Kag
Full Member
Yet Roy Hodgson made a judgement about Gary Neville based on his ability to analyse a match situation as a pundit. Unless you believe Neville would have been in the frame for a top coaching job in the England fold regardless? For a guy with little to no coaching experience, it was a giant leap in responsibility. And his appointment was during the initial wave of "bloody hell, isn't Neville brilliant at this punditry thing".There's hardly any evidence to go on beyond the post-Moyes handful of games. Based on that he's mediocre but the sample size is obviously too small.
His media personality means little. You don't judge someone's potential as a manager on how he appears on TV, nor on his ability to analyze match situations in a pundit capacity (as the Nev case proves).
So, yeah, I think television is important. It might not be to you and I. And I'm sure we'll agree it's quite a shallow way in which to judge prospective managers. However, it is an opportunity for people to raise their profile and articulate their ideas. And in the case of Neville, it got him jobs. More recently, employers will be listening to the likes of Craig Bellamy on Sky Sports - The Debate, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if people are watching how well he talks about the game and forming opinions based on that.
Of course, being good or bad on television doesn't mean you're going to be good or bad at managing a team.