How many pundits do u need for a Patrick v sevco game??? Jeez
Printable View
How many pundits do u need for a Patrick v sevco game??? Jeez
All Huns except one!!Quote:
Originally Posted by davym7062
......I actually generally enjoy the BT Sport pundits. Good banter and a change from the ordinary. Different variety with Sutton being the wynd up villain, Cragian easily wound up, and then Michael Stewart the intellect with sound views points. Our Neil has been on a few times too. Decent viewing IMO
Very pro Hun tonight yes but you know what at least BT actually care about our game. I'd rather them and their pundits than effing Sky.
Michael Stewart comes across very very well, have gotten to like him a helluva lot. Sutton is just a wind up merchant, he can be annoying though I know that but that's what it's all about between him and Craigan, it's to get the punters talking about their on air spats. They at least show passion and interest in our game, it's great.Quote:
Originally Posted by California-Hibs
Missed pre match chat but thought Rae and McCoist were fair overall and Sutton seemed to be pretty skewed towards Rangers which is probably a bit of build up towards next week where he will likely be on full hun wind up mode.
Craigan is very poor but generally like the BT coverage, I think Darryl Currie and Eilidh Barbour are good
Quote:
Originally Posted by California-Hibs
When Michael Stewart is seen as the best analyst, then we know we are in trouble. He's not terrible but he really is the least worst of what's available.Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelTheCelt
Craigan is an embarrassment, the idea that he gets paid for what he says is ludicrous. He should give his pay to charity and renounce any previous punditry on the basis that it was ill-informed and generally pish.
BT ran a great show on a Sunday evening, looking at highlights of the European leagues. They had people like Guillem Balague, Raphael Honnigstein, Sid Lowe, Graham Hunter et al.
Similarly TalkSport used to have all of the above plus the likes of Gabriel Marcotti.
It's hard to understand why we couldn't have that level of coverage, but I guess we get what we are prepared to put up with, and if the majority of the market is OF then it's questionable whether they want something more challenging or interesting.
Michael Stewart being classed as 'the intellectual' tells you everything you need to know about the rest of 'em.
I don't mind BT, but Craigan is an absolute embarrassment. He talks complete nonsense and I can't understand how he picks up a job in the media. Surely the BT guys in charge of production etc can see how poor he is.
It's hugely a matter of personal taste but I for one cannot abide Michael Stewart.Quote:
Originally Posted by SRH
Agreed especially when you compare this to the absolute nuggets that you get on radio shortbread during the week.Quote:
Originally Posted by California-Hibs
This week we've had dumb, dumber, and dumbest ........ three hun plumbs of Fatty Boyd, Side Baw Ferguson and his ballon of a big brother.
They are asked for their analysis of what's going on in Scottish football and they can hardly string a sentence together!
Said this last night but having an ex Sevco player and manager club legend as co commentator was a very poor show from BT
Really? I thought McCoist was quite interesting (and fair) as a co-commentator last night...Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDomofFife84
Would you feel that (say) Stubbs or Collins should never co-commentate on one of our games?
It's just green tinted specs. One of my best mates is a Rangers fan winds me up and goes on and on saying it's "all about the Rangers", but when you read this place sometimes how many threads do we have on them? 4 or 5 on the top page at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigwheel
Oddly, his big brother gives me the exact same chat!! 😂Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkinho
I didn't watch it last night but I much prefer BT Sports coverage of Scottish football to Sky. They at least put a bit of effort and seem to have a bit of passion for our game.
Out of interest, what do you like about these pundits particularly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Genuinely balanced and detailed critical analysis of the matches, players and clubs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
Not resorting to the default "Rangers/Celtic" mindset where EVERYTHING (good or bad) is viewed through the blue/green tinted-specs of the carefully chosen "pundit" where it becomes cliche-central.
I watched the game in my golf club, and it made for a good night enjoying a few beers and watching a Scottish game on the TV. Didn't pay much attention to the punditry, but the Friday night slot is an attractive one for reasons given earlier, and for the match attending fan maybe the most favourable slot for moved games. BT have been good for Scottush football so far.
