Collymore blasts lazy MOTD pundits

[Mr. Snrub]

Funny thing is, he's only one the champions league once.

[Ryan_Taylor]

I did think that. Just goes further to show TS incompetence

[OzzieMandias]

Agree with Collymore and everyone on here who pointed out that the problem is they feel they always have to have ex-footballers doing this stuff.

 

I like hearing the ones who can talk some sense about tactics -- which basically means David Pleat or Andy Gray. Once heard Ray Wilkins doing the summarizing for some European game, and he stuck in my mind as being very good. And I don't totally dislike Alan Hansen.

 

Shearer, sadly, is one of the worst of the lot.

[Guest sittingontheball]

I haven't seen much of Collymore (don't live in the UK) and can't comment on whether he's the right man to stick the boot in, but MOTD seriously wants changing. It's like listening to three tossers in a wine bar. I'm convinced it's been changed to appeal to middle-class women who started watching football post 1990. Same with the woman commentator. Brian Moore would need cosmetic surgery and a hair transplant before he got anywhere near presenting football now.

 

Instead of regurgitating the clips they've already shown with a bit of state the obvious, they should show more football with limited punditry.

 

MOTD2 with its attempted comedy features is also painful.

 

 

[Guest Heneage]

Collymore works at Talksport where extreme crap is said about football on daily basis so people text & ring in.

 

As for MOTD (a show that is about showing games & talking about them games) pundits they comment in a brief summary style about them games that's it, are people expecting more . Soccer Saturday gives their monitor watchers such as Tiss, Merse, Charlie & Big nose media packs for the game they are watching.

 

Whats next Chris Kamara is too pally with guests on Goals On Sunday.

It's not about that at all. It's not as if during MOTD they stop and say 'So Alan thoughts on Ligue 1 this season?'

 

This is about the pundits of this country not researching the players who are coming to this league. It's not hard to find highlights or match reports of European leagues, it's just about putting some effort in.

[chicago_shearer]

The general standard of football commentary and punditry is terrible.  Even the 'good' ones are clueless.  All they do is state the bleeding obvious, re-order and recycle cliches.  There is nothing professional or informative about it.

 

http://www.zonalmarking.net/

 

^ I wish it was possible to find some pundits during or after a match that do what these guys do.  Regularly more insightful and informative than anyone overpaid ex-pro on TV.

[ohmelads]

They've got worse and worse. Lawrenson has always been an awful pundit, he's just a miserable sarcastic c*nt.

 

Lee Dixon's usually alright, tends to offer a bit of insight.

[Thespence]

Collymore works at Talksport where extreme crap is said about football on daily basis so people text & ring in.

 

As for MOTD (a show that is about showing games & talking about them games) pundits they comment in a brief summary style about them games that's it, are people expecting more . Soccer Saturday gives their monitor watchers such as Tiss, Merse, Charlie & Big nose media packs for the game they are watching.

 

Whats next Chris Kamara is too pally with guests on Goals On Sunday.

It's not about that at all. It's not as if during MOTD they stop and say 'So Alan thoughts on Ligue 1 this season?'

 

This is about the pundits of this country not researching the players who are coming to this league. It's not hard to find highlights or match reports of European leagues, it's just about putting some effort in.

 

There commenting on highlights of games that is it, because funnily the show is about MATCHs OF THE DAY.  There not there quench there thirst of net geeks/football anoraks ffs.

[Guest ObiChrisKenobi]

MOTD needs to sort its editing out before it worries about its commentators. I know they have to fit as many teams in as possible, but when you've watched games live, then watch them on MOTD they cut some major 'talking points' out. Sometimes they'll show them off the cuff during analysis, but it just winds me up. The amount of times you'll see at the bottom of the screen the shots on target stat, but the clips of the show have shown 2 shots is a piss take. Same with yellow cards.

[NG32]

MOTD needs to sort its editing out before it worries about its commentators. I know they have to fit as many teams in as possible, but when you've watched games live, then watch them on MOTD they cut some major 'talking points' out. Sometimes they'll show them off the cuff during analysis, but it just winds me up. The amount of times you'll see at the bottom of the screen the shots on target stat, but the clips of the show have shown 2 shots is a piss take. Same with yellow cards.

 

Its a piss poor program tbh.

 

 

[Thespence]

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2401022507#!/group.php?gid=2401022507&v=wall

[Hughesy]

Not really sure that Shearer can be lambasted for the Ben Arfa point to be honest.  I reckon I know a decent amount about European football (I don't slavishly watch the French league for example, but I read World Soccer, watch some European domestic games etc etc) - certainly more than your average fan - and I wouldn't say my knowledge of Ben Arfa went far beyond the fact that he was linked to a few English clubs over the last few years, Lyon sold him to Marseille, he was a skilful player and he was on the fringes of the France squad.  So to be honest - really not that fussed if Shearer says people in England don't know much about him - because, let's be honest here, not many people do.

