Time to get rid of ... Jonathan Davis

Discuss

Topics can include

His lob on for Wales
His impartial lob on for Wales
His screeching about his lob on for Wales
His flaccid disregard for praising any team playing Wales
His lob on for Wales

There was a moment at the start of the 2nd half yesterday when a commentator said that Jonathan Davies was going to be off for another 5 minutes. I was thinking if only...

I actually don't mind him too much.

1. Easy drinking game: "oh nooo" "stop it there" "play it on" "numbers"

2. I don't mind some bias commentary, as long as it is biased in both ways. i.e. Brian Moore and Jonathon Davies.

The annoying thing is when he is not commentating on Wales, I think he is quite insightful - maybe a better studio pundit than a commentator

Nematode wrote:I actually don't mind him too much.

1. Easy drinking game: "oh nooo" "stop it there" "play it on" "numbers"

2. I don't mind some bias commentary, as long as it is biased in both ways. i.e. Brian Moore and Jonathon Davies.

Oooo fantastic play from Wales...fantastic (When they just run into contact and fall over) - Finish

I normally don't mind him. But he was more irritating than an itchy verruca yesterday.

Love this:



- Anyone notice Guscott calling Russell 'Fussell'? He's the one you should be calling for to be sacked.

The BBC's idea of balance is to find the most biased (as in focused on one particular nation) person they can and put them up against the equivalent from the other side. They do this for everything. Pretty much all the commentators are the same, Moore for England, Phillips for Ireland, Davies for Wales and Nicol for Scotland.

HammerofThunor wrote:The BBC's idea of balance is to find the most biased (as in focused on one particular nation) person they can and put them up against the equivalent from the other side.  They do this for everything.  Pretty much all the commentators are the same, Moore for England, Phillips for Ireland, Davies for Wales and Nicol for Scotland.

There are two huge differences between Jiffy and Moore. i) Moore knows what he's talking about. You may not like it, but he makes accurate observations about a range of topics rather than just shouting "Numbers!". ii) While Moore is undoubtedly an England fan, he's also nowhere near as one-eyed as Jiffy. He's as likely to criticise England as praise them. The others lie somewhere in the middle, but closer to Moore than to Davies.

I actually think that compared to Martyn Williams, Jiffy seems level headed and not biased!
Jiffy is a far better pundit for games which don't involve Wales though, then he tends to offer insight rather than just being a cheerleader.

Poorfour wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:The BBC's idea of balance is to find the most biased (as in focused on one particular nation) person they can and put them up against the equivalent from the other side.  They do this for everything.  Pretty much all the commentators are the same, Moore for England, Phillips for Ireland, Davies for Wales and Nicol for Scotland.

There are two huge differences between Jiffy and Moore. i) Moore knows what he's talking about. You may not like it, but he makes accurate observations about a range of topics rather than just shouting "Numbers!". ii) While Moore is undoubtedly an England fan, he's also nowhere near as one-eyed as Jiffy. He's as likely to criticise England as praise them. The others lie somewhere in the middle, but closer to Moore than to Davies.

I disagree slightly. Moore is not really qualified to talk about what he talks about - the scrum and lineout. The rules have changed so much since he played so he's got no first hand experience of the things he tries to preach about. There's been no rules changes for back line play. Jiffy, for all his sins, was very good at running a back line, creating overlaps (numbers!), spotting the '2 on 1', scoring tries, etc. so a lot of what he says is still relevant. He's done it for club, country, even a different sport (league) to a very high level. And Davies openly admits to having no clue what's going on in then scrum. At least he doesn't pretend!

Poorfour wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:The BBC's idea of balance is to find the most biased (as in focused on one particular nation) person they can and put them up against the equivalent from the other side.  They do this for everything.  Pretty much all the commentators are the same, Moore for England, Phillips for Ireland, Davies for Wales and Nicol for Scotland.

