Henry and that presenter seem to have some hostility towards micah (start from 2min onwards). Am I the only one seeing it ?
Micah Richards - The Pundit
- Thread starter LawCharltonBest
- Start date
More the presenter wanting to create some sort of conflict between the two, but nothing in it.
Micah knows feck all so I wouldn't be surprised. Quite sure Henry doesn't even respect his views after he dismissed Benzemas talents not long ago.
He's horrendous, IMHO.
He’s shit - but he’s miles better than Tim Howard.
Watching the CBS CL coverage. Henry speaks a lot of sense, Kate Abdo is magnificent in every sense, Carragher is just typical Carragher, but Micah fecking Richards is such a clown. He’s always just making silly noises, shrieking, talking interminable bollocks. The schtick was okay at first, especially offset against Keane, but wore think very quickly. Over time it has become one of the most annoying things in punditry. I’d go as far as to say he’s the worst pundit on the box currently.
He’s awful, biased and more awful
Agreed, he's become more of a joker than a pundit. People listen to him more for the laughs than any talk of football.
Him and Keane do crack me up but it is a bit dry with Carra and Henry.
I got why people liked it at first. It’s clearly gone to his head though. Medicore player and terrible pundit whose raking it in and offers no real insight into anything.
Isn’t he doing a league of their own now? Might be a better environment for him.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Not shrieking with laughter is he now, the bicep curling city bastard.
Weird insult
Looking a right mug here saying City are not better just different with H. Land
I do like him but he’s Jenas with a sense of humour really, another thin skinned nothing player offering zero insight when the moment calls for it
Disagree with what he's saying, Haaland isn't the issue, the team in and around him is. I think you put two faster wingers either side of him he's a more dangerous player. Countless times Grealish didn't track back quickly enough and Mahrez to track runners. It created spaces for Spurs to get into. Carragher saying City are easier to play counter attacking football against is 100% correct.
Think that Spurs performance was a 5/10 performance in terms of actual threat and consistency yet they won the game easily. City will only do decently when a team goes at them because the defensive line they play against will be higher giving Haaland space to run into. KDB being off the field certainly didn't help either.
Think that Spurs performance was a 5/10 performance in terms of actual threat and consistency yet they won the game easily. City will only do decently when a team goes at them because the defensive line they play against will be higher giving Haaland space to run into. KDB being off the field certainly didn't help either.
He's not wrong?
He is correct. This is last season for the same period compared to this one:
21/22 - 56 points - 54 goals scored ; 13 goals conceded (GD: 41)
22/3 - 45 points - 51 goals scored ; 21 goals conceded (GD: 32)
So, they had 11 more points at this stage and a superior GD by 9. Despite all of Haaland's goals, they are actually scoring less this season than in the last one. They have also given up possession that leads to more chances created and less threat to their defence.
Haaland is a very good player, but he has not made them better. In fact, they are worse.
His framing of City being in a better position that Arsenal pre game was a fecking sight to behold.
if it were Neville he would rightfully be called out in it
if it were Neville he would rightfully be called out in it
Last edited:
That's the point!
He was asked if they are better or worse with Haaland.
No. had to say they're different.
Blinkered twat.
There is the argument that they are worse off now.
He is a better pundit than lescott and Niall Quinn so he gets straight in because sky have to have at least one ex city player for punditry duties.
Same goes for hasselbaink he's only employed because there is no one else, although he is absolutely terrible, much worse than Richards.
I remember thatI remember them bringing Noel Gallagher in
now they’re just stuck with Richards.
I think this combination works well for the banter™
his CBS role is perfect for him, Henry and Carragher do the heavy lifting and he can chip in to keep it light
Awful pundit.
I like him, yeah he's an idiot but at least he's funny.
He's awful. Never has anything interesting to add and is basically just a comic relief sidekick. Kevin Hart can play him in the Hollywood adaptation.
He is dreadful, but one must remember that thankfully he is NOT Clinton Morrison............
Very deferential to Keane just now, admitting that his and Neville's opinions are worth less than Keane's due to his stature as a player.
Also referred to himself and Neville as being in the same class. Merely "good players". Neville was a far better player than Micah Richards.
Good point, didn't think about it like that
No wonder GNev looked peeved. The presenter also rinsed him about his attire. Bad day for the Neviller.He's kind of like the Brendan Schaub of punditry, for anyone who gets that reference.
Richards had the potential to be a Neviller. But a couple of seasons of top form and being finished by upper mid 20s totally blows that out of the water.
Yeah he looked an exciting talent when he burst onto the scene.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Just saw this.
Not sure what the context is, but this guy must have pissed him off no end to end up pinned up like that.
Think he tried to headbutt Keane and Richards stepped in