 

Whether it's Shearer's job to know this is a different matter, but I don't think it's realistic to expect each football pundit to do a load of research on every signing a Premiership club makes.  Even if they do do some research, it would only be research of a fairly superficial kind - anything more can't be gleaned from a few wiki articles and youtube clips.  Which is pretty much the sum of the knowledge of the majority of people on here, bar French league enthuasists.

[Thespence]

Match of the Day may be a cosy golf and

social club with a football show attached... but don't be fooled by the idea of new dross

 

And he nearly had me. Right up until that list of people Stan Collymore would like to see on the sofa for Match of the Day.

 

To recap: 'Andy Cole, Gianfranco Zola, Paolo Di Canio, Ian Wright, Teddy Sheringham, Eric Cantona. I want to see Zola disagree with Sheringham or Di Canio giving us an insight, or Jurgen Klinsmann next to Cole and Wright talking about what Fernando Torres is going through and how to change.'

 

This would be different, how? A few ex-footballers, almost all from the biggest clubs, some of whom happen to be Stan's mates. Meet the new dross, same as the old dross. And no defenders, I notice.

 

Has Klinsmann or Sheringham got any more insight into Torres than, say, Alan Shearer? The last time I saw Teddy was at City Airport and he was heading off somewhere to play poker.

 

Klinsmann is a resident of Orange County, California, and did not last a year in his sole club coaching job, with Bayern Munich. He went to Barcelona in the Champions League as Munich's coach announcing he was going to fight fire with fire; his team were 4-0 down at half-time.

 

Now such experiences could make him a devastatingly insightful pundit, or not, but if Collymore's criticism of Shearer is that he showed scant knowledge of Newcastle goalscorer Hatem Ben Arfa on Saturday, despite his eight caps for France, where is the certainty Klinsmann will be better versed?

 

As for Di Canio, what insight is he likely to provide? How to avoid playing tricky away matches in the north of England? He is not really your go-to guy for Newcastle info, either. In four and a half seasons with West Ham United, Di Canio did not make it to Tyneside for a single league game, and of the 17 league matches the club played away against teams that finished in the top four in his time, Di Canio featured in five.

 

Collymore makes some valid points in his broadside against the general cosiness of the BBC's Match of the Day coverage, but the changes he offers up would merely swap one cartel for another. We have all heard Ian Wright talk football for the BBC. He quit the corporation's England coverage in 2008 claiming he had been trammelled to a role as court jester.

 

This could be because three years earlier when England lost to Northern Ireland - a match in which his son, Shaun Wright-Phillips, was given a rare chance by Sven Goran Eriksson, but performed poorly and was substituted after 54 minutes - Wright sat in the studio in a tight-lipped sulk, claiming he did not want to talk about it.

 

Wright's earnings for this job were reported to be in the region of £50,000, which also places into relief Collymore's bizarre claim that most ex-professionals would work gratis.

 

There was a time when the most charismatic figures in the game, managers such as Brian Clough and Malcolm Allison - and, yes, Jimmy Hill - would argue the toss about England and it could be electric.

 

The modern equivalent would be to get one of Jose Mourinho or Sir Alex Ferguson in with Martin O'Neill and an agent provocateur - because there truly is no modern equivalent of Hill, a player, manager, chairman, director, broadcaster, television executive and union advocate who, now 82, should be knighted before it is too late - but Collymore is hardly going for broke with his wish list.

 

Hell, he is not even advocating roping in the most entertaining voices from the recent Premier League era, such as Roy Keane or, in the future, Gary Neville. Instead hardly a controversialist. He wants to see him disagree with Sheringham. Hardly Clough and Don Revie head-tohead on Yorkshire TV is it?

 

Anyway, it is not just Match of the Day that has a problem. As analysis has become more technical, it has also become more cautious, so that Jamie Redknapp uses an adjective that would be commonplace in any pub conversation, diabolical, to describe the performance of Liverpool striker Torres at Birmingham City, and wakes up to headlines the next day.

 

There is a hint of bitterness at not having this big stage in Collymore's outburst - 'amazing some journos are wetting themselves about Shearer's analysis of Torres, as some of us have said all week that he needs better service' - yet while his employers, talkSPORT, promote pundits with a singularly confrontational style, sometimes the points they make are lost in the noise.