There are two huge differences between Jiffy and Moore. i) Moore knows what he's talking about. You may not like it, but he makes accurate observations about a range of topics rather than just shouting "Numbers!". ii) While Moore is undoubtedly an England fan, he's also nowhere near as one-eyed as Jiffy. He's as likely to criticise England as praise them. The others lie somewhere in the middle, but closer to Moore than to Davies.

Each to their own. I see no difference between them to be honest. Both will focus on the good and bad in their own teams first off. You say Davies just shouts numbers, while Moore just keeps banging on and on about a technical point in the scrum.

The BBC balances out by having Guscott and Wood in as pundits

Christ, the campaign to get rid of Davies continues on apace through yet another year.  Next there'll be a protest march in London on March 3rd.  Then there'll be a petition handed into Number 10.

Then things may have to get a little dirty if he still manages to cling in there.  There'll be a top-secret team of listening specialists, scanning his commentaries for some hidden sexist, racist or homophobic leanings............

That'll nab him!!!  "That lad Davies doesn't like wimin!!!! He joked that your man, the Welsh big lad with the long blond hair and tats, he's like a female wrestler on roids - Get him off!!!!!!!!!  He's anti-wimin.................... unlike the rest of us on 606 who never have a bad word to say about the females........... "

Am I the only Scotsman who likes Davies?

Davies wears his heart on his sleeve and is a cheeky pup. I used to love his commentaries during Pro12 games. He's like a little schoolboy who likes digging but who isn't too far up his own behind to ignore the lighter side of the game when he sees it.

Now there are other Po-faced operators on the BEEB who also wear their hearts on their sleeves but do it with a lot less innocence and certainly a lot less eye-twinkle. Sober great suited analytical specialists are, it seems, the order of the day but nope, I'll prefer the colour guys like ol' Davies.

The pundits I rate are:

Sir Clive Woodward - Actually makes quite a few good points.

Brian Moore - He does know something about the scrums and shows a bit of passion, which is good.

Andrew Cotter - Can make the dull moments entertaining.

Irish commentator that isn't Conor McNamara - sorry, I've done a John Inverdale and have no idea what his name is. Can anyone help? (Not Keith Wood) - slightly older.

Sean Holley - Really don't know why he doesn't feature more for the BBC

And saving the best till last, the utter legend that is Hugh Dan MacLennan.

Notable mentions to Gabby Logan, Peter Wright, and Doddie Weir for his trousers.

The pundits I dislike:

Jeremy Guscott - So England biased and unknowledgeable of other teams - calling Russell 'Fussell' is an embarrassment.

John Inverdale - Just useless.

Martyn Williams - The least impartial of them all, and offers nothing of interest. Worse than Inverdale and Guscott combined.

Griff wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:The BBC's idea of balance is to find the most biased (as in focused on one particular nation) person they can and put them up against the equivalent from the other side.  They do this for everything.  Pretty much all the commentators are the same, Moore for England, Phillips for Ireland, Davies for Wales and Nicol for Scotland.

There are two huge differences between Jiffy and Moore. i) Moore knows what he's talking about. You may not like it, but he makes accurate observations about a range of topics rather than just shouting "Numbers!". ii) While Moore is undoubtedly an England fan, he's also nowhere near as one-eyed as Jiffy. He's as likely to criticise England as praise them. The others lie somewhere in the middle, but closer to Moore than to Davies.

I disagree slightly. Moore is not really qualified to talk about what he talks about - the scrum and lineout. The rules have changed so much since he played so he's got no first hand experience of the things he tries to preach about. There's been no rules changes for back line play. Jiffy, for all his sins, was very good at running a back line, creating overlaps (numbers!), spotting the '2 on 1', scoring tries, etc. so a lot of what he says is still relevant. He's done it for club, country, even a different sport (league) to a very high level. And Davies openly admits to having no clue what's going on in then scrum. At least he doesn't pretend!

