Pundits on RTE

Krusader

Giles is brilliant and decyphering games at half time and full time
Dunphy is there to provoke and intrigue and 50% of what he says is bull
Souness is good pundit and usually puts Dunphy in his place

Catenaccio!

karma_ wrote: »

Souness is the main man, talks sense unlike those other 2 numpties. I honestly don't know how he stands to sit between them at times.

Souness the man that said Inter were not the best team in Europe last season? The man that said Dani Alves played for Argentina?

Ush1

Catenaccio! wrote: »

Souness the man that said Inter were not the best team in Europe last season? The man that said Dani Alves played for Argentina?

Yes, his point was on paper Inter didn't have the best 11 in Europe. Many, many would agree.
John Giles was crying out for Gareth Bale to be capped for England.

Catenaccio!

Well what's he talking about on paper? Such nonsense. I wish there was someone there to put some of these in place. Maybe he should tear up that piece of paper. Inter, a team that beat Chelsea (English champions), Barcelona (Spanish champions) and Bayern Munich (German champions), and yet he's still going on as if they weren't the best team in Europe?

Ush1

Catenaccio! wrote: »

Well what's he talking about on paper? Such nonsense. I wish there was someone there to put some of these in place. Maybe he should tear up that piece of paper. Inter, a team that beat Chelsea (English champions), Barcelona (Spanish champions) and Bayern Munich (German champions), and yet he's still going on as if they weren't the best team in Europe?

What he's talking about is the invidual talents vs. more than the sum of the parts type team. I think he said it after the Germany game but it really could have been said about alot of teams so far in this world cup.

Catenaccio!

I've heard him say such rubbish after a couple of games at least. He really doesn't know what he's on about. Of all the teams they beat, they had the best keeper, best defenders, two out of the three midfield are world class, and the forward line was lethal (even if Pandev isn't as good as some of the others).

So his point doesn't even make any sense. You'd swear Inter didn't have world class players or something by the way he's going on.

Krusader

They'll struggle next season with Benitez :pac::pac:

Catenaccio!

Really don't think so. Obviously, it will be difficult but you'd swear Benitez was some sort of mug and that Inter are falling apart, when that's far from the truth.

Krusader

He is a mug

Catenaccio!

Won La Liga twice with Valencia and one Uefa Cup. Won the Champions League and FA Cup with Liverpool.

You should probably actually research these things before posting that a certain manager is a 'mug'. Would prevent you from coming across as wrong.

Le King

Catenaccio! wrote: »

Won La Liga twice with Valencia and one Uefa Cup. Won the Champions League and FA Cup with Liverpool.

You should probably actually research these things before posting that a certain manager is a 'mug'. Would prevent you from coming across as wrong.

Obviously you don't know what the word mug means?

It's a comment on his personality. Maybe you should research "things" before you actually post them. Would prevent you as coming across wrong.

The Cannibal

Inter is a poisoned chalice. You have to follow up a treble winning season with a lot of players who are over 30. He might have money to spend but Benitez's number one weakness I think are his transfer dealings. Torres and Reina were his two best signings in a 6 year period and you didn't have to be a genius to sign Torres. Nearly every other signing he made had little impact and he offloaded players that he actually needed to keep. Roma are also right behind Inter now. They only JUST managed to win the league last season. I think all these factors combining might mean that Benitez fails to see a second season at Inter.

Catenaccio!

Osu wrote: »

Obviously you don't know what the word mug means?

It's a comment on his personality. Maybe you should research "things" before you actually post them. Would prevent you as coming across wrong.

Comment on his personality? Really? How did you come to that conclusion for the guy?

Obviously he's going to agree with this now but anyways...

Catenaccio!

The Cannibal wrote: »

Inter is a poisoned chalice. You have to follow up a treble winning season with a lot of players who are over 30. He might have money to spend but Benitez's number one weakness I think are his transfer dealings. Torres and Reina were his two best signings in a 6 year period and you didn't have to be a genius to sign Torres. Nearly every other signing he made had little impact and he offloaded players that he actually needed to keep. Roma are also right behind Inter now. They only JUST managed to win the league last season. I think all these factors combining might mean that Benitez fails to see a second season at Inter.

