TV pundits
- Thread starter lamby
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
We were so lucky staying in top two all season just because we kept winning games. Claridge was virtually the only one to stand up for us.
i'm suprised at how much of a topic this is, seems a bit odd talking about people talking about football
Certainly, at national level, Claridge was pretty much a lone voice, and he called it from just half a dozen games into the season too. At local level, Murty and Rosenior knew we had enough about us. I would also suggest that several managers knew better that we had something after we'd played their teams.
I've been giving this some thought. If you look at Sky's rugby pundits they are all superb. They are firstly very articulate but also they offer an extremely in-depth analysis of whats going on. I've decided it has to do with the coaching culture of rugby compared to football.
Kids playing rugby are properly coached from a very young age and that continues throughout their playing careers. This gives them a greater understanding of the game and indeed a greater respect for the game than footballers have. I can't ever recall having any meaningful coaching either at school or at club level when I was playing football.
As such, I think the average footballer is ill-equipped to say anything insightful about what they are watching.
Harry Redknapp sums it all up for me. We had Clive Woodward at the club for a while. Now whether or not you think that was a stupid appointment, surely Harry could learn something from someone who has coached and managed a sporting team at the very highest level (and who's first love was football). Well, apparently not. It seems he never sought him out or asked for advice on anything. His and our loss.
I know for a fact that Jonny Wilkinson's kicking coach worked with our youngsters for an hour or two. By all accounts they were all shooting with more power and more accuracy even our that small amount of time.
Well, I started on punditry and ended up up ranting about Harry Redknapp. Thats a good start to the day!
Kids playing rugby are properly coached from a very young age and that continues throughout their playing careers. This gives them a greater understanding of the game and indeed a greater respect for the game than footballers have. I can't ever recall having any meaningful coaching either at school or at club level when I was playing football.
As such, I think the average footballer is ill-equipped to say anything insightful about what they are watching.
Harry Redknapp sums it all up for me. We had Clive Woodward at the club for a while. Now whether or not you think that was a stupid appointment, surely Harry could learn something from someone who has coached and managed a sporting team at the very highest level (and who's first love was football). Well, apparently not. It seems he never sought him out or asked for advice on anything. His and our loss.
I know for a fact that Jonny Wilkinson's kicking coach worked with our youngsters for an hour or two. By all accounts they were all shooting with more power and more accuracy even our that small amount of time.
Well, I started on punditry and ended up up ranting about Harry Redknapp. Thats a good start to the day!
I think it's probably more to do with the (perceived) intelligence of the audience, and how well they understand the game. Firstly rugby is more complex than soccer and it's very common for pundits and commentators to explain some of the more unusual laws of the game as they come up, or try to shed some light on a referee's interpretation. So there is already an understanding that talking about rules and complex areas is something that is done routinely in rugby.
Furthermore, though it is obviously not always the case, there is certainly a perception that the average rugby fan is a fair bit more intellectual than the average football fan, so perhaps intelligent discussion is more encouraged in the rugby studio. Plus, it doesn't take a lot to notice that the pundits are certainly more intelligent, most former rugby players having been considerably better educated than their footballing counterparts, so perhaps they are more inclined/able to participate in intelligent discussion themselves.
Personally I would absolutely love to see some of the radio 5 pundits (Waddle, Nevin, Marcotti for example) given a chance on TV, and the same goes for other journalists who appear on for example the Guardian's football weekly podcast (Rafael Honigstein, Philippe Auclair etc). These guys are scholars, students of the game, and they provide genuine insight that is sadly lacking from most television coverage. On the other hand, it might be inaccessible to the majority of football fans who watch the TV coverage, so perhaps it's a niche that is already sufficiently catered-for.
Furthermore, though it is obviously not always the case, there is certainly a perception that the average rugby fan is a fair bit more intellectual than the average football fan, so perhaps intelligent discussion is more encouraged in the rugby studio. Plus, it doesn't take a lot to notice that the pundits are certainly more intelligent, most former rugby players having been considerably better educated than their footballing counterparts, so perhaps they are more inclined/able to participate in intelligent discussion themselves.
Personally I would absolutely love to see some of the radio 5 pundits (Waddle, Nevin, Marcotti for example) given a chance on TV, and the same goes for other journalists who appear on for example the Guardian's football weekly podcast (Rafael Honigstein, Philippe Auclair etc). These guys are scholars, students of the game, and they provide genuine insight that is sadly lacking from most television coverage. On the other hand, it might be inaccessible to the majority of football fans who watch the TV coverage, so perhaps it's a niche that is already sufficiently catered-for.
I think the bigger problem is that those names probably don't 'look right' or have the same box-office appeal of a Redknapp or Carragher. However, I woudl love to see Marcotti given more air time, think he provides a lot of intelligence and good insight. Loved when he did 606 and took on some of the idiots that call in. His accent is a bit disconcerting sometimes though.
I think we might be in for a fair amount of change in the pundits' seats over the next few seasons. The introduction of Gary Neville to Sky has been an absolute eye opener. His consistent insight goes way beyond anything I've heard from any pundit before. I would agree with the general consensus on here that Lee Dixon and Steve Claridge are probably the best of the regular pundits we see scattered across terrestrial TV but Neville has taken the role to a different level. His passion for the game in general is also completely infectious. Compare him to Hansen (backs the top team who won that week for the title and the bottom team who lost that week for relegation, every week without fail) and Lawrenson (stuck on the fence so long his arse is just a splinter) who haven't added value to a broadcast in their entire careers and it's no contest.
Agree with Pass the football! 5 live are much better than the TV pundits and commentators are much better. Could it be because they do it in the stadium and not in the cocoon of the "TV studio" thus making it sound more authentic for the listener! Enjoy them all - from Taylor, Pleat, Nevin, Molby and Bright!
- Status