Moore went and qualified as a ref and went so far as to ref some (I think) ND1 games to put his money where his mouth is. The essence of the scrum hasn't changed - if anything, the new engagement laws make it far closer to the conditions Moore played under than it was during the years of the dominant hit. Moore's also a retired partner in a law firm - so he knows a fair bit more about getting his facts straight than most other pundits. I think Ben Kay has probably overtaken him as the best technical analyst on tv, but he's a lot more current than you seem to think.

Poorfour wrote:

Moore went and qualified as a ref and went so far as to ref some (I think) ND1 games to put his money where his mouth is.

   

And we all know how valued a ref's opinion is on 606!!

Carry on, Poofour.  Carry on.

Poorfour wrote:

Griff wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:The BBC's idea of balance is to find the most biased (as in focused on one particular nation) person they can and put them up against the equivalent from the other side.  They do this for everything.  Pretty much all the commentators are the same, Moore for England, Phillips for Ireland, Davies for Wales and Nicol for Scotland.

There are two huge differences between Jiffy and Moore. i) Moore knows what he's talking about. You may not like it, but he makes accurate observations about a range of topics rather than just shouting "Numbers!". ii) While Moore is undoubtedly an England fan, he's also nowhere near as one-eyed as Jiffy. He's as likely to criticise England as praise them. The others lie somewhere in the middle, but closer to Moore than to Davies.

I disagree slightly. Moore is not really qualified to talk about what he talks about - the scrum and lineout. The rules have changed so much since he played so he's got no first hand experience of the things he tries to preach about. There's been no rules changes for back line play. Jiffy, for all his sins, was very good at running a back line, creating overlaps (numbers!), spotting the '2 on 1', scoring tries, etc. so a lot of what he says is still relevant. He's done it for club, country, even a different sport (league) to a very high level. And Davies openly admits to having no clue what's going on in then scrum. At least he doesn't pretend!

Moore went and qualified as a ref and went so far as to ref some (I think) ND1 games to put his money where his mouth is. The essence of the scrum hasn't changed - if anything, the new engagement laws make it far closer to the conditions Moore played under than it was during the years of the dominant hit. Moore's also a retired partner in a law firm - so he knows a fair bit more about getting his facts straight than most other pundits. I think Ben Kay has probably overtaken him as the best technical analyst on tv, but he's a lot more current than you seem to think.

I was responding to your point that the difference between the two was 'Moore knows what he's talking about'. Your suggestion being that Jiffy doesn't. Really?!

And I knew it was just a matter of time before someone mentioned he was a lawyer. Someone always mentions that. Has absolutely nothing to do with rugby, but chuck it in anyway!

Wasn't it Moore who was consulted on changing the the recent scrum law? (Removing the hit)

Unfortunately jiffy has some of the habits of Barnes. He gets excited and can't stop his mouth spewing rubbish out of it.

Possibly, but that doesn't mean that Jiffy knows nothing!

I don't think Moore is biased very much in terms of England... but what he is biased about is forwards and the front row. Probably my favourite of the bbc lot.

Davies is a miserable chap though... didn't he say after the SA victory with no smile on his face... "I think they would have been upset they didn't win by more".

Clive Woodward, heavily biased equal to jiffy.

Guscott - wishes he was Welsh.

Nicol - wishes he was anything but Scottish post match.

Inverdale - biggest tool of the lot. Luckiest man in sport broadcasting. Zero talent with the mic, zero sporting talent, zero sporting pedigree... probably got in because of his dad of some sort.

Griff wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

Griff wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:The BBC's idea of balance is to find the most biased (as in focused on one particular nation) person they can and put them up against the equivalent from the other side.  They do this for everything.  Pretty much all the commentators are the same, Moore for England, Phillips for Ireland, Davies for Wales and Nicol for Scotland.

