You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Jermaine Jenas
- Thread starter 13/05/12
- Start date
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 59,755
So no then. Thanks for your input.Franny Lee.
wolviedinho
Well-Known Member
Yucky sneaky twat. He is never off the Tele. Absolute gobshite.
Which ex footballers would you like as hosts?
I’m quite enjoying Nedum on the American CL streams and his few appearances on ESPNFC
Mad Eyed Screamer
Moderator
He's a Hollywood movie star FFS appearing along with the likes of Michael Caine, Sylvester Stallone and John Wark....Given he is 70+ and never presented anything on TV in his life, I doubt he would get a gig.
Anyone realistic?
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 59,755
Maybe so, but all of the above would be shite at presenting MOTD.He's a Hollywood movie star FFS appearing along with the likes of Michael Caine, Sylvester Stallone and John Wark....
I think there's a bunch of different roles that all come under "pundit" and judging them all against the same criteria probably isn't helpful.
You have the knowledge pundits, the ones who not only have a specific insight into the game, but are able to apply that insight and tell you stuff you wouldn't necessarily be able to work out for yourself, whether it's tactical stuff or things about the logistics of how clubs work or what it's like to be a player.
Then you have the vibes pundits. They have insight too, but they're not necessarily there to shower you with information. They're there to make the show interesting, to express some opinions and show some personality. They show bias, they say stuff people will disagree with, they're there to create talking points.
And then you have the room-meat pundits. They're there to keep the conversation flowing and keep everything ticking along. If you've got a gap in the programme that needs filling, they can speak relatively articulately about not much at all for as long as that gap. If you need to cut to a different story or an outside report, you can cut them off mid-sentence and no-one feels like they're missing out on anything. They don't make for particularly interesting or compelling viewing, but they're manageable and serve a purpose from a TV point of view. They're nobody's favourite pundits but they keep getting the gig. In the better football shows, the only person who fits this category is the one who's also acting as the show's presenter.
Jenas is classic meat in the room. Inoffensive, cheerful, friendly. Knows when to shut up and let other people speak, knows when he's being asked to fill some time. TV presenting experience now too, so conscious of transitions between topics and the kinds of questions to ask to get other people to say interesting things (let's not pretend he's amazing at that, he's hardly Paxman, but still - he can help keep a conversation flowing).
No point in expecting him to be particularly interesting or entertaining, because that's not really what he's there for.
You have the knowledge pundits, the ones who not only have a specific insight into the game, but are able to apply that insight and tell you stuff you wouldn't necessarily be able to work out for yourself, whether it's tactical stuff or things about the logistics of how clubs work or what it's like to be a player.
Then you have the vibes pundits. They have insight too, but they're not necessarily there to shower you with information. They're there to make the show interesting, to express some opinions and show some personality. They show bias, they say stuff people will disagree with, they're there to create talking points.
And then you have the room-meat pundits. They're there to keep the conversation flowing and keep everything ticking along. If you've got a gap in the programme that needs filling, they can speak relatively articulately about not much at all for as long as that gap. If you need to cut to a different story or an outside report, you can cut them off mid-sentence and no-one feels like they're missing out on anything. They don't make for particularly interesting or compelling viewing, but they're manageable and serve a purpose from a TV point of view. They're nobody's favourite pundits but they keep getting the gig. In the better football shows, the only person who fits this category is the one who's also acting as the show's presenter.
Jenas is classic meat in the room. Inoffensive, cheerful, friendly. Knows when to shut up and let other people speak, knows when he's being asked to fill some time. TV presenting experience now too, so conscious of transitions between topics and the kinds of questions to ask to get other people to say interesting things (let's not pretend he's amazing at that, he's hardly Paxman, but still - he can help keep a conversation flowing).
No point in expecting him to be particularly interesting or entertaining, because that's not really what he's there for.
dickie davies
Well-Known Member
Such a boring ****
Onholiday(somemightsay)
Well-Known Member
Such a boring insightful ****...........
Bluethemaway
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 16 Jul 2008
- Messages
- 1,695
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Such a boring, insightful thick ****