Why are pundits so bad? Especially ex United players

[Ramshock]

Paddy Evra's nonsense while working for Sky on the Chelsea game really annoyed me. How can someone who was a player
until very recently and spent a long time playing under Ferguson not know how stupid it is to want Ole to start Tuanzebe who just
had a tough match after 10 months out injured? Or to not know how hard it is to settle into a new league and new team when talking about Donny van de Beek? I mean fecking Evra was a disaster for his first few matches along with Vidic for United. I mean do they have selective amnesia or do they just ignore the facts and go for soundbites? Is it under instruction or are they that stupid?

Scholesy to me is a miserable prick when it comes to United, he is a write-off as a pundit and Gary Neville is the chief culprit always insinuating potential problems and second-guessing his ex long time teammate. Ferdinand and Hargreaves are really the only ex reds of note in punditry I can listen to and even they have their moments. I expect shit punditry from scousers and ABU's when it comes to United but more often than not I have seen Jamie fecking Carragher have a more insightful opinion about United than Gary Neville which is ridiculous. Why do you lot reckon we have shit representation in punditry?

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Players that played for a club in a period of heightened success simply expect the same standards to remain after that success ends.

Scholes knew how to do, he doesn’t know how to interpret.

Evra knows how to be emotional. He doesn’t know how to analyse.

Gary Neville is mostly good.

Roy is dynamite. Bit of a throwback. Speaks to his attitude when he played, but ignores the fact that he was actually damn talented.

Rio is a fan, he’s pretty, loved, and is a character. A modern day Ian Wright.

Punditry is a job. It’s monetised and weaponised for articles and such like. They all play a role.

The best ex United Pundit was Hargreaves. But he seems to be a bit of a media shill as he’s changed massively since his first year. He’s tactically astute. A little bit boring, but knows football.

It’s all a game.

 

[blue blue]

For me Gary Neville has changed since he became a pundit. He started off quite impartial before he went into management but ever since then he appears to have an agenda. His first attempts were really quite good but I can't bear him now. I think his experience of management has embittered him.

I never thought Joe Cole would make a pundit but I think he's quite good. He gets a bit over enthusiastic sometimes and the words don't come quick enough but overall he's quite good.

Rio's good also.

 

[shaky]

Gary Neville is probably the most respected ex-footballer pundit around right now, and rightly so. Darren Fletcher looks like he's got a great punditry career ahead of him too, talks sense, insightful, and very comfortable on the camera. Hargreaves is decent. Seems fairly laid back compared to everyone else.The rest of the ex-utd mob are nothing great. Evra is comedy value but just a Utd cheerleader. I'd hate him as a pundit if I wasn't a Utd fan.

 

[R77]

It must be annoying for rivals and neutrals, but I quite watching former players of ours run the rule over a performance regardless of their articulative ability. Rio, Hargreaves, and Fletcher after the PSG game. Giggs and Michael Owen the other night. Keane's perspective is always interesting because... It's Roy bloody Keane.

Rio's the best imo. Speaks well, good with the analysis and replays, impartial enough to be fair but blatantly a huge fan. Evra and Neville add too much to the media bullsh*t imo. Evra's kinda unhinged and licks Chickens so it's maybe easier to understand, but Gaz should know better.

 

[acnumber9]

“Why don’t all pundits agree with what I think?”

 

[Amerifan]

People experiencing something doesn’t necessarily provide any insights into it. For that reason the comments from many athletes aren’t particularly deep.

Pundits are talking heads with what to say and how to say it piped in through an earpiece while on air. Off air they are handed an agenda and are expected to stay on script. They have a job to do and are paid well to do it. Whether they personally agree with what they spout is unknown and no more meaningful than whether an actor agrees with the lines of his character.

 

[Sigma]

To be honest I think a lot of it is due to lack of motivation and preparation for the actual job. Obvisouly there are other reasons to it, like lack of charisma or understanding as well.