That's something I'd like to know too. My opinion is that they are pretentious twits that have somehow fooled everyone into assuming they are Euro football intellectuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
:agree: particularly Graham Hunter. You can add sycophant to pretentious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrekko
The best thing about the Punditry is you can press mute button, especially when the start talking crap!!!
I said on another thread about pundits, if they have not had a career with the Uglies, they are mostly passed up, Craigan, Nevin and Stewart are the exceptions.
What always gets me is, the co-commentator never sees a blatant foul or off the ball incident if its against his old team????
I think the reason I like them is that they are journalists and writers, rather than pundits and therefore take a bit more care about their research and what they say. There's a bit more professional pride to their work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
What's striking about Balague and Honigstein is that they are able to articulate insightful and incisive arguments in a second language that puts people like Craigan to shame. They know their home leagues inside out and can talk with confidence and eloquence about the dynamics within the league and the politics between the clubs, while also demonstrating they understand the actual game itself, the different tactical systems etc.
I'm a lot more familiar with Sid Lowe's written work than his commentary in fairness but he always impresses on air. His written work is exceptional though. His knowledge and understanding of La Liga is exemplary. As for Hunter, while I note the criticism of him he is still night and day beyond the Scottish pundits.
Marcotti I just like. He has an enthusiasm for football and a confidence in his own views that could be mistaken for arrogance but is essentially what one wants from a pundit.
I'm a keen cricket fan and the quality of commentary, co-commentary and punditry is way, way ahead of UK football. I include in that the coverage on Teat Match Special, Sky Sports and the foreign stations like ABC Radio in Australia. There's no good reason why it should be like that but it feels like we are happy to settle for mediocrity, banality or worse. When people like Clive Tyldsley and Stephen Craigan get a decent wage to talk about the most popular sport in the country then we know something's wrong.
I think there's also a latent disdain for people who are seen as 'clever', which the likes of Balague and Honigstein essentially are. It's a very British trait, a sort of inverse snobbery and anti-intellectualism.
John Nicholson writes for football365 and parodies this attitude tremendously well, the mistrust for people who can talk in joined-up sentences, who aren't 'proper football men'.
It was a good show but they binned it. It seems as if they do it a lot, they talk themselves up but I don't think the perception BT are creating meets the reality. In terms of Scotland, Sky do much more, whether it is good or not is a different question but BT make out they care more and it gets through. Jury is out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Have the Friday games recorded in case we are on. Ran it back from the end to see when der Hun got the equaliser and saw the stramash in the box at the end. I saw two Thistle players stopping a shot and as a consequence falling on or on front of the ball. Huns diving in and one clear stamp and through all of this Sally was claiming it was no free kick to Thistle and Collum bottled it. Implying Huns were due their pen. Admittedly a small sample but far from balanced .Quote:
Originally Posted by bigwheel
Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk
That sounds like a show folk on here would be partial to :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CMurdoch
I'm not going to go back and edit it. For anyone interested it is 949 on Sky :agree:.
Football is over analysed now, and BT having a squad of pundits proves that. I record Sportscene but fast forward the chat and just watch the games. Far better in the days when Archie McPherson or Arthur Montford would present their programmes with more minutes of football than actually talking about it. Sportscene now has the pundits talking about the games for longer than the actual footage from the games they're droning in about. Just let us watch the games - most of us won't require an explanation of what we have just viewed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carheenlea
This is for me is often what makes a pundit/journalist/talking head stand out, by showing and discussing something that isn't obvious. Far far too many of them speak in cliches and simply describe the most obvious level of what's happening.
the Marcotti's, honnigsteins, lowes, vickerys, et al, all show up the parochial drivel that we're served up very badly. Those guys I could listen to for hours whilst they discuss detailed analysis and assessment, as opposed to Sally telling us that sevco should have had another 4 penalties whilst denying the several transgressions they've made.