Phil Neville to be on MOTD

Corholio

It seems to get on prime time tv you just need to be really bad at what you do.

Will also be on 5live and Football Focus. Are they purposely trying to get rid of football completely from their channel?

dahat

Who cares?

Corholio

dahat wrote: »

Who cares?

In the issue of fairness, I hope you'll now post that on all the threads you don't care about.

Francie Barrett

Haven't watched MOTD in about 5 years, will make sure to continue that trend.

Paully D

He's not that bad IMO.

From the limited bits and pieces I have heard from him I feel he offers very good content, but just needs to work on his delivery. I'm think he'll get better as time goes on.

Hank Scorpio

Picture of him scratching his head during the Moyes era will never leave me

blueser

Paully D wrote: »

He's not that bad IMO.

From the limited bits and pieces I have heard from him I feel he offers very good content, but just needs to work on his delivery. I'm think he'll get better as time goes on.

Er; yes, he is. Did you hear/endure him during the World Cup? Christ, he'd send you to sleep on a clothes line. And apparently Rio ''Mr Charisma'' Ferdinand is also joining the Beeb. Come back Alan Hansen, all is forgiven.

NIMAN

Thank God for recording, at least I'll be able to fast forward through him chatting.

Football punditry really is jobs for the boys, isn't it?

Utopia Parkway

His natural charisma will make him a big success.

Frankie Lee

They've had Mark Lawrenson there for the past 20 years and Shearer there a good few years now. Being terrible doesn't matter at the BBC.

greendom

He can't be any worse than Hansen who stopped being of any relevance years ago

Quazzie

Better than the usual ex-Pool has beens they usually have on.

lertsnim

He replaces someone who was awful so it's a direct replacement. Another season of fast forwarding the "punditry" ahead

gosplan

You'd wonder why they don't just break from the norm and get a good journo with a bit of insight or a sense of humour?

I mean why does it have to be a former international?

Richard Hillman

He was a dull co-commentator. He was excellent as a pundit at the WC. BBC dont have much (if any) live football, so he wont be commentating for a while again.

PS: I would take a dull co-commentator anyday over an annoying one.

vicwatson

Im going back to sky so... :-》

Corholio

Richard Hillman wrote: »

He was a dull co-commentator. He was excellent as a pundit at the WC. BBC dont have much (if any) live football, so he wont be commentating for a while again.

PS: I would take a dull co-commentator anyday over an annoying one.

He was far from excellent IMO. Used to ride along on the comments that were said before him, amazing how many times this happened actually. He's also one of those guys who say these 'when I was at so and so club....' anecdotes repeatedly to prove a certain point.

daithijjj

Danny Murphy only came on the scene lately and is light years ahead of most on the BBC and SKY imo.

Oranage2

He's a less charismatic Gary Neville.......which says it all really!

That_Guy

Meh. Could really care less. I watch MOTD for the goals. If you have to rely on Phil Neville, Alan Shearer and Robbie fúcking Savage for football knowledge then I feel sorry for you.

:pac:

EDIT: I do think that when Friedel gives it up they should get him on. He was excellent during their 5 Live WC broadcasts and on RTE alongside Sadlier.

syngindub

Did he get offered a role at Man Utd?

That_Guy

syngindub wrote: »

Did he get offered a role at Man Utd?

Just a chicken fillet one... Turned it down apparently.

blueser

daithijjj wrote: »

Danny Murphy only came on the scene lately and is light years ahead of most on the BBC and SKY imo.

Murphy isn't bad actually. Then again; compared to Phil Neville, the test card isn't bad.

Corholio

That_Guy wrote: »

Meh. Could really care less. I watch MOTD for the goals. If you have to rely on Phil Neville, Alan Shearer and Robbie fúcking Savage for football knowledge then I feel sorry for you.

:pac:

EDIT: I do think that when Friedel gives it up they should get him on. He was excellent during their 5 Live WC broadcasts and on RTE alongside Sadlier.

