I get the impression they do no preparation before going on TV or the radio. I remember Shearer comparing Huddersfield’s French striker to Mbappe because he’d scored 2 goals. Most pundits are in total ignorance to how we play with lazy references to Kevin Keegan then lauding Jose for his defending. (If you look at the stats they are one of the worst for giving up chances.)It always amazes me how people who played the game can know so little about it , that or they've got their own bias & agendas, there's no doubt in my mind the majority of pundits tow the party line & have lost their integrity just to keep their jobs, look a Andy hinchcliff as an example .
I like Keown. He seems to actually have much more intelligence to his comments and can actually put club allegencies aside. You always feel the likes of Hoddle are desperate to find problems and for us to fail.Merson's harmless. He says a lot of stupid shit, but the fact that everyone knows it means nobody will ever take his opinion too seriously whatever it is. Reputation counts for a lot, so even if he said Neymar is from Brazil people would still doubt him. He's like Lawrenson in that sense.
What you have to worry about are the pundits who sound clever and say a lot of good things but occasionally sour it with terrifying levels of ignorance and/or bias, possibly even an agenda. Because these are the ones that more casual fans won't immediately doubt and whose opinions they may even take on board.
These are pundits like Thompson, Gerrard, Yorke, Giggs, Gale, Hoddle, both Nevilles etc. [EDIT: SHEARER AND SUTTON TOO, THE WORST OF THE LOT!] As well as most of the TalkSport crew who deliberately say the occasional piece of shit to drum up controversy. [2nd edit: The fact this list isn't exhaustive just shows the scale of the problem]
It applies to journalists too. Alyson Rudd is harmless because even though she spouts shit she spouts so much that even someone who's never watched football in their life knows it. Her bias is irrelevant.
The dangers are people like Castles and Custis. Castles is an extremely well written, well researched and genuinely clever journo saddled with a love of Mourinho that knows no bounds. The danger is that he can combine these skills to throw out horrible shit about anything that opposes Mourinho (eg Pep) and make it sound not just reasonable, but almost infallible. Even though he's a parody of a character on the internet; once again casuals wouldn't know it and would eat his stuff up. (eg he started the City divers stuff)
Custis is a bit of a different problem. He's not as clever or well written as Castles but he's a big name in journalism and he writes for The Sun. And given more people read The Sun than any paper it's extraordinarily likely that a good number of those folks won't question a well known journo and take his extreme pro United bias as being fair journalism. More worrying is that he's the Manchester football correspondent, so people wouldn't assume he's biased against City to say the least.
Here's the thing, as football fans we internet scourers and forum users make up a minority. So most people still trust and respect journalists and pundits without feeling the need to question their analytical integrity.
That's why I don't mind Merson. He isn't influencing anybody. For that reason I think you should just appreciate the comedy value he brings, I mean he has got a funny accent. I'd say he's a genuine guy unlike a lot too. A thick as pigshit Ian Wright if you will.
More pundits need to take a leaf out of Keown's book IMO. He's definitely upped his game in the last couple of years. He's a lot more well researched and open minded than he used to be; plus it seems like he's lost a lot of his bias for Arsenal recently (probably due to frustrations aimed at Wenger).
Also never forget that as bad as he is he could be Danny Mills.
That's extremely disrespectful to the Leicester players that were picked, he should apologise.https://www.101greatgoals.com/video...-selection-vs-peterborough-leicester-win-5-1/
Merson slams Claude Puel for disgraceful team selection in the FA Cup. They then win 5-1.
Matt le Tiss is also a very well balanced pundit and he doesn`t go with the flow,he tells it as it is.Merson's harmless. He says a lot of stupid shit, but the fact that everyone knows it means nobody will ever take his opinion too seriously whatever it is. Reputation counts for a lot, so even if he said Neymar is from Brazil people would still doubt him. He's like Lawrenson in that sense.
What you have to worry about are the pundits who sound clever and say a lot of good things but occasionally sour it with terrifying levels of ignorance and/or bias, possibly even an agenda. Because these are the ones that more casual fans won't immediately doubt and whose opinions they may even take on board.
These are pundits like Thompson, Gerrard, Yorke, Giggs, Gale, Hoddle, both Nevilles etc. [EDIT: SHEARER AND SUTTON TOO, THE WORST OF THE LOT!] As well as most of the TalkSport crew who deliberately say the occasional piece of shit to drum up controversy. [2nd edit: The fact this list isn't exhaustive just shows the scale of the problem]
It applies to journalists too. Alyson Rudd is harmless because even though she spouts shit she spouts so much that even someone who's never watched football in their life knows it. Her bias is irrelevant.
The dangers are people like Castles and Custis. Castles is an extremely well written, well researched and genuinely clever journo saddled with a love of Mourinho that knows no bounds. The danger is that he can combine these skills to throw out horrible shit about anything that opposes Mourinho (eg Pep) and make it sound not just reasonable, but almost infallible. Even though he's a parody of a character on the internet; once again casuals wouldn't know it and would eat his stuff up. (eg he started the City divers stuff)
Custis is a bit of a different problem. He's not as clever or well written as Castles but he's a big name in journalism and he writes for The Sun. And given more people read The Sun than any paper it's extraordinarily likely that a good number of those folks won't question a well known journo and take his extreme pro United bias as being fair journalism. More worrying is that he's the Manchester football correspondent, so people wouldn't assume he's biased against City to say the least.
Here's the thing, as football fans we internet scourers and forum users make up a minority. So most people still trust and respect journalists and pundits without feeling the need to question their analytical integrity.
That's why I don't mind Merson. He isn't influencing anybody. For that reason I think you should just appreciate the comedy value he brings, I mean he has got a funny accent. I'd say he's a genuine guy unlike a lot too. A thick as pigshit Ian Wright if you will.
More pundits need to take a leaf out of Keown's book IMO. He's definitely upped his game in the last couple of years. He's a lot more well researched and open minded than he used to be; plus it seems like he's lost a lot of his bias for Arsenal recently (probably due to frustrations aimed at Wenger).
Also never forget that as bad as he is he could be Danny Mills.
Yes. It`s also substantial evidence the heading a football can cause brain damage.
It always amazes me how people who played the game can know so little about it , that or they've got their own bias & agendas, there's no doubt in my mind the majority of pundits tow the party line & have lost their integrity just to keep their jobs, look a Andy hinchcliff as an example .
Cocaine, uncontrollable gambling (stress/euphoria) and heading a football combined must do some serious damage to the chemical balances in your brain and your neural pathways.Are you sure you don’t mean cocaine?
I agree. I think those who slate him on here are massive hypocrites. We go mad when pundits are bias and then slate hinchcliffe for not being bias towards us!!! Can’t have it all waysI think Hinchcliffe is pretty good. He doesn’t allow his City bias to shine through and he is never OTT in his criticism of us.