Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

I don't get what people have against Alex Scott (well, I can hazard a guess). She's much better than some other male presenters/pundits but in reality there shouldn't be a distinction whether male or female. I'd rather have Scott/Carney over the likes of Murphy, Owen, Scholes. They could put insomniacs to sleep with their mundane and dull tone and do they ever actually say anything of value? 

I was critical of BT Sport's Score programme the other week but Carney was actually the positive out of it (partly cos she happily gave some back to Sutton). She was much better than Savage & Sutton anyway who focus more on baiting each other as opposed to giving us any insight on the games they're watching.

I get the point but you wouldn’t watch either savage or Sutton for genuine insight. 
 

It’s like looking to Jedward for intelligent thoughts about music 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

I get the point but you wouldn’t watch either savage or Sutton for genuine insight. 
 

It’s like looking to Jedward for intelligent thoughts about music 

Fair point but even a little bit wouldn't go amiss.

As much as you wouldn't look to them for it, it's some serious overkill when they just go for each other all the time week in, week out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree that a lot of the punditry and commentary is very poor but I’m delighted footie is on virtually every night now....I live in house full of women (wife and 3 daughters) who are addicted to Married at First Sight...some Australian junk which is on at 7.30 every night....Luckily I can go into my little TV room , have a couple of beers to escape

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where I find football ‘analysis’ tedious and pointless is that it’s effectively narration rather than actual breakdown. 
 

Take Brown-Finnis yesterday; rather than just making the statement ‘Leicester are missing Vardy’ - why not point out its Perez, suggesting what Leicester might do, how does a ‘false 9’ work. 
 

Tell the viewer something new of substance. You are in the position because you are an ex footballer and you have the experience or expertise to tell us the plan. Don’t us repeat what you’d expect the average person to say 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 5waller5 said:

I'm with you.

 

Can you ask your friend's wife to recommend the "best free pdf editor" for me please. I was going to Google it, but I prefer your friend's wife's explanations now.

 

 

She only does Portuguese pdfs. Hope this helps. 🤔😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Domsdad said:

Not sure if anyone’s mentioned this elsewhere but Paul Dempsey is a Leicester lad. I went to school with him and he lived on Uppingham Road

Just googled him and he’s a clever bloke by the sounds of it. Went to Cambridge to study Portuguese...sorry English :ph34r:

Edited by Manini
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Where I find football ‘analysis’ tedious and pointless is that it’s effectively narration rather than actual breakdown. 
 

Take Brown-Finnis yesterday; rather than just making the statement ‘Leicester are missing Vardy’ - why not point out its Perez, suggesting what Leicester might do, how does a ‘false 9’ work. 
 

Tell the viewer something new of substance. You are in the position because you are an ex footballer and you have the experience or expertise to tell us the plan. Don’t us repeat what you’d expect the average person to say 

I think this is the issue though with many female pundits: they can’t give that level of analysis.

 

The new generation of male pundits who can give that analysis have come through academies since they were knee high. They’ve been coached daily for years of a professional career. They have had the brightest and most progressive football minds managing them both as children and adults.

 

The female game is decades behind in terms of the level of sophistication and the support female players have had. It cannot compete with that. It’s therefore not a surprise when women who are asked to analyse a standard of game that they have never had any exposure to, besides watching like the rest of us, struggle to give a deeper analysis than many amateur football players could provide.

 

That’s not a slant on women footballers, it’s simply an outcome of the disproportionate opportunity they have had during their plying careers. I’ve heard Robbie Savage say that he will never get a pundit gig for a Champions League final because he never played in it - and he accepts that that is a fair criteria that rules him out. The same rule in terms of experience seemingly doesn’t apply to the selection of female pundits and the result is last night, which actually undermines the cause rather than supports it.

 

The Leeds incident is the best thing that could have happened to Karen Carney’s punditry career. She will now get gigs because of it and will not have to be there on merit. I don’t actually think that needs to happen as some form of positive discrimination and I think there are plenty of examples of female broadcasters in sport - Gabby Logan, Clare Balding, Sue Barker, Laura Woods -  who are perfectly well respected because they are good at what they do.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

This, all day, this:

 

 

 

 

 

If they are going down the route of former players commentating on their teams, go all in. Have one from each side. How galling must it be for Huddersfield or Burnley fans to see your team playing well against Man United only to have Neville turning it into a rant about all things at Old Trafford. Why not put Robbie Blake in for their part?