I don't think he'd have to go quite that far to get a role on the show :pac:

greendom

Phil Neville was dire for that first England match he commentated on. He did improve after that I thought. Wait and see I suppose but I don't think he's going to be that bad. Although I agree with one of the other posters who said it would be nice to see a professional journalist in the role, rather than a job for the boys club.

Tinie

Martin Keown should be on the panel far more than he is. One of the better MOTD pundits.

michael999999

Thank god for Bein Arabic!

Sir Gallagher

Quazzie wrote: »

Better than the usual ex-Pool has beens they usually have on.

Isn't it sad when football rivalry descends into nonsense like which teams ex players are better pundits.

Also, another bizarre one is the argument about which team has the best jersey. Grown men having bitter arguments over which football team has the better piece of clothing.

smileyj1987

Oranage2 wrote: »

He's a less charismatic Gary Neville.......which says it all really!

Gary Neville has no charisma either but he is an absolute top notch pundit . He offers an opinion that no other pundit can or will go into .
His masterclass on diving is some of the best punditry you will ever watch !

Kirby

That_Guy wrote: »

Meh. Could really care less. I watch MOTD for the goals. If you have to rely on Phil Neville, Alan Shearer and Robbie fúcking Savage for football knowledge then I feel sorry for you.

:pac:.

That means you do care.

Corholio

smileyj1987 wrote: »

Gary Neville has no charisma either but he is an absolute top notch pundit . He offers an opinion that no other pundit can or will go into .
His masterclass on diving is some of the best punditry you will ever watch !

He started off that way but then started listening to all the good things said about him and started pointing out things just for the sake of analysing it. He's a good pundit but some of the praise lavished on him is over the top.

Adamcp898

Lads, it's not the pundits that are the problem, it's the narrative that many have to tow that is.

If people were encouraged to say exactly what they thought then we'd all be entertained as well as maybe getting some honest analysis from everyone, apart from those sitting on the fence in order not to isolate themselves from their profession.

The narrative element means that, no matter whether they're an ex-pro or a journalist, they'll all end up saying something similar in order to preserve it. This straight away puts the broadcaster in the position where they know a certain amount of the viewership will be annoyed regardless and so it is easier to put a familiar ex-pro in front of them than a journalist/football statistician/whomever whose face they've never seen before and who would turn into a reason to berate the production even more.

This all besides the fact that you can't really give much ''in-depth'' analysis of a game with only 5 minutes between the final whistle and the beginning of the game breakdown because most people given a replay or two and that five minutes are capable of coming up with a similar breakdown of the match themselves.

I sometimes wonder would there be a space for a program that airs either a few hours later or the next day where pros who aren't interested in a narrative or keeping their mates happy could break down a game intelligently, in a similar fashion as to how a team does. But I guess the immediacy of how everything is demanded now would go against this.

daithijjj

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Lads, it's not the pundits that are the problem, it's the narrative that many have to tow that is.

If people were encouraged to say exactly what they thought then we'd all be entertained as well as maybe getting some honest analysis from everyone, apart from those sitting on the fence in order not to isolate themselves from their profession.

The narrative element means that, no matter whether they're an ex-pro or a journalist, they'll all end up saying something similar in order to preserve it. This straight away puts the broadcaster in the position where they know a certain amount of the viewership will be annoyed regardless and so it is easier to put a familiar ex-pro in front of them than a journalist/football statistician/whomever whose face they've never seen before and who would turn into a reason to berate the production even more.

This all besides the fact that you can't really give much ''in-depth'' analysis of a game with only 5 minutes between the final whistle and the beginning of the game breakdown because most people given a replay or two and that five minutes are capable of coming up with a similar breakdown of the match themselves.

I sometimes wonder would there be a space for a program that airs either a few hours later or the next day where pros who aren't interested in a narrative or keeping their mates happy could break down a game intelligently, in a similar fashion as to how a team does. But I guess the immediacy of how everything is demanded now would go against this.

This is the thing that grates my gears sometimes with certain views. Not yours btw. Its like people expect the same level of analysis from MOTD that they get on SKY despite MOTD being more airtime precious.

