Enough with these terrible "pundits" on t.v

[shamans]

Paul Merson, Steve McMahon, Tim Shwerwood etc. They have no businesses discussing managers. Right now they are all talking about stupid Sarri is for not playing Kante as a DM and just how obvious it is that he should be a DM.

These same pundits were praising Sarri in the beginning for his free flowing play.

I don't mind decent pundits like Carragher but some of these guys are garbage. Who even watches them? Merson is worse than reddit I swear.

 

[Negan]

It is pretty obvious though.

 

[shamans]

It is pretty obvious though.

Forget that point. Merson talked about how players downed tool against Mourinho and they're obviously gonna play better against anyone else. They then talked about Sarri lining up against City in a very naive way. Well if I remember, he also beat them that way earlier in the season?

And getting back to that point, Kante showed against Malmo why Sarri wants him to play there. There's more to it than a simple black and white. Are these pundits seriously suggesting the only reason Chelsea are struggling is because Kante is not playing DM? Give me a break

 

[VP89]

It is pretty obvious though.

Not really. Sarris system relies heavily on someone able to control the game from a deep lying midfielder role. Kante is great at many things from defensive midfield, but he's not quite as good as Jorginho can be given the right environment.

What's disappointing is that Chelsea didn't do any due diligence on Sarri it seems. Their best player outside of Hazard was always going to be shafted aside when £50m Jorginho was wanted. If they were going to offer Jorginho and spend the money to bring Sarri in, they needed to bring in the other key cogs to the wheel that Sarri needs.

Kante is in an Alan role if we were to mirror what he's replicating from Napoli but he's not good in attack. These pundits should stop being idiots at over simplifying managers do when they want to embed a certain style of play.

 

[cyberman]

Yeah I cant stand most of them. What really annoys me is when they have a ref on to discuss the rules and argue with him every time. They can't wrap their heads around it so blame nonsense grey areas etc instead of just going with the ref stating the actual rules.

 

[Wumminator]

I’ve not listened to Paul Merson ever. You actually have to seek him up to find out his views. Why not just... ignore him?

 

[JPRouve]

I can't take the "good challenge" nonsense when a player clearly takes everything from the player to the grass and a little bit of the ball. Also the "but he played the ball".

 

[VP89]

They have a really shit recruitment policy for Pundits. I'm confused why I keep fecking seeing Tim Sherwood on the debate and other bits. Liam Rosenior is good though.

 

[VP89]

I’ve not listened to Paul Merson ever. You actually have to seek him up to find out his views. Why not just... ignore him?

A lot of football fans enjoy watching an intelligent discussion on air though. We want to know what these guys think of the league and certain matches and provide insights that only they can offer as ex professionals.

What sky should do is bring in much better pundits that they have. We pay for the premium.

 

[Morpheus 7]

Not playing Kante in his proper position is criminal, doesn't take a pundit to point that out. I agree the level of punditry is poor in the UK but it's an awful example to bring up.

 

[DomesticTadpole]

I can't take the "good challenge" nonsense when a player clearly takes everything from the player to the grass and a little bit of the ball. Also the "but he played the ball".

Which they then add it was OK when they played, which says everything about them and how detached they are from modern football.

 

[Casanova85]

At least they know the job-business, biased or not.

 

[Spiersey]

It's probably the only job in the world where there is basically no interview process (confirmed from someone who works for Sky) and there is also no performance reviews or anything. They are completely unaccountable for the bollocks they speak. I'd much rather have coaches or something on who understand the game tactically. 90% of the pundits on TV are horrific and just either say stuff that isn't true or speak in cliches.

 

[hellohello]

Not playing Kante in his proper position is criminal, doesn't take a pundit to point that out. I agree the level of punditry is poor in the UK but it's an awful example to bring up.

I disagree on the Kante point, and in a possession based system like Sarri uses he needs to play further ahead than a holding midfielder who dictates play. I also think he's the least of their problems, and I don't think Kante has been bad, nor do I think things would get much better if he played deeper. I just think Kante is better suited to a more pragmatic counter attacking style of football, and so is most of the Chelsea team to be fair, at least that's what they are used to.

 

[shamans]

I’ve not listened to Paul Merson ever. You actually have to seek him up to find out his views. Why not just... ignore him?

He comes on every damn show. Trust me I don't seek him up.

 

[shamans]

They have a really shit recruitment policy for Pundits. I'm confused why I keep fecking seeing Tim Sherwood on the debate and other bits. Liam Rosenior is good though.

He is surprisingly very good. Takes the job seriously it seems and has done his homework. He at least has something insightful to say, like Carragher as well.

