Their entire "expert" panel is crap. Love Nicol as a player, but as a pundit he's just too much.
Exactly exactly exactly this! I loved Steve Nicol. He was like a comforting blanket every time I saw his name on the team sheet. How did he become such a blertIt actually hurts me just how awful Steve Nicol is as a pundit. He was sooooooooooooooooooooooo good as a player...
Couldn't agree more.Compared to other sports I watch - NFL, cricket, tennis - quality of punditry in football all throughout (from Carragher to Neville to Linekar to Laurens) is downright horrible. Repeat the same mundane crap, pander to the lowest common denominator. Hardly anything insightful or thought-provoking.
Compare it to cricket where they sit and break down any flaw in the technique of a batsman, or go through how a bowler sets up a batsman.
Couldn't agree more.
Every half time analysis in the EPL consists of "wow that was a great goal" and here's a replay of a decision the ref made that was questionable.
You Keane absolutely nothing from the pundits. Unlike every other sport.
Couldn't agree more.
Every half time analysis in the EPL consists of "wow that was a great goal" and here's a replay of a decision the ref made that was questionable.
You learn absolutely nothing from the pundits. Unlike every other sport.
Compared to other sports I watch - NFL, cricket, tennis - quality of punditry in football all throughout (from Carragher to Neville to Linekar to Laurens) is downright horrible. Repeat the same mundane crap, pander to the lowest common denominator. Hardly anything insightful or thought-provoking.
Compare it to cricket where they sit and break down any flaw in the technique of a batsman, or go through how a bowler sets up a batsman.
Bar the time Henry broke down how Guardiola wanted them to play at Barca. That was decent. But I can't think of any other time we received genuine insight into the game or tactics.
I remember Henry dissecting a Firmino assist that was quite well done.
Is the issue that the game is played at high tempo, so actual analysis needs to wait until half time/full time when there's time constraints? NFL, Cricket etc all have a decent gap in play after each play/bowl
Monday night football is the closest to analysis, but more often than not it just becomes internet troll style debate
Klopp did a great piece too.Bar the time Henry broke down how Guardiola wanted them to play at Barca. That was decent. But I can't think of any other time we received genuine insight into the game or tactics.
So did Rafa.Klopp did a great piece too.
For me Micah Richards is not only as thick as two short planks he's totally biased (towards City of course) and always making excuses.Some of the Carra-Neville or Keane-Micah Richards or Souness-Keane "banter" makes me wanna lift my chair and throw it at the screen.
Forgot to add Scholes in that list. One of the worst ever.
I actually quite like Julien Laurens, he has some very valid points at times and doesn't just go with the flow. Though he did make himself look an utter idiot of course with his Kabak / Rhys comments.I think this is why I enjoy football podcasts, they can take the time to focus on whatever they think is interesting. Current favourites, in case anyone is interested:
Second Captains - Hated it initially, especially Ken Early who seems to have a deep hatred of Liverpool. Despite that, he does talk a lot of sense.
Totally Football Show - Depends on the guests (Julien Laurens does appear on there a lot and they seem to take the piss outta him a bit).
The Anfield Wrap - It's alright but it does cover a lot of different aspects of the club.
Scholes is an utter troglodyte. Beats me how he was such a clever footballer, because he's one of the most dimwitted pundits I've ever seen.Some of the Carra-Neville or Keane-Micah Richards or Souness-Keane "banter" makes me wanna lift my chair and throw it at the screen.
Forgot to add Scholes in that list. One of the worst ever.
There is time for play by play breakdown with Sky but Martin Tyler uses the air time for whimsical banter about the days gone by. Everything Carragher and Neville say is self serving to add weight to previous points they've made. There is no critical analysis. Just clichés and 'healthy debate'. Also hard to provide proper analysis when they don't even believe what they are projection. It's always one for a pen one against. Oh you can't give that but next week you can. You'd hear Neville saying, "we discussed this in the dry run". They've rehearsed the talking points they want to make. They hope the game plays out how they imagined it and if not they'll try shoehorn their agendas into discussions. You'd often see them smirking when camera switches to wide angle. It's amateur dramatics. It should not be viewed as analysis. It's just made up bollix.
what cricket you watching lately?
Haven't watched anything since Pakistan-SA series.
I mean, half time analysis can't happen on sky because 6 minutes are adverts, and then they need to focus on the main highlights. Full time they get half hour (minus 10 minutes for adverts), to interview MOTM, losing player, 2 managers, as well as discuss the highlights.
I think the pundits in some cases have been dumbed down to for the format, rather than being thick
If you want to discuss cricket, I suggest taking this discussion to the "fanny, non-sports forum".
Scholes is an utter troglodyte. Beats me how he was such a clever footballer, because he's one of the most dimwitted pundits I've ever seen.
Mourinho was actually great in the studio.It's crazy how the majority of TV pundits are either those that have never managed a football club and never will, or those that have failed at management.
Surely it's better to be employing, in the short term, modern managers in between jobs. In the last year they could have had people like Eddie Howe or Rafa Benitez. Imagine how insightful their input would be for game analysis on a weekly basis.