 

[Teja]

IMO Opinions are fine, but as pro footballers (esp. people with lots of game intelligence like Scholes), they should really have better analysis of a game than 'Oh so and so (read: Pogba) doesn't look like he cares' or 'They got outplayed and not one person in the team is a leader' etc.

What's the point of all the video analysis that coaches use to drive that into your heads while you were players? Any idiot reading a team sheet can say it's a 4-2-3-1, but players are hardly static anymore and the exact initial starting shape is somewhat meaningless.

Even pro managers like Martinez try to dumb things down quite a bit. Not that simplifying is a bad thing, but simplifying to the standard tropes that pundits use is what I have issue with.

See Cruyff explaining his diamond for what I'd love to see:

 

[Ramshock]

The dumbing things down is so apparent

 

[Lay]

Rio is good. Neville is mostly good. I like Keane, he's good entertainment.

Scholes is too monotone and doesn't offer a great deal.

 

[Withnail]

People experiencing something doesn’t necessarily provide any insights into it. For that reason the comments from many athletes aren’t particularly deep.

Pundits are talking heads with what to say and how to say it piped in through an earpiece while on air. Off air they are handed an agenda and are expected to stay on script. They have a job to do and are paid well to do it. Whether they personally agree with what they spout is unknown and no more meaningful than whether an actor agrees with the lines of his character.

Mate what channel in what country are you claiming this is happening in?

Bit of a conspiracy theory there.

As for the Op, as others have said the best players don't often make the best pundits or managers. They were extremely talented and often football just came so naturally they never really had to analyse it too deeply.

I think the problem is that the pundits seems to be chosen for entertainment value or because they're well known/played for a big club first and the emphasis is on dumbing things down rather than being for education about the game or tactics.

 

[christinaa]

To be honest, most of the pundits are ex-'Pool players and they are all the bottom of the pits!

 

[Mindhunter]

It’s simple. They overcompensate because it is United. They speak as fans first and not as pundits being paid to deliver analysis that a neutral viewer would find insightful.

Owen Hargreaves is stable and Fletcher definitely impressed me. But that’s more to do with just being a regular normal person when the camera is on. Evra is a WUM and it’s very difficult to listen to him at all. Keane is pure theatre. In his mind, he is still MUFC captain and all problems in the world can be solved through sharp criticism and a good rollicking.

 

[90 + 5min]

Roy Keane is just honest wich is hard to find in these days where everyone seems to be friend with everyone. He doesn't mind stepping on some toes.

Patrice Evra is a fan. Would be great to go out with him and chill because he great guy. But as a "expert" he is to much emotional, in a bad way.

Rio Ferdinand knows what he talks about. I think he is very intellegent guy. I would love to get him into our club and give him some position in the managment team. Or even higher up.

Gary Neville is good. Nothing more to say. He doesn't hide from opinions.

Owen Haregraves feels like someone who dislikes us. I don't know why. That is the feeling.

Darren Fletcher is just Darren Fletcher.

Paul Scholes is hard to get a grip on.

 

[I_live_cement]

IMO Opinions are fine, but as pro footballers (esp. people with lots of game intelligence like Scholes), they should really have better analysis of a game than 'Oh so and so (read: Pogba) doesn't look like he cares' or 'They got outplayed and not one person in the team is a leader' etc.

What's the point of all the video analysis that coaches use to drive that into your heads while you were players? Any idiot reading a team sheet can say it's a 4-2-3-1, but players are hardly static anymore and the exact initial starting shape is somewhat meaningless.

Even pro managers like Martinez try to dumb things down quite a bit. Not that simplifying is a bad thing, but simplifying to the standard tropes that pundits use is what I have issue with.

See Cruyff explaining his diamond for what I'd love to see:

Cruyff was actually a genius though, and years ahead of his time.

 

[lsd]

Better than the commentators who just repeat cliches and the same facts over and over . If I hear once more James scored 3 goals in his 4 games and none since along with Frank's first game in charge was a 4 .0 loss to United .

