Hook

wixfjord

Finally, someone calls Hook for the ****ehawk that he is.
Really do not like the man at all, in fact in my opinion he does more harm than good in his analysis. The ****e about Tommy Bowe and Sexton being the examples of this. Truly the Eamon Dunphy of the panel, although you get the idea that Hook would rather Ireland lose and him be proved correct, than win and him be proved wrong.

McGuirk is as bad too. Between him and Billo on the soccer panel, we've two idiotic biased panel leaders, with no obvious knowledge of the sport they're supposedly analysing. Give me Matt Williams any day.

Howls of disapproval have become studio's pet sounds

By Tommy Conlon


Sunday March 27 2011

Half-time in the studio at Lansdowne Road last Saturday and George Hook is getting his excuses in early.

The Irish rugby team has destroyed England in the first half and Hook's bluster has once again blown up in his face. During the Six Nations campaign he had castigated the coach, Declan Kidney, and insulted a few of the younger players.

At various points he alleged that the team was "badly coached" and that there was "a monster crisis" in the camp. Asked by Tom McGurk after the Wales game if Kidney had "lost his way", Hook's reply was emphatic. "Yes. Without a shadow of a doubt."

And now the team that is suffering a monster crisis, and that is badly coached by a man who's lost his way, has somehow managed to tear England apart.

There's another 40 minutes still to play but the writing is on the wall for the pundit who is about to suffer another undignified public exposure. His reaction at half-time is a transparent attempt at damage limitation. "After this match, if Ireland win, there is an issue about the people who criticise the way we play. (But) This is what we've asked for! In five weeks we've asked for Ireland to play like this."

Yes indeed. If only they had listened to Uncle George sooner, sure they'd be on their way to a Grand Slam now. Instead of celebrating at the final whistle they're the ones who should be eating humble pie. Curiously enough, he seemed far from happy afterwards, despite the fact that players and management had finally seen the error of their ways. It had nothing to do with being proven spectacularly wrong, mind. It was because this victory was really only camouflaging the problems. "In fact," he reminded us all, "it now asks a truckload of questions." So hold it right there, Mr Kidney. Wipe that grin off your face, Brian O'Driscoll.

Now at this stage one would think that a little humility might be in order. Or even common sense: when the hole is getting deeper, throw away the shovel. But no; George keeps digging. Jonathan Sexton has just played a blinder. "Kidney must commit to Sexton," says Hook. Ronan O'Gara had run the show at flyhalf against Scotland. At half-time, Hook had this to say: "I've no problem bringing Jonny Sexton in when we're 30 points clear but I vehemently oppose bringing Jonny Sexton on when it's a contest." And now, three weeks later, Kidney must play Jonny Sexton from the start.

Just in case Hook isn't ramping up the negativity enough, McGurk can be relied upon to add another dollop of hysteria to the debate. Showing all the instincts of a tabloid soccer hack calling for the head of the England manager, McGurk had been chipping away at the Irish coach during the Six Nations with a variety of bar stool questions. "Has Declan Kidney lost his way?" "Have we the right management team?" "Declan Kidney's percentage is now worse than Eddie O'Sullivan's." "Did Kidney deliver a Grand Slam on Eddie's team?"

Kidney is a man of substance and a coach of exceptional achievement. His public demeanour is usually modest and dignified. There is an obvious emotional intelligence about him. His treatment by RTE went beyond legitimate criticism on a number of occasions. It was actually disrespectful. His post-match interview with Hugh Cahill, after the Wales defeat, was painful to watch. He was treated like a schoolboy having to account for himself in front of the headmaster. It was all wrong. And back in the studio McGurk decided to have another go because apparently one of Kidney's answers wasn't "appropriate".

Memo to Kidney: you must always remember to show proper levels of deference to important people in television. Otherwise they'll get very cross.