 

It is precisely because Redknapp is not a ranter that his comment on Torres caused ripples. Similarly, the other major television-driven controversy of this season was Alan Hansen's assertion that Theo Walcott, of Arsenal, lacked a football brain. There are probably people making observations every bit as contentious on talkSPORT, but if everyone is shouting, nobody is heard.

 

Where Collymore strikes a chord is with his barbs at the Match of the Day work ethic. You will notice one leading name missing from his criticisms, that of sofa regular Mark Lawrenson. This may be an oversight, or it could be because, like the rest of us, Collymore regularly sees Lawrenson in press boxes around the country where he is a guest for BBC Radio 5 Live. Hansen is spotted in the directors' box at Anfield, Shearer at Newcastle, but the feeling pervades among professional rivals that Match of the Day is an exclusive golf and social club with a football show attached.

 

The BBC establishing its lavish base in lovely Cape Town during the 2010 World Cup when the heart of the tournament was in Johannesburg did little to alter perceptions. It runs deeper than Shearer not doing his homework on Ben Arfa.

 

After all, on December 15, 2008, Collymore tipped Al Ahly, of Egypt, to win the World Club Championship, unaware they had been knocked out of the tournament at the preliminary stage 24 hours earlier, so accidents happen.

 

It is that nobody on the show is ever going to be challenged on his opinion, and this breeds complacency. They are all pals, so an opinion that is shallow or poorly researched, will be smiled through indulgently.

 

Hansen becomes animated by bad defending but if, after five games without a win, he offers that West Ham are in for a tough season, nobody pushes him to dig deeper.

 

In the end, the problem is that Match of the Day is basically a highlights package show with a little analysis thrown in, and that is a very restrictive format. The attempt to vamp the format with Match of the Day 2 is hit and miss and the most insightful voice on the programme is still the conventional Lee Dixon, not over-hyped characters such as Robbie Savage.

 

Sky try to soup up their Monday night coverage, as it often features the least sexy televised fixture of the weekend, with wizardry but for all the computer-generated graphics and space-age surroundings, it still boils down to two blokes talking about football.

 

Action cannot be guaranteed, so these shows hang on the analysts. One would sit through the post-match discussion of the most rigid stalemate, were we returning to the studio to hear Ferguson, Mourinho and Arsene Wenger. By the same token, noticing that for a recent England international, ITV regular Andy Townsend was joined by Gareth Southgate and Danny Murphy made one wonder who had pulled out. Where was the Clough-like big name that would give the panel some punch? Maybe they are simply not around any more; or not interested.

 

So, yes, Match of the Day can be lazy and comfortable, but Collymore's alternatives are no better. You will hear more interesting observations and details from 15 minutes talking with David Pleat in the press room before the game, than you will at half-time; but no doubt Pleat would be regarded by many as a dinosaur.

 

This is where we get it wrong. If the BBC wanted to start afresh it should be with one eye on Sky's brilliant cricket coverage, and the depth of knowledge on display. There is no point replacing one chummy monopoly with another.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1313747/Martin-Samuel-Dont-fooled-new-dross-idea-Match-Day.html#ixzz10Ij1BpMF

[Geordie Ahmed]

Shearer calling David Silva on MOTD twice was 

[BlufPurdi]

Shearer has been pretty crap, has to be said. It's a rather odd one, given that he's basically opted for it over staying in football. Something that would have allowed him to learn the game beyond his playing experience, tactics etc even more, so when he ever did a cameo appearance he might just have the slightest clue what he's on about.

 

There was a good article in the Independent about him, and pundits in general these days, naturally it was mocking him mind. He's gone for TV fame, sadly, and it's really not working out.

[Cronky]

I think that achieving a good work / life balance has always been very important to Shearer, and that's why he's in his current position. Being a TV pundit isn't too demanding and he doesn't need to do too much homework to maintain himself there, because of who he is.

 

It's a bit of a shame, because he could do more (ie work as a manager) but he doesn't want to make the necessary sacrifices. Maybe when his family is older he'll feel more motivated, but the same opportunities might not be there for him. He also might be too used to an easy life.

[80]

Character is a big part of the problem here. I don't agree that it's having ex-pros that is the problem, just that they're the wrong ex-pros. Need a vanguard of brave and independent-minded speakers (I reckon Di Canio, Cantona and Cole are good shouts just for starters, by the way), then the more cowardly ones who secretly do have proper opinions but have been scared off for personal professional reasons in the past (Linekar etc.) can follow in their wake. The genuinely dumb can just fuck off, of course.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Cantona would be a great pundit imo. Just for his different outlook.

