Ronan Mullen

I mean, it's like, well, we know we're going to have this point of view.

And what we have to do is also represent the other side.

And with Lester, maybe he did do that, but he just made it seem a lot less kind of contrived maybe as it comes across now at times.

Yeah.

And that's what you want.

You want somebody there that facilitates what the people have to say as opposed to, but I mean, this is, we had a text conversation the other night about, you know, analysis and why it can be better or whatever.

Even those studios, there was something simpler about the ones that Michael Lester set in.

And I know that's a weird thing to say, but I do think that the environment made it easier for people to have conversations.

Like I was watching the football last night, not to go off the Michael Lester topic, but Peter Canavan and Emma Fitzmaurice are brilliant, right?

They are really, really good.

And what they were saying was great stuff, but it's just...

it feels so kind of falsely futuristic that the atmosphere in the thing doesn't come through the screen.

And whatever it was about Leicester's day, whether it had something to do with a more simple studio and the lack of constraints that were being put on the analysts.

And maybe it was just because he was a very natural host, but it never felt, it always felt like more atmospheric.

You were always kind of at home as soon as the broadcast started.

But I think there is this kind of idea that's out there that all analysis has to be like extraordinarily accurate and technically correct.

But all I want to know from my pundits, historically, is what they think.

Correct, correct.

So at halftime, if Gerlach Nannas and Turles are...

Cyril Farrell or laterally Dejlo and John Malan.