 

[shamans]

Not playing Kante in his proper position is criminal, doesn't take a pundit to point that out. I agree the level of punditry is poor in the UK but it's an awful example to bring up.

Kante is not a QB/Deep lying playmaker and therefore can never play there. These pundits don't even know the basics of Chelsea's formation.

By the way, it's a double edged sword. When Sarri starts winning games you bet these same journos will be talking about what a genius he is and going over the top with praise.

 

[DomesticTadpole]

It's probably the only job in the world where there is basically no interview process (confirmed from someone who works for Sky) and there is also no performance reviews or anything. They are completely unaccountable for the bollocks they speak. I'd much rather have coaches or something on who understand the game tactically. 90% of the pundits on TV are horrific and just either say stuff that isn't true or speak in cliches.

They are all either failed managers or coaches or ex-players who do not have the brains or ambition to be managers or coaches. It is the ultimate easy option. Yet they all feel qualified to tell other managers how to do their job. I don't mind some of the newer pundits who at least have only just left the game, but the geriatrics on Soccer Saturday really take the biscuit.

 

[Spiersey]

They are all either failed managers or coaches or ex-players who do not have the brains or ambition to be managers or coaches. It is the ultimate easy option. Yet they all feel qualified to tell other managers how to do their job. I don't mind some of the newer pundits who at least have only just left the game, but the geriatrics on Soccer Saturday really take the biscuit.

I don’t mind soccer Saturday pundits really, it’s not really an analysis show or anything. It would actually be a pretty boring watch I imagine with tactically focussed analysis during games (in my opinion). They’re definitely trying to have ‘banter’ be a decent part of it. I don’t think banter or anything should be a part of any of the game analysis done by sky or bt for their coverage of games.

 

[Casanova85]

A retired professional footballer doesn't understand football tactics?

They might be biased but that doesn't make them clueless.

 

[Mr PG]

Forget that point. Merson talked about how players downed tool against Mourinho and they're obviously gonna play better against anyone else. They then talked about Sarri lining up against City in a very naive way. Well if I remember, he also beat them that way earlier in the season?

And getting back to that point, Kante showed against Malmo why Sarri wants him to play there. There's more to it than a simple black and white. Are these pundits seriously suggesting the only reason Chelsea are struggling is because Kante is not playing DM? Give me a break

Nobody challenged Merson if he thought Matic downed tools as well because he also improved under Ole.

 

[SilentWitness]

Paul Merson, Steve McMahon, Tim Shwerwood etc. They have no businesses discussing managers. Right now they are all talking about stupid Sarri is for not playing Kante as a DM and just how obvious it is that he should be a DM.

These same pundits were praising Sarri in the beginning for his free flowing play.

I don't mind decent pundits like Carragher but some of these guys are garbage. Who even watches them? Merson is worse than reddit I swear.

You.

 

[deadrevelz]

Martin Keown and Steve Mcmananmanaman are the worst in terms of bias. There are loads of terrible pundits so it's impossible to escape them all. I assume it's like politicians - the people who want to do the job are exactly the ones who shouldn't be doing it.

 

[AfroBuffalo]

Souness is the worst pundit. Hate him. I quite like Jermaine Jenas.

 

[MackRobinson]

Sports punditry is about entertainment, not facts or accuracy. Fans just want her former players chat shite just like we see on this forum.

It always makes me chuckle when fans are critical of pundits, yet those same fans make clueless football statements on a daily basis on the caf. I assure you these "pundits" know 10x as much than the average fan on here.

 

[Tommy]

They have a really shit recruitment policy for Pundits. I'm confused why I keep fecking seeing Tim Sherwood on the debate and other bits. Liam Rosenior is good though.

When I click The Debate on YouTube & see that Sherwood is a pundit, I immediately turn it off. The guy can't even pronounce half the player names. Pretty sure he called Auba A-boo-ma-yang.


Oh, and Glen-doo-zee

 

[Bola]

Add in those other mistake biased bastards from Soccer Saturday and dullards like Jenas and Lawrenson

Rather see more of Alex Scott and Pat Nevin

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

Why would Tim Sherwood not have 'any business' discussing managers?

He's managed two Premier League clubs, he would clearly have experience and know at least something about the league. He did an alright job at us I thought, and Villa were pretty much doomed, but hey he got them to an FA cup final. Clearly not a great manager, but still more qualified than most people to talk about the league, no? Before being a manager he had extensive experience as a coach in the Premier League, led an U21 team (very well) and was a technical director.

Add that to a solid playing career and surely he is very qualified to talk about football?

