Your Favourite Football Analyst?

Cokeistan

Neville for actual analysis

Dunphy for entertainment

Oscorp

aidan24326 wrote: »

Are you joking? Dion Fanning is a <insert expletive here>

Why is that?

thebaz

thers only one Eamo -

p.s. the Last Word has never been the same , try as matt Cooper does

Spiderpig92

Eamon Dunphy and Richie Sadlier, say it as it is and to the point

Pro. F

Jonathan Wilson for the wide view on football tactics. Also general football history.

Brian Kerr for analysis of teams and players before a game or tournament. Also the champion of co-commentary.

Johny Giles for analysing the flow of a game and rating player contributions and team performances immediately after the final whistle. He's especially good when talking about psychology and on-the-ball skills.

Neville for analysing game incidents and tactics just after the game - the replay king.

Dunphy for in-studio entertainment.

Brian Michael Cox for write-ups on games after the dust has settled. He puts in more details and insight than anyone else.

G.K.

Can't fault much of what you said there, although I think you mean Michael Cox...

Pro. F

G.K. wrote: »

Can't fault much of what you said there, although I think you mean Michael Cox...

Yeah
Was changing that just now.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

Didi Hamann or Neville.

homerjay2005

Most of them are really poor to be honest,but i have great time for Andy Grey and at a local level, Souness.

I hate Ronnie Whelan the most.

flyswatter

Brian Glanville, writes for World Soccer magazine and Sunday Times. He's pretty old now (80) but no one has as good a knowledge of the history of the game as he does, he's covered tonnes of world cups over the years.

Remember being fascinated reading about his memories of the corruption in the Italian game in the 60's when Inter bribed officials with things like cash, Rolexes etc in order to win the European trophies.

He's pretty much seen it all. You can read his articles for free on the World Soccer website.

Jax Teller

Michael Cox from Zonal Marking wrote a good piece on punditry for the guardian yesterday .
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/nov/27/gary-neville-punditry-sky-bbc?CMP=twt_gu

Gary Neville's punditry is the best, but others need to raise their game

The Sky man is celebrated for his research, neutrality and controversial analysis, but this should be the general standard

It requires considerable experience of watching British football coverage to understand why Gary Neville is such a celebrated pundit, for he has become universally popular for merely filling his job description. His step-by-step analysis of Stoke City's goal at West Ham last week was masterful, yet so simple – he pointed out a hand signal, a couple of blocks and a clever run. Shouldn't this be the general standard?

After all, providing insight upon a sport you've played at the highest level shouldn't be particularly challenging. Neville made his punditry debut for ITV at the 2002 World Cup, whilst sidelined with the early 21st century curse of the broken metatarsal, and the Brazil side that won the competition is a decent analogy for Neville's punditry – clearly the best, but their quality exaggerated by the poor standard of the opposition.

Neville's popularity is essentially rooted in three factors. First, he argues against the consensus. Last season, for example, when Chelsea were struggling to adapt to André Villas-Boas's high defensive line, they conceded a goal when Ashley Cole was stationed behind the rest of the Chelsea defence, playing an opponent onside. To every other pundit, and to the vast majority of television viewers, the problem was clear – Cole was in a bad position. But Neville said the opposite. Cole, he said, was the only Chelsea defender in a good position – the other three were to blame.

Second, Neville is thorough; his Monday Night Football offerings are clearly the result of meticulous research. Putting together a 15-minute sequence on the art of diving, as he did towards the end of last season, takes dedication and commitment others lack. One Sky colleague comments on how Neville treats punditry the same way he treated professional football, where he succeeded primarily through hard work and intense preparation, rather than natural talent.

Third, despite being a symbol of Manchester United, Neville appears neutral. This is actually more important when applying to individuals rather than clubs, and is in stark contrast to his colleague Jamie Redknapp, who remains determined not to criticise friends – which is particularly difficult considering he appears to be mates with, or related to, a number of key Premier League characters.

In this respect, Redknapp's fault is nothing more than being a nice man, and he's become more critical, but at the start of his television career the situation was ludicrous. When analysing England's Euro 2004 defeat to France, when England conceded a penalty courtesy of Steven Gerrard's wayward backpass and David James's clumsy challenge on Thierry Henry, Redknapp managed to blame Ashley Cole for not thumping the ball downfield. Both Gerrard and James, of course, had been Redknapp's team-mates at Liverpool. Neville has avoided such partisanship, seemingly in spite of his coaching role with England.

