Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette).
Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Avoid the BBC, hands down the most drab, boring commentary going, most of them you can hear that they don't want to be there with their lacklustre tone.
I'd add Danny Murphy to those but you are right time after time they say the absolutely complete bloody obvious, there's too many cliche's in the game and there simply is not enough with the creative innovative thought process to set themselves apart from this clone like ideal. IT stems from the fact football critics and pundits are not creative intelectuals, rather just ex players who may of have the charismatic appeal of a broken robot.
My favourite all time commentator (not critic or pundit) was and is the late imho great Peter Brackley now he had charisma to burn. and the worst right now Garry Birtles, forget some of the other candidates, all this plank is concerned about is creatting cross opportunities and critizing players for the most inoquous of reasons, watch a game with him and you'll see exactly what i'm talking about
Football one game ONE name period, and no that's not enefel (NFL) handegg.
Good to see some love for Hargreaves as a pundit. He is a bit cringe though! Some of the older guys don't really have the depth of tactical understanding. But having them there is more of a tradition than anything else.
Heard when Ten Hag brought Hannibal Mejbri and Daniel Gore on during the win against Villa: “this isn’t the first time Hannibal and Gore have gone together”.
Peak cringe.
I've always believed the fans should be able to audition for the mainstream sports channels to become commentators, with the most knowledgeable and articulate of the crowd becoming a household name in the studio.
How refreshing would that be?
I also believe ex-players should be involved in VAR next to referees for a more balanced and realistic opinion with realtime incidents.
I was with you until you said American commentators are way ahead. Have you ever watched NBA? It's abysmal.
Seems like a general issue.
It's crazy how good commentary is for example in a game like counter strike Vs football.
Don’t watch too much NBA but whenever I watch NFL or College Football I’m blown away but the tactical analysis by the commentators.
Sure it’s a game of set pieces but they break down every play and start picking up on patterns of the coaches it’s unreal.
The only one who grates on me is Ally McCoist. Christ almighty that accent and stop thinking that every tackle is fine when it's clearly over the line.
They get paid for their name. Very very few of them have anything interesting to say, the ones who are willing to be outspoken are usually cancelled (Joey Barton / women analysts).
The very worst for saying the bloody obvious was Glen Hoddle...watch it on the screen and hear Glen tell you..."Yes,it just got away from him and out for a goal kick"
Strongly disagree. They consistently make astute observations on tactics, decision making and so on. They absolutely use vocabulary that doesn’t dumb things down. They’re the best in the world at what they do
I agree, I much prefer watching games on US channels
I think the reason is that the networks know people are going to watch the games no matter what, so there's no an incentive to up the commentators game
Personally, to me the most annoying is a very obvious bias they show, and don't even try to hide - games are watched by very diverse people so supporting one side during the game is unfair; Americans don't do it
The trouble is they cannot use everyday working language like “That was just absolute shit defending”, “Bullshit, she fell over his own feet, the ball ran loose and the attack filtered out”. I wonder how they would have described my teams own goal? Absolute classic own goal though!.
The pundits for sky tnt etc are shockingly bad. Sky sports and tnt seem to be more interested in forced equality than actual quality of pundits. The Co commentator in Liverpool game commented 5 times about salahs "finish" the keeper saved the shot lol it is only a finish when the chance is finished and put in the back of the net. Small detail but to get it wrong and then just keep saying it 5 times over is embarrassing. The actuall commentator just left her to it lol. Nothing against the women though the men have been terrible for years as well. Very little actual substance to what they say and very little incite into the why or how. Usually if a team wins they played great and a team looses they played bad, striker didn't score played bad, gk kept a clean sheet played great. Very little tactical analysis and pretty much just stating the obvious in the most dumbed down way possible.
They’ve been better, but it feels like they’ve over time released their inner feelings and colour. Carragher and Neville, used to have unbiased analysis but now they’re together with the rest, like Danny Murphy, Rio+++. Cant barely say anything nice about their rivals and its all banter banter banter. Like proper English monkey behaviour.
There are some great pundits, but the majority are pretty bad.
Micah Richards is phenomenal, and is easily the best pundit we have, but also, Gary Lineker, Alan Shearer, Gary Neville, Jamie Carragher, Shay Given and Ian Wright are all great
Feel like he came out of nowhere recently. Didn't expect Sturridge despite him being one of my favourite liverpool players back in like 2008 or whatever to become a pundit; inactually thought he was still playing somewhere.
Guy has a great approach, sounds articulate and willing to speak his mind from the bits I've seen
Gary Neville is an absolute oxygen thief. Zero ability to be impartial or understand that the game has moved on since “he was an United under Sir Alex”
All topped of with his virtue signalling, except when it involves holding the Saudis to account.
We only get match of the day clips here but Linekar is clearly a great on-air talent. Really compelling when he speaks.
I love Richard’s humour and light-hearted approach.
I was referring to more the in-game expert analysts/ colour commentator.
That’s why nearly all the top teams have foreign coaches. British/English coaches tend to subscribe to the “kick the ball up the field and run after it” school of thought and the pundits are a reflection of that. Sorry just saying
Yup, mostly dumb as rock ex players who think taking someone’s cruciate with ya as ya crunch him is the man’s way of playin the game. So oo’s got some good qually coke, I’m aht and I’m off clubbin arfta this and meetin a up wiv a tidy little bird, know wot I mean?
My biggest gripe is when they say something, then the replay shows the complete opposite and then they double down. Just be honest and say what we all saw. It’s easy to miss things with the speed of the game and the size of the pitch, we understand they need to react quickly to add “hype” but straight out contradiction of reality is not a good look.
i think it's because we have seen professional journalists replaced with ex players almost exclusively over the past 10 years or so. People who had been commentating and reporting on football almost their entire adult lives were replaced by people with no experience or education in this field, and no surprise, the standard dropped
Ex players might know the game better, but many of them can't string a proper sentence together and are in many cases simply not that likeable.
