: Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:23 am  

1....2.....3....4

: Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:54 am  

I would much rather listen to Cullen than Martin Offiah.

During the highlights show on Sunday evening Offiah was awful, he stuttered his way through a 10 minute slot and clearly didn't even know most of the players.

Cullen analysised teams performances and came across quite well, we all know he likes the sound of his own voice but that apart I thought he did well.

: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:26 am  

I mostly enjoy listening to Cullen, as he is entertaining, and knows what he's talking about. Offiah is little more than a boring, droning irritant, seemingly just there for his name. Surely he ought to make an effort to appear up-to-date with SL players etc?

Other than "Look, we've got Offiah on the panel", what does he add? To me, he does nothing more than trot out stock cliches, and give banal answers to full toss questions. And he calls a certain Leeds player "Burrows", which is embarrassing. (Mind you, Cullen's been known to make that rick too).

PS How good has Barrie Mac got at this broadcasting lark? Sharp as a tack, very witty and knowledgeable, closely involved in and clearly in love with the game. More please.

: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:28 am  

I would agree that Cullen is better than Offiah, but that's not difficult is it?

Cullen just comes across a bit "Ron Manager" with his mannerisms and as a result I can't take him seriously.

: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:33 am  

Alphabetti Spaghetti Go! wrote:

...
Cullen just comes across a bit "Ron Manager" with his mannerisms and as a result I can't take him seriously.

As a result of which, when he is analytical, incisive, thoughtful and entertaining, like last night, you miss it.

: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:56 am  

Cecil B wrote:

Was always impressed with Tony Rea's analysis in the same slot last season and Cullen seemed to pick up the baton competently enough.

I'd quite like a bit more time devoted to that sort of analysis rather than the inane drivel spouted by Stevo et al.

What he said

: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:02 am  

And me. I turned over as soon as the reviews had finished.

: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:21 am  

Makes you wonder why Warrington's defence was so bad when he was in charge if it is all so obvious now.

: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:59 am  

What it shows is that top coaches are brilliant man managers - both Rae and Cullen have great technical knowledge but failed as coaches.

You have to be able to get your players to not only believe in your plan but to give them the confidence/respect/belief to be able to carry it out.

Coaching is only part about technique

: Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:52 am  

morning warrior wrote:

Makes you wonder why Warrington's defence was so bad when he was in charge if it is all so obvious now.

It's one thing being able to analyse and highlight problems, but it's another to come up with solutions and have the players implement them. That's probably the difference between a good analyst (Rae or Cullen, for example) and a top coach.