Pundits are frequently quizzed on areas they're not experts on (refereeing decisions, for example) and this applies more specifically to roles on the pitch, so Neville is, naturally, most engaging when discussing defending. Presenter introductions often contain "jokes" about how the punditry lineup is based heavily around one position – Gary Lineker did so when opening the BBC's Germany v Italy coverage at Euro 2012, with Gianluca Vialli, Alan Shearer and Jürgen Klinsmann alongside him. That's four world-class strikers, yet there was no specific focus on goalscoring.

Sky's Goals on Sunday does this excellently. A relaxed roundup of the previous day's action is interspersed with friendly but engaging analysis – perhaps in the knowledge that many are witnessing the goals for a second time, so the discussion takes a different slant. Often it is serving managers who appear on the show – it was David Moyes last weekend – but even players produce good insights, because they're asked about their own areas of expertise. Last season Ian Wright and Jermain Defoe appeared together, and although that lineup is hardly likely to rival Marcelo Bielsa in terms of deep football thinking, the duo were constantly asked about finishing, about movement in the box and about striking partnerships. Somewhat surprisingly, it was excellent television, and as illuminating on the subject of scoring goals as Neville is about preventing them.

Sky's La Liga coverage is also interesting, partly because of guests that have ranged from Rafael Benítez to Fabio Capello, but also because there's a focus on overall strategies – not just post-commentary on goals, but discussion upon the pattern of the game, using video examples of pressing, for example, or diagonal balls. Meanwhile, ITV's Champions League coverage deserves credit because they've created a fine partnership in Roy Keane and Lee Dixon – Keane talks primarily about attitude and team spirit, Dixon concentrates on tactical and technical aspects.

There is little to recommend in Match of the Day's analysis. In fairness, the producers are in an impossible position, forced to cater to a huge range of tastes, from those who simply want to see goals, to those who want detailed, in-depth debate about offside traps and overlapping full-backs.

When the mere running order is argued furiously across social networks, it's impossible to please the majority with the actual discussion – but the suspicion is that neither purist nor casual fan is satisfied by the current arrangement.

Match of the Day's experiment with Vincent Kompany was interesting yet ultimately fruitless in terms of analysis. The Belgian is, if anything, too statesmanlike and media-friendly for the role – he insisted that no, he wasn't remotely pleased to see his side's major title rivals lose against a side battling relegation. Michael Owen was no more illuminating – but their mere appearances were a sign that Match of the Day is seeking to evolve its coverage and use different faces. The likes of ESPN and ITV have increasingly featured journalists on round-up shows, but as Neville has shown, there is no substitute for an insightful ex-pro when talking about on-pitch matters.

Often, they're not the biggest names. The ex-Arsenal and West Ham midfielder Stewart Robson is excellent in his role as ESPN's Italian football co-commentator, delivering sharp tactical insights while the match is still in play, while the former Middlesbrough midfielder Robbie Mustoe has made a name for himself on US television. Michael Robinson, most famous at Brighton, is a key figure in Spanish television.

Occasionally, you witness a guest pundit with great intelligence – Jens Lehmann is superbly analytical (and disturbingly calm), the former Tottenham goalkeeper Erik Thorstvedt is another. When Barcelona faced Real Madrid in the Champions League last year, Eidur Gudjohnsen was wonderful when discussing the difference between Pep Guardiola and José Mourinho.

None have won as many titles as Alan Hansen or scored as many goals as Alan Shearer, but in terms of insight, they shouldn't be any less respected. The thing about ex-professionals is that they retain their competitive streak – pair Hansen with Shearer and the Scot is happy to spout cliches, but when he was alongside Dixon, he sensed competition and upped his game.

Losing Dixon was a blow, but the BBC aren't in a disastrous position. One fine appointment – someone in the mould of Gudjohnsen, perhaps – could be the catalyst for others to step up. Match of the Day remains the most prominent football show on television – it simply needs to find its Neville.

Xavi6

Can't stand Michael Cox and his 'analysis'. Most of us could do the same if we had the time to sit around for hours on end pausing, rewinding and watching the same clips over and over.

Very overrated for stating the obvious IMO.

Sir Gallagher

Nice to see nobody has mentioned the jokers on Soccer Saturday.