Know what you mean but like I was saying, he's a manager that can win things, there's no doubt about that. I'm not even saying I'm a fan of the guy but it seems fairly ridiculous that some here just write him off completely with bland comments such as "he's a mug".

You're forgetting some other players.

Alonso, Agger, Mascherano, Johnson...


But yeah, some questionable ones no doubt.

_Bella_

The pundits arent great before the match other than Hamann. I remember watching them before the German match and that was fairly embarassing but the after match analysis is enjoyable to watch and honestly if you dont like it I dont understand why you watch it.

Catenaccio!

Because I pay for it and I'm well entitled to knock it if I care to do so.

who_ru

i think Bill, johnny and eamo should all retire after this tournament, they've bee at it 22 years now since euro '88 and it's seriously time to move on.

i agree with an earlier posting that we shouldn't take 'punditry' too seriously but we need a bit of new blood.

The Cannibal

It'll likely just be Souness, Brady and Whelan with Darragh Maloney once Bill, Eamonn and John step down.

OPENROAD

It just won't be the same without Dunphy, just look at tonights coverage

Pro. F

Catenaccio! wrote: »

See, maybe it's just me but I don't fall into this "x were sh*te" stuff.

...
So yeah, Italy were not 'sh*te' yesterday.

Yes, imo they were.

If you don't fall into this "x were sh*te" stuff, what does that mean exactly? Does that mean you never claim a team was shìte in a game? I find that hard to believe. I would suggest that the truth is we actually just disagree about this particular game.

Catenaccio! wrote: »

Didn't create near enough chances in the final third but were extremely comfortable in defense and had the upper hand in midfield. They also seemed to gel a lot better when they went 4-4-2 for the last half hour.

They most certainly were not muck in last night's game. Slick passing, extremely composed on the ball, but lacking that little bit of creativity in the final third. How exactly does that equate to being 'muck'?

By top teams in the World Cup standards they were muck.

They didn't look troubled in defence? So what? They were playing a weak team who offer very little threat. And they still gave up a soft goal.

They had the upper hand in midfield? I would hope so, paraguay's midfield was nothing to be scared of and they're no great shakes at pressuring the opposition. And they still failed to create much positive defence splitting passes or crosses.

I agree they were better when they went 442, especially with the contribution of camorrinesi (sp?), so there is some hope for them. And as I said, you can't write them off because they are italy and they were without Pirlo, but in that game they were muck.

Catenaccio! wrote: »

How the hell was Brady proven right when he said he didn't rate those players? Based on one game? Even so, two of those players (Montolivo and Pepe) had good games, the former came in to it when he was free from the starting formation, and Pepe causing some problems but had some disappointing final balls.

Of course based on one game. He said he didn't rate those three players and then we saw them offering fùck all in the game that followed. Now maybe they'll prove him wrong in the long run but he said they wouldn't be much good in that match and they weren't. And Pepe and Montelivo did not have good games. Montelivo was alright but not the standard you need as the fulcrum of an attack. Pepe was absolutely useless in that game, it's hilarious that you say otherwise.

Catenaccio! wrote: »

And your 'Paraguay ffs' comment is pretty bizarre. You do realise that this team beat took four points off Argentina and three off Brazil (were one-nil up away to Brazil in their defeat) during the WC qualifying campaign?

Tbh I couldn't give a fidler's fùck who they beat or took points off. It's plain to see that they are a limited team. If you pay too much attention to stats and records you can end up missing the truth that is presented on the pitch.

LuckyLloyd

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/sport/Tom-English-39The-level-of.6364084.jp

'The level of punditry is patronising and insulting'
Premium Article !
Published Date: 16 June 2010
By Tom English

IT'S FAIR to say that it's not just ITV that has taken some stick for some of their coverage at this World Cup, particularly the coverage of the tournament's lesser lights. The BBC have been getting it in the neck as well. To give you an example, what I'm talking about here is things like Alan Shearer's self-proclaimed "expert analysis" that amounts to a conveyor belt of cliches and the kind of insight that even a child of six would describe as laughable.