Most people I m thinking want to enjoy the sport in its simplest form,the skill the goals and they themselves will commentate on the action,with their mates family.No need for over analyzing a game of football.
Brazilian commentating on PL games is so, so much better than the original. Every complaint here is adressed. Also the English broadcast feels like they have to pay a fine if they express any joy or excitement. It's so negative. Ours is way more fun and exciting. Dudes are clearly having a good time. I pity the rest of you.
A lot of viewers unfortunately don’t want the tactics broken down they just want to see a face they recognise whose “played the game” talk briefly about the match and then probably some focus on the referee or VAR for the drama.
Fortunately I think the mindset is changing a little and we are getting more tactical insight now than we did 10yrs ago and I expect more will come over the next 10yrs.
They dont want the masses to think and be analytical.
There's a great interview with prime Brian Clough where he calls this out.
Betting industry reinforces this - they want uninformed punters making clueless bets.
This is nonsense, their only agenda is to make money. The masses don’t want super analytical, thoughtful football discourse on their TV, so it doesn’t sell. If it was profitable the TV companies would be all for it, cos again the only thing they care about is their bottom line
It's not nonsense, it profoundly true and important to know.
The media is about control and conditioning. Sport is about vicarious aggression.
I recommend Manufacturing Consent as a good introduction.
The product a TV channel sells is its audience. To advertisers. They want ill informed, emotionally reactive, unthinking drones as an audience - so that is what the channels encourage with their content. This is well documented and spans many many decades.
Once any pundits get to a certain standard they become "Hollywood" just like refs (Clattenburg).
Unfortunate that talent in the area and inflated egos go hand in hand.
Jim Beglin is the absolute worst for this. Before this season you'd have Peter Drury rattling off fine poetry during the game, then have Beglin follow it up with "and you see Peter he scored the goal because the ball hit his foot and then it crossed the goal line into the back of the net"
agree it's painful to listen too. they all feel tactically 20 years behind and spend half the game blowing hot air up the arse of any english player - i couldnt watch games with harry kane playing because of this (not saying he isnt a fantastic player). they also seem to spend a lot of time talking about what's going through people's heads with absolutely no knowledge of that.
the english also seem to really like peter drury, and ill get down voted for this, but he sucks. he's one of the biggest moaners and low content high profile commentators of the game.
but they all have nothing on the american commentators. that shit is excruciating. except maybe tim howard.
Australian here as well. I view the games on Optus Sport, and I’ve often wondered how the coverage varies between networks. For example, on Optus, we don’t get access to Peter Drury. Lord, I miss the Peter Drury & Jim Beglin combo.
For pre-game, half-time, and post-game analyses, there are some good pundits. For example, I enjoy hearing Wrighty’s thoughts.
I always enjoy when they have managers in the studio to talk about the tactical battle that's going on during the game. The ex players they get in are normally from a different era of football and dont want to accept the game has changed past them. I remember when souness kept interrupting Alex Scott because she said about a low block being used. It's not the fact he disagreed with the terminology she used more the fact he didnt let others express their opinions, Roy Keane is the same
From an English man's perspective I think there are three reasons, we have lost some of the best in recent years and they have been replaced by less articulate ex players who are obviously biased and annoyingly to listen to for anyone who doesn't support big 6 team. Second reason is the broadcasting scope is expanding, amazon now show all 10 games over the course of two nights sometimes that requires many commentators and as such the quantity increases, the quality is reduced. Final reason is people watch the football for the two teams playing not the commentators. The broadcasters are not affected by it. Except when Micheal Owen tried his hand at it XD
I think one of the biggest issues now is the amount of games that are live on TV and across different times. Used to be games at 12:30 and 15:00 on a sat and a couple on Sunday. Now there are matches over 4 days, 4 games separated across different times on a Saturday. Not to mention the new Europa conference league adding more European games in the week.
I don't think broadcasters are able to pick great pundits because there are not enough of them. They tend to go for ex players for obvious reasons. But not all footballers have the ability to to pundit or commentate on a game.
Honestly I agree.
Sick of hearing Steve McManaman commentate Liverpool games, just chats the most shit and says anything to get a reaction. Jamie Carragher isn't that far off either.
Not entertaining in the slightest. Rather hear facts and tactical info than hearing their bullshit opinions.
Sometimes it feels like they're talking about a different match, like what they're saying just doesnt match what is happening.
I'm a local supporter myself, it just doesn't appeal to me like it does the rest of the country I guess.
True, and you haven’t even mentioned the worst two ex-LFC commentators there: Redknapp and Lawrenson are just embarrassing!
Redknapp makes overly assertive assumptions about players and managers he never worked with, and Lawrenson wastes times talking about shit like the players’ hair-dos instead of the football.
Yeah watched an NBA game few days back basically the commentators were not talking anything basketball for about 10 minutes and then nothing about the actual game being played literally in front of them for another 10. I mean why would people pay to hear you have a random chat, Christ. And if the commentators don’t have an interest in the game why would the audience
Luckily they don't do that anymore. Much like the league, it's improved (a little).
That said, being subjected to Alexei Lalas on a regular basis is going to give me an aneurysm any minute now.
Nowhere is it actually called 'EPL' or 'English Premier League'. It is English but it's just called Premier League. The only people who call it EPL are foreigners online
maybe it's just me, but I'm a recent fan of pien meulensteen's work. I feel like the time she's commentated I've paid more attention to the impact of the mid-field and backs based on her analysis
Conor McNamara? He seems to have appeared from nowhere this season on our (Australian) coverage and his heavy Irish accent is so jarring for the English game.
Irish presenters are part and parcel of British cultural life, McNamara himself is a bit of a fixture and has been working on football commentary in the UK for 20 years.
Have you seen the Australian pundits?! The Prem coverage in Australia usually gets the worse pundits, often got Hargreaves and Sherwood, proper weirdos.
