A great piece here from Tom English in The Hootsmon. (Please do read the whole thing - it is wonderful). On a similar I wrote this piece a few days ago which asked 'Who should we listen to?'
Tom English is right. The coverage from ITV and the BBC has been absolutely shocking. Listening to some of the pundits cover tactical analysis is a little like watching a baboon with an ice lolly. They sort of know what they are talking about but one can see immediately that it isn't as smooth as it could be.
The ITV, BBC and Sky obsession with employing ex-pros brings some benefits but many woes. If you listen to someone like James Richardson or Guillame Balague or reads Must Read Soccer, Football Further and Zonal Marking for on the blogosphere and you know that decent commentary exists. Indeed, as English points out, plenty of BBC coverage is good - usually on the radio.
If those blogs (and many others) can research teams such as North Korea and Algeria why on Earth can't the BBC manage it? If Shearer and co can't be bothered doing the research themselves could they not use some of our licence fee to get some Oxbridge boffin to compile a file? Hell, I know for a fact they get a massive file. Mark Bright even tweeted they get a 470 page briefing on players and teams. They can't even be bothered to read it/look at the pictures.
A few weeks ago I wrote this piece about an A-Z of football commentary. Why not play a drinking game during the next World Cup game? A shot every time one of the phrases is mentioned.
Plenty of the punditry is woeful. It is playground stuff. Philosophers down the ages will wonder 'what is the point of Andy Townsend?'. Look up asinine in the dictionary and there will be a gleaming picture of Townsend probably saying 'oooh I don't know about that'. Southgate is, if possible, just as bad. Last night watching them argue about whether Maicon meant his goal was, for a moment, like listening to two pub idiots argue over who would win in a fight between a swan and a golden retriever.
Mick McCarthy's moment, that English highlights, regarding Juan Sebastian Veron was priceless. This is the Veron who inspired Estudiantes to the Copa Libertadores last year and was South American Footballer of the Year. McCarthy's comment that he didn't realise that it was the same Veron who played at Manchester United was stunning on a number of levels - Is he so poorly read in the World game these days? Does he do any research? Do other people do research for him?
Motty has just said that on BBC2's round-up that we didn't know about Gervinho before the World Cup. Nonsense. Total nonsense. Lee Dixon continues to call the Germans 'efficient' when they've been the best team on show (admittedly against poor opposition). We deserve better.
It is truly appalling stuff. Both channels should be ashamed. My advice? Watch the TV with the radio on and a twitter feed.
RCM
8 comments:
I must admit I generally don't watch the post match "analysis" and haven't listened to any punditry on MOTD since I got SKY+ installed.
The issue is that this sort of punditry is enough for 90% of people who watch the matches. Those of us who want a little more insight or information are left disappointed.
Absolutely spot on! The BBC need to learn that being a good or even a great footballer does not translate into having a personality suitable for punditry. ITV meanwhile seem willing to take any recognisable footballing face regardless of their knowledge on the game or ability commentate on it. Mick McCarthy is as much a joke as Dean Windass is on Soccer Saturday. It is something that I have briefly alluded to in my own blog (dominicpollard.blogspot.com) a few days ago and I think it is a shame that for one of, if not the, biggest sporting event in the world the British broadcasters cannot assemble a better collection of pundits and commentators. Alan Hansen patronising tone towards Adebayor on the opening night was one of the most uncomfortable pieces of television I have seen in some time. Tom English's post, as you say, is exactly right and is a very good article and I think the word 'insulting' that he uses sums up much of the lazy punditry very well.
I watched the highlights on the Beeb tonight, and I have to warn you that your sermon has been disregarded. Dixon accused the Germans of efficiency again. Personally, I'd accuse them of football.
This - "Listening to some of the pundits cover tactical analysis is a little like watching a baboon with an ice lolly" has just made me laugh out loud.
I've been watching the tournament online, with the Radio 5 feed on a second tab. ITV is on a delay of about 30 secs, which kind of gives Alan Green the gift of prophecy.
It's just lazy. I wonder how much are Hansen and co. are paid to sit there and joke about how little they know about Slovenia and Algeria. I don't know anything about them but surely the sole purpose of pundits in a match liek this is to tell us who to look out for, what formation the teams like to play, what their record is like etc etc.
Spot on Rob. Watching the UK coverage has been absolutely excruciating at times. The fact that people like Shearer and Hansen feel comfortable enough to make sarcastic jokes about their own lack of knowledge just serves to illustrate how desperate the situation is. People who love football deserve so much better.
"People who love football deserve so much better." Bugger people who love it; people who quite like it and pay their licence fee want much better. At least one of them does.
Dear all,
Thanks for the responses. Glad to see I'm not the only one who disapproves.
I think the elephant in the room is that they get a 470 page guide about the teams and players of the World Cup. Not knowing the Algerian team back to front is appalling, simply appalling.
RCM
Post a Comment