You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!
Opinions on the 2 newest sky poker presenters??
I don't know if this stems from my dislike of change but in my opinion the two newest presenters just don't seem to cut it, they seem very out of their depth and it seems they just throw in random jargon they have overheard which is continually used in the wrong context, they both look like nice people and are very professional but as for their poker know-how or there ability to entertain there leaves a lot to be desired, i can't help but wonder if they were given the jobs based on racial equality as opposed to their suitability.. maybe it is just me. Would love to know what other people opinions are.
Comments
Both presenters are fantastic. Jen Mason is really good and on the show all the time.
"jobs based on racial equality as opposed to their suitability"
That's a rediculous statement, they are there on merit nothing else.
Yiannis, used to be a pres on sky years ago, i seen him on his first show back and it was a really good entertaining show. Yiannis also, for a presenter, seems to have a good knowlegde of poker.
And given it is the first time Jen and Yiannis have worked together, they have a good onscreen chemistry, given they've never worked together before.
They are doing a great job, on what is ahard format, 5 hours live. I would say over all, all presenters analysts are really good on sky.
Not sure what it is about Yiannis. He tries so hard but I think it works best if the presenter pretends to know nothing about poker. This worked well for Anna & Sarah and I like Jules, who does the same. Maybe Yiannis would do better if he stopped offering an opinion on everything.
James is an exception because he is really knowledeable and Richard is self depricating.
I will still watch most shows but it has made me wonder about watching so much SKY Poker. I presume that SKY will see the viewing figures & make decisions based on that.
I love all the analysts but would love to see more of Stu Rutter.
If somebody isn't enjoying it don't watch it.
+ 1 to this
I'm going to come down with those suggesting a little time is needed. I remember when Anna started, a couple of years ago, she wasn't entirely comfortable in the studio. In time she relaxed into it and now is excellent on the show (though I'd prefer if nobody told her I said so). I wasn't around at the dawn of time when Richard started but he, James and Sarah have all been doing this for a long time. I wonder how their first few shows would look to us now.
Richard, James, Anna and Sarah are the people we're used to and we've just got to give Jules and Yiannis a bit of time to settle in. I won't be offering my own opinions on them just yet.
However, I will say that the praise being offered to Orford on this thread is really creepy.
That's not what we do here, people!
Of course he's good but we don't need to tell him that.
Jules & Yiannis both had to screen-test for their role. There were two seperate days of screen-tests, & there were 6 or 7 different Presenters "auditioning" on each of those 2 days. I was, as always, the "stooge analyst" for both days.
The standard on both days was incredibly high.
What probably swung things in favour of both of them is they they had both prepped very hard, done their homework, knew the site & site Promotions well, both presented themselves extremely well & showed great enthusiasm.
There is an increasing confusion when criticising others. Because we don't LIKE someone (perfectly reasonable) does not mean they are not good at their job. This is similar to, say, the "too many Bounty Hunters" argument. Not everyone enjoys Bounty Hunters, which is fair enough, but liking or disliking them does not make them bad or good.
The timing of this thread was also, in my personal opinion, quite dreadful & most inappropriate.
Quite what Yiannis must have thought whilst sat in that Studio for 5 hours doing the Show last night defies imagination. It may have been better if it had been started AFTER the Show finished. Even if Yiannis is not your cup of tea, he is a human being, doing his job, just as you are.
Very true - 5 hours of Live TV, with only a 5 minute break every hour, & with a fairly narrow remit, is incredibly hard.
How many different ways of analysing A-K v Q-Q are there? Especially when the Show has been running for over 6 years.
The Presenters are key to the Show, & they have a really tough gig.
Criticism of any of the Channel 861 Presenters & Analysts is fine, but time & place & all that.
All presentors do a great job, even though we all have our own personal favourities this does not mean they are doing a bad job.
Prefer clevage over content but that's just me )
It is bad form to slate the presenter on the forum, where no doubt he could/would have seen DURING his first live show........give a guy a break. I remember Anna's first show and I had similar thoughts about her presenting on the show, didn't like her......now I don't don't know what I was thinking and Sky wouldn't be the same without her. Same goes from Ryan, I thought he appeared nervous.....look at him now, he's a natural and prob the best analyst on the show.
We are all humans beings, with emotions.
It might have been better to have waited until the Show finished, perhaps, as you knew Yiannis would be reading the Forum. People can be incredibly hurtful on forums.
The "racial equality" comment was quite bizarre. Nobody at Ch 861 has ever debated or even discussed the ethnic origin of any of those who appear on Ch 861.
The debate/discussion is totally fine. The 861 Talent are fair game I suppose, though God help us if we responded in kind.
The timing, not so much.......
A grace period of 24 hours would have been considerate before starting the thread.