It fell to Conor O'Shea to point out how hard it is to face the microphones straight after a gut-wrenching defeat. "My team (Harlequins) was involved in the semi-final of a cup (competition) last night and lost in the last minute," he explained. "It is difficult going on TV when you're emotional like that, and to be subjected to that sort (of questioning) -- because inside you're burning."

O'Shea played 35 times for Ireland. Brent Pope had a long playing career in New Zealand and

Ireland. Both have been critical of the Irish coach and team. But it has generally been balanced and fair. Their language has been moderate. They have expressed empathy because they know how hard it can be to compete and win. Hook coached various teams in his day; he must have forgotten what it's like. McGurk has no idea what it's like, which is why he can ask all those macho questions with such authority. Then they beat England and suddenly the tune is changed, just like that. Now it's all "magnificent", "great" and "wonderful".

At half-time in the Scotland game McGurk decides to goad Hook a little bit more, just for a harmless bit of fun at the expense of a young player. "When do you want to see Sexton come on, George?" "Ooooh, not before the Australia match in October." McGurk enjoys a long chuckle upon hearing this. Ho ho ho.

After the Wales game it's Luke Fitzgerald's turn to be ridiculed by Hook, performing once again his uncanny imitation of an overfed bulldog. Bow wow wow. Woof woof woof.

freyners

thought this was going to be about james hook when i read the title


I absolutely despise hook, eamon dunphy of rugby is a tag well suited. He'll say anything that gets the biggest reaction. All i can say is that hes been proved wrong on so many times, most memorably when he insinuated that ireland could finish up with the wooden spoon before the 09 six nations (after the argentina match), that I'm normally very hopeful for Ireland when hes off on one of his rants.

mink_man

There's always going to be people who doesn't like other peoples opinions, I'm sure there's people who don't like popes opinions, just hook delivers his views so bluntly.

Pauleta

I love his newstalk show but he should be dumped by RTE. He trolled last weekend and made the match about his opinion rather than the match itself and has done so many times. RTE have lost the run of themselves. Their football coverage appeals to the lowest common denominator as well.

Nonoperational

Ah give it a rest lads. Hook is there to be opinionated and stir it up. The overall panel analysis is entertaining and that's the point. Despising him is a bit strong.

Einhard

I've not more than a cursory interest in rugby. I watch the matches, and like to read a few articles now and then, but I'm far from an expert. I did think though, that the consensus was that Kidney has under-achieved with the team- this season at least. Considering how Ireland played in the other games, surely it wasn't ****-stirring to suggest that England would beat us? I don't think the great victory against England should cancel out the pretty average earlier performances- if that's how sports were analysed, teams would always be as good or as bad as their last performance.

doomed

I suspect there is at least one George Hook in every rugby or GAA club bar in the country. Some opinionated old bore in the corner and probably wrong more than 50% of the time. Don't make eye contact!

That said I would still keep GH. O'Shea and Pope are much more knowledgeable but the overall panel is still very good and a lot better than the soccer equivalent. At least McGuirk doesn't giggle and knows more about rugby than Bill O'H does about soccer.

Teferi

I love George Hook. His commentary on rugby is made to incite. Clearly it is working with the response he gets.

mrboswell

Teferi wrote: »

I love George Hook. His commentary on rugby is made to incite. Clearly it is working with the response he gets.

Exactly. The fact that this thread was started only goes to show that his job on the panel is done.

Anyway, just like a broken clock that is right twice a day, he occasionally calls it right.

wixfjord

The thing is though, say all you want about the tendency and capacity of Hook to incite, and there's no doubt that he does his job well, but he's got a privileged position in that tens of thousands of people who wouldn't normally watch a rugby game are watching when Ireland play on RTE, and what he's saying is taking as gospel by many of them, even though many of us regular rugby watchers see it as pure drivel and bluster.
That ability to influence public opinion should not be given to such a buffoon.

David900

I'd say some of the players see this place as a bit of a Hook

durkadurka

He's been wrong about so many things it's unreal .

