Joey Barton

[SWP's back]

I think female pundits are excellent.

I find female match commentators can sometimes be painful to listen to.

Just like the blokes.

I don’t, personally.

I’d much rather have pundits that have played the game at the level, or higher, than that on which they’re pundit-ing.

It’s the reason they’re normally from a successful club with a few winners medals in the cupboard at home and not ex-players who played in League One or Two (which is a far better level than the women’s super league).

I do think Joey’s original tweet having a go at the clueless vlogger was uncalled for though as I’ve always been told that famous people shouldn’t “punch down”.

 

[SWP's back]

There has never been a single woman on TV who has scraped the barrel of stupidity harder than Michael Owen or Alan Shearer.

The hard truth is that the majority of male pundits are absolute shit. Doesn't mean female ones are necessarily better or worse, but if those 2 clowns can get on (not to mention Andy fucking Townshend) then to me it's an open position.

And I dont give a shit how good they were as players. They're shit pundits.

View attachment 100730

Totally agree with this. The majority of male pundits are shite and I don’t agree with them. But they have at least played at that level.

 

[Mon Autre]

Totally agree with this. The majority of male pundits are shite and I don’t agree with them. But they have at least played at that level.

Well if they're still shite regardless of having played at the highest level then it clearly isn't as important as some would have you believe.

 

[jamielowndes]

Totally agree with this. The majority of male pundits are shite and I don’t agree with them. But they have at least played at that level.

If they're shit, you've just admitted that top level experience doesn't make you a good pundit.

Jamie Carragher had an objectively better career than Nedum Onuoha. Who do you think is a better pundit?

Having that experience doesn't qualify you to be a good pundit or analyst. Therefore Bartons point is complete horseshit.

 

[SWP's back]

Well if they're still shite regardless of having played at the highest level then it clearly isn't as important as some would have you believe.

So why don’t they ever choose intelligent, erudite ex-players from the lower leagues? I’d have no problem with that.

 

[SWP's back]

If they're shit, you've just admitted that top level experience doesn't make you a good pundit.

Jamie Carragher had an objectively better career than Nedum Onuoha. Who do you think is a better pundit?

Having that experience doesn't qualify you to be a good pundit or analyst. Therefore Bartons point is complete horseshit.

See immediately above.

If all pundits were chosen on their ability as pundits rather than because they played for X club or won Y trophies then I’d agree. But they don’t, they choose men who played at the highest level and some women that played at their own level.

People can think Shearer is shite as a pundit or thick but when he analyses Haaland’s movement and anticipation then that’s something I want to listen to because he’s one of the best strikers of the last 60 years.

 

[Blue and true]

On top of being a thug, he's also a flagrant misogynist. If the club have minerals they'll ban the **** from ever stepping foot into the Etihad again.

 

[jamielowndes]

See immediately above.

If all pundits were chosen on their ability as pundits rather than because they played for X club or won Y trophies then I’d agree. But they don’t, they choose men who played at the highest level and some women that played at their own level.

People can think Shearer is shite as a pundit or thick but when he analyses Haaland’s movement and anticipation then that’s something I want to listen to because he’s one of the best strikers of the last 60 years.

I have zero interest in listening to it because he can't translate years of elite football into competent TV analysis. Same for Owen. That doesn't mean that's the standard across all players (Thierry Henry is an incredible pundit) but there are multiple players who have played in the Prem that just don't communicate themselves well.

Barton argued that because women haven't played in the prem, they shouldn't be allowed to be a pundit because they havent played at that level. My argument is that the current standard of punditry proves that being a top level player does not make you a good pundit, meaning its not the requirement he makes it out to be.

 

[journolud]

On the basis that Barton says Scott shouldn't comment on the men's' game because she hasn't played it I assume he will restrict his comments to relegation scraps and leagues one and two. He surely wouldn't have a valid opinion on the title race or European or international football?

 

[SWP's back]

I have zero interest in listening to it because he can't translate years of elite football into competent TV analysis. Same for Owen. That doesn't mean that's the standard across all players (Thierry Henry is an incredible pundit) but there are multiple players who have played in the Prem that just don't communicate themselves well.

Barton argued that because women haven't played in the prem, they shouldn't be allowed to be a pundit because they havent played at that level. My argument is that the current standard of punditry proves that being a top level player does not make you a good pundit, meaning its not the requirement he makes it out to be.

And as I’ve said twice above, I’d fully agree with you if Sky, BBC, TNT and Amazon picked pundits based on their ability as pundits rather than playing for a top club (if men) or having played in the WSL (if women).

I think we can all agree that the WSL is no closer to top level men’s football than League One, so if we want a meritocracy, rather than a box ticking inclusivity exercise, then we need an actual meritocracy. So why in the last 20 years have we never seen lower league former players given a chance to analyse the game?