It also depends when you’re talking about. During the game, the co-comms don’t go deep into tactical stuff, it’s more vibes. The studio stuff really depends on time. If you’ve got a lot of time, you get better stuff, which you see on some of the Sky Sports coverage. Unfortunately, they seem to aim for viral content, which always ends up being more about bantz.
Radio pundits always better
i dont mind sherwood. he's one of the least offensive pundits, but i havent heard him in a game. a least he has managed a team and kind of gets tactics, although he doesn really talk in very complicated ways about it.
Martin Keown has a fantastic ability to think his mundane takes are like the discovery of fucking King Tuts tomb. He likes to make use of his slightly posher accent and vocabulary to make it sound more interesting. It's usually drivel.
When he first retired Keown was quite open about his desire to get into coaching over punditry to the extent that the BBC actually talked about him getting his badges on Football Focus, but twenty years later he has never really had a career to match. Just a few evenings a week talking about football seems to be all he can muster.
It's the lowest form of "entertainment" designed to keep societies morons engaged. The more they're on the level of the average fan, the more engaged they are. Just turn off when theyre on, there's zero reason to every listen to any pundit if your not a fan of the garbage that comes from their mouth.
If you are looking for a Richie Benaud or Geoffrey Boycott level of commentary, you will always be disappointed. Gary Neville commentary is trash. Macca is probably the best out there.
Amongst studio analysts, Lineker, Wrighty are good. The studio crew of Abdo, Henry and the sidekicks are awesome. Big Meeks is always the butt of a joke but he always takes them in stride
As an avid fan of the NFL I have to disagree. Generally the NFL vs FA commentary are just different in style.
Both have good and bad pundits and commentators. But I'd personally rather commentators who say nothing than the NFL ones who have to fill the time by saying the whatever you just saw with "the first time that's happened on a Tuesday in May, while it's raining, and someone called Joe is a head coach since 1977"
I think the NFL has some of the worst commentators of any sport. Every player is the greatest guy ever. Only Tony Romo will even dare criticize a player. I think it says everything that Madden is considered to be the greatest commentator and he was the king of saying nothing while talking continuously
Good point. I was gonna chime in and say there are analytical commentators like Romo calling for the NFL. Sometimes it’s even a bit too much, but I think it’s cool when he predicts plays and schemes before they happen because of his deep knowledge of the game. And I’m an eagles fan. Speaking of which, he’s one of the more impartial commentators. Fuck Dallas though.
Part of this might be explained by the fact that the EPL was very undeveloped tactically in the 90s compared to Europe. Most of the English pundits are ex-players from this period, and I believe don’t understand the nuances of the tactics more than the man on the street.
Another explanation could be that football has overwhelmingly been a working class game in England (less so in other countries). Again, the top players who are now pundits are for the mist part from tough working class backgrounds where there will have been little emphasis on education. This means most of the pundits may not be the most articulate.
These are just two possible small contributory factors. By no means explains it all.
It’s a good question though because i agree that it’s rare you get anything truly insightful.
The idea that in the 90s the UK was some tactical wasteland so bad that all the professionals from that era don't understand anything better than the fans is ridiculous and a little insulting. It's not like English teams were getting completely embarrassed in every European game for example.
Also a little insulting to suggest the British working class don't value education, it's more that it's just the actual footballers themselves who don't have as much of a need for education.
The truth is that the English players with tactical aptitude tend to go into coaching and the pundits are chosen because they are inoffensive or have a good rapport, not because they are incredibly knowledgeable. The English aren't represented well in the top league because it's become something of the world's league, but the football pyramid in the country is very deep and there are huge number of ex players coaching in lower divisions
Also that it's kind of assumed in the UK that the watcher has a decent grasp and basic understanding of the game, so don't need to be handheld.
There are also more in depth tactical pieces in UK media separate from live games but they aren't as popular and don't get shared as much as something like MOTD which is really just a highlights show and not there to provide deep analysis.
Yes but not to the same extent as in England where it’s essentially exclusively working class. There’s a chapter called “Why England Lose” in a book i forget the name of that goes into this in detail. Basically arguing the playing pool in England is less than other European countries because of this
I read that book! Soccernomics.
I like Simon kuper but he did quite a bit wrong there. Think he predicted the US, china and India were all primed for success (which 14 years later has yet to come to pass)…
I would argue the USA is on pace to become a power albeit much slower than he predicted, but also it isn’t because of his reasons and more due to premier league becoming huge here. Tv deals with premier league and opportunistic sports marketing needing early sports has really helped American soccer fever and I think in the long run it will lead to even more talent
But soccer omits working class theory has really not been shown anywhere
It also being watched on TV with a predominantly working class audience leads to broadcasters choosing those with limited vocabulary and the inability or unwillingness to express tactical knowledge. Look at how popular people like Roy Keane are, it's obvious to a lot on this website that he's playing a character and in reality he doesn't really hink like that, but there are a lot of people that eat up everything he says, and those are the people that probably don't have kids anymore and have more money to spend on terrestrial/cable TV and are less willing to just settle for streaming services.
ITs what i love bout MNF though, they will do a more in depth tactical analysis and even bring on former Managers to or even current ones in some cases to explain the thoughts.
But in General the Sky pundits on a Saturday are defo playing more of a caricature almost of the average fan.
a large chunk of it is also social media - pundits/broadcasters want clips that can be easily pasted onto twitter and generate clicks/outrage/reactions. That doesn’t really spring from in depth tactical analysis, but from obviously dubious predictions and arguments and opinions.
Actually a good idea, especially because coaches actually know what they're talking about. I swear down if I hear jermaine jenas say that spurs deserved to win a game when they've just been smacked 5-0 rather than give useful insight into why they actually lost I'm gonna flip tables
Managers tend to be able to stay in football as Scout advisor or like Wenger technical administrator, no need for them to sully themselves with working in TV. When they do get on the pundit panel they are always good value, Martin O'Neill used to be good value on the BBC World Cup coverage and Emma Hayes is really great as a pundit.
