Go Down
-
Anyone who thinks they could offer the same insight as a former player should spend a game sitting next to one.
I'd love to. I've done it with rugby (I watched an england game with, amongst others, John Bentley who played for England and the lions) and I found it very interesting to hear his thoughts but I also noticed a few things he hadn't.
Just to add to clarify, I don't think I could offer the same insight, but I do think i could offer equally valuable insight. -
I think neville and now carragher give a better insight due to the fact they have only been out of the game for a short time and can still relate to how the games is played now , whereas the likes of hansen,lineker etc played years ago when the game was different in so many ways
-
My two year old could give more insight than the likes of Alan Shear and Lawrenson combined
-
My two year old could give more insight than the likes of Alan Shear and Lawrenson combined
Maybe not Lawrenson, but in the case of Shearer I have seen him give some good analysis on MOTD. As one example, he looked and Joe Allen for Liverpool last season and commented on his passing being too sideways and highlighting the forward options he was ignoring in certain situation. Not necessarily mind blowing, but better than he's often accused of.
Problem being, 9 time out of 10 it's the usual bland cliched nonsense that tells you nothing you didn't know from watching the game yourself.
To me it's laziness as opposed to lack of knowledge and the blame for that lies with the producers for letting them get away with it. -
I don't have Sky so rarely hear Neville but when I have done I think he is very good. The insight from intelligent former players is wonderful and they see loads of things that I don't. Obviously 14 cameras helps but they have to know what they are looking for in the first place. As paul e says above, certain players are interested in tactics and formations, others just want to play and will blatantly never be coaches or analysts.
At a Villa game I am usually in the Holte Upper or behind the goal in an away end with poor visibility of the whole pitch so am unable to state much more than the bleeding obvious. I was in the upper tier at Wembley last week with decent seats and it was incredible how much more insight you can garner from being less passionately involved and with a sightline of the whole pitch (and not just the section of play the cameras show). My newly acquired insight allowed me to understand that England were shit and only Gerrard looked comfortable on the ball. -
Id like him as Lamberts right hand man
excellent pundit
-
Id like him as Lamberts right hand man
excellent pundit
I'll bet we wouldn't start the first 10 minutes of the match by pitty patting the ball around amongst our back four before passing it back to Guzan to launch upfield everytime. We would be on the front foot having a go at the opposition and putting them under pressure especially at home. The way we start it seems that it's always us under pressure. -
One thing I will say about MOTD is that Neville will have had the Sunday and/or Monday to go through the tapes. Not a luxury the likes of Shearer has so the analysis is never going to be as in-depth. That's not to say they could still do a better job in the time they have.
I remember being pretty grateful for MOTD coming back having seen ITV's failed equivalent. -
I got stick in the pub for saying it last season but Neville is the best pundit around.
No I agree, I've said it and my mates a nose and he loves him, It's wierd because I really disliked him as a player but he is excellent -
What Phil does is explain a little better the tactics and changes you say in the game. And he does it at half time or straight afterwards, not read the match report like Shearer seems to do. MOTD tend to just talk over the top describing what you can see on the screen (or the bleeding obvious like my late great aunt would say). I think MOTD misses a chance to have an in depth piece each week on a rule (say the offside rule), or a player role/official role which would help youngsters learn about the game rather than hearing just about the bad decisions and which manager got sacked
-
He is an articulate man who has spent his whole life in the game playing at the highest level, that's 7 days a week totally immersed in football, I think it is arrogant to assume that we are able to offer anything like the same insight.
I'd fancy most of us to offer more insight than the likes of Alan Shearer and Mark Lawrenson and they've also "spent their whole life in the game playing at the highest level, 7 days a week totally immersed in football".
I don't think it's much to do with the fact that he's a former player, just that he's a good pundit.
But he would not be such a good pundit without having played the game at the level he has for so long. -
What a lot of older, knowledgable viewers will see as 'stating the bleeding obvious' might actually be useful to younger viewers or people who don't know the game so well but are interested in learning more. Getting the balance right is the trick.
-
I think Gary Neville is very good,
but you cant compare him to those on MOTD as they get very little time a few minutes at most, whereas Neville gets a programme to himself as well as big shifts before and after a game
not that I think MOTD pundits are any good, I just don't take much notice of them to be fair, so they don't really bother me -
Pat Nevin does some good stuff on the BBC website occasionally. I'm surprised he's not used more often as a pundit.
-
Pat Nevin does some good stuff on the BBC website occasionally. I'm surprised he's not used more often as a pundit.
I really like Pat Nevin.
I thought this was good: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24857012 (particularly interesting given the goals we conceded against City the other week)