Media and punditry

[kurtsimonw]

5 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I’ve just flicked on to ‘Saturday Social’ on sky sports for the second time since it’s replaced Soccer AM.

Now I get it’s not really aimed at me, it’s obviously meant to be for kids but still, it’s a total joke. The first time I put it on some months back they were ranking goalkeepers in the PL and didn’t even have Martinez on the board. Now this morning they’re ranking young English players and apparently after one appearance Mainoo (United) is world class. What a joke of a show.

Yeah, all these YouTube pundits think Martinez is massively overrated.

They'll spout stats for the likes of Onana, ignoring that Emi over the last 18 months is statistically brilliant.

[Follyfoot]

1 hour ago, Xela said:

Brain dead content aimed at the ThickTok generation. 

Nuke it all!

I am never going on it again. I totally believed that if you put a jelly baby in a tray of water with some salt in the fridge overnight, it would grow into a massive jelly baby and even had a bet with my sons for £5 each this would be the case. Well don’t waste your time it doesn’t bloody work

[Zatman]

I can't attach a photo as file is too large but BBC are reporting its 2-2 when Liverpool are losing 3-2

[Brumstopdogs]

 

[bobzy]

I know people don't love Richards, but I quite enjoyed "What in the Game Of Thrones is going on here?" 

[Mark Albrighton]

Jonathan Pearce on Match of the Day commentating on Chelsea v Brighton.

Chelsea are not given a penalty. VAR intervenes and then they are given a penalty.

Jonathan Pearce laments that because the referee has changed his mind, VAR is “ruining the game.”

Ok, fair enough Mr Pearce. Your position on the matter is clear. 

Later, Brighton are given a penalty by the referee for a suspected handball.

On seeing a replay, a stunned Pearce exclaims “IT’S HIT HIS FACE! THIS HAS TO BE REVIEWED!!!”

Right, ok. Thanks Jon.

[StewieGriffin]

38 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

Jonathan Pearce on Match of the Day commentating on Chelsea v Brighton.

Chelsea are not given a penalty. VAR intervenes and then they are given a penalty.

Jonathan Pearce laments that because the referee has changed his mind, VAR is “ruining the game.”

Ok, fair enough Mr Pearce. Your position on the matter is clear. 

Later, Brighton are given a penalty by the referee for a suspected handball.

On seeing a replay, a stunned Pearce exclaims “IT’S HIT HIS FACE! THIS HAS TO BE REVIEWED!!!”

Right, ok. Thanks Jon.

You'd think a guy who commentated on Robot Wars would be all for technology.

Guy is everything a commentator shouldn't be

[Mantis]

58 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

Jonathan Pearce on Match of the Day commentating on Chelsea v Brighton.

Chelsea are not given a penalty. VAR intervenes and then they are given a penalty.

Jonathan Pearce laments that because the referee has changed his mind, VAR is “ruining the game.”

Ok, fair enough Mr Pearce. Your position on the matter is clear. 

Later, Brighton are given a penalty by the referee for a suspected handball.

On seeing a replay, a stunned Pearce exclaims “IT’S HIT HIS FACE! THIS HAS TO BE REVIEWED!!!”

Right, ok. Thanks Jon.

I mean, VAR is indeed ruining the game but you're right that this is ridiculous.

Then again, what did you expect from the guy who got flummoxed by goal line technology?

 

[AvfcRigo82]

2 hours ago, StewieGriffin said:

You'd think a guy who commentated on Robot Wars would be all for technology.

Guy is everything a commentator shouldn't be

I used to think he was a decent commentator years ago, but over the last few years he's turned quite shit and boring.

[Mark Albrighton]

8 hours ago, Mantis said:

I mean, VAR is indeed ruining the game but you're right that this is ridiculous.

On some level I can understand what he’s saying, one incident is a clear mistake and the other is a subjective decision at best.

At the root of what he’s saying, I don’t entirely disagree and I’m sure others feel similar.

But in the admittedly edited highlights of the game he essentially goes from “Urgh technology, the blight of the beautiful game” to “The only thing that can save us from this disastrous decision is some sort of technological intervention!”.

Seemingly without any hint of being aware of the contradiction, any nuance.

