BBC/ITV Pundits

DB10

Right I know there is another thread but that is for punditry gold and discussing RTE pundits.

What do people think of the pundits on nthe neighbouring English channels?

I think they are woeful.

BBC:

Shearer - The BBC combo of Shearer and Hansen most likely the worst combination I have ever seen. Two of the most boring men ever, very hard to listen to. Which would be alright though if they didn't also spout utter bollocks time after time. Shearer was a great player but a pathetic pundit, and what really bugs me is his arrogance. He said yesterday on an advert "come watch my expert analysis". **** off.

Hansen - As above really, I just think he is the most bland character and offers no insight at all. He is also incredibly biased towards certain players/teams.

Adebayor: As an Arsenal fan I despise this **** of a man, but trying to be slightly objective I would say he talks too fast and just doesn't suit H/S. He knows alot more than the other two from what I have seen though.

Seedorf: Best of a bad bunch. Intelligent guy but again slightly boring figure.

ITV:

Robbie Earle : Sacked yesterday for a WC ticketing scandal. No loss.

Southgate: Dear oh dear... I thought he was an underrated manager but my word does this bloke talk some utter nonsense.

Townsend: Still refers to England as we, regularly comes out with utter drivel. When England are playing he goes into orgasm, you just can't listen it is disgusting.

flahavaj

I have no idea of anything Adebayor has said so far. It may have been brilliantly insightful, but he's impossible to understand. You'd think they'd have checked that before they hired him.

Mister men

I don't listen to any of them BBC,ITV,Sky or RTE.

Mister men

flahavaj wrote: »

I have no idea of anything Adebayor has said so far. It may have been brilliantly insightful, but he's impossible to understand. You'd think they'd have checked that before they hired him.

Racist :P

SickBoy

flahavaj wrote: »

I have no idea of anything Adebayor has said so far. It may have been brilliantly insightful, but he's impossible to understand. You'd think they'd have checked that before they hired him.

I was pressing the red button looking for a subtitle option for his analysis

DB10

flahavaj wrote: »

I have no idea of anything Adebayor has said so far. It may have been brilliantly insightful, but he's impossible to understand. You'd think they'd have checked that before they hired him.

He wasnt really insightful, I just noticed he knew a few names like Suarez that I didn't expect. He also knew South Africa lost 3-0 to France in WC 98.

I had low expectations really he comes across as a mercenary and a fool but he seems to know a bit.

He shouldn't be on there though. Isn't easily understood, especially by H&S.

OPENROAD

DB10 wrote: »

Townsend: Still refers to England as we, regularly comes out with utter drivel. When England are playing he goes into orgasm, you just can't listen it is disgusting.

Well he is English

Peyton Manning

Seedorf and Davids are very good I think. Vieira just goes along with the script the rest of em read unfortunately. As for Adebayor, I have no idea. I just nod and say yes much look I did with the guy from Derry I lived with for a year.

BraziliaNZ

I like Seedorf, think he's ice cool. Klinsi seems to talk some sense too. Lineker annoys me, Hansen's boring, Shearer only got the job because of his career. I like our senior panel but when Giles and Dunph and Billo retire we're pretty screwed, although Liamo and Souness are good too.

jesus_thats_gre

Just post the newscotsman article..

OPENROAD

Mixed feelings about BBC, can't stand Hansen and Lawro, like Lee Dixon, think he is very good, Lineker is good as long as he does not try to be funny.

Have yet to watch ITV

Aidric

flahavaj wrote: »

I have no idea of anything Adebayor has said so far. It may have been brilliantly insightful, but he's impossible to understand. You'd think they'd have checked that before they hired him.

You would have thought the ability to speak English clearly and concisely would be a basic requisite to a job as an analyst with an English speaking channel.
To his credit he seems enthusiastic but the bottom line is he shouldn't be there.

DB10

I really can't stand Linekar either. He is like a book of football cliches.

When he said "Bafana Bafana means boys, and well it really was men against boys out there".

I nearly threw up in mouth...:pac:

flahavaj

Archimedes wrote: »

Seedorf and Davids are very good I think. Vieira just goes along with the script the rest of em read unfortunately. As for Adebayor, I have no idea. I just nod and say yes much look I did with the guy from Derry I lived with for a year.

:pac:

Was he always angry?

People from Derry are very angry all the time.

sky88

itv are aweful i think mainly because of adrian chiles i find him irratating. i actually think adebeyor is good i understand everything he says

BraziliaNZ

flahavaj wrote: »

:pac:

Was he always angry?

People from Derry are very angry all the time.

