ESPN has probably the worst set of pundits to talk about football in the entire world, they lose their shit daily on Neymar and his stories. This is is the latest nonsense from wanna be tough man Frank Leboeuf (at 00:29)
Frank Leboeuf " Go with me in the shower room, we'll have to talk"
- Thread starter kouroux
- Start date
why the shower room?
Have you ever watched Oz?
I really hate Steve Nicol. His take on De Light being on the bench game 1 was beyond pathetic. In general these guys always act outraged and everything is so dramatic. Maybe they told to act this way for the American audience.
Last edited by a moderator:
yeah, up until the whole ageing pill debacle anyway
Football punditry is at its lowest ebb as far as I'm concerned. The standard and quality throughout most major channels/outlets is largely atrocious and even the typically good ones such as Carra and GNev are becoming tedious IMO.
The unsung heroes are the ones like Liam Rosenior who actually add constructive analysis rather than the ones like Leboeuf, Keane and Souness who appear more keen to record their latest hot-take to either spread their awful agendas or cause a social media stir - and the worst part about the last part of that sentence is the likes of Sky Sports nowadays prefer the feather-ruffling that these b******t comments cause as opposed to providing quality depictions of the matches.
The unsung heroes are the ones like Liam Rosenior who actually add constructive analysis rather than the ones like Leboeuf, Keane and Souness who appear more keen to record their latest hot-take to either spread their awful agendas or cause a social media stir - and the worst part about the last part of that sentence is the likes of Sky Sports nowadays prefer the feather-ruffling that these b******t comments cause as opposed to providing quality depictions of the matches.
I think pundits are pretty high on my list for things I've come to gradually dislike about this particular sport.
I'm all for intelligent commentary/comments,so I'm not closed minded as such, but when the sport is just littered with views from purposefully over the top,cantankerous middle aged white 'it wasn't as good/tough as it was in my day' men then you can see why a small minority of football fans ,young and old , are somewhat disillusioned with the games off the field and over marketed coverage.
For the past couple of years now I just watch the games either on silent or at a very low volume or through a language I dont understand.
I'm all for intelligent commentary/comments,so I'm not closed minded as such, but when the sport is just littered with views from purposefully over the top,cantankerous middle aged white 'it wasn't as good/tough as it was in my day' men then you can see why a small minority of football fans ,young and old , are somewhat disillusioned with the games off the field and over marketed coverage.
For the past couple of years now I just watch the games either on silent or at a very low volume or through a language I dont understand.
Last edited:
I couldn't agree more. This ESPN crew is fecking tragic, worst I've ever seen. Their MVP is Steve Nichol, clueless old fool
I watch 90 minutes of football and that's it.
I've been watching it and playing it for long enough now that I don't need to be told what I've just seen.
There are some good podcasts that I listen to sometimes but most punditry on tv these, as you've said, is dramatised for clicks.
And the sad thing about sky is they've brought this punditry into the commentary box. Instead of just commenting on what's happening on the pitch they bring their agendas and narratives to the live game. I rather watch games with foreign commentary sometimes
I've been watching it and playing it for long enough now that I don't need to be told what I've just seen.
There are some good podcasts that I listen to sometimes but most punditry on tv these, as you've said, is dramatised for clicks.
And the sad thing about sky is they've brought this punditry into the commentary box. Instead of just commenting on what's happening on the pitch they bring their agendas and narratives to the live game. I rather watch games with foreign commentary sometimes
I'd flatten Leboeuf without breaking into a sweat.
That Chelsea team was all hot air anyway. I'd also drop Desailly like a cheap suit.
That Chelsea team was all hot air anyway. I'd also drop Desailly like a cheap suit.
yeah, up until the whole ageing pill debacle anyway
'Talk' is a metaphor here, right?
I have always thought the fans should have a similar vote to what the pundits seem to do when forcing out a football manager, then moving on. Can't we have a vote each month on which pundit should be removed from TV so we don't have to listen to the waffle they spout. I nominate Chris Sutton, who is both arrogant & stupid, being a legend in his own bedroom.
