Gerard Whateley - Best in the business?

[Dan Moody]

I don't find him all that bright, maybe he has this intelligent image just because he's a skinny bald guy who pronounces words properly and sits next to Robbo. A lot of football and football media is myth, Whatley's intelligence is probably one of them.

well summed up.
he is very articulate and has a penchant for the rhetoric, which, when you actually break down what he says makes very little sense at all.
i think he regards himself as an intellectual and judging by his commentary on afl, cricket and even getting sent over to commentate the superbowl by hutchy, displays his inflated sense of importance.
as much as bruce has become a caricature of himself these days, his theatrics at least sound a tad genuine unlike whateley's attempts at injecting excitement into a game.

 

[richoatthedisco]

Whateley's a ****wit, and an AFL shill. Biased, pretentious, self-important hack.

 

[PonsfordMagpie]

Whateley was at his best in 2015 when he interviewed Hird on AFL 360 after WADA announced they would take the Essendon supplements case to CAS. He asked the difficult questions and it was compelling viewing.

He started to lose my respect when he was carrying on about the "state of the game" non-stop last year. I knew then he was an AFL synchophant and hearing his encounter with Joffa the other day on the radio, he was a condescending and pretentious w***er.

 

[tugga]

He has been scathing of the goal review system at least.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Have to say, the field is rather thin on any talent whatsoever....A win by default.

 

[Ishikawa]

Have to say, the field is rather thin on any talent whatsoever....A win by default.

Whateley is a great talent, but is now facing backlash because he people are overexposed to him.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Whateley is a great talent, but is now facing backlash because he people are overexposed to him.

Whateley likes the sound of his own voice....That's about the sum of it.

 

[AM]

He has been scathing of the goal review system at least.

I'd say obsessive. Getting to the point of being annoying.

 

[the avoca drover]

Pompous git.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Whateley likes the sound of his own voice....That's about the sum of it.

And he doesn’t have a classic voice.
It’s a bit whiney by sound.
So that hurts him a bit.

Ultimately too sanctimonious in my view. Grates after a while.

 

[david addison]

What business? In the midst of the recent 'umpire abuse' issue, he claimed that the abuse wouldn't necessarily subside if the umpiring improved. He pointed to studies in the US (basketball I think) that prove there's no correlation. And to that I have 3 things to say:
1. Bulls**t.
2. Stop copying everything they do in the States. It makes us look pathetic.
3. This isn't basketball, it's aussie rules. Fix the god damned umpiring. Umpire to the rule book and pay incorrect disposal. Simple. No need for think tanks or million dollar studies. Just go to a game. You'll hear pretty quickly the aspects of umpiring the public have a problem with. Sit in the outer and take notes. If you hear somebody say 'that was holding the ball you ******* stupid **** ******* ****** ****** blow the ******* whistle,' that means the public has a problem with holding the ball. If somebody says 'what the **** is wrong with you you god damned ******* moronic piece of ******* **** what do you mean he was in the protected zone **** you,' well that means the public are incensed with the pedantic protected zone nonsense and the resultant 50 metre penalties, and you should probably do something about it. If you hear 'Steve Hocking is a ******** ******* **** sucking ******* ******* and he can stick his new rules because they're a colossal failure and he's strangely silent now, along with his cheerleaders', that means you should repeal his new rules and replace him with somebody who has a clue. If you simplify the rules, the umpire bashing would indeed stop, regardless of what NBA studies show. Do what Clarkson & Buckley suggest, which is get rid of prior opportunity. If a player gets caught at any time and doesn't dispose correctly, too bad for him. Players will throw it onto the boot, clearing congestion, instead of giving hospital handballs. Takes all the grey out of it. No more confusion. Is Steve listening? And as for umpires bouncing the ball.... who the hell are we to expect an umpire to bounce an oval shaped ball straight up? It's near impossible. It could go anywhere and should go anywhere because that's the nature of the game. The more the AFL try to perfect umpiring, the more they complicate it. It's their own fault umpire bashing reached a flashpoint and they should own it.

 

[richoatthedisco]