 

[Matt851]

“Why don’t all pundits agree with what I think?”

Haha, some people on here seem to through their toys out of the pram when one of the ex utd pundits says something they disagree with

Cant disagree with the general point that there are a lot of bad pundits out there though. Would be nice to have a mix of journalists and ex footballers more regularly

 

[clarkydaz]

Scholes is the one that amazes me the most. How you go from being a puppet master on the pitch to such short sighted analysis as a pundit is quite something.

 

[Ramshock]

“Why don’t all pundits agree with what I think?”

So you are okay with Axel playing two games back to back after 10 months out. Stick to snippy comments son

 

[tjb]

Paddy Evra's nonsense while working for Sky on the Chelsea game really annoyed me. How can someone who was a player
until very recently and spent a long time playing under Ferguson not know how stupid it is to want Ole to start Tuanzebe who just
had a tough match after 10 months out injured? Or to not know how hard it is to settle into a new league and new team when talking about
Donny van de Beek? I mean fecking Evra was a disaster for his first few matches along with Vidic for United. I mean do they have selective amnesia
or do they just ignore the facts and go for soundbites? Is it under instruction or are they that stupid?

Scholesy to me is a miserable prick when it comes to United, he is a write-off as a pundit and Gary Neville is the chief culprit always insinuating
potential problems and second-guessing his ex long time teammate. Ferdinand and Hargreaves are really the only ex reds of note in punditry I can listen to and even they have their moments. I expect shit punditry from scousers and ABU's when it comes to United but more often than not I have seen Jamie fecking Carragher have a more insightful opinion about United than Gary Neville which is ridiculous. Why do you lot reckon we have shit representation in punditry?

I agree, especially on neville. Watch any of our games, even if its even, he will tell us that we are being dominated and make excuses for the opposition. Like the Chelsea game. It's really weird

 

[acnumber9]

So you are okay with Axel playing two games back to back after 10 months out. Stick to snippy comments son

I’m ok with not starting threads because I disagree with what somebody on TV says. I’d say stick to posting shite but that goes without saying son.

 

[united_99]

Scholes was never a talker. We all know stories how he was always private and very few people had his phone number. He probably just turns up as a pundit because he is bored or wants to make some money.
However people will listen to him as he is one of the best and most successful PL players ever. He was very intuitive and natural in his play and he is like that when he talks.

Keane is just pure box office and such a charismatic personality. Love him or hate him, but no one is going to ignore him when he is talking.

Neville in my opinion is an agenda pundit. Extremely biased towards English players. But I guess you get this in almost every country. I don’t like listening to him but as he is always there you just get used to it.

Evra is funny and emotional but I don’t know how anyone can take him seriously anymore.

Rio is mostly good and I find most of what he says interesting.

Anyway most of the footballers are just not very smart and you get that impression already from their interviews as players. There are obviously exceptions like RvP.

 

[Alejandro Angel]

I agree, especially on neville. Watch any of our games, even if its even, he will tell us that we are being dominated and make excuses for the opposition. Like the Chelsea game. It's really weird

Not a fan of Gary Neville whilst commentating on Utd game as you say he is trying to hard not to be biased and it ends with him being over critical.
I like Danny Higginbottom

 

[tinfish]

For me, and for many other non United fans, Rio will always be ridiculed because of this:


This is the pundits version of Gerrads never forgetful slip against Chelsea. It will tarnish his pundit career probably forever

He's a fanboy which is pleasing to United when things go well. Apart from that I probably think Neville is the best of the United bunch. He is critical and usually for a good reason. I don't like it when pundits say what the majority want to hear. I find him the most interesting of the bunch to listen to. HAs a great voice/accent for the job too.