Maybe they wont be as bitter now with recent developments

Peyton Manning

flahavaj wrote: »

:pac:

Was he always angry?

People from Derry are very angry all the time.

He could have been. But I wouldn't know because I never understood a word he said! I'd always make an excuse to leave the room, that's how awkward it was!

Jimmyboss

A decent piece on Pitch Invasion on this topic..........


http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2010/06/16/on-the-amazingly-anodyne-world-cup-television-coverage-in-britain/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+PitchInvasion+(Pitch+Invasion)&utm_content=Google+Reader


I’m not old enough to remember World Cup television punditry in England being good; I was born at the arse-end of the 1970s, the decade the concept of men (and it’s almost always men, of course) sitting around in a television studio talking before, in the middle of and after games was born in Britain. Back then, I’m told, the likes of Brian Clough and Malcolm Allison were must-watch television with their forthright opinions.

Nowadays, it’s as anodyne as anodyne can be. As “A History of Punditry” puts it:

In truth, punditry has eaten itself. What began as a frank discussion designed to explain and enliven has now become something so saturated and over-analysed that it tells the viewer nothing. The stultification of punditry is in part due to the intense media focus on British football in general which turns the kindest of criticism into all-out war but it’s also because pundits are aspirant coaches, scouts, managers etc themselves and keen not to burn any bridges with potential future employees.

In the 1970s, however, Brian Clough was part of a golden age of punditry that didn’t concern itself with tact. It began with the 1970 World Cup and that unlikely revolutionary Jimmy Hill. Asked to revitalise the ITV coverage for the tournament and steal the BBC’s thunder Hill crafted a ‘panel’ of men he hoped would be “conceited enough to think that their opinion was the right one”. For one month, the flamboyant Man City coach Malcolm Allison, the footballing activist and Wolves’ skipper Derek Dougan, Manchester United’s midfield motormouth Paddy Crerand and Arsenal stalwart Bob McNab holed up in London hotel commuting to the studio each day. Allison, bouffant and cigar-smoking, was in his element denouncing the ‘peasant’ teams of continental Europe and the scurrilous ways of the ‘Latins’. Derek Dougan, as eloquent a pundit as he was PFA chairman, represented the players’ voices in a way never achieved before or since and Crerand added the barstool belligerence you can still enjoy on MUTV.

Living in the United States myself now, I haven’t been able to see how British television is covering the 2010 World Cup — though Twitter folks I follow over there have been pretty scathing.

The problem appears not just to be how dull the pundits are on the BBC and ITV, but how stubbornly resistant they are to knowing anything about any of the teams aside from England. In The Scotsman today, columnist Tom English absolutely demolishes the level of “insight” the likes of former England captain Alan Shearer has been offering to viewers on the tournament on the BBC:

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. [ . . ]

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.

English doesn’t spare ITV, either, with their highly paid new anchor Adrian Chiles embarassing himself before the U.S.-England game:

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.

Summing up, English concludes: “The level of punditry is cringe-making. It’s lowest common denominator stuff. Patronising and insulting, much of it.”

I’m not surprised to learn this, but it is amazing the coverage of the World Cup continues to get worse on British television. ESPN should think carefully before aiming to emulate everything about the British way of broadcasting the games.

newballsplease

DB10 wrote: »

Townsend: Still refers to England as we, regularly comes out with utter drivel. When England are playing he goes into orgasm, you just can't listen it is disgusting.

TBH I actually never heard him refer to England as 'We'.

FreeOSCAR

newballsplease wrote: »

TBH I actually never heard him refer to England as 'We'.

Me neither. I have heard Lawrenson say it though plenty of times.

OPENROAD

FreeOSCAR wrote: »

Me neither. I have heard Lawrenson say it though plenty of times.

No big deal though.

MisterAnarchy

Who is that insufferable gob****e hosting MOTD highlights ,Colin Murray ?
The guy thinks he is funny but he is about as funny as a hole in the head.

Mr.Nice Guy

I am starting to warm to Murray more after being initially disappointed that he got the job, but I do find he is quite goofy at times. Comes across like he's trying too hard to be funny. Overall I've not been that impressed with the BBC. Hansen just sits there smug looking to make some smart arsed comment, while Lineker often does the same. Dixon I find OK. Adebayor as said is tough to make out but he's tolerable. Seedorf is quite good from what I've seen of him.

I do find the BBC quite patronising though. For example if they show a clip of some fans, or some players warming up, you're always just waiting for Lineker to make some condescending quip to get a few giggles. He's not as insufferable to me as Richard Keys is on Sky but he runs him close.

