World Cup: 'The level of punditry is patronising and insulting'

Mark.Mark. Posts: 84,895
Forum Member
✭✭✭
This was posted on the Football Commentators Thread, but I think it's deserving of wider discussion:

http://sport.scotsman.com/football/Tom-English-39The-level-of.6364084.jp

It's a very good article and pretty much sums up my thoughts on the coverage so far.
«1

Comments

  • ShaunWShaunW Posts: 2,356
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm an admirer of Hansen but I have to say his voice manner whilst speaking to Emmanuel Adebayor was toe curling.

    The British habit of talking slowwwwly to Johnny Foreigner.
    :o
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 22,377
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Totally agree. Great article.

    I saw Lineker hand over to Shearer during half time at the Italy-Paraguay match and all he said endlessly was "they need to play better in the second half". Well, duh. He manged to fill about 5 minutes of airtime without saying one thing which even remotely added anything to the coverage. Woeful.

    ITV aren't any better. Watching the half time show on ITV for Brazil-North Korea last night was awkward. Chiles making unfunny jokes/puns that only Southgate was polite enough to (weakly) laugh at. Davids clearly isn't being paid per word and looked rather like someone kidnapped his family and forced him to do punditry. To his credit Southgate tried to get Davids to open up but failed.

    Southgate himself is hardly the most articulate or enthusiastic-sounding person but I was glad he was there, as he seemed the only one willing to fill what could become an increasingly lengthy awkward silence.

    At least ITV have less time at HT to fill.

    "Glib nonsense, crap jokes and crass stereotyping" - indeed.
  • franchisefranchise Posts: 1,426
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Shearer is from the school of 'describing what I can see on screen' school of punditry. Anti-punditry if you will, adding absolutely nothing that we didn't already know. No wonder they have that chronic bus out there to pad out time.
  • howard hhoward h Posts: 23,367
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    When are TV companies ever gonna realise we, er, don't actually NEED pundits, and we don't NEED summarisers/co-commentators?

    At least with the "red button" technology we can watch the game without commentators at all, and at half-time they could just show one camera shot of the pitch, which would be a darned sight more interesting than listening to Shearer et al.

    On the red button during the winter olympics, when there was a break in play, they simply showed the stadium. Simple and effective.
  • The WandererThe Wanderer Posts: 5,238
    Forum Member
    howard h wrote: »
    When are TV companies ever gonna realise we, er, don't actually NEED pundits, and we don't NEED summarisers/co-commentators?

    At least with the "red button" technology we can watch the game without commentators at all, and at half-time they could just show one camera shot of the pitch, which would be a darned sight more interesting than listening to Shearer et al.

    On the red button during the winter olympics, when there was a break in play, they simply showed the stadium. Simple and effective.

    On the main channels though, they need to keep the viewers attention. No matter how much crap they may talk, the pundits do that better than a shot of the stadium
  • henderohendero Posts: 11,773
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    No matter who the pundits were, or what they said, there would be people moaning about them. They are absolutely fine. Alan Hansen wouldn't have been on MOTD for ten years if he was rubbish, Lineker is pleasant enough and far better spoken than 99% of professional footballers, Chiles must be doing something right to have had the two major UK TV networks battling over his services. Both channels have brought in generally thoughtful, non-English players with World Cup experience to add their perspective. I'm not sure what people want.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,535
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Good article that. It touches on my pet-hate so far that most or all the pundits and commentators keep whingeing about how dull and boring it is, be it their particular game or the tournament as a whole. They can only comment on what they see, so if it's boring they are going to have to work hard to keep our attention (radio) but surely that's their job. Its the fact that most of us would give anything to be at these games, and they just seem to be intent on letting us know how hard done by they are by getting a 'boring game'. At half time (particular on a GL BBC game) they almost seem to be revelling in how amusing it is that its yet another boring game and its rotten luck for them to have to sit there and be subjected to it. :confused:

    Robbie Savage was going to take the top prize for this during yesterday's Portugal Ivory Coast game, he just moaned and moaned through the first half. But then he redeemed himself at half time saying "I think I should give my fee back for analysing this match because I have absolutely nothing to say!" :D
  • henderohendero Posts: 11,773
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The games have for the most part been boring, due mainly to the lack of goals. What are the pundits supposed to do, say, "This has been great and exciting football"? They'd get slammed for not knowing what they're talking about.
  • Tel69Tel69 Posts: 26,962
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why do we need so many pundits at games?? We have a presenter plus 3 in the studio, we have commentator plus pundit doing the game and then there's normally another one somewhere in the stadium that generally has little or nothing to say.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,535
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'd just like to see them concerned about why it was poor, who was making mistakes, discussing how teams might use substitutions or tactics to change things in the second half. The problem is more to do with their attitude which is coming across as slapdash and that they are all so p!ssed off at having to sit through it and because it's poor quality they can't be bothered to try to think of anything to say about it.

    As the article points out, they are pretty open (even jokey) about their lack of research about 'lesser' teams - if they had researched the teams and individual players they would by definition be able to offer some comment. Even if that's not the case, I can only speak personally, but its the impression they give me as a viewer anyway.
  • franchisefranchise Posts: 1,426
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    milmol wrote: »
    As the article points out, they are pretty open (even jokey) about their lack of research about 'lesser' teams - if they had researched the teams and individual players they would by definition be able to offer some comment. Even if that's not the case, I can only speak personally, but its the impression they give me as a viewer anyway.

    Makes you wonder what they think they are out there for really. Wouldn't anyone talking about an event actually put some effort in to research it?
  • stateofgameplaystateofgameplay Posts: 3,578
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It comes to something when Chris Moyles and Comedy Dave was a preferable option yesterday.

    Which by the way, goes to prove how few people we actually need in South Africa watching the games. TalkSport and Moyles and Dave commentating via video feeds. Lineker and co could easily be in TV Centre...

    The World Cup as a whole, the football itself, has been appalling, and I do put part of that down to the Vuvuzelas.
  • wgmorgwgmorg Posts: 5,020
    Forum Member
    Upto the point the writer demonstrated his own ignorance...

    Explain how getting a draw against a team of journeymen like America is very good

    ... all these issues being expressed are down to the expectancy of yet another English soccer team failure.
    solarflare wrote: »
    Totally agree. Great article.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6,400
    Forum Member
    Tel69 wrote: »
    Why do we need so many pundits at games?? We have a presenter plus 3 in the studio, we have commentator plus pundit doing the game and then there's normally another one somewhere in the stadium that generally has little or nothing to say.

    Its like BBC North West Tonight, just a tribute show to British Leyland overmanning.

    Bring back Clough, Revie , Mercer & Jimmy Hill style stuff , at least these people had an opinion. The comatose massives they have on now are just threadbare , what withe the sound of the beehive in the background & these goons as well, no wonder im finding this tournament a total snooze fest.

    :)
  • gushgush Posts: 98
    Forum Member
    No surprises here at all - it's simply dumbed down Britain!

    We see this attittude in many areas of British society - we are getting what we deserve. Bad education, bad social morals etc etc. breeds complacency.

    Being a german speaker, I watch the ARD and ZDF coverage - they do not offer the schoolboy tittering we get here!

    I suspect many folks just watch the games and either go into standby or swich channels when the drivel starts.
  • Tel69Tel69 Posts: 26,962
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Its like BBC North West Tonight, just a tribute show to British Leyland overmanning.

    Bring back Clough, Revie , Mercer & Jimmy Hill style stuff , at least these people had an opinion. The comatose massives they have on now are just threadbare , what withe the sound of the beehive in the background & these goons as well, no wonder im finding this tournament a total snooze fest.

    :)

    As you rightly say the characters and their opinions have gone. These guys around now have been media coached to within an inch of their lives and have nothing but soundbites without any substance at all. Take Shearer as an example, the only player I can think of who was more dull at giving interviews is Michael Owen yet Shearer is on MOTD most weeks. :confused:
  • mikey1980mikey1980 Posts: 3,647
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Mark. wrote: »
    This was posted on the Football Commentators Thread, but I think it's deserving of wider discussion:

    http://sport.scotsman.com/football/Tom-English-39The-level-of.6364084.jp

    It's a very good article and pretty much sums up my thoughts on the coverage so far.

