Tim Sherwood - certified football guru

ok, I’ll maybe just stay on your high horse if you think it is all right to be sexist as long as you don’t think you are racist. Why can’t it just be the best person for the job?
I’ve given my reasons. Womens football is played at a level probably comparable to Juniors. Therefore, lack top level experience.

Sexist? I don’t think so. Just factual.
 
I’ve given my reasons. Womens football is played at a level probably comparable to Juniors. Therefore, lack top level experience.

Sexist? I don’t think so. Just factual.

It's still the same game though.

There is no difference in all levels of football other than ability and eventually money, which is why it is the most popular sport on the planet.

TBH, my point is more at pundits who think because they played the game at the top level, somehow think in their uneducated, semi-literate minds think that football is some complex thing, when it really isn't.
 
Last edited:
Him and one of the Custis' made the Sunday Supplement unwatchable for me eventually. Both think their opinions hold more validity than others.

There are so many awful people involved in English football but Neil "Gravy Veins" Custis is in a league of his own when it comes to sheer egregiousness. A fat, pathetic weasle of a human being who has never recovered from being slapped down on live radio by Ray Wilkins.

His obsession with 365.com is hilarious. Stuff like this.
 
I’ve given my reasons. Womens football is played at a level probably comparable to Juniors. Therefore, lack top level experience.

Sexist? I don’t think so. Just factual.

well, it is discriminating against someone purely on the grounds of sex, so, well, it is sexist.
 
It's still the same game though.

There is no difference in all levels of football other than ability and eventually money, which is why it is the most popular sport on the planet.
On that basis, is it OK for for the guy down the pub who comes across well and intelligible to be a pundit? In my opinion, not. Having experience of premier league or top class European football is essential to give viewers an insight to highest level.
 
On that basis, is it OK for for the guy down the pub who comes across well and intelligible to be a pundit? In my opinion, not. Having experience of premier league or top class European football is essential to give viewers an insight to highest level.

I'm pretty sure that there are many former players or current coaches in the lower levels of football who have a much better understanding of the game than former professional footballers who only have the avenue of punditry because they are a household name. I don't necessarily think that playing at the top level gives anyone anymore insight than those who played at a lower level.
 
I'm pretty sure that there are many former players or current coaches in the lower levels of football who have a much better understanding of the game than former professional footballers who only have the avenue of punditry because they are a household name. I don't necessarily think that playing at the top level gives anyone anymore insight than those who played at a lower level.
I don’t disagree with you. As I stated earlier, ex-players should also be intelligent, knowledgeable and balanced.
 
That's pretty much exactly what she said though. Specifically mentioned the tactics he used to win the City and Chelsea games as the measure of what he's doing, looking beyond just winning the cup itself, which can be done with a bit of luck by the likes of Wigan for example.

Yeah I took her point. For a club like that real success is the league or champions league, consistency over 38 games or in a cup competition with Europe’s elite (where even then you can get a fair bit of luck).

Arsenal have won 4 of the last 7 FA cups so that goes back to the end of Wenger’s tenure too. Would anyone really call the last 7 years a success for Arsenal just because they’ve picked up a few FA cups? I’m not even sure that mug Ty from Arsenal TV would believe that.
 
I don’t disagree with you. As I stated earlier, ex-players should also be intelligent, knowledgeable and balanced.

I think it is mainly the older pundits that cause so much contention - most of which are only their because they were/are a household name and not necessarily their knowledge of football.
 
Sherwood down south, Stewart up here.

Sadly, networks more and more are going for pundits that provoke and get tweets rather than provide genuine insight.

I also suspect they are briefed that that's the reason they're used and to play up to the narrative if they want to keep getting gigs.

Course they are.

All about clicks

Sure they agree before who had which view
 
"Delivering an RKO..."

"Winning a trophy is not a measurement of success"

Not any better than what that moron Sherwood said.


