Robbie Savage is a decent pundit TBH. He's entertaining, he's not afraid to voice his opinion. He's much better than Phil Neville or Danny Murphy.
Since when has the clubs ambition for this season not been top 4? One can argue back and forth whether it's realistic or not, but I doubt RK & RK are thinking "6th or 7th will do". Savage is still a cockwomble.
Being a better pundit than Phil Neville or Danny Murphy is no great shakes, my missus could do a better job than dumb and dumber?
Blimey, I consider Danny Murphy to be an excellent pundit. I wouldn't even mention him in the same sentence as Neville or Savage.
And here's one out of left field - whenever I hear Joey Barton speak about football he talks sense. He speaks well, unlike a lot of players and several pundits, and whether or not you agree with him you cannot deny that he has thought about what he's said. Just listening to Radio 5 Live Sport, and he's a guest along with Dean Saunders and a couple of others, and he's been very informative, technical and entertaining. He's apologised for being a bit too technical at times, but Mark Chapman has correctly pointed out that it is fascinating. Available as a podcast later on this evening.
Yes and disagree with most of what he says, but would rather listen to someone with an opinion than some of the dross rolled out by the BBC
Ron has already said that CL is not realistic this season, but has set a time frame of 3 years as an ambition.
I believe that's called managing expectations. I don't see anyone yet outside of Chelsea/City/Arsenal putting down a strong claim for 4th place yet. <cliche>Still early days of course</cliche> but with Liverpool, United and Spurs all allegedly "in transition" I think 4th is wide open to anyone brave enough to go for it.
Can't agree. He's excellent at voicing his opinions, true. But so is the bloke down the pub. Surely, being a pundit is about having opinions based on research and knowledge of the game. He seems to spend half of every season apologising to fans because he was wrong. He is just another example of the laddish culture and general dumbing down that is prevalent today. Really, he's an insult to the intelligent viewer.
I suppose it about what you want to get out of a tv pundit. If you're after straight facts and dry analyses or opinion and musings. Savage fails badly at the former but i suppose you can use him for entertainment value. Hansen was the same, a biased miserable git he was, but he was more interesting to listen to than Alan 'banality incarnate' Shearer.
Very true. But even with Hansen I felt he had more to offer and was totally cliche driven like Shearer or Savage, and I always loved his, "shocking defending".
Phil Neville is absolutely awful as a pundit, and Savage is a complete muppet. He is entertaining at times, but he is really stupid, much like Paul Merson. Danny Murphy surpasses both of them, as he clearly knows his stuff, comes across well, and isn't annoying.
Gary Neville is the one I respect...no one is right all the time, but at least you feel he has thought about it.
