• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Worst pundit or commentator

Glenda's Legs said:
Two scenarios - commentary and punditry - which I think have different requirements. When we are all accustomed to a male voice on commentary (in the men’s game) then a female voice can come across as more high pitched which some might feel is grating and I understand that takes a bit of getting used to - it did for me. But then I think of Steve McNamamen who always sounds squeaky, or Carragher whose accent I detest, or even my beloved Hoddle who can sound quite dreary when commentating. Add others to the list.
The question is can a commentator accurately and usefully describe what is happening in a game as it unfolds and add insightful input as the game progresses, and can a pundit offer decent analysis of what has happened after the event.
Competency is what matters rather then who is speaking, regardless or whether male, female, or club allegiance.
Click to expand...
Yeh well this is it there are good and bad it doesn't come down to make of female IMO.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Two scenarios - commentary and punditry - which I think have different requirements. When we are all accustomed to a male voice on commentary (in the men’s game) then a female voice can come across as more high pitched which some might feel is grating and I understand that takes a bit of getting used to - it did for me. But then I think of Steve McNamamen who always sounds squeaky, or Carragher whose accent I detest, or even my beloved Hoddle who can sound quite dreary when commentating. Add others to the list.
The question is can a commentator accurately and usefully describe what is happening in a game as it unfolds and add insightful input as the game progresses, and can a pundit offer decent analysis of what has happened after the event.
Competency is what matters rather then who is speaking, regardless or whether male, female, or club allegiance.
Click to expand...

Tbh when I first heard a woman commentator on MOTD (around 15 years ago?) it sounded odd and I took me a while to get used to because I wasn’t accustomed to it and I don’t like change but now I barely notice.

I have no issue with having as many female voices as the broadcasters like in either a commentary or a punditry setting provided the person gets the gig on merit which should be the ultimate standard in any position in any walk of life. In terms of presenters, for me Kelly Cates and Gabby Logan are fine broadcasters and are as good as their male counterparts.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Yeh well this is it there are good and bad it doesn't come down to make of female IMO.
Click to expand...

Fair points. And I agree with Glenda’s post which I quoted. The only thing I’d add is the female game still has a way to go catch up to the men’s game so when they critique the men’s game, it’s just a different standard and I don’t feel it’s wrong to point that out. That’s the only slight issue with having females being pundits on the mens game. It’s a bit like having a league two player being a pundit for a PL game.
 
Pundits are defined as experts in a particular field, how many on TV are expert at managing or coaching successful teams, most are ex players who have spent their career being told what to do.
All of us on here have a degree of expertise on Spurs and football in general, we may not have played a top level but have an opinion which are just as valid as some in the media, you don't need to be able to play a piano to know when someone is playing it badly.
Too much time filling crap about games, I'm happy with highlights of incidents and goals and making up my own mind at what I've seen.
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
Pundits are defined as experts in a particular field, how many on TV are expert at managing or coaching successful teams, most are ex players who have spent their career being told what to do.
All of us on here have a degree of expertise on Spurs and football in general, we may not have played a top level but have an opinion which are just as valid as some in the media, you don't need to be able to play a piano to know when someone is playing it badly.
Too much time filling crap about games, I'm happy with highlights of incidents and goals and making up my own mind at what I've seen.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of players, even highly successful ones, who don’t understand the game.

Being good at something, is not a prerequisite to understanding it, the ability to explain it, or most importantly, being able to decipher the stats that come from it.
 
Baleforce said:
There are plenty of players, even highly successful ones, who don’t understand the game.

Being good at something, is not a prerequisite to understanding it, the ability to explain it, or most importantly, being able to decipher the stats that come from it.
Click to expand...

True, but a pundit’s views carries more weight if they’ve achieved and won things at the highest level. The World Cup is next year, BBC and itv will be getting pundits who have played at world cups. Jurgen Klinsmann’s word means more than what Robbie Savage has to say.
 
Jurgen the German said:
True, but a pundit’s views carries more weight if they’ve achieved and won things at the highest level. The World Cup is next year, BBC and itv will be getting pundits who have played at world cups. Jurgen Klinsmann’s word means more than what Robbie Savage has to say.
Click to expand...

It does, but we should probably investigate why it does, and understand the data behind that. The level coached at is likely a better indicator of understanding than the level played at, although there will be anomalies.

Alan Shearer has scored more PL goals than anyone ever, and he’s getting better to be fair, but the amount of times I’ve heard him say “he should have scored there”, when it was actually a lower xG chance.

