McClennan wrote:
How are people measuring Clarke's bias because it all seems like you're projecting your own personal prejudices onto him.
Mainly because he talks from the opposition's (whoever plays Saints) perspective as if he is part of their set up or working for their TV station. It's like when an English commentator is watching England play a team overseas, they talk about the game from an English point of view for the full 80 minutes and what they can do to beat say the Aussies or Kiwis.
Clarke became a fan of our brand of Rugby during our golden years and Wigan's lowly years, I always respected him for that. But he actually turned against us just before Wigan's resurgence in truth - must have been bored of us and wanted a change in guard. In recent years our games against Warrington (in which he became a huge fan of Warrington's brand of rugby and talked completely from a Wire point of view) and in the Grand Finals versus Leeds, (where he did not disguise which side he was pinning his hopes on, and again willed them on) he seemed to develop a disdain for us. In the last season or two, he is not even trying to sound impartial, imo that is unprofessional.
Against Hull it was as if Saints were the team to be knocked down and he was talking on behalf of the nation's hopes that Hull would win. The posters here have been thrown off by the penalty decision saying he was right to disagree with the refs call - which he was, but if you listen to the full 80 he was speaking as a Hull fan for the day.
