What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Paul Kent

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,957
Nrl360 three times a week has to go or mix up,the presenters. Kent three times drivel is tooooo much.
 

Rhino_NQ

Immortal
Messages
33,046
actually been able to watch 360 the last few times, i love when they do the fast topics and there is never a time he doesn't go atleast 15 seconds past the buzzer and refuses to let ikin get a word in. Just has to have the final say and loves his own opinions
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,410
Am I imagining things ,but Kent sounds to me to be punch drunk.Mumbling at times,talking through his nostrils.

The charisma of a sea slug.
 
Messages
14,509
Kent flares up and can have seven separate ideas rants opinions in the one sentence, then stops and asks his co-panellists if they're gonna let him finish.

Seasoned hack.
 

Fufu Andronez

First Grade
Messages
8,464
hes much more bearable on Sunday Triple M then he is on TV. Almost like he feels he needs to be extra negative on TV
 
Messages
14,034
hes much more bearable on Sunday Triple M then he is on TV. Almost like he feels he needs to be extra negative on TV

I think it is more a case that his colleague on Triple M wouldn't put up with his shit, and Triple M would have no problem in giving him the boot if he plays up on air.
 

PARRA_FAN

Coach
Messages
17,125
Seemed like Kent was wanting to criticise the referees and Archer but couldn't.

I don't know what his blow up with Tallis would've been the other day but Im guessing it could've been either Bennett or the Broncos.
 

Usain Bolt

Bench
Messages
3,729
Paul Kent blowing up about JT not showing up in Sydney for the captains photograph, when it was suggested JT had to catch 2 flights to get there he said "well Matt Moylan had to drive all the way from out west with the sun shining in his face the whole way" lol
 

johnny plath

Juniors
Messages
385
Paul Kent blowing up about JT not showing up in Sydney for the captains photograph, when it was suggested JT had to catch 2 flights to get there he said "well Matt Moylan had to drive all the way from out west with the sun shining in his face the whole way" lol
Think it was tongue in cheek about Moylan and f**k oath Thurston should have been there. ..it's not that hard as a one off to promote the finals
 

Mr Angry

Not a Referee
Messages
51,794
He is not a VFL jurno, I reserve my dislike for them, or VFL jurnos pretending to be League fans, they are the pits.

Paul Kent is a Rugby League man, sure he critiques players and administrators, it is his job, and like I said I do not always agree, but at least he is talking league.

Are you saying to prefer that big nose VFL dude on the ABC?

DUI Bec?

Kent is not so bad.
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...ing-sydney-swans/story-e6frexnr-1226486173054

NRL a distant second to the soaring Sydney Swans
  • Paul Kent
  • The Daily Telegraph
  • October 02, 2012 12:00AM

I HAVE watched the Swans live only four times, but any time soon I expect my life membership to arrive in the mail.

The Swans, it seems, can't afford to do without me.

The first time I watched was 1996, a preliminary final at the SCG which most of you will remember was the night Tony Lockett kicked that after-the-siren behind to steer the Swans into their first grand final since moving to Sydney.

It is still regarded as one of the greatest wins in the club's history.

I didn't go to the grand final the following week, expenses being what they were, and they lost.

The second time was in 2005, when confidence was everywhere that their time was now and so I was there to see them beat West Coast by four in the Grand Final.

Up to then it was the club's greatest win.

The third was 11 days ago, another preliminary final, when the boss heard of my once-a-decade good fortune visited upon them and absolutely insisted I go to the Collingwood final, which they naturally won.

The fourth was Saturday, against raging favourites Hawthorn, when what else could they do but keep the streak alive and win only their second grand final.

As good sporting streaks go, I'd prefer it to be the Melbourne Cup, but so long as they don't start rubbing me for luck before games then being the Swans' talisman isn't all bad news.

For one, Saturday's AFL Grand Final was one of the great contests seen on a football field, an absolute pleasure to watch.

It was a clear points winner over Sunday's NRL decider.

The NRL has serious problems in its game, which it took the Swans victory over Hawthorn to highlight.

The Swans looked gone at the end of the first quarter.

They played nervously the entire first 30 minutes and stayed in the game through a combination of dogged defence and poor accuracy from the Hawks, until Hawthorn kicked clear with three late goals to lead 4-5 (29) to 1-4 (10).

Then came quarter-time, and something special.

Raising their commitment to defence -- nothing but an effort play -- the Swans played their way back into the game by attacking when Hawthorn had the ball.

They went after the Hawks, and their commitment changed the game.

The Bulldogs tackled just as gamely in the NRL, but the rules are such now that once the momentum starts to swing against a team it is like batting back an avalanche with a tennis racquet.

Craig Bellamy acknowledged as much after the game, saying Canterbury used up so much juice during that period it dulled their attack when possession eventually turned their way.

The NRL's concern should be, though, that the Dogs did everything they could have been asked to do but got no reward for their effort.

Once a team establishes dominance under current NRL rules, they win the game.

