TigerTedd Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Gaspode said: There were reports before Christmas that the Beeb are considering ditching Football Focus due to a huge drop in viewers - I wouldn't hazard to guess what have may prompted this sheedding of the traditional audience... That’s probably got more to do with getting the highlights on you tube, with no punditry at all. I’m sure ratings are dropping left right and centre, to be fair, with people watching TV on demand instead. I haven’t watched normal TV in yonks, but that’s just me. I dare say people either like punditry or they don’t. I suspect most people have stronger thoughts about that, than who the pundits actually are. Edited January 9 by TigerTedd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Returning ram Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 Barton ran a poll asking about women commentator's should be on men's football, bearing the in mind he has a big following you would expect the results to be heavily favoured towards "no". Yet only 47% agreed with him, the others were either don't care or yes. He still claimed the majority agreed with him though 😳 Stive Pesley 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaspode Posted January 9 Author Share Posted January 9 (edited) 52 minutes ago, TigerTedd said: That’s probably got more to do with getting the highlights on you tube, with no punditry at all. I’m sure ratings are dropping left right and centre, to be fair, with people watching TV on demand instead. I haven’t watched normal TV in yonks, but that’s just me. I dare say people either like punditry or they don’t. I suspect most people have stronger thoughts about that, than who the pundits actually are. You may be right, but it's an amazing coincidence that people's viewing habits all changed at the same time Dan Walker left as the main presenter.... Edited January 9 by Gaspode Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YorkshireRam Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 13 hours ago, G STAR RAM said: As I'm sure you're aware, both played at the top level of MENS football during the 80s. When their views became outdated and irrelevant to the modern game they were cast aside, but at least they were relevant and a point in time. I daresay the same would happen to Lineker had he not joined in with the box ticking. Genuine question then: do you think stature as an ex-professional player is a more important qualification for the role of pundit, than being able to speak eloquently about football? Just wondering why the people providing commentary and analysis need to be ''relevant''? I'd much rather hear a complete nobody provide tactical insight where I learn something, than I would watch someone clumsily stumble through cliches, who's only there because they used to be a pro... AndyinLiverpool and Srg 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubbs Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 Wonder what he would've said if a female pundit tweeted this... The tweet is still up as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 4 hours ago, Seaside Ram said: 2024 😳 Just get me back to 1984 !! 😃 I was going to suggest watching Doctor Who, but of course one incarnation is female and another ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alty_Ram Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 Just my personal take on things but here goes.. IMHO, TV shows of this nature need an engaging host who can hold the whole programme together and draw useful info and insight from whatever experts are there. Whether you think MoTD has that host is a whole other question, but the presenters ability to hold the show together and head off rambling answers or bizarre rantings is the reason why you have a presenter who needn't be a former professional male footballer. Their maleness is neither going to get me to watch it nor to avoid it, I'd just ask are they any good in the presenter role and if they are then I'll watch it. It's like the chat show host role in many ways. Likewise, commentators largely just describe what they are seeing and provide stats and discuss what options there may be from the bench, much as we do as fans when we discuss key phases of a game. We don't need to be former pros to see when a team has gone on the defensive and is inviting pressure or run out of steam, or whether a team has switched formation due to the latest substitutions. That just needs good knowledge of the teams so you can see that a forward has been withdrawn and an extra defender has come on or whatever. Once again, I'm not overly bothered whether that is a male or female voice but on a very minor and very specific point I have very occasionally observed that at really noisy games where the commentators are embedded with the crowd, that I can sometime hear male commentators more clearly than their female counterparts but that is as likely to be my hearing range as anything else. The only real role where ex or current pro footballers seem to be relevant to me is as a pundit. Their insight into what might be happening psychologically or tactically or some insight into the nature of the half time team talk might be useful. Based on Sky Sports shows, they are however just as likely to talk out their backsides and pointlessly squabble and contradict each other as offer much useful insight. In terms of male vs female pundits I'd just want to hear from someone with some relevant insight. If their experience was in the male game from 30 years ago when it was OK for a manager to hurl coffee cups at people then that perhaps may not always have quite the relevant insight that you'd hope for. Likewise, if a female ex pro pundit has never played in front of more than a few thousand fans at most then their take on big game pressures might be less relevant. The women's game is growing though, their top pros are playing in front of bigger crowds, particularly in international tournaments and that is relevant experience in my book. Whether the balance is right yet, I couldn't really say, but the basic principle is not one that I have an issue