Before the Algeria versus Slovenia game in Group C on Sunday, Shearer seemed to be speaking for the entire BBC panel when he said, "Our knowledge of these two teams is limited." Limited! What the former England striker was saying was that he hadn't done his homework, that he hadn't spoken to any of his vast array of contacts in the game, hadn't tapped into the BBC's huge research machinery, hadn't even bothered, seemingly, to peruse the internet for some background on Algeria and Slovenia or even flick through a newspaper or a magazine. Shearer was content to sit in front of the cameras and tell the viewers that, really, he didn't know much. Hardly a revelation to those of us who have groaned our way through his anodyne commentaries in the past, but embarrassing all the same.

Why do the BBC deem that acceptable? Why is Shearer not taken aside and told, 'Listen, if you can't be bothered doing some research on this game then get lost'. It's a different, and entirely more professional story, on radio where the wonderful 5 Live and, closer to home, the award-winning Radio Scotland present their football coverage in a proper fashion. How does Shearer (but not just Shearer) get away with opting out like that?

And here's another one. The Beeb got carpeted by some viewers for their treatment of that Algeria game. So what happened before the kick-off in yesterday's lunch-time match between New Zealand and Slovakia? In a six-and-a-half minute introduction just one player out of the 22 on show was given a name-check, and here is how it happened.

Lee Dixon: "Slovakia have got some decent players, Hamsik, the pick of them. Young player, plays on the left side."

Gary Lineker: "He's at Napoli."

Lee Dixon: "That's right."

Alan Hansen (chuckling): "Somebody gave you him, by the way."

What Hansen meant, I think, was that his colleagues must have been fed the Hamsik reference by another party, that they couldn't have come up with his name all by themselves. It's not like Dixon or Lineker produced a dossier of facts about Hamsik, a file of information on who he is and where he has been. All they did was mention his name and the fact that he was rather good. That was it. Hansen seemed to think this was worthy of a gently-mocking put-down, as if the other two were some kind of class swots. As such, he was almost revelling in his own ignorance.

There's a lot of this going about, on BBC and ITV. The level of punditry is cringe-making. It's lowest common denominator stuff. Patronising and insulting, much of it. Emmanuel Adebayor's mobile phone started ringing in his pocket live on air the other day. His respect for the viewers didn't even amount to him making sure the thing was switched off. Edgar Davids has been unintelligible, Gareth Southgate hasn't said one interesting thing, Kevin Keegan has been nothing more than a cheerleader for England and Andy Townsend has been his usual bland self, trotting out statements of the obvious with a rapid-fire gusto. "I tell you what, for me, he's gotta hit the target from there!"

And you are paid how much, Andy?

Clarence Seedorf was in the BBC studio the other night for the Italy versus Paraguay match and he was making a point about the positive impact an Italian substitute had made on the game. He was referring to Antonio Di Natale, winner of more than 30 caps for the Azzurri and the leading goalscorer in Serie A in the season just gone, but Seedorf couldn't remember his name. Hadn't a clue. Neither did the blokes alongside him, Hansen among them. "He was the No 10," said a smiling Seedorf, who then reached for a team-sheet on the desk for help before realising that it was the Dutch team-sheet. "That's no use," he laughed. Indeed, Clarence.

Hansen thought this was priceless. "That might be highlight of the World Cup so far," he trumpeted. The programme ended and still nobody had figured out that the No 10 was Di Natale. You would hope that behind the scenes the BBC producers were holding their heads in their hands with embarrassment, but you wouldn't bank on it. Of course, in the squirm factor stakes there are many challengers. Mick McCarthy claimed just before kick-off in the Argentina versus Nigeria game that he'd only just realised that the Juan Sebastian Veron that appeared on his team-sheet was the same Veron who'd played for Manchester United and Chelsea. Quite a statement of ignorance, that.

