Media and punditry

[BOF]

I take your point. I'd argue that Neville is so good as to be a one-off, but then you could counter by saying he was so hated that for people to take to him at all shows that being a good pundit trumps being a cockend. As for Lawro. I think the only legitimate gripe people in Britain can have is that they are paying his wages through their licence fee, so in a way he more than most should be earning it. Whereas shite like Townsend is at least being paid for through ITV ad revenue. For me Lawro is amusing. Not in the 'he's funny' way but rather in the 'he's so bad and he doesn't know it' way. Even how he dresses and slouches on the couch. I half expect at some point that he'll just go the whole hog and rest his hand down the front of his trousers while inspecting the latest thing he picked out of his ear with his other hand. His Friday predictions are actually pretty good by and large even though we say you should do the opposite to him, that's rarely the right thing to do.

[Zatman]

for me in no order

Giles

Neville

Dixon

McCarthy

Souness

Sadlier

Laudrup when on La Liga

[Shillzz]

He will find fault with anything, If someone had scored a hat-trick in the first half, but had 1 misplace pass.. He would Focus on the Misplace pass.

I wonder if, to an extent, this is just a product of the typical British mentality.

Pretty much all pundits, no matter who they are, seem to find it easier to focus on mistakes and weaknesses, solemly talking about 'the beautiful game'.

Foreign broadcasters and professionals often sound almost poetic in their appraisal of the game, always concentrating on a piece of skill or wizardry.

Ben Arfa's goal for example; the MOTD pundits spent more time talking about Holman's failure to close him down than they did about the actual goal, which was an absolute peach of a shot.

[Jarpie]

Where are Richardson and Neville? I pretty much mostly can get just MOTD1+2 and odd match here and there through the streams.

[GarethRDR]

Though to fair, I sort of tuned out what she was saying so her punditry might not be all that.

[Stevo985]

Where are Richardson and Neville? I pretty much mostly can get just MOTD1+2 and odd match here and there through the streams.

Neville is on Sky. Again his co commentary isn't that good, but his punditry is excellent.

Monday Night Football (when it's on) where he does about an hour on the weekend's games is brilliant TV.

Richardson is on ESPN doing Serie A and Ligue 1 coverage.

(Download Football Weekly if you want to sample James Richardson's presenting. Plus you'll get some ACTUAL intelligent discussion about games)

[PieFacE]

Teddy Sherringham is the best ever pundit. Fact.

"All they need to do is score, just put the ball in the net and it's a goal"

Yeah, thanks for the insight, Teddy.

[Stevo985]

Judging by Gerrard's interview on the BBC this morning, he's destined for punditry.

"Miracles do happen. It's been proved"

:?

[AVFCforever1991]

He will find fault with anything, If someone had scored a hat-trick in the first half, but had 1 misplace pass.. He would Focus on the Misplace pass.

I wonder if, to an extent, this is just a product of the typical British mentality.

Pretty much all pundits, no matter who they are, seem to find it easier to focus on mistakes and weaknesses, solemly talking about 'the beautiful game'.

Foreign broadcasters and professionals often sound almost poetic in their appraisal of the game, always concentrating on a piece of skill or wizardry.

Ben Arfa's goal for example; the MOTD pundits spent more time talking about Holman's failure to close him down than they did about the actual goal, which was an absolute peach of a shot.

Yeah think your right about this actually. We do it on here as well tbh. might just be the nature of talking about the game.

[Voinjama]

I think Gab Marcotti is excellent, even though the way he talks is a bit annoying. He has a lot of inside knowledge and knows his stuff especially on the other European leagues.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Marcotti knows a lot but conveys everything with the zest of a nun's arse.

Lee Dixon was excellent for BBC, shame he went to the dark side.

Dunphy is still my favourite. Everything (and everyone) is shite.

[Voinjama]

Marcotti knows a lot but conveys everything with the zest of a nun's arse.

Lee Dixon was excellent for BBC, shame he went to the dark side.

Dunphy is still my favourite. Everything (and everyone) is shite.

Where has Lee Dixon gone?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

ITV, he'll probably be doing the England game.

Speaking of ITV, Southgate always appears a sentence away from saying something really insightful, but seems to just fall short and settles for merely telling us what we already know.

[Voinjama]

Lee Dixon is another good pundit I didnt know he had left BBC, I always liked the way he would slyly take the mick out of Keowns looks when they were working together.

I also think Radio pundits are better.

[BOF]

Must say Dixon is a bit too vanilla for me. I've never really rated him because he's almost invisible on a football panel.

[Voinjama]

Why does everyone seem to dislike Garth Crooks?

[Stevo985]

Because he knows as much about football as a newborn baby?

Or it might be because he's one of the world's biggest Arseholes?

Probably a little of both.

[Jarpie]

If you think english pundits are bad, you should see most finnish pundits. During european championships one pundit even said about one team "I dont know anything about them".

[BOF]

The thing with Crooks. He speaks so deliberately and emphatically all the time in a way that makes it appear as though he's trying to say something so profound that it needs that emphasis for fear that you won't understand it otherwise, when actually he's only describing what shape the ball is.

[AVFCforever1991]

If you think english pundits are bad, you should see most finnish pundits. During european championships one pundit even said about one team "I dont know anything about them".

Understandable though, when your main sports are Winter sports