Pundits you like and dislike

Forgot about that twat collymore. Paper thin views and unbelievably has the temerity to question and preach about the morals of players while he was beating up his missus a few years back.

Michael Owen panders to the Liverpool faithful to the point that even they think it's a little ott. He can be even worse than quinn or Thompson. I can remember after last year's Europa final he said that if a player can't get a move to Real/Barca, Lfc should considered in the next bracket of top clubs, bearing in mind they'd just finished 8th.and were consigned to no euro footy the following season. I reckon he is trying to reclaim the legacy he tarnished with the fans after he moved to utd and he is naive to think it

 

Cundy is a deluded knob head, with the charisma of an old Alsatians tagnuts

Parlour is as thick as pigshit, hence the reason he was called Trigger

 

^^^^ #meltdown

 

Collymore was talking about ex- players in the media on his TalkSport show once. He carried it on on his twitter feed.

He was banging on about them needing to remember where they came from and that they wouldn't be in the media had they not been professional footballers.

I simply put "#irony" in response. He ****ing blocked me

 

Bloody hell. Each to their own I suppose.

 

One that deserves a mention but rarely does. Martin Keown.

Despised him as a player but deserves credit as a pundit bcos he reads the game well and is spot on with his analysis WITHOUT the sensationalist bullshit we see in others. Probably why he rarely gets a mention.

One of the worst that deserves a mention: Andy Townsend - absolute **** who loves the sound of his own voice but is absolutely clueless about the game.

 

Martin Keown has the personality of a wet flannel. He's boring as ****.

 

Danny Murphy? <erm>

 

At least Danny Murphy knows how to crack a joke and have a laugh.

I appreciate that he's not Peter Kay but he's fine compared to Keown. Keown made Owen look interesting last night at the Cup draw ffs

 

I wasn't basing it on personality alone. Football knowledge, the ability to analyse the game effectively and to identify aspects of the game which impacted on the game will outweigh that. Keown typifies all that perfectly. Whereas imo Shearer or Murphy drone on but lack football knowledge so have little or no saving grace.

Conversely Henry has personality but is absolutely clueless. Can't read the game, just spouts soundbites that mean fck all but appeal to the fanboys out there.

 

Oh well, that's the important thing

 

Is that what you're looking for in a pundit though?

You're not going for a beer with them and as Trebs says there's things much more important to being a pundit.

 

Murphy is a one eyed kopite. Another in a long line of one eyed kopites to make it into the pundits chair.

He comes across as a right smug ****.

Albeit, he's not the worst - my old man was a rob dog Redknapp takes that mantle. Everytime he appears I want to punch him in the face even more.

The best pundits are Carra La and Neville, the rest you can keep.

 

He might be ... but he talks sense

 

If you had real friends you wouldn't feel obliged to receive humour from everyone you see on tv or hear on radio,It's football talk.

reality TV generation

 

Do you watch Match of the Day to improve your footballing knowledge rather than for entertainment then?

 

How dare you?

 

I'd like to think that I've got a decent level of knowledge of the game of football.

I don't need Martin Keown to drone on about a defender making a mistake. I can see it for myself.

I watch MOTD and Football Focus for entertainment.

Were you praising Keown's commentary against Man City at the weekend or did you find it ****ing boring like the rest of humanity?

 

Are you a robot? For me I was listening to Keown analyse the game. Sometimes you agree, sometimes you don't...but I'm switching on to enjoy watching and listening to football related stuff...that's entertainment considering that's why I switched it on.

Were you waiting for Keown to crack a 'knock knock' joke?

 

Keown spoke in monotone throughout and rarely gave anything insightful that an ordinary person with two working eyes couldn't work out for themselves.

At least the actual commentator tried to talk about things that were interesting and gave a good account of the game.

I don't think it's asking much of a pundit or "expert summariser" (as Sky like to call Peter Beagrie ) to be both interesting and informative.