In fairness to McCarthy, he does have something to offer in his reading of the game. It's just that there is so much that makes you wince in between. What we're getting a lot of from both sides is glib nonsense, crap jokes and crass stereotyping. Adrian Chiles is flavour of the month on ITV, but his popularity is not what it was. It wasn't his fault that ITV HD pressed the wrong button at the wrong time during England's opening game and missed Steven Gerrard's goal, but Chiles has been distinctly unconvincing in the anchor role. He wants to be the funny man when the job demands gravitas. He wants to throw in one-liners when he should be attempting to spearhead a proper discussion about a match.

His introduction to England's game against the Americans was mortifying. Wielding a baseball bat and sending a message to America, he said, "Just stick to your sports, why don't you?" Chiles was also seen patting a burger, adding: "We really love Americans, just wouldn't eat a whole one." He made himself look like a clown.

Keegan's summing-up: "It was a very, very good performance, good enough to win any game." This classic piece of Keegan claptrap should have been jumped upon and ripped apart for the nonsensical garbage that it was, but it sailed through pretty much. Chiles doesn't do confrontation – neither does the BBC – and it's a terrible weakness. There is no edge, no passion. It's all so bloody harmless and dull.

ITV needed somebody with a backbone to turn around to Keegan and say to him, 'Okay Kevin, what you're saying there is a load of junk. Explain how getting a draw against a team of journeymen like America is very good, explain the selection of James Milner out of position, explain why the rank ordinary Shaun Wright-Phillips was brought on instead of the classy Joe Cole, explain the failure of Gerrard and Frank Lampard to function together yet again, explain why this negated Wayne Rooney's impact'. Kev didn't do any of that, though.

There are many days ahead when our intelligence will be insulted by "expert analysts" who speak to us like simpletons who've just staggered home from the pub. We could do a lot worse than hitting the mute button from here on in. Or getting the commentary off the radio.

RTE are streets ahead of the competition at present. And that's saying something!

Chiles was also seen patting a burger, adding: "We really love Americans, just wouldn't eat a whole one."

Wtf ? :pac:

OPENROAD

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/sport/Tom-English-39The-level-of.6364084.jp



RTE are streets ahead of the competition at present. And that's saying something!

Without Brady, Dunphy and Giles, I find it quite boring

DB10

Listen Cantenaccio, you seem intent on knocking the RTE coverage as you have done so for the last week. I don't know if you're on some massive WUM but it would appear to be so especially since you claimed this coverage was beneath you and that you don't watch it.

Now we find you are closely monitoring it. Well it doesn't add up on your end, so sort yourself and your conflicting posts out in future.

flahavaj

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/sport/Tom-English-39The-level-of.6364084.jp



RTE are streets ahead of the competition at present. And that's saying something!

My problem with the RTE analysis is actually the same gripe that article has with the BBC. They (at least Giles and Dunphy) don't seem to do any background research on the so-called leser known players or teams. They readily admit this on a regular basis. Stuff like Giles thinking Elano has played for Hull (I presume he had him mixed up with Geovanni) is just sloppy and reeks of poor preperation, especually when you consider its Brazil we're talking about, one of the tournament favourites.

The strength of teh RTE analysis is their understanding of the general principles of football. I love when Giles picks out little things like the positioning of midfiekders, how theyre not showing for the ball properly. I like how they stay true to their own philosophy of the game and I like how they hold good defending and good attacking in equal standing. I like how they dont jerk off over a player based on a few good games in the Premiership and don't bow to media hype.

The RTE coverage has many flaws such as Dunphy's playing the sensational card a little too much and the lack of prep on more obsure teams. But its still by far the best analysis out there on TV and will remain so until someone sees the ligt and gives the likes of James Richardson a terrestrial TV job.