There are two huge differences between Jiffy and Moore. i) Moore knows what he's talking about. You may not like it, but he makes accurate observations about a range of topics rather than just shouting "Numbers!". ii) While Moore is undoubtedly an England fan, he's also nowhere near as one-eyed as Jiffy. He's as likely to criticise England as praise them. The others lie somewhere in the middle, but closer to Moore than to Davies.

I disagree slightly. Moore is not really qualified to talk about what he talks about - the scrum and lineout. The rules have changed so much since he played so he's got no first hand experience of the things he tries to preach about. There's been no rules changes for back line play. Jiffy, for all his sins, was very good at running a back line, creating overlaps (numbers!), spotting the '2 on 1', scoring tries, etc. so a lot of what he says is still relevant. He's done it for club, country, even a different sport (league) to a very high level. And Davies openly admits to having no clue what's going on in then scrum. At least he doesn't pretend!

Moore went and qualified as a ref and went so far as to ref some (I think) ND1 games to put his money where his mouth is. The essence of the scrum hasn't changed - if anything, the new engagement laws make it far closer to the conditions Moore played under than it was during the years of the dominant hit. Moore's also a retired partner in a law firm - so he knows a fair bit more about getting his facts straight than most other pundits. I think Ben Kay has probably overtaken him as the best technical analyst on tv, but he's a lot more current than you seem to think.

I was responding to your point that the difference between the two was 'Moore knows what he's talking about'. Your suggestion being that Jiffy doesn't. Really?!

And I knew it was just a matter of time before someone mentioned he was a lawyer. Someone always mentions that. Has absolutely nothing to do with rugby, but chuck it in anyway!

Isnt he also a trained manicurist?

Nematode wrote:The pundits I rate are:

Sir Clive Woodward - Actually makes quite a few good points.

Brian Moore - He does know something about the scrums and shows a bit of passion, which is good.

Andrew Cotter - Can make the dull moments entertaining.

Irish commentator that isn't Conor McNamara - sorry, I've done a John Inverdale and have no idea what his name is. Can anyone help? (Not Keith Wood) - slightly older.

Sean Holley - Really don't know why he doesn't feature more for the BBC

And saving the best till last, the utter legend that is Hugh Dan MacLennan.

Notable mentions to Gabby Logan, Peter Wright, and Doddie Weir for his trousers.

The pundits I dislike:

Jeremy Guscott - So England biased and unknowledgeable of other teams - calling Russell 'Fussell' is an embarrassment.

John Inverdale - Just useless.

Martyn Williams - The least impartial of them all, and offers nothing of interest. Worse than Inverdale and Guscott combined.

personally id put rory lawson above all of the above. not sure if he pundits in the uk as the tv rights ex uk are owned by bein sports in dubai where the pundits push their punditry so to speak.

I'd sack Nichol as well and bring Chris Patterson in full time. A Scottish centurion, knowlegable and a gentleman.

While you are at get rid of Jiffy and bring in Shane Williams, another gentleman who really knows his stuff.

Jiffy used to have some very sharp observations. I remember once when Wilkinson was being belted late by opposition flankers, he said that leaving his kicking leg up would help dissuade them i.e. give them a face full of studs.

The comment gave me an insight into how he had managed to survive in his playing career, and how often such techniques must be employed in the ordinary course of a game.

Now, I think he's just got a bit old. His enthusiasm for the game remains but you don't get the impression he's keeping up with new players or law developments.

Will Greenwood would be in danger of entering the same territory but he has contracts which have him following that weird IBM tracker software as well as his grassroots contacts with the School of Hard Knocks.

I actually think it is time to get rid of both Jonathan Davies. Jiffy is getting so squeaky and grumpy that I can hardly bear it and JD2 is just crapola at the moment.

Whilst I can fully understand Jonathan Davies being ever-so-slightly-biased in his observations during Wales matches, there is something about him that is just plain...... irritating.

I think most pundits (Davies included) will, if pressed, be more honest in their appraisals.  It's only human nature to get a bit carried away in the excitement of the moment.  They're as fallible as the rest of us after all.  I don't think any one of them is any better or any worse than the other.  Let's cut the guys a little slack and learn to take their sillier comments with the pinch of salt they deserve.

