment you can't be Hook. Himself and Popey are like a comedy duo.

However, his views are usually rubbish but at least Popey has some sense in his opinions, and O'Shea is very very good.

I still remember this classic Hook line regarding Reggie Corrigan from a few years back:

"If Reggie Corrigans sell by date was on a yoghurt carton, it would have a tree growing out of it"

Classic.

Spore

As much as we might píss and moan about the Hookster, you'd all miss him if he were gone. As a lot of posters have mentioned Sky / the Beeb are just bland, Hook rankles whether it's annoying pessimistic nay-saying or just to be different from McGurd / Pope, Hook stirs it up - it's his job. I think he's awful on the radio BTW...

EdgarAllenPoo

I equate a lot of what Hook says with something similar to what I call the "Ryle Nugent factor" in other words you know he knows nothing and you may find his opinions ill informed and irratating but it wouldn't be the same watching the 6N without them.

I'd take Hook's commentary on rugby matches over George Hamilton any day too.

Eoin

GDM wrote: »

I equate a lot of what Hook says with something similar to what I call the "Ryle Nugent factor" in other words you know he knows nothing and you may find his opinions ill informed and irratating but it wouldn't be the same watching the 6N without them.

I'd quite happily give up Nugent's commentary. In fact, I do. If a game's on any other channel, I switch as soon as I hear his voice.

I have to say, I do enjoy the punditry part but treat it as the spectacle it is. Unfortunately O'Shea is just there to play the straight man, and has been said, he doesn't get enough time. Shame, because I think he's a very good analyst himself.

McGurk is awful though. He is crap at anchoring the show, and doesn't have a clue so brings nothing to the show at all. That's what I would call the "Ryle Nugent" factor.

anonymous_joe wrote:

Coached the USA actually.

And Connaught. If I remember correctly from Hook's autobiography - which is actually a good read - Eddie O'Sullivan was his assistant in Connaught, and the two of them spent a lot of time together as coaches in the States as well.

Noopti

eoin wrote: »

I'd quite happily give up Nugent's commentary. In fact, I do. If a game's on any other channel, I switch as soon as I hear his voice.

I do the exact same!

Persiancowboy

Despite its many weaknesses I consider RTE's rugby coverage to be the best on offer. RTE has followed its soccer template (which has worked well for them) by putting in place an anchor who knows little or nothing about the game plus an informed ex-player (in this case O'Shea and Pope) plus a clown (Hook). Mc Gurks's only role appears to be to light the fuse that send Hook off on one of his rants.

Over on the BBC we must still put up with its eternal patronising rubbish towards their "Celtic" cousins...augmented by a few "Uncle Toms" such as Keith Wood who are guaranteed to spout the ususal banal garbage that won't rock the boat or offend any of their listeners. THe one positive about the BBC is Brian Moore. He tells it as it is and continues to be fiercely critical of poor play or foul play, even if it involves his beloved England.

Sky is the TV equivalent of the tabloid press. Deliberately dumbed down (Stuart barnes apart). If that's your thing then fair enough.

Webbs

If you could combine RTE and BBC coverage I think you may have an ideal match.
Commentary on RTE is more than woeful, the Butler/Moore double act on BBC is the best for me, Moore especially sees things that your average rugby viewer would miss and is even handed in his criticism, while not apologising for wanting England to do well.
While in the studio I like the whole RTE package, apart from McGurk who has to be the most ill informed anchor I have ever seen. RTE get you thinking and disagreeing with various view points, they at least make you think about the game, whereas BBC and Sky in the studio are too banal not wanting to offend anyone, even when it is plainly obvious who is having a nightmare game etc.
If I am at home I flick from BBC during the game to RTE for analysis

thomond2006

Webbs wrote: »

If you could combine RTE and BBC coverage I think you may have an ideal match.
If I am at home I flick from BBC during the game to RTE for analysis

That's what I do too!!

Keeps those praises/rants coming!!

Stick_man

Hes forthright and brutally honest. He is also entertaining but he has a woeful view on the game, Sky's coverage is insightfull so long as Barnes and Morris stop drooling over Cipriani making a skip pass against the likes of worcester.