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

It's probably the only job in the world where there is basically no interview process (confirmed from someone who works for Sky) and there is also no performance reviews or anything. They are completely unaccountable for the bollocks they speak. I'd much rather have coaches or something on who understand the game tactically. 90% of the pundits on TV are horrific and just either say stuff that isn't true or speak in cliches.

None of this is true.

 

[shaky]

Paul Merson, Steve McMahon, Tim Shwerwood etc. They have no businesses discussing managers. Right now they are all talking about stupid Sarri is for not playing Kante as a DM and just how obvious it is that he should be a DM.

These same pundits were praising Sarri in the beginning for his free flowing play.

I don't mind decent pundits like Carragher but some of these guys are garbage. Who even watches them? Merson is worse than reddit I swear.

Decent pundits like Jamie "I can assure Man Utd fans that they won't see a new Pogba if Mourinho leaves" Carragher?

 

[Bola]

They are all either failed managers or coaches or ex-players who do not have the brains or ambition to be managers or coaches. It is the ultimate easy option. Yet they all feel qualified to tell other managers how to do their job. I don't mind some of the newer pundits who at least have only just left the game, but the geriatrics on Soccer Saturday really take the biscuit.

I watch the BT Show instead, can't stand the lazy analysis and bias

Savage is a bit of a prat though and Sutton always seems to troll. I do like their little spats, nice to have mutual bear baiting between analysis

 

[Spiersey]

None of this is true.

Please elaborate then.

 

[Tommy]

Add in those other mistake biased bastards from Soccer Saturday and dullards like Jenas and Lawrenson

Rather see more of Alex Scott and Pat Nevin

Nevin is definitely one of the good ones. He makes it interesting without making it seem phony. I can't stand the OTT antics of some of the showier pundits, and I can't stand boring cnuts like Jenas, Owen & Scholes.

Nevin fits perfectly in the middle. Engaging, but never over the top. Entertaining, but logical & informative. Neville, Carragher, Ferdinand & Lampard (pre-management) are also up there for me. Plus I saw they Derby county on Sky a few weeks back, & thought he carried himself really well, too.

I also think there's nothing wrong with a bit of bias. It definitely works well for Neville & Carragher.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

They're the TV equivalent of Talksport (though I like listening to Perry Groves).... clickbait controversy.

Chris Sutton is sh!te, makes Savage look knowledgeable.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Please elaborate then.

Ask a question. Your post was wrong on every front that wasnt an opinion.

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

They are all either failed managers or coaches or ex-players who do not have the brains or ambition to be managers or coaches. It is the ultimate easy option. Yet they all feel qualified to tell other managers how to do their job. I don't mind some of the newer pundits who at least have only just left the game, but the geriatrics on Soccer Saturday really take the biscuit.

Tim Sherwood was a very decent coach and an average manager.

Punditry would be boring if people were only allowed to criticise people they felt were below them.

 

[Bola]

Nevin is definitely one of the good ones. He makes it interesting without making it seem phony. I can't stand the OTT antics of some of the showier pundits, and I can't stand boring cnuts like Jenas, Owen & Scholes.

Nevin fits perfectly in the middle. Engaging, but never over the top. Entertaining, but logical & informative. Neville, Carragher, Ferdinand & Lampard (pre-management) are also up there for me. Plus I saw they Derby county on Sky a few weeks back, & thought he carried himself really well, too.

I also think there's nothing wrong with a bit of bias. It definitely works well for Neville & Carragher.

Good post.

There is bias and then their is bias. Neville and Carragher have a good balance (Neville possibly too far the other way), but you get Thompson on Soccer Saturday and you may as well be tuning into Liverpool TV. They also shouldn't put Macca on the Liverpool games, practically every foul or tackle is called wrong in Liverpool's favor

Merson is also pretty bad when it comes to the Chelsea predictions

 

[Spiersey]

Ask a question. Your post was wrong on every front that wasnt an opinion.

What is the interview process then? What annual performance reviews are conducted on the pundits by Sky Sports?

 

[VP89]

Add in those other mistake biased bastards from Soccer Saturday and dullards like Jenas and Lawrenson

Rather see more of Alex Scott and Pat Nevin

I think Jenas is quite good tbf.

Alex Scott is very good and I really really enjoy listening to Pat Nevin on the total football weekly podcast whenever he joins.

 

[shamans]

Decent pundits like Jamie "I can assure Man Utd fans that they won't see a new Pogba if Mourinho leaves" Carragher?

Even if he gets it wrong, he at least tried to give some insight. Same with Neville. Ever since he's been licking Mourinho's boots I can't stand him and he's often wrong but he tries to give proper insight than just cliches. I don't mind hearing a proper point of view even if I disagree with it.