It’s completely necessary. It’s utter shit. 

[maqroll]

19 hours ago, bobzy said:

I know people don't love Richards, but I quite enjoyed "What in the Game Of Thrones is going on here?" 

His regular explosions of knee-slapping laughter are annoying, but when he's making a serious point, I like him. 

But that was a good line, delivered without his customary explosions. 

[maqroll]

The Guardian Football pod is discussing the Burnley-Shef Utd match before ours 

[Mark Albrighton]

5 minutes ago, maqroll said:

The Guardian Football pod is discussing the Burnley-Shef Utd match before ours 

I’m conscious we have discussed something not too dissimilar in On Topic so may go over old ground, but is it that surprising that game is being discussed before ours?

That game was a relegation six pointer, it ended in a thrashing and it now looks possible it’s a result that acts as the final straw for the first managerial change of the season.

Our game is more important to us (and Bournemouth) but for a neutral listener, I don’t think it would have registered as a particularly significant game over the weekend.

[Xela]

18 hours ago, Mark Albrighton said:

Jonathan Pearce

Let me stop you there. The commentary equivalent of a dripping knob. 

[Xela]

1 hour ago, maqroll said:

The Guardian Football pod is discussing the Burnley-Shef Utd match before ours 

left wing commies. 

[useless]

I don't understand why they show replays of VAR decsions in highlights that are only two or three minutes in length, one of our games recently and the replay of a decision that went to VAR took up thirty seconds of the whole clip, they don't need to show the referee going to look at the screen, can just show the incident and the result of the officials' decision.

[oishiiniku_uk]

On 03/12/2023 at 23:30, Mark Albrighton said:

Jonathan Pearce on Match of the Day commentating on Chelsea v Brighton.

Chelsea are not given a penalty. VAR intervenes and then they are given a penalty.

Jonathan Pearce laments that because the referee has changed his mind, VAR is “ruining the game.”

Ok, fair enough Mr Pearce. Your position on the matter is clear. 

Later, Brighton are given a penalty by the referee for a suspected handball.

On seeing a replay, a stunned Pearce exclaims “IT’S HIT HIS FACE! THIS HAS TO BE REVIEWED!!!”

Right, ok. Thanks Jon.

Only just seen MOTD 2, but I thought the same - totally hypocritical!
Also, Jenas complaining afterwards that the VAR was unduly influencing the ref by telling him to specifically look at the feet for contact: Surely that's what the technology is FOR - showing the referee something they may have missed in real-time. Personally I think that Milner did take out Mudryk's ankles as well as shoving him so it should be a penalty, regardless of whether Steele was likely to get to the ball first or not. I know that officiating is in a bad way, but all the discussion now seems to start from the perspective of 'VAR is 100% bad for the game - prove me wrong'. I don't think it's helping the situation.

[Davkaus]

If only Sky's tame pundits had the balls to say this on TV instead of storing their balls by the door outside the commentary box and pretending that Man City's trophies are legitimate. 

 

[JPJCB]

15 hours ago, oishiiniku_uk said:

Only just seen MOTD 2, but I thought the same - totally hypocritical!
Also, Jenas complaining afterwards that the VAR was unduly influencing the ref by telling him to specifically look at the feet for contact: Surely that's what the technology is FOR - showing the referee something they may have missed in real-time. Personally I think that Milner did take out Mudryk's ankles as well as shoving him so it should be a penalty, regardless of whether Steele was likely to get to the ball first or not. I know that officiating is in a bad way, but all the discussion now seems to start from the perspective of 'VAR is 100% bad for the game - prove me wrong'. I don't think it's helping the situation.

Yeah this whole section was bizarre. They were also blasting VAR for having the temerity to show the clip in slow motion. Shock horror

[Oaks]

I can remember years ago a rare Tom Ross win while co coming a game with Jonathan Pearce when Pearce was the london commentator Ross the birmingham representative. Pearce wanted Townsend sent off for absolutely nothing, there was a back and forth between Pearce and Ross when Ross said something along the lines of "i dont say things for saying things sake i dont need to overexaggerate everything i say what i see" it clearly pissed off Pearce for the rest of the commentary. Ive always remembered it for some reason.