Football

The Great Football Pundit Debate

Whenever conversation turns towards matters footballing with friends, an ever popular parlour game remains perennial favourite ‘what pundits do you rate?’

Everyone I’ve ever met with even a passing interest in the game holds strong opinions on the matter. It’s a truly divisive issue that can provoke surprisingly heated debate and argument. With the disclaimer that this is based on some very unscientific methodology and a small sample size, I can present some initial conclusions based on said conversations:

– The only pundit (now former) that emerges with near universal approval is Gary Neville
– Almost no consensus exists on the relative merits of all other pundits
– A strong regional accent marks you down, regardless of capability in all other facets of punditry (Carra)
– Lee Dixon and Danny Murphy are the up and comers in the field, scoring relatively well
– Garth Crooks and Michael Owen score almost universally poorly
– Being passionate and opinionated will get you a long way (Wrighty)

What’s most striking though is that in the current multi-channel landscape, with the dozens of ex-pros being paid handsomely to dispense opinion, that there is only a single pundit who scores a high approval rating. Broadly speaking, with a few exceptions, opinions on the rest range from indifference to vehement dislike. Neville stands head and shoulders.

Gary_Neville_University_of_Salford

Top of the class

Let’s assume that these opinions are fairly representative of the wider football watching public. I’ve wondered whether this would be a matter of any concern to TV companies. People’s decisions to subscribe to pay TV channels or to tune into matches on terrestrial television don’t ultimately hinge on who is delivering the pre, mid and post-match waffle. It’s a captive audience; punters will watch football on TV come what may. So, perhaps not. This would certainly explain the employment of a few pundits over the years who clearly never had so much as a screen test (Marcel Desailly anyone?)

Yet, Neville’s success and widespread popularity demonstrate two things. Firstly, pundits can be more than incidental appendages to TV football coverage. During his stint at Sky, Neville became part of the spectacle, almost as much reason to watch as the game itself. Whilst not being in possession of viewing stats I strongly suspect that Neville’s presence inflated the numbers tuning in earlier, sticking around at half time and remaining long after the final whistle had blown. Sky will certainly feel his departure.

Secondly, Neville has proven that it is possible to transcend football’s petty tribalism and the fickle tastes of fans to earn plaudits across the board – particularly impressive for a figure as previously divisive as he was. He’s shown that there is a genuine appetite from fans for thoughtful, insightful and nuanced analysis. The standard platitudes, clichés and describing of the plainly obvious simply won’t do. Perhaps they are a more discerning bunch than given credit for.

Which brings me to two football shows I’ve watched in the past few weeks, ITVs Champions League highlights round-up and BT Sports’ European football show. Over on ITV, the ever menacing Roy Keane was digesting Manchester United’s Champions League exit. Apparently it was all due to a lack of desire, heart, bottle, character, leaders. Pressed for a bit more detail from anchor Mark Pougatch, Keane just repeated the same thing over, in a slightly more irritable tone. Wisely, Pougatch didn’t pursue matters further.*
At the other end of the spectrum, BT have embarked on something of an experiment with their excellent European football show. Rather than fill the panel with the familiar cast of ex-pros, they have assembled a crack team of football journalists, marshalled by the sardonic James Richardson. They know the European game inside out, bring lots of insider knowledge and express themselves clearly and articulately. Raphael Honigstein is a particular standout.

There remains a suspicion of journalists amongst ex pros and broadcasters that will probably prevent this experiment being extended to more mainstream football programmes anytime soon. After all, they’ve never played the game to a high level and all that. But, there are signs that things are shifting. Journos are now regulars on Sky’s Spanish football coverage and make occasional appearances on MOTD3 and ITVs Champions League show.

Unless another soon to be retiring replacement for Neville can be unearthed, broadcasters could do a lot worse than to give a few of these hacks more of a run out.

N.B – Not singling out Roy Keane, just the most recent example of lazy punditry I’ve seen.

Advertisements
Standard

3 thoughts on “The Great Football Pundit Debate

  1. Kevin says:

    Some great points in this article. The other pundit I think is worth listening to is Graeme Souness as he’s direct and to the point. Match of the Day punditry has gone down hill since Alan Hansen left. Too many pundits are happy to sit on the fence.

    Like

  2. Nick says:

    Agree with this. You have to wonder why the BBC and ITV ignore the well documented criticism of their pundits. Perhaps because there is appetite for their banal musings amongst casual sports fans whose voices aren’t heard in debates like this, who revel in the familiar and would be turned off by anything in depth. There must be a reason why the BBC’s annual 3rd round FA Cup coverage always builds a narrative around the magic of the cup, whether we’ve seen any or not, and no matter how big a ridiculous cliche it’s become. There must be people out there who like that sort of thing, it’s just I don’t know any.

    Like

  3. Struan says:

    Although BBC and ITV pundits do not offer much in the way of an insight, at least they are honest when they see a bad game. Sky pundits seem to feel the need to dramatise minor incidents when there’s a dull game. Perhaps this is driven by the brand.

    I agree with Kevin (above) that Souness is worth listening to. You can still see how passionate he is but he also backs it up with tactical analysis and gives the viewer an insight into the game. This is where Roy Keane is lacking, but I think he is still trying to play up as the ‘tough guy’.

    Although I think Carragher has been a welcome addition to MNF, he is still too preoccupied with talking about Liverpool and Everton. The same can be said for the MOTD pundits who seem unable to detach themselves from their former clubs. Neville has broken the mould by putting his old rivalries to one side to offer a clinical and objective analysis.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s