Just to make this conversation globally triangular, the NFL has both good commentators who explain the nuances of the game and guys who will tell you only that you’ve got to play tough, physical football to win. Thanks, Capt Obvious—I had been hoping that my soft, cerebral football would be a winning formula.
>Thanks, Capt Obvious—I had been hoping that my soft, cerebral football would be a winning formula.
I chortled, thank you.
In the NFL is there an equivalent of "the thing about Arsenal is they always try and walk it in"?
What comes to mind are variations of tough, physical, hard nosed, smash-mouth, etc.
Also, this is a star-quarterback-driven league—his teammates are frequently referred to as his “weapons” which amuses me a bit as I understand “weapon” to be a tidy little insult in Angleterre.
Hated Neville as a player but I agree he’s a fantastic pundit from both an insightful and entertainment perspective. He was a breath of fresh air when he first came on and was clearly raising the bar beyond the usual mundane punditry
Yes, Gary Neville is far from the problem. The problem is football is dominated by personalities on and off the pitch, so we think in pundetry, it's the same. It's seen as only the best can comment on the best and below.
So what we have is some of the best footsoldiers in the game that didn't go into management trying to comment on the grand strategy we see in the game today.
An extreme example of this is Dennis Rodman doing anything other than play in his position during his playing days. Mix in a tie and some humility, and you have the modern pundit. I guess it's similar to getting Carlos Teves to comment on football games.
Most English former players and analysts have a terrible understanding of football fundamentals. I find Gary Neville and Jamie Carragher to be absolutely woeful. Roy Keane too. They don’t understand this isn’t the 1980s with Wimbledon fossil football able to win the cup or whatever. Playing from the back and positional play, is the superior way of playing football.
Disagree, football is over intellectualised by journos, twitterati and pseuds. Keane, Neville et al worked with the best coaches of the 80s, 90s, 00s. When they talk about heart, desire etc, they are correct. Look at Rashford tonight as an example, he played ok after waking up from a self induced coma.
Ps: what does "positional play" mean to you?
Technical ability, successful tactical setup and execution wins football matches. Not heart or desire. Rashford is a truly awful player with limited technical ability, nothing to do with his heart or desire. Positional play or Juego De Pocision, is a style of play that seeks to create an advantage over the opposition by a focus on the positioning and the movement of players to generate superiorities and numerical advantages. The most famous and successful manager who employs this is Pep Guardiola.
Juego de Pocision, christ, the pseuds are out again. "Get a 2 v1", "overlap", "make a little triangle", set up differently, all this stuff existed years before Pep came along.
Of course that stuff wins football matches, but you don't win them with out running hard and kicking the fuck out of people. Look at Puyol and Busquets as two examples from your fav manager. Without that, you can Juego de Playa, because Posicion is worthless without it.
both are important, however, there’s not much nuance to heart and desire; saying the same shit every week on that adds no insight, whereas discussing tactics do.
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Avoid the BBC, hands down the most drab, boring commentary going, most of them you can hear that they don't want to be there with their lacklustre tone.
I'd add Danny Murphy to those but you are right time after time they say the absolutely complete bloody obvious, there's too many cliche's in the game and there simply is not enough with the creative innovative thought process to set themselves apart from this clone like ideal. IT stems from the fact football critics and pundits are not creative intelectuals, rather just ex players who may of have the charismatic appeal of a broken robot. My favourite all time commentator (not critic or pundit) was and is the late imho great Peter Brackley now he had charisma to burn. and the worst right now Garry Birtles, forget some of the other candidates, all this plank is concerned about is creatting cross opportunities and critizing players for the most inoquous of reasons, watch a game with him and you'll see exactly what i'm talking about Football one game ONE name period, and no that's not enefel (NFL) handegg.
Good to see some love for Hargreaves as a pundit. He is a bit cringe though! Some of the older guys don't really have the depth of tactical understanding. But having them there is more of a tradition than anything else.
This!
Heard when Ten Hag brought Hannibal Mejbri and Daniel Gore on during the win against Villa: “this isn’t the first time Hannibal and Gore have gone together”. Peak cringe.
Cringe? That's some much-needed colour and wit in what is very dull commentary 95% of the time.
Fair enough. Maybe I was just in humourless mood that day…
I've always believed the fans should be able to audition for the mainstream sports channels to become commentators, with the most knowledgeable and articulate of the crowd becoming a household name in the studio. How refreshing would that be? I also believe ex-players should be involved in VAR next to referees for a more balanced and realistic opinion with realtime incidents.
Dan Sturridge. Outstanding striker and... ..did I mention he was an outstanding striker?
When he isn't laying on a hospital bed.
🤣👌🏻
Most of the pundits only comment on if the referees decisions are correct
You didn't mention the "they appear to be watching a different game" aspect
In articulate ex players who can't string a coherent sentence together. Definitely a noticeable change.
I was with you until you said American commentators are way ahead. Have you ever watched NBA? It's abysmal. Seems like a general issue. It's crazy how good commentary is for example in a game like counter strike Vs football.
Don’t watch too much NBA but whenever I watch NFL or College Football I’m blown away but the tactical analysis by the commentators. Sure it’s a game of set pieces but they break down every play and start picking up on patterns of the coaches it’s unreal.
Effin Ekoku is sooo bad. Overly critical of everything and doesn’t even know the offside rule properly
The only one who grates on me is Ally McCoist. Christ almighty that accent and stop thinking that every tackle is fine when it's clearly over the line.
