Are pundits necessary?

surprisedbygrass said:
Since football has become an media entertainment product we have been swamped by pundits , many of whom get pay rises or new contracts the more controversial they are. It's at a level now that , if I'm not at the game , I switch the sound off and turn the telly off as soon as the game is over . It's all so predictable .

The ones I loathe most are the motormouths : there should be a circle in Hell where they should all be sent where they endlessly have to watch City winning everything while children spit at them .
Click to expand...
Jamie Carragher doesn't like this post...
 
If I’m watching on tv, my phone goes off and I pause kick off for 15 minutes. Watch the first half, fast forward through the half time nonsense and end up in ‘real time’. If we don’t win, tv goes off, if I think there’ll be crying, I leave it on…..

Rather oddly, the one I mind the least is Keane as he does understand about winning and losing and is certainly not a ‘fanboy’ like spitty and neville.
 
A couple, but it's now for ludicrous. Most of them add no value whatsoever. The problem now is that I'm not entirely sure we're getting the best.
 
malg said:
A couple, but it's now for ludicrous. Most of them add no value whatsoever. The problem now is that I'm not entirely sure we're getting the best.
Click to expand...
we have ratboy who has all the charisma of a dead cockroach, spitty whos accent makes you want to cut your ears off and personality makes you want to put your television in a skip, roy keane who should be herding sheep somewhere, the guffawing buffoon that is micah richards, alan shearer, martin keown, michael owen, alan smith and lee dixon who all seem to be sharing a braincell but none of them bother to use it when they are on tv, jamie redknapp whos shoe size outweighs his IQ, paul merson who is about as sharp as a spoon when he is sober, what exactly makes you not entirely sure
 
No. The fact is these ex players that go into punditry do so because they can't coach or manage. so why are they then employed to give their insight into tactical aspects of the game when they literally cannot get or keep a job that requires them to do that? It's like employing teachers who failed all their exams in the subject they're teaching.

They're there for entertainment purposes only, it's all just a show. I actually respect the ones that just lean into it and know that and don't bother trying to come across as knowledgeable when they so obviously aren't. The ones that pretend otherwise wind me up more.
 
Not only they are not necessary, the almost always destroy experience of watching football with stupid personal opinions and with idiotic banter not related at all with what is going on the pitch. And on top of that 99% of them have no clue what coaching and football tactics is.
If I am watching the stream, I move on to some French or Spanish stream, the first I can understand 100% and the other help me improve my Spanish although usually with Mexican accented-twist!
Only worse thing is when H Redknapp is asked on one of his many guest-expert appearances on tS to give opinion on some player from LA Liga or European football.
 
no theyre just fans and its amazing how little football knowledge a lot of ex professionals have. They add nothing. Just keep a main impartial commentator to drop some facts every now and then
 
I don't watch any game till bang on kick off.
Turn over at half time and back for the second half.
I switch straight off soon as the game is finished.
And that's on foreign channels
As I completely avoid sly sports tnt and amazon
 
Honestly, no they're not. But I'd love for some insight, non-pantomime characters to be allowed the chance. Commentary yes I can live with, although the various styles and competencies are noticable. Some commentators are all about getting every researched fact in and go overboard, forgetting to tell us what is happening, and others seem there for the jolly rather than to inform.

But punditry has largely become a clowns game. Stick a red nose and size 18 shoes on Carragher, Richards or Neville and it'd only suit their style further. It's more about them than the game, and I'm just not interested nor prepared to pay a dime to hear it.

I get more insight into the team we're playing, their tactics and best players, from the 5 minutes guest slot on the blue moon podcast than I do from most pundits. That's what I, as a consumer, actually want. Tell me how they're going to play, the mindset, the risk and reward of how they've set up, anything to watch for. But it's not what the big paying subscribers want, seemingly, as they're happy to pay the money to hear their sponsored bozo cheering for them and against anyone else.

That shows worry about losing the type of Neville/Carragher partnership they have in place speaks volumes about the kind of product they want to put out. It's not too many steps away from the professionally offended like goldbridge, and the relevance these kinds of players have towards the modern game is just too distant for me.

There's room for punditry and commentary evidently as appealing to the masses is the name of the game. But for those of us interested in the tactics, the former manager insight, the ex player who doesn't also have a marvel alter ego as captain cruddypants and his awesome giggle, then we're largely out of luck.

Big exceptions though are Izzy Christensen, Nedum, Joe Hart for a city point of view, albeit I think they're largely fair also, but beyond that there genuinely isn't one name I'd activity pay ot tune in to hear. There probably are a few non City ones too, but I fear they get so little opportunity to return if they don't make a favourable impression with key subscriber groups, that they're replaced by anybody with more than fifty games for a 'top' side who might enhance subscriber longevity of those same key groups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top