 

Every match needs neutral commentators, not just the big ones. It'll never happen though because Sky can replay Carragher celebrating Salah scoring live on air by sticking it on Twitter and their website.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

That’s not a slant on women footballers, it’s simply an outcome of the disproportionate opportunity they have had during their plying careers. I’ve heard Robbie Savage say that he will never get a pundit gig for a Champions League final because he never played in it - and he accepts that that is a fair criteria that rules him out. The same rule in terms of experience seemingly doesn’t apply to the selection of female pundits and the result is last night, which actually undermines the cause rather than supports it.

 

Exactly this.   

 

It's about experience, ability and talent.  Not diversity box-ticking.

 

There are 100's of men who have played all their football careers at the top level of non-league football.  They may have 20 years experience of the game, but no one is going to ask them to be a pundit on domestic League/Cup and European football.  Why?   Because they simply don't have first-hand experience of it.

 

Even if you don't like them, the reason Gary Lineker and Alan Shearer can talk with authority about International football, is they have played in semi finals for England.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy BTs coverage as a rule (mainly as they are not sky) , but really disliked their approach for last night. 

 

Everyone in the studio dressed in suits to signify the gravity of liverpool v spurs. Plus 2 x co commentators for the match- one partisan for each side. 

 

Really?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TJB-fox said:

Not sure if this has been mentioned because I can’t be arsed to read through the the thread but a few weeks ago I really enjoyed the Stoke Fa cup coverage. Stephen Warnock the ex fullback was doing it and it was ridiculously refreshing to listen to a pundit who had obviously watched and analysed our games like they should do. In fact, the criticism of the BT coverage (which, I didn’t find Dempsey too bad but I thought Osman and the two ladies with him at half/full time were horrendous) is becoming common. Far more common to listen to poor punditry than it is listen to good punditry. Warnock was obviously  a big fan of us and Rodgers which helped because it meant he was more complimentary, but he really knew the team and how we played. Was impressed

Yes I've noticed him a few times and he's good, another one who stands out is Jim Beglin who co-comentates a lot for Premier league games on other than sky and bt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

I enjoy BTs coverage as a rule (mainly as they are not sky) , but really disliked their approach for last night. 

 

Everyone in the studio dressed in suits to signify the gravity of liverpool v spurs. Plus 2 x co commentators for the match- one partisan for each side. 

 

Really?

Hate listening to Hoddle (loved watching him play) and hate listening to Steve Macmanaman. Both full of clichéd crap. To have them both in the same game was beyond bearable.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/01/2021 at 23:13, Vacamion said:

 

"Gomish" is OK if you are trying to impress the locals on holiday but in commentary, it just makes you sound like the kind of pretentious wazzock who says the capital of France is "Paree" in all situations.

Exactly. You hear newsreaders do it all the time with place names, I'm sure on the basis that that's how the local people pronounce it. Funny that you never hear them say 'Glesgae,' 'Lestoh,' 'Kernow,' etc.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Raw Dykes said:

Exactly. You hear newsreaders do it all the time with place names, I'm sure on the basis that that's how the local people pronounce it. Funny that you never hear them say 'Glesgae,' 'Lestoh,' 'Kernow,' etc.


Going off on a bit of a tangent ...
 
Why do we anglicise some place names, but not others?
 
We stick with the native spelling for nearly all the big cities in France, Spain and the Netherlands ... although obviously with a very different pronunciation eg "Paris" vs "Paree".  The only big city I can think of changed is the Spanish "A Coruna" which for some reason we call "La Coruna".
 
Most of the German ones are the native ones, except for Koln (Cologne) and Munchen (Munich).  God knows why we changed those, as the originals are just as easy to pronounce!
 
We seems to have changed the biggest two in Portugal: Lisboa (Lisbon) and Opporto (Porto).
 
Belgium's a bit more complicated, as their country is split between Flemish ("Dutch") and Walloon ("French") ... but we've changed quite a few eg Bruxelles (Brussels), Antwerpen (Antwerp), Brugge (Bruges), Gent (Ghent).   And for some reason we've gone with the French version of Ypres, even though the town is in the Flemish bit and is called Ieper.  And for good measure, with a good old WW1 pronunciation of "why-pers".
 
And in Italy, we seemed to have changed them all: Roma (Rome), Milano (Milan), Torino (Turin), Napoli (Naples), Firenze (Florence), Venezia (Venice), Genova (Genoa).
 
Not much logic in any of the above eh?

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...