Let's put it this way. If Rangers won the League Cup but finished third in the league, would he be considered a success?

She's absolutely right that Arsenal winning the FA Cup is not what will determine if Arteta is a success or not. They could have more successful season this year and not win anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VGM
He’s a bell end. Can’t stand the prick, look at him ffs

7bacaa78-097a-49a7-a196-7edb8fcda98f-2060x1236.jpeg
Sherwood Forest Gump.
 
The only issue I have with female pundits is I seem to automatically zone out of whatever they are saying. I think it’s a built in male thing, honed through years of listening to your missus go on and on about her day at work and how Jessie at the supermarkets’ man is cheating on her. Whenever I hear the sound of a woman’s voice talking at length I just mentally shut it out. It doesn’t matter what they’re saying. It’s an automatic response. It could be the most insightful comment in the history of football they are making, I just can’t concentrate on what they are saying.

Maybe subtitles would help... ;)
 
Might just be me but I rarely listen to the pundits, I know football I know what I'm watching and other than the soccer saturday type shows where you need someone to tell you if theres a goal etc football doesnt really need them. Ideally for me coverage would come on 5 minutes before kick off and end at full time.

Same here, though I have listened to RTV's ones for a change.

You want someone to point out something that you can't see as a non player, but we get the obvious stated all the time.
 


Whatever could you mean ?
Ffs! About a decade or so ago journalists used to write pieces that were thought provoking or at least interesting. Disgusting saying this but around that time even Speirs used to write articles that were decent sometimes, he did a history of third Lanark back then that was a cracking read. Now it’s click bait pish or deliberately contrarian views that serve nothing apart from being controversial to get hits. Sure I read that the editor of the herald now gives bonuses based on internet clicks. Sad in a way
 
It is utterly astonishing the level of knowledge that some of these people involved in football punditry and commentary have. The shite they come away with is just mind blowing. What is even more astonishing is in most cases it's all they've - pretty much their entire life has been football and yet they know so little.

Sherwood is just as dumb as they come. As mentioned already, he's like England's answer to Stewart. A guy who appears to keep getting jobs and getting on TV talking about football when in fact, they probably know as much as someone who check in on football every couple of months.
 
I think it is a really interesting point that when a woman and/or POC is put into a pundit role there are accusations that they are only there for reasons of diversity, yet when someone like Sherwood is there, he gets slagged off for his opinions, but people don’t consider that he actually only has the job because the default still remains white men.

Eh!? He’s there because he is an ex-Spurs manager. Whether he is good or not is another thing, but he’s not just there because he’s a white man. That’s just ridiculous.
 
Might just be me but I rarely listen to the pundits, I know football I know what I'm watching and other than the soccer saturday type shows where you need someone to tell you if theres a goal etc football doesnt really need them. Ideally for me coverage would come on 5 minutes before kick off and end at full time.

Rarely listen to them on TV.

The standard of journalists you hear on podcasts are miles ahead though, I much prefer that.
 
What’s the moral crusade? When a woman or POC is put on as a pundit, there is inevitable people banging on about them not being there for being a good pundit, but for different reasons, and here you have someone you acknowledge is a rubbish pundit, but you don’t think he has had any advantages to get there?

What’s a POC? I can’t see anyone on here saying she shouldn’t be on the show.

Sherwood has had advantages to get there, as mentioned before. Being a professional footballer and manager tends to get you slots of talking about professional football.
 
i even repeated the comment, the default IS white men.
Clinton Morrison has about as much to qualify him for the job as Paul Merson, both seem to be unpopular as pundits - but only one is assumed to have the job for the wrong reasons.

edit: and if you think it is woke people like me (or whatever anyone calls me) that are obsessed with race and sex just check out the New James Bond thread in the lounge.

The default is white men? There are plenty of black pundits. The chance of it being a white man is pretty high, you know, considering the vast majority of people in this country are white.

Its mental how some people keep trying to make things about race.
 
Back
Top