He could play the game, he could do incredible things, but I doubt he could explain his thought process for all of them, or coach that decision tree process into someone else.
 
Baleforce said:
It does, but we should probably investigate why it does, and understand the data behind that. The level coached at is likely a better indicator of understanding than the level played at, although there will be anomalies.

Alan Shearer has scored more PL goals than anyone ever, and he’s getting better to be fair, but the amount of times I’ve heard him say “he should have scored there”, when it was actually a lower xG chance.

He could play the game, he could do incredible things, but I doubt he could explain his thought process for all of them, or coach that decision tree process into someone else.
Click to expand...

When you look back over the years a lot of the top scorers weren't brilliant players they had that knack of being in the right place, you can't teach that although some geek will produce some stats and graphs which show where a player is most likely to score from but they lack context.
 
Jurgen the German said:
True, but a pundit’s views carries more weight if they’ve achieved and won things at the highest level. The World Cup is next year, BBC and itv will be getting pundits who have played at world cups. Jurgen Klinsmann’s word means more than what Robbie Savage has to say.
Click to expand...
That's because Robbie Savage has a sub-90 IQ, at a guess, and Klinsmann is reasonably intelligent. If there's any relevance in their respective careers, it's probably down to intelligent players being easier to coach.

I'd far rather hear from someone intelligent and articulate than someone who was there but has all the intelligence of a Timmeh or the vocabulary of Joe Cole. Whether they used to kick a ball for a living or not has little to do with it.
 
scaramanga said:
That's because Robbie Savage has a sub-90 IQ, at a guess, and Klinsmann is reasonably intelligent. If there's any relevance in their respective careers, it's probably down to intelligent players being easier to coach.

I'd far rather hear from someone intelligent and articulate than someone who was there but has all the intelligence of a Timmeh or the vocabulary of Joe Cole. Whether they used to kick a ball for a living or not has little to do with it.
Click to expand...

Critics are best when they are professional at what they do, not people parachuted in from other careers. Film critics aren't ex-actors. Book critics aren't ex-authors. Music critics aren't ex-musicians.

I'd much rather MOTD used someone like Jonathan Wilson who is able to give some actual tactical analysis.
 
scaramanga said:
That's because Robbie Savage has a sub-90 IQ, at a guess, and Klinsmann is reasonably intelligent. If there's any relevance in their respective careers, it's probably down to intelligent players being easier to coach.

I'd far rather hear from someone intelligent and articulate than someone who was there but has all the intelligence of a Timmeh or the vocabulary of Joe Cole. Whether they used to kick a ball for a living or not has little to do with it.
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree but you still need at least one ex player on a panel who has been in the situation before of a penalty shootout or a World Cup final and can describe the emotions and the event itself. There are pundits who may not be the most articulate people in the world but you can still respect their views when it comes to football. The problem is there a tendency to keep employing idiots like Paul Merson because he’s fairly controversial.

I really like Roy Keane. He’s not afraid to say what he thinks which is often sorely lacking when it comes to punditry but I also feel he’s thoughtful as far fetched as that sounds. He won’t mastermind but he’s not an idiot either.
 
Jurgen the German said:
I don’t disagree but you still need at least one ex player on a panel who has been in the situation before of a penalty shootout or a World Cup final and can describe the emotions and the event itself. There are pundits who may not be the most articulate people in the world but you can still respect their views when it comes to football. The problem is there a tendency to keep employing idiots like Paul Merson because he’s fairly controversial.

I really like Roy Keane. He’s not afraid to say what he thinks which is often sorely lacking when it comes to punditry but I also feel he’s thoughtful as far fetched as that sounds. He won’t mastermind but he’s not an idiot either.
Click to expand...
Why do we need people who can describe the emotions?

Everyone can describe the event, we're watching it.
 
Jurgen the German said:
I don’t disagree but you still need at least one ex player on a panel who has been in the situation before of a penalty shootout or a World Cup final and can describe the emotions and the event itself. There are pundits who may not be the most articulate people in the world but you can still respect their views when it comes to football. The problem is there a tendency to keep employing idiots like Paul Merson because he’s fairly controversial.

I really like Roy Keane. He’s not afraid to say what he thinks which is often sorely lacking when it comes to punditry but I also feel he’s thoughtful as far fetched as that sounds. He won’t mastermind but he’s not an idiot either.
Click to expand...

I like the 2 journalists + 1 ex-player balance. Like the classic Mike Ingham, Alan Green and Jimmy Armfield trio from 90s Radio 5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back