Pundits.

[TopDeck113]

Agree with everything that has been said about Peter Jones.  Outstanding broadcaster and his report from Hillsborough is one of those rare moments when a person associated with sport manages to transcend those confines, convey a moment in time and touch his listener in a way that only the greats of the medium can. 

Unfortunately - and I said this when Richie Benaud passed on - the generation of broadcasters who reported what they saw with skilled use of the language is all but gone and in their place are those skilled only in hyperbole and self-opinion designed to court controversy.  Then they paired with the ex-pro who for the most part is skilled only in mangling the English language in an attempt to arse-lick or utter meaningless cliche.

There are, thankfully, a few exceptions.  I rate Chris Waddle, Danny Mills and Lee Dixon: each is articulate and generally say it as it is.  I also don't mind Steve Claridge, although can also appreciate why others don't. 

[aev]

What makes it all the more strange is that other sports the punditry is so much better - cricket and rugby are 2 obvious examples where the BBC, BT and Sky do a fantastic job. I have no idea why football punditry is so sycophantic.

[dave.woodhall]

Too many broadcasters have forgotten what one master of their craft - it could have been Harry Carpenter - said; "Nobody watches an event to hear the commentator."

[TopDeck113]

What makes it all the more strange is that into other sports the punditry is so much better - cricket and rugby are 2 obvious examples where the BBC, BT and Sky do a fantastic job. I have no idea why football punditry is so sycophantic.

Although I feel that cricket has started down that slippery slope, with Phil Tufnell taking the role of Chief Court Jester and Graeme Swann is still too close to some in the England set-up.

[aev]

What makes it all the more strange is that into other sports the punditry is so much better - cricket and rugby are 2 obvious examples where the BBC, BT and Sky do a fantastic job. I have no idea why football punditry is so sycophantic.

Although I feel that cricket has started down that slippery slope, with Phil Tufnell taking the role of Chief Court Jester and Graeme Swann is still too close to some in the England set-up.

I think both of them are willing to be critical of what they see in front of them.

Swann (for example) was for a good while stating that Cook should stop playing one day cricket.

[garyshawsknee]

Too many broadcasters have forgotten what one master of their craft - it could have been Harry Carpenter - said; "Nobody watches an event to hear the commentator."

Yeah, the excellent Martin Kelner writes about this, his says most commentators and co commentators talk far too much and love the sound of their own voices.

[rob_bridge]

What makes it all the more strange is that into other sports the punditry is so much better - cricket and rugby are 2 obvious examples where the BBC, BT and Sky do a fantastic job. I have no idea why football punditry is so sycophantic.

Although I feel that cricket has started down that slippery slope, with Phil Tufnell taking the role of Chief Court Jester and Graeme Swann is still too close to some in the England set-up.

I think the cricket ones on the radio are really good. Commentators and summarisers - they have a lot of airtime to fill as well.

[Chris Jameson]

There are some superb cricket writers and journalists too.

[PaulWinch again]

Yep cricket and to a lesser extent rugby have some excellent pundits, but most football pundits are an utter embarrassment.

[bobdylan]

One thing Merse got right the other day was saying you don't sell a £32.5m striker and replace him with a £6m Championship striker, you need to get a £12-15m striker in.  Bit like selling Milner for £26m and replacing him with £6-8m players like Makoun and Ireland or selling Young and Downing for £37m and replacing them with 1 sub £10m player in N'Zog.  I know Lerner didn't pocket the Benteke cash and we brought some other players in but more needed to go on a centre forward.  It's like the M'ON days when we only spent £3m on strikers yet many more times that on defenders/midfielders.

[Sexual Ealing]

One thing Merse got right the other day was saying you don't sell a £32.5m striker and replace him with a £6m Championship striker, you need to get a £12-15m striker in.  Bit like selling Milner for £26m and replacing him with £6-8m players like Makoun and Ireland or selling Young and Downing for £37m and replacing them with 1 sub £10m player in N'Zog.  I know Lerner didn't pocket the Benteke cash and we brought some other players in but more needed to go on a centre forward.  It's like the M'ON days when we only spent £3m on strikers yet many more times that on defenders/midfielders.

I think I broadly agree with that. I've given up doing fantasy football now because every year I'd build a team from the goalkeeper up and then only have £10m left for two strikers. I was really shit at fantasy football.

[hipkiss92]

What makes it all the more strange is that into other sports the punditry is so much better - cricket and rugby are 2 obvious examples where the BBC, BT and Sky do a fantastic job. I have no idea why football punditry is so sycophantic.

Although I feel that cricket has started down that slippery slope, with Phil Tufnell taking the role of Chief Court Jester and Graeme Swann is still too close to some in the England set-up.

I think the cricket ones on the radio are really good. Commentators and summarisers - they have a lot of airtime to fill as well.

Is it possible that a lot of cricketers / rugby players will have come through private schools, and many will have actually gone to University as well, whereas footballers are more likely to leave school at 16. Does this make it more likely that the average cricketer or rugby player would be more eloquent in getting across an analysis than a footballer?

[aev]

I was listening to 5 live this evening as I thought there may have been an interview with kmac.

The first half hour was taken up talking about man Utd and Paul Scholes, the second half hour Chelsea and Klopp. We were then shoehorned into the last 5 minutes or so, whereby Trevor Sinclair suggested we deserved to be relegated as we hadn't given Sherwood enough time. There was a fair bit of talk about how he didn't get the players he wanted (despite most of them not appearing to want to join us). There was no mention of him taking repsonsibility for the buys (which he did at the time), or the constant chopping and changing, the dire football, the pitiful points haul etc etc.

Considering we pay for this service I think it was pretty disgraceful to be honest. It is so lazy, sycophantic and self serving. They simply don't want to upset their mates.

[Chris Jameson]

I love the fact that they seem to think if he'd got Lennon, Townsend, Cambiado and Adebayor then everything would be fine. Of course it would. I'm glad we were spurred (geddit?) the sight of Lennon running like a girl in a Villa shirt.*




*not sexist

[rob_bridge]

I heard the 5live - Sinclair was making my piss boil. Tim this Tim that - they haven/t replaced him, should have had more time, only 10 games.

By their rationale Sherwood will be a shoo in the next time a Premier job becomes available outside the Top 6. In fact Martinez, Koeman, Howe, Hughes must all be crapping their pants now such a talent is back on the market.

Fuckwit lazy punditry.