OPENROAD

flahavaj wrote: »

My problem with the RTE analysis is actually the same gripe that article has with the BBC. They (at least Giles and Dunphy) don't seem to do any background research on the so-called leser known players or teams. They readily admit this on a regular basis. Stuff like Giles thinking Elano has played for Hull (I presume he had him mixed up with Geovanni) is just sloppy and reeks of poor preperation, especually when you consider its Brazil we're talking about, one of the tournament favourites.

The strength of teh RTE analysis is their understanding of the general principles of football. I love when Giles picks out little things like the positioning of midfiekders, how theyre not showing for the ball properly. I like how they stay true to their own philosophy of the game and I like how they hold good defending and good attacking in equal standing. I like how they dont jerk off over a player based on a few good games in the Premiership and don't bow to media hype.

The RTE coverage has many flaws such as Dunphy's playing the sensational card a little too much and the lack of prep on more obsure teams. But its still by far the best analysis out there on TV and will remain so until someone sees the ligt and gives the likes of James Richardson a terrestrial TV job.

Best part of it imo

flahavaj

OPENROAD wrote: »

Best part of it imo

Its the best and the worst.

Wildly entertaining but can be embarrassing at times.

Catenaccio!

DB10 wrote: »

Listen Cantenaccio, you seem intent on knocking the RTE coverage as you have done so for the last week. I don't know if you're on some massive WUM but it would appear to be so especially since you claimed this coverage was beneath you and that you don't watch it.

Now we find you are closely monitoring it. Well it doesn't add up on your end, so sort yourself and your conflicting posts out in future.

You're right, I did say that I tried to not watch it, but there's been occasions during this tournament where the majority in the house have decided to watch RTE, so I happen to hang around and watch, not much I can do there is there? Also, some people here have posted up 'analysis' on youtube from the guys in the studio, some 5 minute clips here and there. I've no problem in checking those out to see if what I was originally thinking is still the same or if I'm actually wrong in all of this.

I'd suggest you read what I post before cheekily advising me to sort myself out. No need for that.

CorkMan

Its amazing how RTE didn't buy one copy of World Soccer's guide to World Cup 2010. That has everything in it, incluing the sure top players, the hidden prospects and players who are on the wane.

It gives an analysis of every team, the coaches view and top critics views. Just amazing. They should do some research instead of coming up with "I don't know" when asked for a prediction.

Le King

I love the RTE coverage when the match is over the entertainment, at least for this World Cup so far, begins.


IMO, RTE have by far the best set-up for this World Cup.

Catenaccio!

Pro. F wrote: »

Yes, imo they were.

If you don't fall into this "x were sh*te" stuff, what does that mean exactly? Does that mean you never claim a team was shìte in a game? I find that hard to believe. I would suggest that the truth is we actually just disagree about this particular game.

No, it doesn't mean I never claim a team was sh*te in a game. It means I actually analyse the game that bit more than coming out with a sloppy and bland comment such as the above. You're clearly disregarding the good things that went on in the game and just overly focusing on the negatives. Whereas I'm concentrating on both - I noticed where they did well and where they need to improve big time.

By top teams in the World Cup standards they were muck.

They didn't look troubled in defence? So what? They were playing a weak team who offer very little threat. And they still gave up a soft goal.

They had the upper hand in midfield? I would hope so, paraguay's midfield was nothing to be scared of and they're no great shakes at pressuring the opposition. And they still failed to create much positive defence splitting passes or crosses.

I agree they were better when they went 442, especially with the contribution of camorrinesi (sp?), so there is some hope for them. And as I said, you can't write them off because they are italy and they were without Pirlo, but in that game they were muck.

They didn't look troubled in defence means that they played well in defence and only let Paraguay have one attempt on target, and unfortunately for the Italians it was the one that went in the back of the net. Paraguay are not a weak team. Please get this out of your mind.

As for having the upper hand in midfield, I'm just stating what I saw, and this is another positive for the Italian team. And your point about not creating much in the final third is exactly what I've been saying and I'm agreeing with you on this. This is where you could possibly say that they were 'sh*te' but to summarise the entire performance under that term is just bizarre.

