Micah Richards the pundit

mimicmickmickdoyle said:
Anyone hear Simon Jordan on Talksport this morning, slacking off the Micah / Keane double act, said Micah is like a demented puppy.
Click to expand...
I’m not one to comment on manhood but if Simon Jordan has anything other than a micropenis I’d be astounded. There’s nothing wrong with that. But his projection is so OTT.
 
Not sure what Micah was on about on Sunday when he said he thought City would win the PL because of the size of the squad. I'm sure the PL brought in another rule whereby we can only have the same number of players as everyone else otherwise we'd be cheating right?
 
The Future is Blue said:
Not sure what Micah was on about on Sunday when he said he thought City would win the PL because of the size of the squad. I'm sure the PL brought in another rule whereby we can only have the same number of players as everyone else otherwise we'd be cheating right?
Click to expand...
He may have been mixing up size and quality. He doesn't come across as the sharpest knife in the drawer at times...
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
He may have been mixing up size and quality. He doesn't come across as the sharpest knife in the drawer at times...
Click to expand...
I was being a bit facitious there as I realised he really was thinking about quality of our squad. However Sly didn't correct this and some of their audience might think we actually do have more players to choose from than other teams. Not like Sly to cast City as using underhand tactics!
 
well, how do BM feel about Micah's comments re Rodri?

"he's not got eyes in the back of his head", "i think that's an advantage" and then takes the Rio defence "maybe he should have just headed it".

not cool Micah
 
shemnel said:
well, how do BM feel about Micah's comments re Rodri?

"he's not got eyes in the back of his head", "i think that's an advantage" and then takes the Rio defence "maybe he should have just headed it".

not cool Micah
Click to expand...
We've all gone mad about commentators being biased towards their own club in the past so I'd rather Micah remained objective.

He's not a great analyst though, to be honest.
 
shemnel said:
well, how do BM feel about Micah's comments re Rodri?

"he's not got eyes in the back of his head", "i think that's an advantage" and then takes the Rio defence "maybe he should have just headed it".

not cool Micah
Click to expand...
He’s just another one (of many) who are being paid to talk about this sport on tele who doesn’t know the fucking laws of the game.

If you don’t know the laws simply say “I’m not sure of the law on this to be honest, I’ll have to read up on it”. A law isn’t open to opinion, it’s the law, so unless you know the law, keep yer trap shut!

It’s astonishing how nobody in the media has grasped that as soon as Mings chests it unchallenged (and it was unchallenged, Rodri was not interfering with play when Mings takes the ball under control:
4B6131D5-6494-4005-8314-0C886C10935E.jpeg)
...that means Rodri being offside before that moment is cancelled out because that phase of play with Rodri being offside has passed, it’s now a new phase of play now Mings has controlled the ball.

Rodri could only be judged to be offside if he’d challenged for the ball at that very moment in my image there^ when Mings was taking the ball in. Because, as the law states; “a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball”.

Rodri didn’t do this, as the picture shows. Everything that happens after Rodri didn’t interfere with Mings taking the ball in, is a fresh part of the game. Where he was stood previously to that doesn’t matter.

I posted this in the matchday thread when it happened, everyone I know in my City WhatsApp group said the same thing. We all knew the law and we’re just a group of random fans. Yet these pundits and presenters and Peter Walton [originally] and Villa manager and Villa players are all actually involved and paid VERY handsomely in jobs in this sport... and NONE of them know the law they’re paid to be experts in!

Micah, get on this thread, read this post and get it out there today that what you said last night was incorrect! You’re the only one who can do this because absolutely nobody else in the media will (Robbie Savage tried but actually circled - if you can call his 3 year old’s scribbling circling - the wrong part of the law!)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Psychedelic Casual said:
He’s just another one (of many) who are being paid to talk about this sport on tele who doesn’t know the fucking laws of the game.

If you don’t know the laws, keep her trap shut.

It’s astonishing how nobody in the media has grasped that as soon as Mings chests it unchallenged (and it was unchallenged, Rodri was not interfering with play when Mings takes the ball under control:
View attachment 8671)
...that means Rodri being offside before that moment is cancelled out because that phase of play with Rodri being offside has passed, it’s now a new phase of play now Mings has controlled the ball.

Rodri could only be judged to be offside if he’d challenged for the ball at that very moment in my image there^ as Mings was taking the ball in.

I posted this in the matchday thread when it happened, everyone I know in my City WhatsApp group said the same thing. We all knew the law and we’re just a group of random fans. Yet these pundits and presenters and Peter Walton [originally] and Villa manager and Villa players are all actually involved and paid VERY handsomely in jobs in this sport... and NONE of them know the law they’re paid to be experts in!