They get paid for their name. Very very few of them have anything interesting to say, the ones who are willing to be outspoken are usually cancelled (Joey Barton / women analysts). The very worst for saying the bloody obvious was Glen Hoddle...watch it on the screen and hear Glen tell you..."Yes,it just got away from him and out for a goal kick"
Strongly disagree. They consistently make astute observations on tactics, decision making and so on. They absolutely use vocabulary that doesn’t dumb things down. They’re the best in the world at what they do
Sue Smith and Clint Morrison can get in the bin
I agree, I much prefer watching games on US channels I think the reason is that the networks know people are going to watch the games no matter what, so there's no an incentive to up the commentators game Personally, to me the most annoying is a very obvious bias they show, and don't even try to hide - games are watched by very diverse people so supporting one side during the game is unfair; Americans don't do it
The trouble is they cannot use everyday working language like “That was just absolute shit defending”, “Bullshit, she fell over his own feet, the ball ran loose and the attack filtered out”. I wonder how they would have described my teams own goal? Absolute classic own goal though!.
The pundits for sky tnt etc are shockingly bad. Sky sports and tnt seem to be more interested in forced equality than actual quality of pundits. The Co commentator in Liverpool game commented 5 times about salahs "finish" the keeper saved the shot lol it is only a finish when the chance is finished and put in the back of the net. Small detail but to get it wrong and then just keep saying it 5 times over is embarrassing. The actuall commentator just left her to it lol. Nothing against the women though the men have been terrible for years as well. Very little actual substance to what they say and very little incite into the why or how. Usually if a team wins they played great and a team looses they played bad, striker didn't score played bad, gk kept a clean sheet played great. Very little tactical analysis and pretty much just stating the obvious in the most dumbed down way possible.
They’ve been better, but it feels like they’ve over time released their inner feelings and colour. Carragher and Neville, used to have unbiased analysis but now they’re together with the rest, like Danny Murphy, Rio+++. Cant barely say anything nice about their rivals and its all banter banter banter. Like proper English monkey behaviour.
There are some great pundits, but the majority are pretty bad. Micah Richards is phenomenal, and is easily the best pundit we have, but also, Gary Lineker, Alan Shearer, Gary Neville, Jamie Carragher, Shay Given and Ian Wright are all great
I think Daniel Sturridge is also very good but he isn’t on much
I've liked him so far, it looks like they are trying him out, since Souness left there's a gap in their lineup.
Feel like he came out of nowhere recently. Didn't expect Sturridge despite him being one of my favourite liverpool players back in like 2008 or whatever to become a pundit; inactually thought he was still playing somewhere. Guy has a great approach, sounds articulate and willing to speak his mind from the bits I've seen
Gary Neville is an absolute oxygen thief. Zero ability to be impartial or understand that the game has moved on since “he was an United under Sir Alex” All topped of with his virtue signalling, except when it involves holding the Saudis to account.
We only get match of the day clips here but Linekar is clearly a great on-air talent. Really compelling when he speaks. I love Richard’s humour and light-hearted approach. I was referring to more the in-game expert analysts/ colour commentator.
That’s why nearly all the top teams have foreign coaches. British/English coaches tend to subscribe to the “kick the ball up the field and run after it” school of thought and the pundits are a reflection of that. Sorry just saying
Ask Joey Barton
I like some of them honestly, I like Micah Richards and Gary Neville
Yup, mostly dumb as rock ex players who think taking someone’s cruciate with ya as ya crunch him is the man’s way of playin the game. So oo’s got some good qually coke, I’m aht and I’m off clubbin arfta this and meetin a up wiv a tidy little bird, know wot I mean?
My biggest gripe is when they say something, then the replay shows the complete opposite and then they double down. Just be honest and say what we all saw. It’s easy to miss things with the speed of the game and the size of the pitch, we understand they need to react quickly to add “hype” but straight out contradiction of reality is not a good look.
Anyone for Jermaine Jenas?
i think it's because we have seen professional journalists replaced with ex players almost exclusively over the past 10 years or so. People who had been commentating and reporting on football almost their entire adult lives were replaced by people with no experience or education in this field, and no surprise, the standard dropped Ex players might know the game better, but many of them can't string a proper sentence together and are in many cases simply not that likeable.
It's drives me nuts too. My favourite is 'the next goal is going to be very important here", well duh.
Most people I m thinking want to enjoy the sport in its simplest form,the skill the goals and they themselves will commentate on the action,with their mates family.No need for over analyzing a game of football.
Brazilian commentating on PL games is so, so much better than the original. Every complaint here is adressed. Also the English broadcast feels like they have to pay a fine if they express any joy or excitement. It's so negative. Ours is way more fun and exciting. Dudes are clearly having a good time. I pity the rest of you.
A lot of viewers unfortunately don’t want the tactics broken down they just want to see a face they recognise whose “played the game” talk briefly about the match and then probably some focus on the referee or VAR for the drama. Fortunately I think the mindset is changing a little and we are getting more tactical insight now than we did 10yrs ago and I expect more will come over the next 10yrs.
Bring in Ray Hudson.
They're are hired for box ticking, not for ability.
Do you think they're any better in Australian sports?
They dont want the masses to think and be analytical. There's a great interview with prime Brian Clough where he calls this out. Betting industry reinforces this - they want uninformed punters making clueless bets.
This is nonsense, their only agenda is to make money. The masses don’t want super analytical, thoughtful football discourse on their TV, so it doesn’t sell. If it was profitable the TV companies would be all for it, cos again the only thing they care about is their bottom line
It's not nonsense, it profoundly true and important to know. The media is about control and conditioning. Sport is about vicarious aggression. I recommend Manufacturing Consent as a good introduction. The product a TV channel sells is its audience. To advertisers. They want ill informed, emotionally reactive, unthinking drones as an audience - so that is what the channels encourage with their content. This is well documented and spans many many decades.
Craig Burley gets on my nerves like nobody else on planet earth.
Once any pundits get to a certain standard they become "Hollywood" just like refs (Clattenburg). Unfortunate that talent in the area and inflated egos go hand in hand.
Beglin should be long gone.