What business? In the midst of the recent 'umpire abuse' issue, he claimed that the abuse wouldn't necessarily subside if the umpiring improved. He pointed to studies in the US (basketball I think) that prove there's no correlation. And to that I have 3 things to say:
1. Bulls**t.
2. Stop copying everything they do in the States. It makes us look pathetic.
3. This isn't basketball, it's aussie rules. Fix the god damned umpiring. Umpire to the rule book and pay incorrect disposal. Simple. No need for think tanks or million dollar studies. Just go to a game. You'll hear pretty quickly the aspects of umpiring the public have a problem with. Sit in the outer and take notes. If you hear somebody say 'that was holding the ball you ******* stupid **** ******* ****** ****** blow the ******* whistle,' that means the public has a problem with holding the ball. If somebody says 'what the **** is wrong with you you god damned ******* moronic piece of ******* **** what do you mean he was in the protected zone **** you,' well that means the public are incensed with the pedantic protected zone nonsense and the resultant 50 metre penalties, and you should probably do something about it. If you hear 'Steve Hocking is a ******** ******* **** sucking ******* ******* and he can stick his new rules because they're a colossal failure and he's strangely silent now, along with his cheerleaders', that means you should repeal his new rules and replace him with somebody who has a clue. If you simplify the rules, the umpire bashing would indeed stop, regardless of what NBA studies show. Do what Clarkson & Buckley suggest, which is get rid of prior opportunity. If a player gets caught at any time and doesn't dispose correctly, too bad for him. Players will throw it onto the boot, clearing congestion, instead of giving hospital handballs. Takes all the grey out of it. No more confusion. Is Steve listening? And as for umpires bouncing the ball.... who the hell are we to expect an umpire to bounce an oval shaped ball straight up? It's near impossible. It could go anywhere and should go anywhere because that's the nature of the game. The more the AFL try to perfect umpiring, the more they complicate it. It's their own fault umpire bashing reached a flashpoint and they should own it.

A-****ing-men.

 

[Baudolino]

If you simplify the rules, the umpire bashing would indeed stop, regardless of what NBA studies show.

No it wouldn't. People would just find other reasons to complain about the umpiring.

Literally every supporter base thinks there's a conspiracy against their club. Fans view umpiring decisions through an insanely biased filter which naturally predisposes them to perceive some kind of unfairness in that decision-making. You can't overcome that level of deep-seated tribalism and irrationality just by "simplifying the rules".

 

[Private Hudson]

No it wouldn't. People would just find other reasons to complain about the umpiring.

Literally every supporter base thinks there's a conspiracy against their club. Fans view umpiring decisions through an insanely biased filter which naturally predisposes them to perceive some kind of unfairness in that decision-making. You can't overcome that level of deep-seated tribalism and irrationality just by "simplifying the rules".

Exactly.

 

[Hawks_4478]

What has happened to Whateley? I use to love 360, but now I can hardly make it through an episode. He seems to bring too much bias, pc/ social issues into it instead of just focusing on footy like he use to do. Plus, having Chris Scott on every nearly week doesn’t help his Geelong bias. The main thing that annoys me is that he seems to think he is the judge, jury and executioner on every issue (social,pc, non afl).

 

[Chuckie357]

What has happened to Whateley? I use to love 360, but now I can hardly make it through an episode. He seems to bring too much bias, pc/ social issues into it instead of just focusing on footy like he use to do. Plus, having Chris Scott on every nearly week doesn’t help his Geelong bias. The main thing that annoys me is that he seems to think he is the judge, jury and executioner on every issue (social,pc, non afl).

They should call him Pinohciknow

 

[rumply]

Don't mind him calling games with Huddo, they make a good team & describe onfield action well, certainly preferable to anything 7 or Fox have to offer. & I've been a Crunchtime listener forever, always enjoy that even though he's new to it.

Whateley's problem now is overexposure - SEN most weekday mornings + 360 most evenings is pushing the envelope. He is good at what he does, pontificating aside, but he'd probably be doing himself a favour to scale it back a bit.

 

[Bald]

Whateley's problem now is overexposure - SEN most weekday mornings + 360 most evenings is pushing the envelope. He is good at what he does, pontificating aside, but he'd probably be doing himself a favour to scale it back a bit.

I don't watch 360 every day or turn on SEN every day. Seems to work for me.

 

[rumply]

I don't watch 360 every day or turn on SEN every day. Seems to work for me.

Works for me as well, doesn't mean he isn't overexposed.

 

[HahnPremium]

You just know he hasnt much in his footy arsenal when he continues to search for and then wring dry a footy hobby horse.
The current one being the score review.

 

[Lethality]

I'm listening to him again this morning, he definitely preferences being verbose over making sense.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

I'm listening to him again this morning, he definitely preferences being verbose over making sense.

Absolute shit-dribbler these days.

 

[Registered User]

He's a hypocritical campaigner-head. He said on the Sam, Mike and Don podcast that he takes somewhat of a "stance" against gambling by refusing to have a paid betting segment on his SEN show. What a fa'rk-head. Where does the crunt think big chunks of his MASSIVE salaries come from? He fakn KNOWS full well where.

 

[Dan Moody]

He's a hypocritical campaigner-head. He said on the Sam, Mike and Don podcast that his "stance" against gambling is that he refuses to have a betting segment on his SEN show. What a fa'rk-head. Where does the crunt think his MASSIVE salaries come from? He KNOWS full well where.

Lol, crunt

 

[Redline]

His reputation far outweighs what he delivers on. No one listens to his show. I get why people like him but Hudson has him covered easily as a caller.