Micah, get on this thread, read this post and get it out there today that what you said last night was incorrect!
Click to expand...

I agree that the ref's call was right. Ming's chest down was a poor touch - it set up a lose ball and he lost it.

But I'm not arsed at all what Mich say's about it. Football is full of interpretive rules and that was one where some refs would have blown up.

I would suggest that in all these circumstances - if you are relying on the ref to make a decision then you are taking a risk. A better touch from Mings and he hacks it clear unchallenged. He miscontrolled - allowed himself to be challenged and from that point he has to hope that the ref decides in his favour.
 
Quite enjoyed Micah complaining that Mings "doesn't have eyes behind his head" so couldn't see Rodri on MOTD.
 
Nedum Onuoha is going to be the pundit a lot of people hoped Micah would be.

He's articulate, insightful, he loves City and he's already getting regular guest spots on BBC radio and BT Sport.

His podcast is really good and it's given him experience interviewing people and having detailed discussions.

Micah is lovely, he offers a nice change from the stuffy, grumpy old bastards and has entertainment value, but he's not a great public speaker often reverting to the classic football soundbites and all to frequently he can't quite articulate a point he's reaching for, just circling around it without ever quite getting there. He also bows to the prevailing opinion in the studio all the time, whether it's complaining about Foden's playing time when he's played the 6th most among outfield players this season, or going with the weak option last night about offside.

if you want someone in the media putting across a City point of view well, it's going to be Nedum.

Hopefully Micah improves, he is new to the career so loads of time to work on it, and it'll be nice to have both of them in the picture because we've been without any representation in the media for far too long.
 
domalino said:
Nedum Onuoha is going to be the pundit a lot of people hoped Micah would be.

He's articulate, insightful, he loves City and he's already getting regular guest spots on BBC radio and BT Sport.

His podcast is really good and it's given him experience interviewing people and having detailed discussions.

Micah is lovely, he offers a nice change from the stuffy, grumpy old bastards and has entertainment value, but he's not a great public speaker often reverting to the classic football soundbites and all to frequently he can't quite articulate a point he's reaching for, just circling around it without ever quite getting there. He also bows to the prevailing opinion in the studio all the time, whether it's complaining about Foden's playing time when he's played the 6th most among outfield players this season, or going with the weak option last night about offside.

if you want someone in the media putting across a City point of view well, it's going to be Nedum.

Hopefully Micah improves, he is new to the career so loads of time to work on it, and it'll be nice to have both of them in the picture because we've been without any representation in the media for far too long.
Click to expand...

I can't really see Micah improving that much tbh. He's very much who he is. Fun, nice guy, but I'd not expect anything particularly profound from him. Happy to nod along, make people laugh and enjoy himself. Fair enough. Nedum on the other hand is a vast step above most ex footballers in terms of intelligence. An actual deep thinker. Either way, isn't it nice to see all these pro City players turning up one by one? Sure there are many more to come too! The one benefit of former loved blues retiring!
 
twosips said:
I can't really see Micah improving that much tbh. He's very much who he is. Fun, nice guy, but I'd not expect anything particularly profound from him. Happy to nod along, make people laugh and enjoy himself. Fair enough. Nedum on the other hand is a vast step above most ex footballers in terms of intelligence. An actual deep thinker. Either way, isn't it nice to see all these pro City players turning up one by one? Sure there are many more to come too! The one benefit of former loved blues retiring!
Click to expand...

I think he will improve in some ways. On the radio in particular he spends so long just kind of filling time while he thinks of his actual answer, and I think that will go away the more he gets used to being on air.

Also maybe when he's more established as a pundit and gets to know the other people in the studio he will be more confident to go against them and offer a dissenting opinion instead of just adding something in agreement.

But overall he's there for entertainment, like Henry and Keane and Savage, rather than analysis.
 
Maybe I'm imagining it but he seems to have already improved a bit. Less nervous, getting his views across a little better. I do think he's very much a people pleaser type of personality though. He wants to be liked and maybe tries too hard to show he's not biased(Neville does this more subtly), which is why he's said some of the things that have raised eyebrows with a few blues. I hope he can improve, it all depends on how he wants to come across though and how hard he works at it.

I've heard Nedum a few times, I agree he's much more articulate and already shows more well rounded views with insight. Seems to me he wont be as easy for them to "get him in line", as the boardroom members probably say when anyone is pro City.
 
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