But notwithstanding the actual content of the analysis, I'm sorry..... Jiffy is an irritating person.  I agree the comments that he can be quite insightful at times, especially when the match concerned doesn't involve Wales, but something about him grates.  He causes hackles to rise with a lot of people just by being Jonathan Davies.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if one of these days he appears in front of the camera with a fat lip or a black eye.

Re: Brian Moore.   Regardless of his faults, he does have one major redeeming feature and it is that he always emphasises that the referees decision is final and is not to be challenged.   The value of that, in terms or Rugby's finer mores, should not be underestimated.   I wish all the commentators and pundits did it.

Phillip Matthews is the worst for me. His Irish bias is easily as bad as Jiffy's. I remember him praising BOD for 'great leadership' at Cardiff for stepping in at 9 and slicing a box kick 5 yards into touch. Terrible.

Considering the way Jiffy got, err, 'excited', about Lydiate making a few tackles a few years back I am wondering about how he's going to respond to Robshaw's current performances. Only we know it won't really register.

From an outsider's point of view I view Davis as your only play maker in your backline.

Ah, that trouser explosion that got Lydiate on the Lions tour and 50 odd caps

Yep, no chance of seeing it with Robshaw

Biltong wrote:From an outsider's point of view I view Davis as your only play maker in your backline.

Biltong old chap, this is about Jonathan Davies, ex Wales rugby union and rugby league legend, now an extremely irritating commentator, not Jonathan Davies, the current Wales outside centre!

The difference between Lydiate in 2012 (in particular the France game) and now is that he actually made 'offensive' tackles then and put people down behind the gain line and we could force turnovers, now he just chops and lets them get some momentum.

BamBam wrote:

Biltong wrote:From an outsider's point of view I view Davis as your only play maker in your backline.

Biltong old chap, this is about Jonathan Davies, ex Wales rugby union and rugby league legend, now an extremely irritating commentator, not Jonathan Davies, the current Wales outside centre!

Ah sorry, is it the commentator that sounds like he is whining all the time?

fa0019 wrote:
Guscott - wishes he was Welsh.

You can't hold that against him! Most people who aren't Welsh feel the same...!

Nematode wrote:I actually don't mind him too much.

1. Easy drinking game: "oh nooo" "stop it there" "play it on" "numbers"

2. I don't mind some bias commentary, as long as it is biased in both ways. i.e. Brian Moore and Jonathon Davies.

1. You missed "just watch"

maestegmafia wrote:

fa0019 wrote:
Guscott - wishes he was Welsh.

You can't hold that against him! Most people who aren't Welsh feel the same...!

Except Dowie Morris

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

fa0019 wrote:
Guscott - wishes he was Welsh.

You can't hold that against him! Most people who aren't Welsh feel the same...!

Except Dowie Morris

and Shane Howarth

I like JD and Brian Moore as commentators. Both clearly come across as supporters of their own nation, i.e. commentating as if for their national audience, but I don't think either are particularly partisan in their judgments or slow to praise the other team playing against theirs. Both are very knowledgeable about the game. I can see why supporters of other nations would find JD annoying, though, because he is fundamentally thinking about how well Wales are or aren't doing. To me Andy Nicol lets his partisanship cloud his judgment far more than either of them.

Anyone but Eddie Butler, the "passive-aggressive" commentator - the most biased of them all and his whimsical attempts at poetry are cringe worthy.

I like Jonathon Davis as a commentator but not when Wales are playing. He goes over the top when its Wales which can be annoying but in neutral matches, his insights are quite good.

Brian Moore is one that I really hated at first but now seriously enjoy his commentary, calls it exactly how he sees it and doesn't hold back. He comes out with some proper gems as well.

Eddie Buttler really annoys me, he is simply more interested in his own voice.