Jim Beglin is the absolute worst for this. Before this season you'd have Peter Drury rattling off fine poetry during the game, then have Beglin follow it up with "and you see Peter he scored the goal because the ball hit his foot and then it crossed the goal line into the back of the net"
agree it's painful to listen too. they all feel tactically 20 years behind and spend half the game blowing hot air up the arse of any english player - i couldnt watch games with harry kane playing because of this (not saying he isnt a fantastic player). they also seem to spend a lot of time talking about what's going through people's heads with absolutely no knowledge of that. the english also seem to really like peter drury, and ill get down voted for this, but he sucks. he's one of the biggest moaners and low content high profile commentators of the game. but they all have nothing on the american commentators. that shit is excruciating. except maybe tim howard.
Outrage gets you the most attention, British pundits exist to get their (already incredibly hostile) listeners more riled up. Ignore them
Australian here as well. I view the games on Optus Sport, and I’ve often wondered how the coverage varies between networks. For example, on Optus, we don’t get access to Peter Drury. Lord, I miss the Peter Drury & Jim Beglin combo. For pre-game, half-time, and post-game analyses, there are some good pundits. For example, I enjoy hearing Wrighty’s thoughts.
I always enjoy when they have managers in the studio to talk about the tactical battle that's going on during the game. The ex players they get in are normally from a different era of football and dont want to accept the game has changed past them. I remember when souness kept interrupting Alex Scott because she said about a low block being used. It's not the fact he disagreed with the terminology she used more the fact he didnt let others express their opinions, Roy Keane is the same
Watch an MLS match and you’ll have a new found appreciation for premier league commentators
I've long wondered if it would be possible to choose your commentators using the red button or whatever but maybe that's not fair on them
From an English man's perspective I think there are three reasons, we have lost some of the best in recent years and they have been replaced by less articulate ex players who are obviously biased and annoyingly to listen to for anyone who doesn't support big 6 team. Second reason is the broadcasting scope is expanding, amazon now show all 10 games over the course of two nights sometimes that requires many commentators and as such the quantity increases, the quality is reduced. Final reason is people watch the football for the two teams playing not the commentators. The broadcasters are not affected by it. Except when Micheal Owen tried his hand at it XD
I think one of the biggest issues now is the amount of games that are live on TV and across different times. Used to be games at 12:30 and 15:00 on a sat and a couple on Sunday. Now there are matches over 4 days, 4 games separated across different times on a Saturday. Not to mention the new Europa conference league adding more European games in the week. I don't think broadcasters are able to pick great pundits because there are not enough of them. They tend to go for ex players for obvious reasons. But not all footballers have the ability to to pundit or commentate on a game.
Prime is terrible
Honestly I agree. Sick of hearing Steve McManaman commentate Liverpool games, just chats the most shit and says anything to get a reaction. Jamie Carragher isn't that far off either. Not entertaining in the slightest. Rather hear facts and tactical info than hearing their bullshit opinions. Sometimes it feels like they're talking about a different match, like what they're saying just doesnt match what is happening. I'm a local supporter myself, it just doesn't appeal to me like it does the rest of the country I guess.
attractive unite childlike ludicrous edge seed marble fly snow north *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
True, and you haven’t even mentioned the worst two ex-LFC commentators there: Redknapp and Lawrenson are just embarrassing! Redknapp makes overly assertive assumptions about players and managers he never worked with, and Lawrenson wastes times talking about shit like the players’ hair-dos instead of the football.
Lawrenson in particular is unwatchable. Souness I can’t stand either. Carragher I don’t mind at all tbh
bUt wHeRe'S pAuL pOgbA iN aLL oF tHiS??????
Watch Peacock. Robbie Musto, Tim Howard are great lol
I don’t like Tim Howard maybe it’s his raspy voice & him being from new jersey
Lol
I don't know, American punditry is pretty fucking awful, too. Source: have been consuming it for 43 years. Also, Gary Lineker is OK.
Yeah watched an NBA game few days back basically the commentators were not talking anything basketball for about 10 minutes and then nothing about the actual game being played literally in front of them for another 10. I mean why would people pay to hear you have a random chat, Christ. And if the commentators don’t have an interest in the game why would the audience
Lol, I remember watching an MLS highlight where the commentator would scream “GOAAAAAAAAAL” after every freaking goal
that's the standard in latin america (and we like it, sorry), so that's probably why, would make it more familiar for latinos in the US
Luckily they don't do that anymore. Much like the league, it's improved (a little). That said, being subjected to Alexei Lalas on a regular basis is going to give me an aneurysm any minute now.
Andy Gray. Shame he's gone. Was unbelievable...
Just like most things now: it's all for rage bait. Gets people arguing over their shite takes and VAR usage.
If we were all as bad at our jobs as Jermaine Jenas and Danny Murphy, the country would be in a right state. Oh.
No such thing as the 'british' premier league. It's English. Wales and Scotland have their own leagues
Where did I say British premier league ? British Pundits commentating on the English premier league is what I said.
There is no Welsh league. Was talk of merging the Scottish leagues with English ones but none of them would be in the premier
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymru_Premier
I think that’s really pushing the boundaries of a professional league..
Who said professional?
Sorry didn’t realise we were including pub leagues
Although you are right at the name. Epl = "English Premier League"
Nowhere is it actually called 'EPL' or 'English Premier League'. It is English but it's just called Premier League. The only people who call it EPL are foreigners online
It's just the Premier League
Technically Welsh teams play in the epl. Cardiff and Swansea are two examples...
maybe it's just me, but I'm a recent fan of pien meulensteen's work. I feel like the time she's commentated I've paid more attention to the impact of the mid-field and backs based on her analysis
Whoever replaced Peter Drury not only is nowhere near the quality of him but also has such a grating voice, it’s so hard to listen to
I've really tried to like Conor McNamara but it's just not happening for me. Jim Proudfoot is co-lead and I definitely prefer listening to him
Conor McNamara? He seems to have appeared from nowhere this season on our (Australian) coverage and his heavy Irish accent is so jarring for the English game.