    I agree with everything on that article.

    Of course the issue isn't a new one - we've been putting up with p***poor punditry on the BBC and ITV for the last two decades. Andy Gray is good on Sky, and the RTE panel in Ireland are excellent, but that really is it. Pundits are generally not worthy of the name, and rely on the apparant authority that comes from being former professional footballers; in reality, they are dull, sycophantic and ignorant.

    Add to this the player interviews which are excruitiatingly dull, and you ask yourself why bother having any build-up or half-time chat? People moan about ITV's adverts and short build-up time, but what are they missing? The adverts are probably more interesting.
  • degsyhufcdegsyhufc Posts: 59,251
    Forum Member
    Lineker and Hansen (and I think Shearer) were pretty bad the other day. They were already taking the p out of NZ v Slovakia. Credit to Seedorf who said he wanted to watch it as he was there to watch all the matches not just the top names - most of who haven't particularly shined.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 327
    Forum Member
    What gets me is how many times Lineker has to remind us of how bored he is after every pass over from commentators to the studio.
    Its like if there isnt at least 3 goals after every 45 minutes he's watching paint dry.
  • RobinCarmodyRobinCarmody Posts: 3,103
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Completely agreed, and the fact that 'hendero' defends the pundits sums up precisely what they are, and who they're aiming at - all the worst aspects of English (in the past usually described as British, but now developing into something considerably more dangerous) fake-nationalism and fake-imperialism. The tone of light-hearted joshing before the USA game was significantly quite different from the way the English media usually treats England's opponents (not that I approve of that, but the double standard is *very* revealing), and that might be part of the reason England didn't win - English players are so mediocre that they need to hate their opponents to psych themselves up to beat them, to make them appear better than they are, and how can they hate the nation from which they have taken the entire culture they pretend is theirs?

    I suspect Irish viewers are getting *much* better and more informed analysis.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 497
    Forum Member
    From what I have seen of Klinsmann I would rate him highly as a pundit.
  • Harkins63Harkins63 Posts: 1,148
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    hendero wrote: »
    Chiles must be doing something right to have had the two major UK TV networks battling over his services.

    Any ideas what that might be because i'm perplexed.
  • onecitizenonecitizen Posts: 5,042
    Forum Member
    mikey1980 wrote: »
    I agree with everything on that article.

    Of course the issue isn't a new one - we've been putting up with p***poor punditry on the BBC and ITV for the last two decades. Andy Gray is good on Sky, and the RTE panel in Ireland are excellent, but that really is it. Pundits are generally not worthy of the name, and rely on the apparant authority that comes from being former professional footballers; in reality, they are dull, sycophantic and ignorant.

    Add to this the player interviews which are excruitiatingly dull, and you ask yourself why bother having any build-up or half-time chat? People moan about ITV's adverts and short build-up time, but what are they missing? The adverts are probably more interesting.

    It just goes to show how opinions differ.
    If I hear Andy Gray say "take a bow son, take a bow !" one more time
    I will kick the telly in.
  • RobinCarmodyRobinCarmody Posts: 3,103
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Harkins63 wrote: »
    Any ideas what that might be because i'm perplexed.

    Henderoworld: "something right" = "something my elders and betters like"

    And people say Murdochism is an improvement on British imperialism, rather than just the same thing repackaged ...
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,151
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Rhodes wrote: »
    What gets me is how many times Lineker has to remind us of how bored he is after every pass over from commentators to the studio.
    Its like if there isnt at least 3 goals after every 45 minutes he's watching paint dry.

    I think it's ludicrous the way the bbc pundits are carrying on, it's like they're on one big jolly and the fact that they actually have to do their job is an inconvenience. It's about time the bbc coverage of football including talent was put out to commercial tender to shake the thing up a bit. If they're not careful the people who demand the bbc1 and itv1 back will have their way in a couple of World Cups time.

    On ITV I just despair completely, can they at least provide a crowd noise only option and just show highlights on the red button at half time?
Sign In or Register to comment.