The shower room is where everything happens
ESPN panel is terrible, always playing with some some irrelevant emotions of pride, honour and nostalgia instead of discussing what really happened on the pitch.
There's a balance but I've always enjoyed NBCSN. Arlo White on commentary. Robbie Earle, Robbie Mustoe, Lee Dixon and Le Saux analysing the game.
Never watch ESPN but it looks a bit crap judging by the video, same with Sky.
Never watch ESPN but it looks a bit crap judging by the video, same with Sky.
I’m in favour of a Running Man format of pundit removal.
Wisey couldn't batter a fish. After I'd embarrassed him I'd shine Vialli's bald head with a tea towel then slap Ruud Gullit until his dreadlocks fell out. Bunch of pansies.
I don't get it.
Ex-footballer asks how he'd feel about a situation, he answers. What's the thing that's bad here?
Edit to add: I suppose what I'm saying is that I don't think there's any right or wrong answer as such when discussing how someone would feel about something in terms of how good or bad the punditry is. One might think he's a knobhead for feeling that way, but I'm not sure I'd even class expressing ones feelings as punditry in the first place.
To me bad punditry would be not knowing facts about players, stating things that are clearly untrue, not knowing the laws of the game, saying things to do with tactics that make no sense at all etc.
Ex-footballer asks how he'd feel about a situation, he answers. What's the thing that's bad here?
Edit to add: I suppose what I'm saying is that I don't think there's any right or wrong answer as such when discussing how someone would feel about something in terms of how good or bad the punditry is. One might think he's a knobhead for feeling that way, but I'm not sure I'd even class expressing ones feelings as punditry in the first place.
To me bad punditry would be not knowing facts about players, stating things that are clearly untrue, not knowing the laws of the game, saying things to do with tactics that make no sense at all etc.
Last edited:
I genuinely expected this thread to contain a '#metoo' style expose.
All the magic. And bathing.
Christ... yeah, that storyline was as good a reason as any to abandon a showyeah, up until the whole ageing pill debacle anyway
He answers stupidly.
"I'll see you in the shower area" is a pretty weak show of strength. "If you don't get your act together, you'll be recieving
.....a tender and comforting massage" would have been more daunting.
Seems a weird way to hit on someone but fortune favours the bold I guess.
That's an oddly homoerotic take on the hard man act.
Those "pundits" are beyond an embarrassment. "Cringeworthy" is the kindest compliment I could give them.
Why would their age, race or gender matter? Surely a good/bad opinion is the same no matter who it comes from?
I actually think Sky have been pretty forward thinking. Appointing a black woman in Alex Scott was a bold move, and she talks sense, but she’s a very different type of pundit from Souness. Some people will prefer her approach, some will prefer his. Surely they’re better off catering for everybody?
You're absolutely spot on. There will be plenty of old fashioned types who prefer the Souness/ Keane way of analysing, and there will be plenty of new age fans who want to know how many intense sprints at a 90 degree angle whilst facing west players have done in a game. I think between the likes of Scott, Souness, Carragher, Redknapp and Neville they have one extreme to other (and what comes in between) covered.
Unfortunately some people think that it you aren't on the same wavelength as them you are this, that or another and should be turfed out of your job.
Souness has done a hell of a lot in the game as a player and a manager and has won every major prize on more than one occasion. I think his insights are very telling as to why he was successful back then, and why he struggled at times as a manager. I personally value this type of insight more than people like Redknapp blagging his way through segments based on what I personally consider to be dubious statistics. Others will disagree. That's why their coverage works so well, if you're into that kind of thing.
Trust me, if you watched enough of them you'd see that last paragraph of yours is a perfect definition of them. Shaka Hislop is probably the most decent one they have
Or in this case the bald maybe?
ESPN is terrible when it comes to covering football. It's all too click-bait and ESPN has writers and shows for football only to fill their programming schedule. They are an unreliable source.
Amen
First thing i thought of when he said shower room was American History X.
ESPN pundits seem to over dramatize everything I find.
Its exactly how they cover other American sports. Its all about getting reaction out of people.