with. TigerTedd and Anon 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alty_Ram Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 1 hour ago, YorkshireRam said: Genuine question then: do you think stature as an ex-professional player is a more important qualification for the role of pundit, than being able to speak eloquently about football? Just wondering why the people providing commentary and analysis need to be ''relevant''? I'd much rather hear a complete nobody provide tactical insight where I learn something, than I would watch someone clumsily stumble through cliches, who's only there because they used to be a pro... I think this is an interesting point. There are many top ex pros (including ex Derby Managers) who have all the relevant experience on paper but their contributions as a pundit are just a string of "ehhhmm's", "Like I says", "at the end of the days" and other assorted cliches and little or nothing that a fan at the game couldn't have told you. There are others (in my opinion) like Martin Keown who always seem to speak eloquently and knowledgeably - whether you agree with his analysis is another issue of course. YorkshireRam 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 17 minutes ago, Alty_Ram said: Just my personal take on things but here goes.. IMHO, TV shows of this nature need an engaging host who can hold the whole programme together and draw useful info and insight from whatever experts are there. Whether you think MoTD has that host is a whole other question, but the presenters ability to hold the show together and head off rambling answers or bizarre rantings is the reason why you have a presenter who needn't be a former professional male footballer. Their maleness is neither going to get me to watch it nor to avoid it, I'd just ask are they any good in the presenter role and if they are then I'll watch it. It's like the chat show host role in many ways. Likewise, commentators largely just describe what they are seeing and provide stats and discuss what options there may be from the bench, much as we do as fans when we discuss key phases of a game. We don't need to be former pros to see when a team has gone on the defensive and is inviting pressure or run out of steam, or whether a team has switched formation due to the latest substitutions. That just needs good knowledge of the teams so you can see that a forward has been withdrawn and an extra defender has come on or whatever. Once again, I'm not overly bothered whether that is a male or female voice but on a very minor and very specific point I have very occasionally observed that at really noisy games where the commentators are embedded with the crowd, that I can sometime hear male commentators more clearly than their female counterparts but that is as likely to be my hearing range as anything else. The only real role where ex or current pro footballers seem to be relevant to me is as a pundit. Their insight into what might be happening psychologically or tactically or some insight into the nature of the half time team talk might be useful. Based on Sky Sports shows, they are however just as likely to talk out their backsides and pointlessly squabble and contradict each other as offer much useful insight. In terms of male vs female pundits I'd just want to hear from someone with some relevant insight. If their experience was in the male game from 30 years ago when it was OK for a manager to hurl coffee cups at people then that perhaps may not always have quite the relevant insight that you'd hope for. Likewise, if a female ex pro pundit has never played in front of more than a few thousand fans at most then their take on big game pressures might be less relevant. The women's game is growing though, their top pros are playing in front of bigger crowds, particularly in international tournaments and that is relevant experience in my book. Whether the balance is right yet, I couldn't really say, but the basic principle is not one that I have an issue with. This is pretty much spot on. Personally I prefer a mix of opinions like you get on some of the radio discussion programs where journalists and ex pros offer their opinions. I couldn't tell you the last time I actually sat through and paid attention to the post match analysis on a TV broadcast. As others in this thread have pointed out, I think the way people consume football coverage has changed with the ready availability of highlights and streams and that's driven some of the changes we see in punditry. Roy Keane's frequent hot takes whilst Micah Richards cackles maniacally in the background aren't just because Roy is a miserable curmudgeon. He's incentivised to create reactionary short form content that will be clipped and shared online. Alty_Ram and GB SPORTS 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 Personally I don't really care who hosts the show - they just need to be a good presenter and know to ask the right questions. Similar for commentators. They need to be able to react to the flow of the match and speak with the correct football terminology (unfortunately I do pick up when women get this wrong). They must also have a good voice - I forget his name but there was one (English) football commentator who used to do Scottish football that when he got excited raised the pitch of his voice and it remained at that one same monotone pitch for an extended period - used to drive me mad lol. Punditry is quite different though and I expect my pundits to have played the sport in question, you can't really give an in depth opinion unless you have played it to the level you're commenting on. I don't think thats controversial tbh as we often accuse players/managers of not being able to step up a level, why would we give pundits of a different sport credence? Finally, as tennis was mentioned earlier in the thread here is Serena Williams stating that Mens/Womens tennis are two different sports. Having watched a bit of womens football, I would argue the same applies. Well that was my two cents FWIW but I cancelled my TV Licence a couple of years ago so ultimately don't care. Carry on arguing 😛 