They have about 10 mins talk time to cover every game of the day and even squeeze in thoughts on Sunday/Monday games, Neville and Carra etc can spend 3 times that on a Monday evening. It also has a different audience (albeit 4-5m). The BBC is much more straight laced and a 'cater for all' show. A large proportion of the audience will be small kids and/or viewers who couldnt give the single gram of f**k about 'in depth' analysis. To use an analogy, its fast food/drive thru viewing, SKY is more up market but you're pay for that.

greendom

daithijjj wrote: »

This is the thing that grates my gears sometimes with certain views. Not yours btw. Its like people expect the same level of analysis from MOTD that they get on SKY despite MOTD being more airtime precious.

They have about 10 mins talk time to cover every game of the day and even squeeze in thoughts on Sunday/Monday games, Neville and Carra etc can spend 3 times that on a Monday evening. It also has a different audience (albeit 4-5m). The BBC is much more straight laced and a 'cater for all' show. A large proportion of the audience will be small kids and/or viewers who couldnt give the single gram of f**k about 'in depth' analysis. To use an analogy, its fast food/drive thru viewing, SKY is more up market but you're pay for that.

in that case the expert needs to be concise and insightful. Maybe ex-pros are not the best for such a role as you need to be a skilled communicator and broadcaster to be able to do it correctly.

daithijjj

greendom wrote: »

in that case the expert needs to be concise and insightful. Maybe ex-pros are not the best for such a role as you need to be a skilled communicator and broadcaster to be able to do it correctly.

For anyone not happy with MOTD i suppose they can catch MOTD extra now.

Its all well and good saying you want good communicator's and/or broadcaster's but the majority of the MOTD audience wants a familiar face who has played the game at a high level (or has been on Strictly :pac:)

greendom

daithijjj wrote: »

For anyone not happy with MOTD i suppose they can catch MOTD extra now.

Its all well and good saying you want good communicator's and/or broadcaster's but the majority of the MOTD audience wants a familiar face who has played the game at a high level (or has been on Strictly :pac:)

good point that's a pretty good show, whether on tv or radio

Adamcp898

daithijjj wrote: »

For anyone not happy with MOTD i suppose they can catch MOTD extra now.

Its all well and good saying you want good communicator's and/or broadcaster's but the majority of the MOTD audience wants a familiar face who has played the game at a high level (or has been on Strictly :pac:)

Yeah this is one of the points I was trying to make. A large proportion of the audience is going to disagree with the pundits opinion anyway, even if it makes sense 100%, but they will have a stronger disdain towards some journalist who has the same opinion by simple virtue of the fact they don't recognise him and it'll be too easy to say ''Sure what do all those pundits know, they've never kicked a ball in their lives''.

You could have people analysing the game who have dedicated their lives to studying the game in depth but they'd still get beat with the ''never played, couldn't possibly know anything'' stick.

MarkSRFC21

Haha

Will I Amnt

MarkSRFC21 wrote: »

Barstooling gets even more boring

It's a highlights show, your little barstooling catchphrase is irrelevant.

greendom

Has the BBC been reading this thread ....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/match-of-the-day-presenters-will-be-more-outspoken-this-season-bbc-promises-9667120.html

cournioni

He's on a par with Hansen, dull.

kippy

I haven't watched punditry in ages outside of the lads at RTE and thats more for the "entertainment" value as opposed to the quality of punditry.
BBC has neither entertainment value or quality.

The whole punditry in fairness is a pile of nonsense. Generally lads sitting on the fence, pointing out the obvious, too afraid to ruffel feathers of their ex colleagues/clubs or indeed current staff at clubs for fear of media blackouts etc.

Ultimately there are very few of these "pundits" that offer anything insightful and in fairness, I rarely see the need for them, well the majority of them.

Neville is just another "old boy" who, like a lot of them, doesn't appear to be able hack it on the other side of the fence (management/coaching) and prefers instead to try preach to those who at least have a job in that area.