ranger nation
Well-Known Member
Him and one of the Custis' made the Sunday Supplement unwatchable for me eventually. Both think their opinions hold more validity than others.
Whatever could you mean ?
Him and one of the Custis' made the Sunday Supplement unwatchable for me eventually. Both think their opinions hold more validity than others.
Whatever could you mean ?
I’ve given my reasons. Womens football is played at a level probably comparable to Juniors. Therefore, lack top level experience.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.
Him and one of the Custis' made the Sunday Supplement unwatchable for me eventually. Both think their opinions hold more validity than others.
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.
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.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.
Whatever. I don’t think they have the necessary credentials, and you do. Let’s leave it there.well, it is discriminating against someone purely on the grounds of sex, so, well, it is sexist.
Whatever. I don’t think they have the necessary credentials, and you do. Let’s leave it there.
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.
A rather crude way of looking at things. But ultimately, yes. I guess so.happy to leave it there, the credentials to be a football pundit include having a penis, fair enough.
I don’t disagree with you. As I stated earlier, ex-players should also be intelligent, knowledgeable and balanced.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.
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.
I don’t disagree with you. As I stated earlier, ex-players should also be intelligent, knowledgeable and balanced.
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.
"Delivering an RKO..."
"Winning a trophy is not a measurement of success"
Not any better than what that moron Sherwood said.
Sherwood Forest Gump.He’s a bell end. Can’t stand the prick, look at him ffs
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.
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
Whatever could you mean ?
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.
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.
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?
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.