 

[Lentwood]

I like Gary Neville...until he's involved in a Utd game. The majority of the time he tries so hard not to seem biased that he's massively over-critical

 

[Andersonson]

My take on a few of them:

Gary Neville: A smart guy and knows hit football. Passionate about united and sometimes goes a bit too far in his critism. He tries to be neutral but his love is just to much.I really like him
Keane: A much needed pundit. Isnt afraid of saying things straight out. And is also quite funny in a weird way.
Hargreaves: Knows alot, but comes across a bit boring. But is very good tactical. Actually think he could be a good manager.
Scholes: Boring. Very boring. Not much energy and his voice isnt ment for TV
Rio: A character. Sometimes way to eager in his analysis, but good generally.
Evra: A complete tool. Should be off TV instant. His opinions are just emtional and he comes across not very bright. And some of his tweets and instagram posts are dangerous ( denying covid as an example )

 

[Foxbatt]

Hargreaves played for Bayern before he came to United so tactically he would have experienced different style of playing and coaching too. He is tactically more aware of what is going on even when he played. I do not think he was such a talented player but he knew how to play football and that was why he was so good.

 

[Gazza]

Punditry is ultimately entertainment (comprising of ‘controversy’ and ‘narratives’) more than it is about analysis, certainly on Sky Sports. Carragher and Neville do alright within that framework but any pundit they hire will need to tick those boxes.

 

[RashyForPM]

Players that played for a club in a period of heightened success simply expect the same standards to remain after that success ends.

Scholes knew how to do, he doesn’t know how to interpret.

Evra knows how to be emotional. He doesn’t know how to analyse.

Gary Neville is mostly good.

Roy is dynamite. Bit of a throwback. Speaks to his attitude when he played, but ignores the fact that he was actually damn talented.

Rio is a fan, he’s pretty, loved, and is a character. A modern day Ian Wright.

Punditry is a job. It’s monetised and weaponised for articles and such like. They all play a role.

The best ex United Pundit was Hargreaves. But he seems to be a bit of a media shill as he’s changed massively since his first year. He’s tactically astute. A little bit boring, but knows football.

It’s all a game.

There was one show where they analysed his Forest goals, and he said all he did was blindly run forward. There was also a goal where he chipped the keeper from twenty yards, which he claimed to be a simple finish as the keeper lost his bearings. No you prick, you were a stunning, world class player loved by all United fans He has to credit himself more tbf.

About pundits though, him, Neville and Rio are my favourites. I don’t see Neville insinuating problems and second-guessing Ole like the OP is strangely mentioning.

 

[Web of Bissaka]

Punditry is a show, and pundits are really just there to entertain or to influence viewers. Football knowledge is not really top priority, majority don't want to listen to boring comments delivered by dull speakers.

It depends on what do you expect or want from pundits. I definitely want to learn something new about football so I can understand it better, and preferably the pundits to be good at delivering that info. Boring pundits is just boring, I usually felt sleepy listening to it. I also value honest opinions, not the sugar coated BS, as long as the opinions are reasonable and not emotional over bias (Idon't think we can escape from any bias, it'll always affect our views).

If you want the best, then choose those who have charisma, rational/logical/good temperaments and have genuine football knowledge. This is so rare isn't it.
^ The only one I can think of is just Mourinho really for the past.. uhh 10 years or more. His short pundit career and all his commentaries are really good - a lot of football fans learned a lot about football and management, plus it's entertaining. I don't agree with everything he said but it still is interesting. He is not always emotional when giving commentaries and surprisingly very respectable when commenting about other managers and players.

 

[Sky1981]

A combination of the following:

1. They can't fully criticized a decision made by fellow manager because what are the chances that they are wrong and got served a humble pie?
2. Multiply by the facts that they do this for a living, which means they'll need to criticized or agree with a decision (e.g playing tuanzebe) which could go either way
3. They're not smart enough to guarantee their opinion is always correct
4. They' don't have the guts to be overly critical, people are emotions, when you criticized too much there'll be a point when you'll die by the sword
5. Plus they need to cater to every demography each with a very distinct taste in commenting
6. It's not actually easy to have a constantly new phrase/jargon that you can devise every week, at one point your punch line would be repetitive (kinda like FM commentary)
7. The amount of insight they need to commentate live, it's not a talent you can learn, you either have that nous or you dont
8. Some are outright dumb
9. Some are savvy enough but probably don't have the ability to convey their meaning well (Gary is the best out of the rest in conveying his messages)
10. Some have the suave and the charisman but none the brain

I'm even discounting that there are scripts off the record that they'll have to follow.