I like Kenny Cunningham although he lacks a little charisma. Sadlier speaks sense but he sounds as if he's on the verge of bursting into tears everytime he speaks, a very whingy voice, which i find offputting.

That article above states something ive felt ever since all this Gary Neville love has came about. He's basically doing his job properly, some of the pundits out there get away with murder, but i can see that changing over the next few years.

I honestly dont see how Mark Lawrenson is still in a job, he's as miserable as they come. I refuse to watch any match he co-commentates on. He's like a black hole for any joy or fun which occurs in football. He along with plenty of others need to be put out to pasture.

Roddy23

I honestly dont see how Mark Lawrenson is still in a job, he's as miserable as they come. I refuse to watch any match he co-commentates on. He's like a black hole for any joy or fun which occurs in football. He along with plenty of others need to be put out to pasture.

Ray "Hindsight" Houghton is another I cannot stand.

Souness, Hamann and Neville are good pundits.

Bill, Eamon and Co are great entertainment.

The_Kew_Tour

flyswatter wrote: »

Brian Glanville, writes for World Soccer magazine and Sunday Times. He's pretty old now (80) but no one has as good a knowledge of the history of the game as he does, he's covered tonnes of world cups over the years.

Remember being fascinated reading about his memories of the corruption in the Italian game in the 60's when Inter bribed officials with things like cash, Rolexes etc in order to win the European trophies.

He's pretty much seen it all. You can read his articles for free on the World Soccer website.

Cant believe I forgot to mention him.

One of the best out there.

Red Crow

Is Shaka Hislop still being paid?

intellectual dosser

My heart sinks every time I see my team is playing on Saturday evening and therefore is on ESPN. Both their punditry and commentary are shocking I normally mute it. Can agree with most of the names put forward here - Neville, Souness etc.

On the side - has anyone ever muted their TV when Kenny Cunningham is analyzing a game? Imagine him as a gangster threatening to kill you.

intellectual dosser

intellectual dosser wrote: »

My heart sinks every time I see my team is playing on Saturday evening and therefore is on ESPN. Both their punditry and commentary are shocking I normally mute it. Can agree with most of the names put forward here - Neville, Souness etc.

On the side - has anyone ever muted their TV when Kenny Cunningham is analyzing a game? Imagine him as a gangster threatening to kill you.

I actually think Cunningham is a decent pundit.

His independent eyebrows are mental though, just can't stop staring at them,very hypnotising. He's probably best suited to the radio.

leonidas83

Eamon Dunphy is a top pundit imo, wouldnt change him or Giles for the world.

He's not gr8 on detail but he encourages the game to be played in the right way & whatever any1 says he wants whats best for Irish football at the end of the day.

Rate him as a journalist too, I think its only when the likes of him & Giles are gone that we'll really miss them

Caveman1

I love watching Neville's analysis, I wouldn't be the biggest fan of his commentating.

One person who I cannot stand is Steven Howard, he writes for The Sun (surprise) he's actually a terrible journalist IMO.

RikkFlair

Didi Hamann knows his stuff, RTE should get him on more often. Added bonus would be his Apres Match doppelganger

NIMAN

Michael McMullan.

Dante

Richard Sadlier, the only person in RTÉ with any clue of the sport.

master-t

Dream Team TV Lineup to replace the awful drab that some shows are serving up these days:

Host: James Richardson (Still watch old reruns of his Football Italia)

Joined for In Depth Analysis By: Gary Neville, Didi Hamann & Lee Dixon

Weekly Guest Analyst / Journo: Brings the stories from around the world of football - The likes of Tim Vickery, Gabrielle Marcotti, Jonathon Wilson, Tom Williams, Sid Lowe , Janusz Michalik etc.

Lighter Note Weekly Segment - 'Our Man In The Stand' - with Stan Collymore and special guest as they discuss the public's emails, tweets etc. Guests are usually past footballers who have knowledge of football, not just wind up merchants ala Jimmy Bullard.


Now this I would watch. Adios MOTD, hello 'The Beautiful Game'

Pro. F

Xavi6 wrote: »

Can't stand Michael Cox and his 'analysis'. Most of us could do the same if we had the time to sit around for hours on end pausing, rewinding and watching the same clips over and over.

Very overrated for stating the obvious IMO.

I think his website is very good if you want to read a report on a match you haven't seen. But beyond that I agree, his analysis is very overrated.