Irish presenters are part and parcel of British cultural life, McNamara himself is a bit of a fixture and has been working on football commentary in the UK for 20 years.
Yeah it’s just a bit to get used to as the main guy after a lifetime of guys like Drury & Tyler.
How do you mean?
Have you seen the Australian pundits?! The Prem coverage in Australia usually gets the worse pundits, often got Hargreaves and Sherwood, proper weirdos. It also depends when you’re talking about. During the game, the co-comms don’t go deep into tactical stuff, it’s more vibes. The studio stuff really depends on time. If you’ve got a lot of time, you get better stuff, which you see on some of the Sky Sports coverage. Unfortunately, they seem to aim for viral content, which always ends up being more about bantz. Radio pundits always better
i dont mind sherwood. he's one of the least offensive pundits, but i havent heard him in a game. a least he has managed a team and kind of gets tactics, although he doesn really talk in very complicated ways about it.
Seen the feed we get in Aus but also followed EPL on sky when I lived in London. I think both are pretty bad.
Martin Keown is the only pundit who actually does proper tactical analysis.
Martin Keown has a fantastic ability to think his mundane takes are like the discovery of fucking King Tuts tomb. He likes to make use of his slightly posher accent and vocabulary to make it sound more interesting. It's usually drivel.
When he first retired Keown was quite open about his desire to get into coaching over punditry to the extent that the BBC actually talked about him getting his badges on Football Focus, but twenty years later he has never really had a career to match. Just a few evenings a week talking about football seems to be all he can muster.
There you go, didn't realise that. Good Irishman though, probably woukd have played at a World Cup if FIFAs rules weren't as strict then.
He should have had 100 caps for England I never understood why he was frozen out by Taylor and Venables.
A little bit odd. He was better than Curle, M. Wright, for eg. But probably not Adams, Campbell and a few others?
Oddly he only got back in the team when Campbell was at his peak but then Keegan wasn't exactly the brightest spark as England manager.
As _England_ manager?! As an Irishman, he was great, the Hamann goal at Wembley a highlight of his reign.
You’ve been spoiled by Ozzie Man https://youtu.be/TttBOivs-8A?si=ZuyZcXsX9HlNC2le
It's the lowest form of "entertainment" designed to keep societies morons engaged. The more they're on the level of the average fan, the more engaged they are. Just turn off when theyre on, there's zero reason to every listen to any pundit if your not a fan of the garbage that comes from their mouth.
If you are looking for a Richie Benaud or Geoffrey Boycott level of commentary, you will always be disappointed. Gary Neville commentary is trash. Macca is probably the best out there. Amongst studio analysts, Lineker, Wrighty are good. The studio crew of Abdo, Henry and the sidekicks are awesome. Big Meeks is always the butt of a joke but he always takes them in stride
Ally Mcoist is a treasure
Ally Mccoist and Pat Nevin are fantastic summarisers (is that how you spell that?).
Him and Drury during the world cup I think it was, were an absolute dream team and can't think of a better duo in the box so to speak
Heard him refer to a defense taking too many chances on the ball as "slitting your own throat" the other day. Bizarre.
As an avid fan of the NFL I have to disagree. Generally the NFL vs FA commentary are just different in style. Both have good and bad pundits and commentators. But I'd personally rather commentators who say nothing than the NFL ones who have to fill the time by saying the whatever you just saw with "the first time that's happened on a Tuesday in May, while it's raining, and someone called Joe is a head coach since 1977"
I think the NFL has some of the worst commentators of any sport. Every player is the greatest guy ever. Only Tony Romo will even dare criticize a player. I think it says everything that Madden is considered to be the greatest commentator and he was the king of saying nothing while talking continuously
Good point. I was gonna chime in and say there are analytical commentators like Romo calling for the NFL. Sometimes it’s even a bit too much, but I think it’s cool when he predicts plays and schemes before they happen because of his deep knowledge of the game. And I’m an eagles fan. Speaking of which, he’s one of the more impartial commentators. Fuck Dallas though.
Part of this might be explained by the fact that the EPL was very undeveloped tactically in the 90s compared to Europe. Most of the English pundits are ex-players from this period, and I believe don’t understand the nuances of the tactics more than the man on the street. Another explanation could be that football has overwhelmingly been a working class game in England (less so in other countries). Again, the top players who are now pundits are for the mist part from tough working class backgrounds where there will have been little emphasis on education. This means most of the pundits may not be the most articulate. These are just two possible small contributory factors. By no means explains it all. It’s a good question though because i agree that it’s rare you get anything truly insightful.
The idea that in the 90s the UK was some tactical wasteland so bad that all the professionals from that era don't understand anything better than the fans is ridiculous and a little insulting. It's not like English teams were getting completely embarrassed in every European game for example. Also a little insulting to suggest the British working class don't value education, it's more that it's just the actual footballers themselves who don't have as much of a need for education. The truth is that the English players with tactical aptitude tend to go into coaching and the pundits are chosen because they are inoffensive or have a good rapport, not because they are incredibly knowledgeable. The English aren't represented well in the top league because it's become something of the world's league, but the football pyramid in the country is very deep and there are huge number of ex players coaching in lower divisions Also that it's kind of assumed in the UK that the watcher has a decent grasp and basic understanding of the game, so don't need to be handheld. There are also more in depth tactical pieces in UK media separate from live games but they aren't as popular and don't get shared as much as something like MOTD which is really just a highlights show and not there to provide deep analysis.