Listening to Cruyff talking sheds alot of light, that there's so much more to coaching and tactical than simply "Play 352/442/433/Diamond/etc For god's sake", the devils is on the details. Any kids can do a mockup tactical lineup, means nothing without the tweak.

And the commentators needs to be a tier or two higher than the manager to see the games and in real time. It's not for everyone.

 

[R'hllor]

I’m ok with not starting threads because I disagree with what somebody on TV says. I’d say stick to posting shite but that goes without saying son.

Damn

 

[Pexbo]

I genuinely don’t know if Gary Neville is a big United fan anymore. I think having the Glazers/Woodward and Fergie leaving along with his stake in Salford and the forced neutrality he’s had for the past decade being a pundit has very much weakened his allegiance to us. He’s clearly got a lot of sentimentality to the club historically and that shows in his arguments about the club in that context but ask him if he’d honestly enjoy watching the club win the league now and I doubt it excites him anymore than a club like Tottenham, Everton or Wolves winning the league.

As for Scholes, lots of people describing him as shy or private. I think it was Keane that said something along the lines of “Is he feck, we all hated doing interviews after matches and he for some reason got away with sneaking off early and built this reputation. He’s happy enough to talk on camera now he’s being paid for it.”

 

[fps]

Because being good at something doesn’t mean being good at talking about it, and because even if they can be interesting they have to dumb down their ideas for a stupid audience.

 

[hubbuh]

I genuinely don’t know if Gary Neville is a big United fan anymore. I think having the Glazers/Woodward and Fergie leaving along with his stake in Salford and the forced neutrality he’s had for the past decade being a pundit has very much weakened his allegiance to us. He’s clearly got a lot of sentimentality to the club historically and that shows in his arguments about the club in that context but ask him if he’d honestly enjoy watching the club win the league now and I doubt it excites him anymore than a club like Tottenham, Everton or Wolves winning the league.

As for Scholes, lots of people describing him as shy or private. I think it was Keane that said something along the lines of “Is he feck, we all hated doing interviews after matches and he for some reason got away with sneaking off early and built this reputation. He’s happy enough to talk on camera now he’s being paid for it.”

I reckon that’s bs to be fair. You don’t fall out of love for a club a few afters retiring having played 400 games and being there for 20 years. I’d be interested to know why you’d think that, though.

 

[Pexbo]

I reckon that’s bs to be fair. You don’t fall out of love for a club a few afters retiring having played 400 games and being there for 20 years. I’d be interested to know why you’d think that, though.

I mean, I kinda went on to all those details in the post.

 

[KirkDuyt]

It's because football is a simple sport yet we have people talking about it and analysing it for hours and hours on end like it's rocket science. There's too much coverage.

Also, most pundits are ex players. These dudes aren't famous because of their great intellect or eloquence.

 

[Deery]

I think they just dumb it down for the general public, after all they all have coaching badges at the highest level but never go into anything that involves that at all. It’s just the same old shite, he’s not trying hard enough, he’s made a mistake, poor performance.
They like to talk about bad tackles more than the game ffs.

 

[hubbuh]

I mean, I kinda went on to all those details in the post.

Well yeah, I more meant what’s given you that impression. The fact that he’s neutral in his commentary? The Glazers came to the club in 2003 and finalised it in 2005 so it’d be odd if his love for the club had waned due to them. At that rate you’d have to also ask if any of the ex class of ‘92 really still feel much for the club. They have all done done management gigs/big footballing projects outside of United and are fairly scathing of our current set up.