Jump to content

Media and punditry


BOF

Recommended Posts

Much as I love Jimbo (and I maintain Football Weekly is the best thing ever, if you dont listen to it, why the **** not?) but Lineker is a decent host and a good face of BBC sport.

I can see much more of an argument for giving Jim the MotD2 job ahead of Colin Murray, he has better jokes and appears to know much more about the game than Murray does but again, that is missing the point that where MotD really struggles is with pundits. I'm sure they have their reasons for sticking with dullards like Shearer and Lawro, there are probably millions of viewers who just want to see recognisable faces talk about the goals so having famous old pros on is an easy thing to do. The Cox article is spot on though, Neville is putting everybody else to shame and it's astonishing that the BBC havent really reacted to it yet. I can only presume they have market research with suggests that having actual insightful punditary is only wanted by a vocal minority. They should try something though, I refuse to believe that a company who employ so many jounalists havent thought about having two or three of them in regular rotation as MotD guests.

I completely agree with all of this (although I find myself leaning towards the football ramble as my favourite podcast these days...)

But yeah, I don't think Lineker is bad. He presents the show. he does what he's there for. The show isn't poor because of his presenting, it's poor because of who sits opposite him.

Not to say that Jimbo wouldn't be good, but as you say, he's a much more light hearted presenter so would suit MOTD 2 better.

But again, if I somehow was in charge of a channel tomorrow that showed football, Jimbo would be my presenter, and people like COx, Wilson, Honigstein, Ronay etc would all be on my list of people I'd like to have as pundits.

There is room, and even a need, for ex pros to be pundits. But they should be there to give an insight as to what it's like to be a player (or manager) in certain situations. They shouldn't be forced into trying desperately o give tactical insight into a game unless they've shown they have some sort of knowledge of it. Neville and Dixon, fine. They're good at it (Neville especially).

Have people like Shearer, but have them to give an opinion of stuff they know about rather than this charade that he has any sort of insight into tactics.

As Cox says, neville should be the norm. And for the amount of money Hansen et al get paid, you'd think they'd put some effort into their stuff. Last week Shearer talked about Defoe at a bit of length, but didn't know how many goals he'd scored this season. Surely if you were to look up ONE stat about a striker, that'd be it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much as I love Jimbo (and I maintain Football Weekly is the best thing ever, if you dont listen to it, why the **** not?) but Lineker is a decent host and a good face of BBC sport.

I can see much more of an argument for giving Jim the MotD2 job ahead of Colin Murray, he has better jokes and appears to know much more about the game than Murray does but again, that is missing the point that where MotD really struggles is with pundits. I'm sure they have their reasons for sticking with dullards like Shearer and Lawro, there are probably millions of viewers who just want to see recognisable faces talk about the goals so having famous old pros on is an easy thing to do. The Cox article is spot on though, Neville is putting everybody else to shame and it's astonishing that the BBC havent really reacted to it yet. I can only presume they have market research with suggests that having actual insightful punditary is only wanted by a vocal minority. They should try something though, I refuse to believe that a company who employ so many jounalists havent thought about having two or three of them in regular rotation as MotD guests.

Lineker went on twitter recently defending MOTD's punditry by saying that Sky have far more time and money to throw at it....not convinced, bring on any of the Guardian's journalists or even Marcotti and the show would be much improved

(though I actually don't mind Hansen)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They pay a high price for Hansen and Lineker and the likes of Shearer won't come cheap so it doesn't stand to reason that money is much of an issue. These guys only have to put in a day a week so any would be pundit would be free to whore himself around for the other 6 days.

Lineker is dull and wooden to watch, he's awful, but he fits the clean cut, robotic type that many channels seem to go for. E.g. Sky with the likes of Ben Shepard and Scott Minto and ITV with Matt Smith.

Shearer, Hansen and Lawro just look like they can't be arsed, their analysis is lazy and unenthusiastic. Shearer in particular looks fresh off a park bench most of the time.

The idea of getting journalists involved just IMO wouldn't work over here, their opinions aren't as respected because the perception is that they are all hacks. It only seems to work for coverage of foreign football, e.g. for Revista where the two best pundits are both journalists (Balague and Hunter).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They pay a high price for Hansen and Lineker and the likes of Shearer won't come cheap so it doesn't stand to reason that money is much of an issue. These guys only have to put in a day a week so any would be pundit would be free to whore himself around for the other 6 days.

Lineker is dull and wooden to watch, he's awful, but he fits the clean cut, robotic type that many channels seem to go for. E.g. Sky with the likes of Ben Shepard and Scott Minto and ITV with Matt Smith.

Shearer, Hansen and Lawro just look like they can't be arsed, their analysis is lazy and unenthusiastic. Shearer in particular looks fresh off a park bench most of the time.

The idea of getting journalists involved just IMO wouldn't work over here, their opinions aren't as respected because the perception is that they are all hacks. It only seems to work for coverage of foreign football, e.g. for Revista where the two best pundits are both journalists (Balague and Hunter).

Part of the reason for that might be the anti-intellectualism that pervades the English approach to the game. Language also plays a role too, I suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the reason for that might be the anti-intellectualism that pervades the English approach to the game. Language also plays a role too, I suspect.

I'm not sure it's just anti-intellectualism but rather this culture were we need 'experts'. Ex-Pros are considered experts because they've 'done it' and when they disagree with a journalist the stock answer is usually 'did you play the game'?

I think a show like revista proves that journalists can be much better and more insightful pundits than ex pros. Hunter in particular is fantastic at his job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was producing a studio-type show, I'd aim for the following cast

Presenter

Retired striker

Retired midfielder

Retired defender

Retired goalkeeper

Manager between jobs but unlikely to leave midseason

Retired referee

1 or 2 journos (if 2, one good with analysis and commentary, another who can cover the ITK angle)

I "acquired" the midweek edition of MOTD, and maybe a little less money on the graphics package could free up some for the pundits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pundits view and comms on rvps dissalowed goal at reading was very much it was a yard over and the lino should have given it, not a mention that the ball was struck at a vast rate of notts **** superman wouldnt have been able to give a decision in real time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â