The TV pundits thread

[Norbs]

Danny Murphy yet again spouting crap. When asked who else could go at City like that he says Utd have the personnel and completely ignored the fact that Mourinho lacks the bollocks to ever take a game to an opponent.

He's a moron

[ChesterDave]

He's also a good few inches than all his bios claim

[Shaggy]

Danny Murphy yet again spouting crap. When asked who else could go at City like that he says Utd have the personnel and completely ignored the fact that Mourinho lacks the bollocks to ever take a game to an opponent.

He's a moron

It's absolutely mad. He's thick as ****. Shearer is actually a miles better pundit than Murphy.

[SB]

Danny Murphy looking into the camera.

https://www.facebook.com/JungleVT/videos/2192080400933790/

[Rigadon]

I think they’re all poor, and that includes Carragher and Neville (and Neville). Better punditry on EST!

[baitman]

I think they’re all poor, and that includes Carragher and Neville (and Neville). Better punditry on EST!

punditry, the art of the **** puns

[Alex]

I think they’re all poor, and that includes Carragher and Neville (and Neville). Better punditry on EST!

If you think those two are poor. What do you look for in a pundit? Because those two give pretty great insight. Not usually stock meaningless phrases like lots do.

[Assassin]

If you think those two are poor. What do you look for in a pundit? Because those two give pretty great insight. Not usually stock meaningless phrases like lots do.

I dont want pundits. I dont want commentary. I just want crowd noise.

[Alex]

Good insight into games can help enjoyment a lot more for me. It enhances Cricket tons when done well.

[Assassin]

Good insight into games can help enjoyment a lot more for me. It enhances Cricket tons when done well.

I realise some people like this sort of thing. But I would be much happier watching the game without constant repetative wittering

[dom9]

Good insight into games can help enjoyment a lot more for me. It enhances Cricket tons when done well.

Cricket and rugby are sports where the punditry generally lend some insight into what has happened on the pitch.

British ex footballers, by and large, are just not able to do that.

Perhaps it is because cricket and rugby are more complex games than football?

Perhaps it is because footballers tend to be from working class backgrounds and perhaps haven't had the level of education that the public school type sports players have had?

I don't know.

[Buzzo]

Neville is normally ok, but his commentary yesterday was ****.

Post match analysis is even worse these days, but I agree, the best around are Carra and Neville. Ultimately commentary is opinion, you need someone with a decent insight who can summarise what is going on, and pick up on areas and changes within the game that may not be obvious on TV. Post match analysis should be relatively easy, but there are few who throw any real light onto the game. Souness is awful, Henry is awful, Redknapp is awful...

I also think there are few decent main commentators these days (Tyler FFS).

[Alex]

Ferdinand and Lampard are good. Gerrard was OK when on TV, but he is focusing on Managing now clearly. Even our own Klopp is a good pundit. Just never does it much.

[Norbs]

I agree with Ferdinand and I'm not adverse to a bit of Hartson either

[Alex]

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVHU-DltAAo"]How to make it as a top footballer? Lampard, Ferdinand and McManaman explain - YouTube[/ame]

This is what Im looking like in Punditry in football. Good insight. Not stock phrases.