Ross is a journeyman. Fitz would make a great fb, Schmidt is doing a terrible job at Leinster (sept 10), it's the end of Leinster as a top team(jan09!), bowe has no pace, kidney is a brilliant manager, kidney is a terrible manager, ditto eddie.

stephen_n

I can't stand listening to him and generally turn over from RTE rather than endure the bull**** he expects us to believe when he clearly doesn't believe it himself! I did watch a bit of the English games commentary hoping pope or o'shea would pull him up over his prediction of Scotland finishing second as the dark horse team but alas another of his monumental brain farts of prediction was allowed to go unchecked!

danthefan

What a pathetic article. He was writing for the Sindo about a month ago ffs, the paper is a complete rag.

durkadurka

That is indeed classic sindo stuff. Why don't they quote his appalling newspaper articles for the rag? They did it to dunohy too after he left.

Judgement Day

Don't forget his classic pre-season prediction that Scotland were the dark horses of the 2011 Six Nations. Still and all I like his presence on the panel - as has been said, the Eamon Dunphy of Irish rugby punditry.

durkadurka

Ironically he hated being called a dunphy although it's undeniable that he is

redmca2

durkadurka wrote: »

Ironically he hated being called a dunphy although it's undeniable that he is

Dunphy has improved beyond all recognition from when he started many years ago. He actually makes sense most of the time !!

Hook is a gob*****. He deliberately goes out to be antagonistic and confrontational whether he is talking about Ireland, Leinster, or Munster. Unfortunately he is so predictable at this stage that it is no longer funny, but simply boring.

RuggieBear

Derogatory name calling is against the charter. Please don't call pundits names.

Podge_irl

Teferi wrote: »

I love George Hook. His commentary on rugby is made to incite.

I have no time whatsoever for Hook, but I'd be inclined to think this is true. In which case I have serious problems with whoever is employing him in RTÉ and who thinks it's a good idea to have such a caricature on the panel.

People can say it's a bit of fun etc etc, but ultimately Hook has a fairly large impact on the opinions of the vast majority of rugby fans (i.e. the majority who just watch the 6N and nothing else) and has a part to play in the public perception of certain players. While I wouldn't go so far as to say it affects their careers, it does have an impact and I think it's unfair to have someone who is, self-admittedly, grossly uninformed about the game to be in that position.


Now, with all that said I also have a problem with people who seem to think that the performance in the England game somehow proves Kidney's critics wrong or anything along those lines. If Hook goes way too far (which he does), then a majority of the remaining media can be accused of being a little too forgiving at times.

vkid

Stopped watching games on RTE because of Hook and Ryle Nugent. Both of them do my nut in.
Watch the 6 Nations on BBC and anything possible for Magners.e. Whatever does it for you though

SARZY

vkid wrote: »

Stopped watching games on RTE because of Hook and Ryle Nugent. Both of them do my nut in.
Watch the 6 Nations on BBC and anything possible for Magners.e. Whatever does it for you though

I do the same and for the same reasons.

GerM

vkid wrote: »

Stopped watching games on RTE because of Hook and Ryle Nugent. Both of them do my nut in.
Watch the 6 Nations on BBC and anything possible for Magners.e. Whatever does it for you though

I watch the build up on RTE for the gang there who, as irritating as they can be, speak their minds and in O'Shea, have someone who talks sense and offers a decent insight into the game. BBC pundits speak very much in clichés and bore me to death. Wood and Guscott could literally be reading off a script and offer nothing that I don't know already. At least the RTE boys entertain when they offer nothing in terms of insight.

I turn over to BBC for the games for 2 reasons. Brian Moore is the most insightful and articulate co-commentator around by an absolute street in my opinion. People think he's biased but he's the first to criticise England when they're not playing well. He calls it as he sees it. In the second scrum against England, Cian Healy was penalised. Moore immediately interjected pointing out it was the wrong call as Dan Cole was illegally binding on Healy's arm. He really is an excellent commentator especially in terms of front row play.