Because the opposition can't get a crack with the ball, it is virtually impossible to fight your way back into the game.

In past days, defending teams could win the ball against the feed in a scrum, or steal it from a loose carry, or rake it back in the play-the-ball to even the share of possession.

They're either discouraged or illegal under modern rules.

Not so in the AFL, where turnovers are many, and the game benefits because of it.

Saturday's Grand Final ebbed and flowed, rising with the efforts of the players, until the bravery of the Swans won through.

The Bulldogs got no reward for their bravery. They had no option but to soak up tackle after tackle, and no opportunity to take back the ball and fight their way back.

When a team is near perfect, the game is over. And as the weekend proved, so is the spectacle.

Throughout this whole NRL finals series, an anticlimactic series despite the applause for teams one and two winning through to the decider, not a single team fought its way back to win once they lost the early grind.

NRL grand finals were always famous for two teams punching themselves to a standstill, the bravest left standing.

Now it is about completions.

The AFL is where it's at now.
 

Bronco18

Juniors
Messages
1,071
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...ing-sydney-swans/story-e6frexnr-1226486173054

NRL a distant second to the soaring Sydney Swans
  • Paul Kent
  • The Daily Telegraph
  • October 02, 2012 12:00AM

I HAVE watched the Swans live only four times, but any time soon I expect my life membership to arrive in the mail.

The Swans, it seems, can't afford to do without me.

The first time I watched was 1996, a preliminary final at the SCG which most of you will remember was the night Tony Lockett kicked that after-the-siren behind to steer the Swans into their first grand final since moving to Sydney.

It is still regarded as one of the greatest wins in the club's history.

I didn't go to the grand final the following week, expenses being what they were, and they lost.

The second time was in 2005, when confidence was everywhere that their time was now and so I was there to see them beat West Coast by four in the Grand Final.

Up to then it was the club's greatest win.

The third was 11 days ago, another preliminary final, when the boss heard of my once-a-decade good fortune visited upon them and absolutely insisted I go to the Collingwood final, which they naturally won.

The fourth was Saturday, against raging favourites Hawthorn, when what else could they do but keep the streak alive and win only their second grand final.

As good sporting streaks go, I'd prefer it to be the Melbourne Cup, but so long as they don't start rubbing me for luck before games then being the Swans' talisman isn't all bad news.

For one, Saturday's AFL Grand Final was one of the great contests seen on a football field, an absolute pleasure to watch.

It was a clear points winner over Sunday's NRL decider.

The NRL has serious problems in its game, which it took the Swans victory over Hawthorn to highlight.

The Swans looked gone at the end of the first quarter.

They played nervously the entire first 30 minutes and stayed in the game through a combination of dogged defence and poor accuracy from the Hawks, until Hawthorn kicked clear with three late goals to lead 4-5 (29) to 1-4 (10).

Then came quarter-time, and something special.

Raising their commitment to defence -- nothing but an effort play -- the Swans played their way back into the game by attacking when Hawthorn had the ball.

They went after the Hawks, and their commitment changed the game.

The Bulldogs tackled just as gamely in the NRL, but the rules are such now that once the momentum starts to swing against a team it is like batting back an avalanche with a tennis racquet.

Craig Bellamy acknowledged as much after the game, saying Canterbury used up so much juice during that period it dulled their attack when possession eventually turned their way.

The NRL's concern should be, though, that the Dogs did everything they could have been asked to do but got no reward for their effort.

Once a team establishes dominance under current NRL rules, they win the game.

Because the opposition can't get a crack with the ball, it is virtually impossible to fight your way back into the game.

In past days, defending teams could win the ball against the feed in a scrum, or steal it from a loose carry, or rake it back in the play-the-ball to even the share of possession.

They're either discouraged or illegal under modern rules.

Not so in the AFL, where turnovers are many, and the game benefits because of it.

Saturday's Grand Final ebbed and flowed, rising with the efforts of the players, until the bravery of the Swans won through.

The Bulldogs got no reward for their bravery. They had no option but to soak up tackle after tackle, and no opportunity to take back the ball and fight their way back.

When a team is near perfect, the game is over. And as the weekend proved, so is the spectacle.

Throughout this whole NRL finals series, an anticlimactic series despite the applause for teams one and two winning through to the decider, not a single team fought its way back to win once they lost the early grind.

NRL grand finals were always famous for two teams punching themselves to a standstill, the bravest left standing.

Now it is about completions.

The AFL is where it's at now.

God forbid a sports journalist watches two codes of football!

It sounds like he's actually expressing concerns regarding rugby league that would not look out of place in a LU thread: wrestle, lack of contests, safe possession based (and thus unattractive football).

You're salty because he's saying as a contest the AFL game was better. If I were a neutral fan who hadn't grown up on League I might be inclined to agree (would help if I understood AFL). He's been on the Back Page and NRL 360 since talking up what a cracking advertisement games like the 2015 Grand Final have been to Rugby League... maybe he's being objective in this regard.
 
Top