As for your 'muck' comment, just read what I've written above and it covers that.

Of course based on one game. He said he didn't rate those three players and then we saw them offering fùck all in the game that followed. Now maybe they'll prove him wrong in the long run but he said they wouldn't be much good in that match and they weren't. And Pepe and Montelivo did not have good games. Montelivo was alright but not the standard you need as the fulcrum of an attack. Pepe was absolutely useless in that game, it's hilarious that you say otherwise.

Well the problem with Montolivo was that he was playing in the wrong position and I'm not sure why Lippi does this. If he was switched with Marchisio then we would most probably seen an entirely different game. The last 30 minutes gave us a hint at what we were missing out on. He's a quality player. And Pepe, while not the best player ever to put on an Italian shirt had a solid game, even if he was caught offside too many times. He linked up well with Zambrotta, the only attacking full-back on the pitch that day.

Tbh I couldn't give a fidler's fùck who they beat or took points off. It's plain to see that they are a limited team. If you pay too much attention to stats and records you can end up missing the truth that is presented on the pitch.

Well maybe you should give "a fidler's f*ck" because then that would prevent you from making such comments as "Paraguay ffs". I'm not just basing my opinion on stats, I've seen them play.

noodler

RTE defo go overboard on the sweeping generalisations of a performance.

Arsenal get knocked out fo the CL at the knock-out stages and the lads say they are finished.

Bit much, no?

The Cannibal

The only time I get fed up with them is when they can't move on from a point. Even as a Utd fan I was glad to see Ronaldo leave just so the RTE panel would stop turning every single Utd game into a "Is Ronaldo any good?" debate.

He'd score against Hull or something.

"He doesn't do it against big teams Bill"

Scores against a big team.

"It's his character Bill. Great players need to have character."

It got to the point of vendetta with Dunphy.

Pro. F

Catenaccio! wrote: »

No, it doesn't mean I never claim a team was sh*te in a game. It means I actually analyse the game that bit more than coming out with a sloppy and bland comment such as the above. You're clearly disregarding the good things that went on in the game and just overly focusing on the negatives. Whereas I'm concentrating on both - I noticed where they did well and where they need to improve big time.

So you do sometimes say a team were shìte in a game yet you don't come out with comments like the above (where I said a team was shìte in a game)? You're contradicting yourself.

I mentioned lots of aspects of the Italian team's performance and overall - by big wc teams standards - I think it was muck. You think otherwise. It's not because you've done more analysis, it's simply because you've seen things differently to me. We could argue endlessly but I doubt there's much point to be honest.

Paraguay is probably an extension of the same argument (I think they're tidy but average international team).

We disagree about Italy. We disagree about Paraguay. In fact we disagree about nearly every aspect of that game. I can't wait for the next time italy play.

Catenaccio!

Pro. F wrote: »

So you do sometimes say a team were shìte in a game yet you don't come out with comments like the above (where I said a team was shìte in a game)? You're contradicting yourself.

I mentioned lots of aspects of the Italian team's performance and overall - by big wc teams standards - I think it was muck. You think otherwise. It's not because you've done more analysis, it's simply because you've seen things differently to me. We could argue endlessly but I doubt there's much point to be honest.

Paraguay is probably an extension of the same argument (I think they're tidy but average international team).

We disagree about Italy. We disagree about Paraguay. In fact we disagree about nearly every aspect of that game. I can't wait for the next time italy play.

Look, you're clearly not reading what I'm typing:

Catenaccio! wrote:

This is where you could possibly say that they were 'sh*te' but to summarise the entire performance under that term is just bizarre.