[Guest elbee909]

I always liked James Richardson on Football Italia, but MOTD is meant to be stupid, right?

[OzzieMandias]

Whether it's Shearer's job to know this is a different matter, but I don't think it's realistic to expect each football pundit to do a load of research on every signing a Premiership club makes.  Even if they do do some research, it would only be research of a fairly superficial kind - anything more can't be gleaned from a few wiki articles and youtube clips.  Which is pretty much the sum of the knowledge of the majority of people on here, bar French league enthuasists.

 

Why shouldn't Shearer be expected to do a bit of research?

 

When the Toon played Ferencváros in 1996, a friend of mine -- a then Budapest-based Reuters football correspondent -- was introduced to John Motson before the match, and was impressed that Motson was immediately full of questions -- how should he pronounce this or that player's name, questions about the club's history and its fans. He pulled out a notebook and was scribbling down the answers.

 

That's professionalism. It's not good enough to just turn up and talk any old shite. Shearer's supposed to be some kind of expert.

[OzzieMandias]

Character is a big part of the problem here. I don't agree that it's having ex-pros that is the problem, just that they're the wrong ex-pros. Need a vanguard of brave and independent-minded speakers (I reckon Di Canio, Cantona and Cole are good shouts just for starters, by the way), then the more cowardly ones who secretly do have proper opinions but have been scared off for personal professional reasons in the past (Linekar etc.) can follow in their wake. The genuinely dumb can just fuck off, of course.

 

To be fair to Lineker, he's not supposed to express opinions. He's there to present the show and direct the conversation.

[Guest elbee909]

Whether it's Shearer's job to know this is a different matter, but I don't think it's realistic to expect each football pundit to do a load of research on every signing a Premiership club makes.  Even if they do do some research, it would only be research of a fairly superficial kind - anything more can't be gleaned from a few wiki articles and youtube clips.  Which is pretty much the sum of the knowledge of the majority of people on here, bar French league enthuasists.

 

Why shouldn't Shearer be expected to do a bit of research?

 

When the Toon played Ferencváros in 1996, a friend of mine -- a then Budapest-based Reuters football correspondent -- was introduced to John Motson before the match, and was impressed that Motson was immediately full of questions -- how should he pronounce this or that player's name, questions about the club's history and its fans. He pulled out a notebook and was scribbling down the answers.

 

That's professionalism. It's not good enough to just turn up and talk any old shite. Shearer's supposed to be some kind of expert.

 

I watched last night and couldn't help but notice how asinine most of what he says is.  It's as if their research comprises reading the papers for different ways to state the obvious.

[80]

Character is a big part of the problem here. I don't agree that it's having ex-pros that is the problem, just that they're the wrong ex-pros. Need a vanguard of brave and independent-minded speakers (I reckon Di Canio, Cantona and Cole are good shouts just for starters, by the way), then the more cowardly ones who secretly do have proper opinions but have been scared off for personal professional reasons in the past (Linekar etc.) can follow in their wake. The genuinely dumb can just fuck off, of course.

 

To be fair to Lineker, he's not supposed to express opinions. He's there to present the show and direct the conversation.

 

True to an extent, yeah, although a good host can pull off both I'd say. But yeah, he just came to mind as he obviously does have thoughts on things, and they still leak out occasionally (especially on Eriksson...), but he and admittedly more importantly the others bottled up when the FA got uppity.

[Guest gggg]

Nobody would understand a word Cantona said and Andy Cole is one of the most boring guests I've ever seen even by football show standards.

[OzzieMandias]

Whether it's Shearer's job to know this is a different matter, but I don't think it's realistic to expect each football pundit to do a load of research on every signing a Premiership club makes.  Even if they do do some research, it would only be research of a fairly superficial kind - anything more can't be gleaned from a few wiki articles and youtube clips.  Which is pretty much the sum of the knowledge of the majority of people on here, bar French league enthuasists.

 

Why shouldn't Shearer be expected to do a bit of research?

 

When the Toon played Ferencváros in 1996, a friend of mine -- a then Budapest-based Reuters football correspondent -- was introduced to John Motson before the match, and was impressed that Motson was immediately full of questions -- how should he pronounce this or that player's name, questions about the club's history and its fans. He pulled out a notebook and was scribbling down the answers.

 

That's professionalism. It's not good enough to just turn up and talk any old shite. Shearer's supposed to be some kind of expert.

 

I watched last night and couldn't help but notice how asinine most of what he says is.  It's as if their research comprises reading the papers for different ways to state the obvious.

 

Agreed. I think he's probably not actually that bright.