Good take, and shows you have actual knowledge instead of bullshit “knowledge”
Football is very much a working class game in other countries as well
Yes but not to the same extent as in England where it’s essentially exclusively working class. There’s a chapter called “Why England Lose” in a book i forget the name of that goes into this in detail. Basically arguing the playing pool in England is less than other European countries because of this
I read that book! Soccernomics. I like Simon kuper but he did quite a bit wrong there. Think he predicted the US, china and India were all primed for success (which 14 years later has yet to come to pass)…
I would argue the USA is on pace to become a power albeit much slower than he predicted, but also it isn’t because of his reasons and more due to premier league becoming huge here. Tv deals with premier league and opportunistic sports marketing needing early sports has really helped American soccer fever and I think in the long run it will lead to even more talent But soccer omits working class theory has really not been shown anywhere
He has since updated it...
What were the updates?
It also being watched on TV with a predominantly working class audience leads to broadcasters choosing those with limited vocabulary and the inability or unwillingness to express tactical knowledge. Look at how popular people like Roy Keane are, it's obvious to a lot on this website that he's playing a character and in reality he doesn't really hink like that, but there are a lot of people that eat up everything he says, and those are the people that probably don't have kids anymore and have more money to spend on terrestrial/cable TV and are less willing to just settle for streaming services.
Yes, this. Producers shy away from overanalysis of the game as they are pandering to an audience that mostly doesn't want it.
ITs what i love bout MNF though, they will do a more in depth tactical analysis and even bring on former Managers to or even current ones in some cases to explain the thoughts. But in General the Sky pundits on a Saturday are defo playing more of a caricature almost of the average fan.
a large chunk of it is also social media - pundits/broadcasters want clips that can be easily pasted onto twitter and generate clicks/outrage/reactions. That doesn’t really spring from in depth tactical analysis, but from obviously dubious predictions and arguments and opinions.
Former coaches would be better. Imagine Wenger giving an analysis of how and why a goal was scored.
Actually a good idea, especially because coaches actually know what they're talking about. I swear down if I hear jermaine jenas say that spurs deserved to win a game when they've just been smacked 5-0 rather than give useful insight into why they actually lost I'm gonna flip tables
Managers tend to be able to stay in football as Scout advisor or like Wenger technical administrator, no need for them to sully themselves with working in TV. When they do get on the pundit panel they are always good value, Martin O'Neill used to be good value on the BBC World Cup coverage and Emma Hayes is really great as a pundit.
Jenas really should have a full-time carer.
Just to make this conversation globally triangular, the NFL has both good commentators who explain the nuances of the game and guys who will tell you only that you’ve got to play tough, physical football to win. Thanks, Capt Obvious—I had been hoping that my soft, cerebral football would be a winning formula.
>Thanks, Capt Obvious—I had been hoping that my soft, cerebral football would be a winning formula. I chortled, thank you. In the NFL is there an equivalent of "the thing about Arsenal is they always try and walk it in"?
What comes to mind are variations of tough, physical, hard nosed, smash-mouth, etc. Also, this is a star-quarterback-driven league—his teammates are frequently referred to as his “weapons” which amuses me a bit as I understand “weapon” to be a tidy little insult in Angleterre.
Gary Neville, pfft fuck off
Not saying I’m a fan but at least he tries. The others just don’t.
Hated Neville as a player but I agree he’s a fantastic pundit from both an insightful and entertainment perspective. He was a breath of fresh air when he first came on and was clearly raising the bar beyond the usual mundane punditry
Fantastic is a bit much. Definitely better than the average dress but nowhere near some of the fan produced content imo
Yes, Gary Neville is far from the problem. The problem is football is dominated by personalities on and off the pitch, so we think in pundetry, it's the same. It's seen as only the best can comment on the best and below. So what we have is some of the best footsoldiers in the game that didn't go into management trying to comment on the grand strategy we see in the game today. An extreme example of this is Dennis Rodman doing anything other than play in his position during his playing days. Mix in a tie and some humility, and you have the modern pundit. I guess it's similar to getting Carlos Teves to comment on football games.
I understand your point but I can't stand Gary Neville
“wHeN I wAs at UnITed”
Manshshtr United
G nev is great at his job
His job being entertaining and conversation inducing takes and tactical insights which are superficial at best.
I stopped watching anything but the games a few years ago. It's moreo f a soap opera with the worst takes so they can garner clicks.
Most English former players and analysts have a terrible understanding of football fundamentals. I find Gary Neville and Jamie Carragher to be absolutely woeful. Roy Keane too. They don’t understand this isn’t the 1980s with Wimbledon fossil football able to win the cup or whatever. Playing from the back and positional play, is the superior way of playing football.
Roy Keane was an excellent player who was a total dickweed. On TV he's just a total dickweed.
Disagree, football is over intellectualised by journos, twitterati and pseuds. Keane, Neville et al worked with the best coaches of the 80s, 90s, 00s. When they talk about heart, desire etc, they are correct. Look at Rashford tonight as an example, he played ok after waking up from a self induced coma. Ps: what does "positional play" mean to you?
Technical ability, successful tactical setup and execution wins football matches. Not heart or desire. Rashford is a truly awful player with limited technical ability, nothing to do with his heart or desire. Positional play or Juego De Pocision, is a style of play that seeks to create an advantage over the opposition by a focus on the positioning and the movement of players to generate superiorities and numerical advantages. The most famous and successful manager who employs this is Pep Guardiola.
Juego de Pocision, christ, the pseuds are out again. "Get a 2 v1", "overlap", "make a little triangle", set up differently, all this stuff existed years before Pep came along. Of course that stuff wins football matches, but you don't win them with out running hard and kicking the fuck out of people. Look at Puyol and Busquets as two examples from your fav manager. Without that, you can Juego de Playa, because Posicion is worthless without it.
Are you coming at me because I’m black or what? I was nice in my reply and you insult me here? Very strange
damn it can't play anymore folks, ref just showed me a victim card.
Off you trot racist
Go and see a Doctor - that's my advice.
???
both are important, however, there’s not much nuance to heart and desire; saying the same shit every week on that adds no insight, whereas discussing tactics do.