Article on the BBC & ITV coverage

My ideal pundit line-up would have Graeme Sounness and Gerry Armstrong, maybe Klinsmann for some proper foreignness. And that bloke off Eurosport doing the commentary.

Originally Posted by Pop

Pretty stimulating stuff tbh

YouTube- Apres Match - Germany V Australia

Apres Match is one of the best things about internation tournaments.

Like the one they did last night about Brian Lenihan.

Originally Posted by Coracao

nft

brilliant

Originally Posted by elephantstone

brilliant

Yup. I have never understood the Keane-haters in our "support" and never will

Originally Posted by borsuk

so many things you could say about that first half, just as an example, about how chile pressure the ball, where they do it, how their defence is set up, where their runners go when they break, how many midfielders sit, how many break, where they might be vulnerable etc. instead we get bland crap about working hard, covering a lot of ground, throwing players forward etc. the mind boggles, aren't these clowns embarrassed to come out with such idiocy?

No, they'd don't care. They're a lost cause.

Could you imagine the difference in quality if either of the stations hired Tim Vickery, for example, to cover any match involving the South American teams. If anything, I suspect he'd be cheaper than Seedorf, Vieira, Davids etc. There are loads of English-speaking foreign-based journalists who would be easily available to the BBC and ITV and would enhance their coverage hugely. But - and as the article suggests it's the key point - they don't have any respect for the viewer so there's no interest in meeting these kind of standards.

explain the selection of James Milner out of position, explain why the rank ordinary Shaun Wright-Phillips was brought on instead of the classy Joe Cole, explain the failure of Gerrard and Frank Lampard to function together yet again, explain why this negated Wayne Rooney's impact'.

good points in the article about the coverage

but then ruined by the fact that he slipped the above in without any attempt to explain it himself. the other problem i have with it is that i don't actually agree anyway. gerrard and lampard have shown good signs of working well together of late. lampard just had a quiet start to the competition. it happens. see iniesta today.

the coverage is pretty lazy and anything but neutral or spontaneous. beglin went on and on about ronaldo diving. today iniesta waving an imaginary card in the ref's face was totally ignored by the bbc comms and their studio pundits. endless tackles that are pretty much commonplace in the PL and largely incidental are shown repeatedly in super-slo mo with the comms saying they're red card offences. it's a load of %@#$&!s tbh.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

good points in the article about the coverage

but then ruined by the fact that he slipped the above in without any attempt to explain it himself. the other problem i have with it is that i don't actually agree anyway. gerrard and lampard have shown good signs of working well together of late. lampard just had a quiet start to the competition. it happens. see iniesta today.

but the author didn't want to comment on the football in place of the pundits, just to point out how shambolic they were. i disagree on lampard/gerrard btw, not because they can't work as a pair but because neither has the defensive ability to play that role effectively. gerrard was where he was supposed to be, he just wasn't good enough at defending to stay with dempsey and deny him to the space to shoot or play a through ball. carrick or barry in that same place would have forced demsey to play square or backwards, gerrard doesn't have that ability.

iniesta was one of spain's better players until the injury, i thought.

agree completely on the manufactured controversies and the playing to stereotypes instead of actually watching. but what's new, eh.

but the author did comment on the football, which was my point

i don't like iniesta the snide little @#%&!. thankfully today i have no reason to give the little shit grudging praise either. thought he was pretty poor.

presumably you're referring to that single incident when dempsey got his shot away? anyway, it won't be a surprise (it's what i'd do with that england group anyhoo) if barry is used instead of heskey on friday, with gerry pushed on. other than the 'surprise' that barry is being picked, obviously. cole may also come in, but personally i'd save him for later, depending on his condition of course.

Gerrard and lampard were £#%&!ing woeful together. Though to be fair neither of them have ever played in a successful '2' in their careers, why should they be expected to be a success now passing 30 years of age?

Stick Barry and Carrick alongside lampard and shove Gerrard to the flank. nft.