With regards ITV, I always liked Chiles but I don't know if it's the ITV effect or what but I just don't find him as likeable on that station for some reason. Townsend - great player, useless pundit. As bland as a radiator. I actually can't think of many on ITV I like with the exception of Southgate who I think is good.

My viewing habits tend to be to watch the games on BBC or ITV as they lessen the infamous drone, but I watch the preview of games and the post-match analysis on RTE. I do think RTE's analysis could be a good bit better but it's still way ahead of the others imo.

Frisbee

Have to say I quite like Adebayor. He knows what he's talking about and I'm having no difficulty understanding what he is saying really.

DB10

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I am starting to warm to Murray more after being initially disappointed that he got the job, but I do find he is quite goofy at times. Comes across like he's trying too hard to be funny. Overall I've not been that impressed with the BBC. Hansen just sits there smug looking to make some smart arsed comment, while Lineker often does the same. Dixon I find OK. Adebayor as said is tough to make out but he's tolerable. Seedorf is quite good from what I've seen of him.

I do find the BBC quite patronising though. For example if they show a clip of some fans, or some players warming up, you're always just waiting for Lineker to make some condescending quip to get a few giggles. He's not as insufferable to me as Richard Keys is on Sky but he runs him close.

With regards ITV, I always liked Chiles but I don't know if it's the ITV effect or what but I just don't find him as likeable on that station for some reason. Townsend - great player, useless pundit. As bland as a radiator. I actually can't think of many on ITV I like with the exception of Southgate who I think is good.

My viewing habits tend to be to watch the games on BBC or ITV as they lessen the infamous drone, but I watch the preview of games and the post-match analysis on RTE. I do think RTE's analysis could be a good bit better but it's still way ahead of the others imo.

Agree with nearly all that, I also don't watch the games on RTE due to the poor sound quality but do look at the analysis.

OPENROAD

DB10 wrote: »

Agree with nearly all that, I also don't watch the games on RTE due to the poor sound quality but do look at the analysis.

And the very annoying George Hamilton , that said I do like Ray Houghton.

Sir Gallagher

I must say RTE getting Didi Hamann on the panel was a real coup, i hope they keep him on for champios league stuff next season.

The laziness of some pundits is just insulting, the lack of knowledge of football and players outside of the premier league is astounding. Some of them even have trouble with a knowledge of the premier league.

L'prof

Frisbee wrote: »

Have to say I quite like Adebayor. He knows what he's talking about and I'm having no difficulty understanding what he is saying really.

I understand him alright, but only because I'm half lip reading. Heard him on the radio before and hadn't a notion!

seadnamac

All the main, regular pundits on the BBC and ITV are absolutely f*cking terrible. They spout nothing but drivel that is aimed to appeal to the mindless, the braindead, the lowest common denominator of football fan. It is patrionising and insulting. They seem to believe that their audience is made up of viewers who aren't intelligent enough to comprehend anything more complex than 'he scored a goal so he played great', 'they won so they are a good team', 'he scores goals from midfield so he is a world class midfielder'. I honestly don't know why the public in Britain put up with it. Are they aware of it?

I think Steve Claridge and Martin Keown are decent, but of course they get sidelined in case they say something too complicated for their perceived audience.

Say what you want about our lads and some of their faults when it comes to a bit of research before games and such but I for one think they are a credit to the game and lightyears ahead of any of their competition when it comes to breaking down and analysing 90 minutes of football, and having an intelligent debate.

ollaetta

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the reinvention of "Motty" as a pundit. Reminds me of Jimmy Magee the way he has to trot out stats all the time.

daveyjoe

I've mainly been watching on ITV/BBC because of poor RTE reception in my place.

Lineker: I don't mind him as a presenter, wouldn't consider him a pundit. Chiles is the same, he's alright.

Shearer: Never really heard him come up with anything of much insight.

Hansen: Uggh, really hate him.

Seedorf, Klinsmann, Davids and Dixon are all quite good, Southgate is ok too. The thing about the UK punditry though is that there's never much of a debate about anything. They all agree on almost everything and when they don't agree then Lineker/Chiles just change the topic instead of probing a bit deeper. ITV's coverage of the England game was absolutely awful, they completely failed to acknowledge how bad England played.

I find the The Guardian's World Cup Daily podcast to be a good source of light punditry. I actually find Barry Glendenning funny and I like the contributions from Sid Lowe and Bandini.

Also, on the commentary, Mick McCarthy and Andy Townsend wreck my head.

newballsplease

Is it just me that thinks this Muppet looks like Mick McCarthy?!