The second reason is Ralph Keyes. I cannot abide his commentary. He's a proud Corkman and fair play to him for it but there is a vast gap between his praise of Munster players and others. It can actually be narrowed even more. He's fawning in his praise of Cork (particularly Cork Con) players. It gets my goat. He simply will not criticise his own club men. His commentary lends creedance to the oft spoken theory that Cork Con is the power club in Irish rugby.

thebaz

wixfjord wrote: »

Truly the Eamon Dunphy of the panel, although you get the idea that Hook would rather Ireland lose and him be proved correct, than win and him be proved wrong.

McGuirk is as bad too. .

I'd throw Pope in there too , who is doing the silly panto performance too - i like dunphy , yes he can be narky , but he is original - Hook , Pope and McGurk just play out the alickadoo crap , that is so boring in many club bars, never mind on national tv - get original guys , or bring in Conor O'Shea and Matt Williams - and as you say Hooks constant bad mouthing Ireland , and how we always get favourable refs, has become so unoriginal and predictable , that its hard to tell when he is actually talking a little common sense

TheRevolution

I don't know if I'd watch RTE's coverage without Hook to be honest. I only really watch it because Hook is so amusing and its generally hilarious some of the stuff he comes out with. Anyway most true rugby fans realise that Hook's spouts nonsense and is not to be taken seriously so who cares if someone who only tunes in once a year for the 6 Nations thinks he spouts the gospel? I think the make up of the RTE panel is comedy at its best, McGuirk with his constant dramatics, Hook with his constant negativity, O'Shea the serious one and Pope who seems to be only interested in rebuffing Hook.

That said, if the match was a GS decider or in the latter stages of the World Cup I would probably tune into BBC for more serious analysis. But for the most part I get my analysis from here and then just laugh at the RTE panel at their best.

skregs

I wouldn't compare him to Dunphy. Dunphy is controversial and opinionated, but at least he bases his opinions on facts and knowledge of the game.

George has lucked his way into being the most important commentator on a sport he clearly knows very little about.

If RTE want him for entertainment purposes, but him on against the head or whatever. Call me old-fashioned, but I want my post-match analysis to actually include some post-match analysis, not loud-mouthed stupidity from an overrated hack. (Mods, its not name-calling if its true)

brianthebard

TheRevolution wrote: »

I don't know if I'd watch RTE's coverage without Hook to be honest. I only really watch it because Hook is so amusing and its generally hilarious some of the stuff he comes out with. Anyway most true rugby fans realise that Hook's spouts nonsense and is not to be taken seriously so who cares if someone who only tunes in once a year for the 6 Nations thinks he spouts the gospel? I think the make up of the RTE panel is comedy at its best, McGuirk with his constant dramatics, Hook with his constant negativity, O'Shea the serious one and Pope who seems to be only interested in rebuffing Hook.

That said, if the match was a GS decider or in the latter stages of the World Cup I would probably tune into BBC for more serious analysis. But for the most part I get my analysis from here and then just laugh at the RTE panel at their best.

Pretty much the above, everyone knows that Hook is a spoofer, he's been around for decades and is well known at this point. If you don't know he's a spoofer you'll figure it out within 5 minutes. I do like watching the rte coverage for a laugh but when it goes on too long it becomes awful tedious, and you're just crying out for some proper analysis like the lads on setanta.

skregs

brianthebard wrote: »

If you don't know he's a spoofer you'll figure it out within 5 minutes.

Except people don't. People tell you Tommy Bowe hasn't got the pace to be an international winger because Hook has said so and they saw a highlight reel by Hook showing all Bowe's mistakes.
Or people tell you that Sexton is terrible because Hook has said it.

You know Hook is full of chyte if you know enough about rugby to play it, but if you're just a fan you'll believe cause you know no better