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YorkshireRam Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 15 minutes ago, maxjam said: Punditry is quite different though and I expect my pundits to have played the sport in question, you can't really give an in depth opinion unless you have played it to the level you're commenting on. I don't think thats controversial tbh as we often accuse players/managers of not being able to step up a level, why would we give pundits of a different sport credence? I had a thought while commenting earlier: shouldn't coaches make better pundits than players? They understand the tactics better than players, have to analyse as part of the coaching gig, and also have to a certain level of communication skills. Arguably that set of skills lends itself better to punditry than that of a former player? I want insight and analysis I can't infer myself from just watching the game. Hearing about 'double pivots' and 'inverted wingbacks' and technical terms you don't hear in the concourses at games or in day-to-day discussions. One of the better pundits to emerge recently that weaves his own personal experience into what he says is Daniel Sturridge. But the fact he stands out for this is largely my point. If pundits can't weave their subjective experience into their commentary, then the only upside provided by being an ex-pro is lost, and they're likely not going to offer insight above what someone in the pub may be able to. Ashley Williams was a decent centre half in his day but I don't half find him dull to listen to, same with Jermaine Jenas- great presenter, boring pundit. maxjam 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JfR Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 3 hours ago, Jubbs said: Wonder what he would've said if a female pundit tweeted this... The tweet is still up as well. You think that's bad, he also can't tell the difference between Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones and Trevor McDonald beardyjim 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott129 Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 19 minutes ago, JfR said: You think that's bad, he also can't tell the difference between Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones and Trevor McDonald He's going to get himself in trouble if he keeps calling people 'paedo defenders'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade 86 Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 Wish folk would stop quoting this absolute toilet of a human being, thereby giving him the attention he so obviously craves. Just ignore the ***t. Mucker1884, archram, Stive Pesley and 3 others 3 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 10 minutes ago, Comrade 86 said: Wish folk would stop quoting this absolute toilet of a human being, thereby giving him the attention he so obviously craves. Just ignore the ***t. After some deliberation I've decided you probably mean Joey Barton out of the two options, but if people ignored Jeremy Vine too that would probably help on all fronts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roboto Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 Wasn't the original tweet a play for him to get a job as a pundit because he is so useless as a manager and perhaps the worst option to become a coach with his training ground history? Of all the people in the world, the one I would least like to listen to talk about football is Joey Barton. Comrade 86 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade 86 Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 14 minutes ago, jameso said: After some deliberation I've decided you probably mean Joey Barton out of the two options, but if people ignored Jeremy Vine too that would probably help on all fronts If you're still struggling you'll find a small clue in the title thread mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 Think Barton might be mentally ill. Else he's embarking on an extreme satire aimed at all the clickbait morons out there. Was pretty tragic listening to Lucy Ward a couple of weeks ago talking about the death threats and extreme abuse she gets from being a...let me check...woman pundit on men's football. She has worked in men's football for years, especially with younger players, and I think her insights into the pressures young players experience early in their career are fascinating. Stive Pesley 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerTedd Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 2 hours ago, YorkshireRam said: I had a thought while commenting earlier: shouldn't coaches make better pundits than players? They understand the tactics better than players, have to analyse as part of the coaching gig, and also have to a certain level of communication skills. Arguably that set of skills lends itself better to punditry than that of a former player? I want insight and analysis I can't infer myself from just watching the game. Hearing about 'double pivots' and 'inverted wingbacks' and technical terms you don't hear in the concourses at games or in day-to-day discussions. One of the better pundits to emerge recently that weaves his own personal experience into what he says is Daniel Sturridge. But the fact he stands out for this is largely my point. If pundits can't weave their subjective experience into their commentary, then the only upside provided by being an ex-pro is lost, and they're likely not going to offer insight above what someone in the pub may be able to. Ashley Williams was a decent centre half in his day but I don't half find him dull to listen to, same with Jermaine Jenas- great presenter, boring pundit. Liam Rosenior was a good pundit. Ram-Alf and Stive Pesley 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 48 minutes ago, Comrade 86 said: If you're still struggling you'll find a small clue in the title thread mate. I wasn't actually struggling - more enjoying the ambiguity since your complaint against one could equally apply to the other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account.
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now