And yes, I have done more analysis, have read quite a bit about the game, and watched parts of the game again after it was over. As for the next time they play, same here, I can't wait.

nullzero

Punditry is generally bad on all tv channels.
The regular RTE lads know a lot about the game, while they may not always do their homework, they are fantastic at analysing games in an in dept manner that you never even catch a scent of on the likes of the BBC or ITV.
The analysis of the England USA game was a case in point, Giles and Dunphy just looked at it like any other game and pointed out the obvious that Gerrard and lampard can't play together. The BBC were singing the praises of Gerrad and Lampard and saying how much of an impact they could have at the world cup. Now Capello himself has decided to leave one of them out, I'm sure Hansen and Shearer will be pretending they were saying Gerrard and Lampard couldn't play together all along.

Dunphy can be a sensationalist at times, which is good fun but not always what you want to hear, but at least the core analysis of the games is good, were it not for that the RTE lads would just be as bad as the BBC clowns.

Pro. F

Catenaccio! wrote: »

Look, you're clearly not reading what I'm typing:

And yes, I have done more analysis, have read quite a bit about the game, and watched parts of the game again after it was over. As for the next time they play, same here, I can't wait.

Look, imo their overall performance, when you weigh up all facets of the game, was poor. There were some good aspects imo (some of their keep ball passing, the last twenty minutes, di Rossi, Zambrotta & Camorinesi) and we agree on some of them. But those positives don't out weigh the negatives for me.

So you've spent more time reading other peoples analysis and re-watching the game - bully for you. I still think you are very wrong.

LuckyLloyd

nullzero wrote: »

The analysis of the England USA game was a case in point, Giles and Dunphy just looked at it like any other game and pointed out the obvious that Gerrard and lampard can't play together. The BBC were singing the praises of Gerrad and Lampard and saying how much of an impact they could have at the world cup. Now Capello himself has decided to leave one of them out, I'm sure Hansen and Shearer will be pretending they were saying Gerrard and Lampard couldn't play together all along.

Have to agree with this. The snippets from the game that they chose to illustrate their points hit the nail on the head. A genuinely solid bit of post game analysis.

Ronnie Whelan not knowing the offside rule :eek:

Eire-Dearg

Absolute top quality analysis from a good panel over the last week. Kudos to RTE for putting it all together - especially getting Irwin and Didi in who have been terrific. Apres Match has been superb too, of course.

glanman

giles has just been speaking about a mystery centre back for England, Lesley King... Corrected himself after saying it three times...

flahavaj

Didi Hamann has been quite the find for RTE. Insightful, well balanced, articulate, actually seems to have done some research and most of all amazing accent.

Krusader

Didi was excellent tonight and the panel agreed with him on numerous points

Ush1

He's been a good pundit long before he came on RTE.

Fowler87

Didi is a legend... top player, top pundit, top man.... the way he says club cracks me up... cloob:D

seadnamac

flahavaj wrote: »

Didi Hamann has been quite the find for RTE. Insightful, well balanced, articulate, actually seems to have done some research and most of all amazing accent.

I was thinking before that he might have just been brought in originally to cover the Germany games but he's impressed so much they have just kept him on ever since. He's been on everyday practically since the first German game. Irwin, Sadlier, Kilbane, Whelan etc must be raging.

missingtime

seadnamac wrote: »

I was thinking before that he might have just been brought in originally to cover the Germany games but he's impressed so much they have just kept him on ever since. He's been on everyday practically since the first German game. Irwin, Sadlier, Kilbane, Whelan etc must be raging.

You might ad dunphy to that list after tonight :pac:

Jimmy Iovine

Didi was brilliant tonight. Really showed his class interpreting the different reasons behind England's performance

Hope RTÉ can keep a hold of him and not let him be wasted on Sky or ITV

Mr. Guappa

flahavaj wrote: »

Didi Hamann has been quite the find for RTE. Insightful, well balanced, articulate, actually seems to have done some research and most of all amazing accent.

He has been very good. His insightful and informed opinions work well with the bluster and generalisations of Dunphy and Giles. Hopefully RTE snap him up for their Champions League coverage. A panel of Didi, Souness and Brady would work nicely if Dunphy and/or Giles are indeed going after this tournament.

youcrazyjesus!

I didn't know this about Hamann.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/manchester_city/article6395955.ece