And on topic, Desailly, Hansen and Townsend take the £#%&!ing biscuit. Townsend didn't appear to be watching ENG - USA

Originally Posted by PaulParkersPubes

Cant wait to hear what they've got to say about todays Honduras v Chile game.

Lots of talk about Wigan's boys and not a lot else I should imagine.

Good example of that from, again, Ekoku, in the Paraguay-Italy game. He just could not understand how Roque Santa Cruz wasn't getting a game, and went on and on about it - because Santa Cruz is the only Paraguayan player he's ever heard of, so therefore must be better than all the others.

Originally Posted by Grimson

Good example of that from, again, Ekoku, in the Paraguay-Italy game. He just could not understand how Roque Santa Cruz wasn't getting a game, and went on and on about it - because Santa Cruz is the only Paraguayan player he's ever heard of, so therefore must be better than all the others.

I'd love to hear some of this Ekoku nonsense

So we've got me saying Gerrard was decent while Lampard was quiet. Then Borsuk saying that neither can play the holding role that presumably he thinks is essential. And now Fatboy calling their collective efforts on saturday "£#%&!ing woeful"


Taken in the round, this is exactly why the pundits don't need to bother researching for their 15 minutes on tele during a game. No matter what they say, only a section of the viewers are likely to agree at any given moment anyway. Money for old rope.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

So we've got me saying Gerrard was decent while Lampard was quiet. Then Borsuk saying that neither can play the holding role that presumably he thinks is essential. And now Fatboy calling their collective efforts on saturday "£#%&!ing woeful"


Taken in the round, this is exactly why the pundits don't need to bother researching for their 15 minutes on tele during a game. No matter what they say, only a section of the viewers are likely to agree at any given moment anyway. Money for old rope.

That's true about analysis of the match, after the fact. But there's no excuse to have no familiarity with the players on the pitch.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

So we've got me saying Gerrard was decent while Lampard was quiet. Then Borsuk saying that neither can play the holding role that presumably he thinks is essential. And now Fatboy calling their collective efforts on saturday "£#%&!ing woeful"


Taken in the round, this is exactly why the pundits don't need to bother researching for their 15 minutes on tele during a game. No matter what they say, only a section of the viewers are likely to agree at any given moment anyway. Money for old rope.

And Lampard got MOM in the Observer.

Point is though nobody would care if they disagreed, as long as they offered some considered opinions. They don't, they offer cliches and soundbites while their colleagues nod on.

Im well behind this article, but its been going on for years, there's very few pundits who offer anything close to insghtful analysis. Souness, Gray, Pleat are the first three that spring to mind, and most people would slate the last two. Lawrensen aswell, for all his terrible puns, actually offers a bit of thought.

Hansen actually used to be OK as well, but seems to have (deliberately?) become a parody of his old self

They just do the old trick of repeating whats on screen "He passes it out to flank, gets a cross and in and it's headed in far post. good finish. Good player"

Originally Posted by switching off

and lampard got mom in the observer.

Point is though nobody would care if they disagreed, as long as they offered some considered opinions. They don't, they offer cliches and soundbites while their colleagues nod on.

Im well behind this article, but its been going on for years, there's very few pundits who offer anything close to insghtful analysis. Souness, gray, pleat are the first three that spring to mind, and most people would slate the last two. Lawrensen aswell, for all his terrible puns, actually offers a bit of thought.

It's £#%&!. It's like watching a documentry about South Africa rather than pre-match.

Cant understand a word this bitter @#%&! says aswel.

Originally Posted by Fatboy Shrek

He discusses the tactics though, which is more than can be said for most co-commentators. Plus he calls us Manchester

Originally Posted by History

They just do the old trick of repeating whats on screen "He passes it out to flank, gets a cross and in and it's headed in far post. good finish. Good player"

And they'll often try to make it sound like opinion. "Tell you what, for me, he's just nipped in ahead of the defender and found the far post there."