That Scottish commentator (don't know his name) is really poor, obviously knows nothing about rugby and even gets the basics wrong such as which player has the ball.

As an Irishman, Woods annoys the bajaysus out of me as well, gobby Clare git.

Heaf wrote:

Nematode wrote:I actually don't mind him too much.

1. Easy drinking game: "oh nooo" "stop it there" "play it on" "numbers"

2. I don't mind some bias commentary, as long as it is biased in both ways. i.e. Brian Moore and Jonathon Davies.

1. You missed "just watch"

And: "It's on, It's on"

Jiffy, Inverdale and Nicol are all pants!

Pundits should be
Gabby Logan as host (coz she's still hot)
English rep - Jason Leonard
Irish Rep - Paul O'connel (when he hangs up his boots)
Welsh Rep - Colin Charvis
Scottish Rep - Chris Paterson
Italian Rep - Stick with Del Fava to be honest?
French Rep - I miss Serge Betson, although you could barely understand his mumbles, so I suppose Thomas is fine. Always found Raffa Ibanez to be pretty professional!

tigertattie wrote:

Heaf wrote:

Nematode wrote:I actually don't mind him too much.

1. Easy drinking game: "oh nooo" "stop it there" "play it on" "numbers"

2. I don't mind some bias commentary, as long as it is biased in both ways. i.e. Brian Moore and Jonathon Davies.

1. You missed "just watch"

And: "It's on, It's on"

Jiffy, Inverdale and Nicol are all pants!

Pundits should be
Gabby Logan as host (coz she's still hot)
English rep - Jason Leonard
Irish Rep - Paul O'connel (when he hangs up his boots)
Welsh Rep - Colin Charvis
Scottish Rep - Chris Paterson
Italian Rep - Stick with Del Fava to be honest?
French Rep - I miss Serge Betson, although you could barely understand his mumbles, so I suppose Thomas is fine. Always found Raffa Ibanez to be pretty professional!

Ibanez is sadly contracted to France2 and he really is the best analyst I have seen.

Out of the pundits this year, Carlo Del Fava seems to have a real understanding of whats happening and isn't too biased. Even when Italy where 5-3 up he didn't sound excited when they went to him for his thoughts.

JDizzle wrote:Phillip Matthews is the worst for me. His Irish bias is easily as bad as Jiffy's. I remember him praising BOD for 'great leadership' at Cardiff for stepping in at 9 and slicing a box kick 5 yards into touch. Terrible.

seconded every thing he says has an Irish slant on it, I really really dislike him commentating,

I quite like Brian Moore and Guscott,

Woodward is good but views everything through the prism of his 2003 heydey

Nachos Jones wrote:I like Jonathon Davis as a commentator but not when Wales are playing. He goes over the top when its Wales which can be annoying but in neutral matches, his insights are quite good.

Brian Moore is one that I really hated at first but now seriously enjoy his commentary, calls it exactly how he sees it and doesn't hold back. He comes out with some proper gems as well.

Eddie Buttler really annoys me, he is simply more interested in his own voice.

That Scottish commentator (don't know his name) is really poor, obviously knows nothing about rugby and even gets the basics wrong such as which player has the ball.

As an Irishman, Woods annoys the bajaysus out of me as well, gobby Clare git.

I can't stand Brian Moore since his outspoken attitude of our exit in the last RWC. Speaking in such a condescending tone about what we should and should not have done to adapt to Bryce Lawrence.

I would have loved to sit him down across a bar table within reach of me and asked him how he would adapt to a referees interpretation that every line break after a pass was called forward and how he would have adapted to a referee who summarily dismissed JohnSmit and Victor Matfield with a mere wave of the hand when they tried to talk to him.

Plonker.

Moore always backs the refs, because he trained to be one. Until he tells them they're wrong and he'd have done it differently. So Brian kinda has a hairy leg in both camps and it's a grand place to be when you want to sit on a fence.