Sour Mash Posted 14 March, 2012 Share Posted 14 March, 2012 Does anyone know how he got involved in football/tv work? What a boring/clueless c**t. I'm not sure who I hate more, him or Colin Murray. Think Murray just edges it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted 15 March, 2012 Share Posted 15 March, 2012 Believe he started out as a journalist then presenter, then some genius at the BBC thought he was qualified to talk about football on the TV because he made no secret of the fact he's a football (and WBA) fan. As you said, a boring tosser at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 15 March, 2012 Share Posted 15 March, 2012 I like him. maybe because he is a grumpy sod fed up with everything, bit like myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted 15 March, 2012 Share Posted 15 March, 2012 The c*nt knows nothing about football, and doesn't even have a likeable personality. He pulls that stupid 'trying to look interested' face when asking whoever he's alongside questions. Can't stand him, how he has been such a success is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wadge Posted 15 March, 2012 Share Posted 15 March, 2012 Chiles is 20 times better than that rat like, nob jockey Colin Murray. He is the most annoying man on telly, if only he would stand in front of Davina McCall and I could shoot him through the eye and the bullet exit and then enter Davina's mouth killing both. What a great day that would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 15 March, 2012 Share Posted 15 March, 2012 He seems like a bloke from the pub Jo has just wondered into a tv studio. I guess that explains his 'appeal.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S-Clarke Posted 15 March, 2012 Share Posted 15 March, 2012 He seems like a bloke from the pub Jo has just wondered into a tv studio. I guess that explains his 'appeal.' I think that's it. ITV bosses see him as one of the 'lads' , and they felt it would appeal with all other supporters. Well it doesn't. and he's an annoying ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 15 March, 2012 Share Posted 15 March, 2012 I think that's it. ITV bosses see him as one of the 'lads' , and they felt it would appeal with all other supporters. Well it doesn't. and he's an annoying ****. Football programmes need three types of personalities to work IMO. They need a decent presenter type (always liked lineker), a humorous type and a couple of pundits who actually know what they are talking about. Zola was a pretty decent pundit for the game last night and claridge was another half decent choice for our derby game earlier in the season. Chiles is useless because he isn't a good 'face' for football on itv, he is extremely unfunny and he never adds anything of value to a football conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 15 March, 2012 Share Posted 15 March, 2012 Chiles is horrific. Mumbles through, er, er, his, er, words all the time. Whenever they've got Roy Keane in the studio you can see that he's clearly thinking "you ****ing idiot" I'm not Colin Murray's biggest fan but at least he can ad-lib to camera on live TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pressingon Posted 15 March, 2012 Share Posted 15 March, 2012 I remember he used to do a mid day magazine programme about 10 years ago - believe me he has got better! I only know cause he interviewed daughter in law with our first grandchild about daycare and we have a tape somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinger Posted 15 March, 2012 Share Posted 15 March, 2012 Chiles used to be alright on the BBC. I think he's the type of presenter who needs a few minutes to have a comfortable chat. On ITV they don't give you that, you've just got a couple of minutes at halftime to summarise what you've just seen. Any nameless twonk could do that. ITV bought something they didn't have a use for. They're a perfect fit for people like Steve Ryder or Ray Stubbs; just sit in the chair, chair the discussion and introduce the next piece, no personality required. I like Colin Murray. He's a good presenter. He facilitates the discussion and can think on his feet. Lineker's good at his job too. Just a shame he has to work with those lazy qunts as pundits. In fact I think he and Murray should swap roles. Lineker would be fantastic leading the more in depth, football discussion on MOTD2. Murray would be just the tonic against those tedious, platitude-spouting, lazy, complacent, licence-fee-absorbing spongers 'Al' and Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 15 March, 2012 Share Posted 15 March, 2012 (edited) Chiles is a safe pair of hands - completely unthreatening. I dont want to remember the presenter and on that benchmark he's quite good. He actually lets the 'experts' talk -and if anything, exposes their lack of talent and laziness when they drone on. Don't think he tries to be a lad. His stock is based more on being a long-suffering, salt of the earth football fan -an extension of the glum black country persona he peddled on the one show. Probably not suited to the glitz of the champion league where he can't do his underdog routine, even though that's become a parody of sorts. Murray is a different case. Used to be a hyperactive, flippant c**k, though he's toned down. As I say, I don't want an ego from a football presenter; if not, stick to XFM playing indie music to the prematurely balding. Edited 15 March, 2012 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pressingon Posted 15 March, 2012 Share Posted 15 March, 2012 Would love to see presenters with personality and humour as well as great football knowledge for MOTD instead of the 3 stooges. I think Bob Mills and Tom Watt would be brilliant, true supporters who pay for their tickets like the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 15 March, 2012 Share Posted 15 March, 2012 You've got to respect him for nailing Bleakley tho. Given his fatbody that's a pretty cool achievement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 15 March, 2012 Share Posted 15 March, 2012 Chiles used to be alright on the BBC. I think he's the type of presenter who needs a few minutes to have a comfortable chat. On ITV they don't give you that, you've just got a couple of minutes at halftime to summarise what you've just seen. Any nameless twonk could do that. ITV bought something they didn't have a use for. They're a perfect fit for people like Steve Ryder or Ray Stubbs; just sit in the chair, chair the discussion and introduce the next piece, no personality required. I like Colin Murray. He's a good presenter. He facilitates the discussion and can think on his feet. Lineker's good at his job too. Just a shame he has to work with those lazy qunts as pundits. In fact I think he and Murray should swap roles. Lineker would be fantastic leading the more in depth, football discussion on MOTD2. Murray would be just the tonic against those tedious, platitude-spouting, lazy, complacent, licence-fee-absorbing spongers 'Al' and Alan. Hansen is a terrible pundit but Lawrensen can make me chuckle on occasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 15 March, 2012 Share Posted 15 March, 2012 anyway, after all, who gives a fuxk , why do we need an expert to tell us what we have just seen. I've seen thousands of matches, I can tell what is happening, who is playing well, who is playing badly. It's all a bit pointless really, I guess it's only aimed at the housewives who only watch 5 games a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinger Posted 15 March, 2012 Share Posted 15 March, 2012 Hansen is a terrible pundit but Lawrensen can make me chuckle on occasion. You see, I think both of those men can be good pundits. When they really put the effort in (and let's face it, they should do, it's their bloody job) Hansen can tell you things about the art of defending that only a genuinely world class player can, and Lawro can be very funny and cut to the heart of the inflated pomp of modern football. Trouble is they're both so often lazy, underprepared and cruising. In that mode Hansen just throws out cliches and Lawrenson is all half-arsed, leaden sarcasm. They could both take a leaf out of Lee Dixon's book IMO. Shearer, however, there is no hope for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now