Pundit worse than Lawrenson?

[kwsaint]

Read this article today:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25012040

 

Rates everyone 5 out of 10 apart from the occasional 6 or 7 out of 10. Thinks AL has an outside chance of the world cup and that because Joe Hart had one good game, all hope is restored. I just don't understand where they get these guys from.

[Turkish]

Read this article today:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25012040

 

Rates everyone 5 out of 10 apart from the occasional 6 or 7 out of 10. Thinks AL has an outside chance of the world cup and that because Joe Hart had one good game, all hope is restored. I just don't understand where they get these guys from.

 

Sorry, can't really see too much wrong with any of what he's said. What am I missing?

[Scudamore]

Sorry, can't really see too much wrong with any of what he's said. What am I missing?

 

Agreed. The write up was pretty spot on. Still Joe Hart's bizarre decision to run out and clatter his own player outside the box for no reason means I'd say an 8 was generous.

[DuncanRG]

I just don't understand where they get these guys from.

 

Mark Lawrenson was a top class international footballer

 

(and Phil McNulty, besides getting everything in that article pretty much spot on, is an incredibly hard working and talented reporter)

Edited 21 November, 2013 by DuncanRG

[Saint_clark]

Lallana should have been at least a 6 (I suspect Townsend only got that because he hit the post), and Hart looked dodgy as f*ck to me. One save where he barely had to move his hand although did well to push it away, and another routine save down low which he would have been crucified for if it had somehow gone in. Other than that a few very strange moments where he came out.

[There when Franny scored]

Agree with you kwsaint. McNulty is one of the most unimaginative reporters out there and epitomises the BBC's bland and "safe" stance towards sports reporting in general. I suppose you might say that he is only going his job in that regard. Vickery is the obvious exception of course.

 

You're not the only one - http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/584743-football/65330227

[CB Fry]

Agree with you kwsaint. McNulty is one of the most unimaginative reporters out there and epitomises the BBC's bland and "safe" stance towards sports reporting in general. I suppose you might say that he is only going his job in that regard. Vickery is the obvious exception of course.

 

You're not the only one - http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/584743-football/65330227

 

Sorry, Tim Vickery has been written off as a clueless idiot by this forum when he refused to accept the official SWF position that Gaston was the second coming of Pele after we signed him.

 

There was a thread kinda like this one about it IIRC.

[CB Fry]

Read this article today:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25012040

 

Rates everyone 5 out of 10 apart from the occasional 6 or 7 out of 10. Thinks AL has an outside chance of the world cup and that because Joe Hart had one good game, all hope is restored. I just don't understand where they get these guys from.

 

Whereas what you wanted him to say was just because AL had one good game he is now the first man on the plane for Rio?

 

Adam is an outsider for the squad. That's true.

 

I don't understand where we get these forum contributors from.

[kwsaint]

Whereas what you wanted him to say was just because AL had one good game he is now the first man on the plane for Rio?

 

Adam is an outsider for the squad. That's true.

 

I don't understand where we get these forum contributors from.

 

Same place everyone else on him comes from. What I wanted him to be is a bit more critical. We lost 1 0 to Germany's C team at home. If that, in your opinion, warrants are worst players (imo cleverly) to have the same rating as AL then fine but I disagree.

[Turkish]

Same place everyone else on him comes from. What I wanted him to be is a bit more critical. We lost 1 0 to Germany's C team at home. If that, in your opinion, warrants are worst players (imo cleverly) to have the same rating as AL then fine but I disagree.

 

Ahh okay, he's the worst pundit in history because your rating of Lallana and his were a bit different, I get it now.

[Wes Tender]

Lallana should have been at least a 6 (I suspect Townsend only got that because he hit the post), and Hart looked dodgy as f*ck to me. One save where he barely had to move his hand although did well to push it away, and another routine save down low which he would have been crucified for if it had somehow gone in. Other than that a few very strange moments where he came out.

 

Agree with this. Lallana was better than a 5, being lumped together with several other players whose performances didn't match his. Walker in particular was very poor and Cleverley not much better. Hodgson praised Lallana's performance and said that he was now in contention for a place in Brazil. Hart was good in some parts, poor in others.

[kwsaint]

Ahh okay, he's the worst pundit in history because your rating of Lallana and his were a bit different, I get it now.

 

Please Turkish, show me where I said he was the worst in history? I'd love to know...

[Turkish]

Please Turkish, show me where I said he was the worst in history? I'd love to know...

 

"Pundit worse than Lawrenson?"

 

So what did you mean by that? That Lawrenson is the best pundit to ever talk about soccerball and this guy is second only to him, or did you mean something else?

[pap]

Lawro and all of his ilk do my head in. The weekly predictions from Lawro are bad enough, but let that f**ker anywhere near an England game and you can hear the bitterness in his depressed Preston accident.

 

"England are poor", etc, etc.

 

What you (and Townsend et al) really meant to say was:-

 

"I wished I'd played for England but bottled it because I didn't think I was good enough".

[Bearsy]

Agree with you kwsaint. McNulty is one of the most unimaginative reporters out there and epitomises the BBC's bland and "safe" stance towards sports reporting in general. I suppose you might say that he is only going his job in that regard. Vickery is the obvious exception of course.

 

You're not the only one - http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/584743-football/65330227

 

Yeah I agree with that, M****ty is master of stating the bleeding obvious. I dunno who would find his articles interesting, you would have to have been living in cave to find new information in a M****ty article.

[Bearsy]

Just to confirm, I was not censored for calling him McCunty cos I didn't call him that, I actually called him McNutty, like in The Wire - I dunno why swearfilters is object to that!

[Turkish]

Why do so many people get their knickers in a twist over football pundits and journalists? Who cares what Mark friggin Lawrenson says or that a BBC reporter gave Lallana one point less than he was worth. Seriously, some of you clowns need to get a grip.

[kwsaint]

Why do so many people get their knickers in a twist over football pundits and journalists? Who cares what Mark friggin Lawrenson says or that a BBC reporter gave Lallana one point less than he was worth. Seriously, some of you clowns need to get a grip.

 

Literally can't be arsed with this. It seems every discussion on this forum is shouted down by the likes of you just because you don't care about it. I didn't realise this forum was created for you Turkish. You've said some good things in the past I'll give you that, but why do you shout down things which don't interest you. I was merely saying maybe Lawrenson isn't the worst pundit after all and you interpret this as "Lawrenson must be the best pundit there is".

[Turkish]

Literally can't be arsed with this. It seems every discussion on this forum is shouted down by the likes of you just because you don't care about it. I didn't realise this forum was created for you Turkish. You've said some good things in the past I'll give you that, but why do you shout down things which don't interest you. I was merely saying maybe Lawrenson isn't the worst pundit after all and you interpret this as "Lawrenson must be the best pundit there is".

 

No pal, you're misunderstanding what i'm saying. Your thread title was "Pundit worse than Lawrenson" and then knocked his report and marks. IMO this was a fairly accurate reflection of the players performance, give or take a point here or there, so i asked you, quite politely, what i was missing and what had he said that was so wrong, you can see this in post 2 of this thread. You could have chosen to answer and explain your post, given your rational for deciding the pundit was worse than Lawrenson and what he had said to lead you to this opinion, perhaps even given your marks, which would have clearly and concisely not only answered my question but given credence to your view. Instead you have got on your high horse, throwing your toys about,wailing and screaming and stropping that you "literally cant be arsed with this" and that you are being shouted down. it's not my fault you can back up your statements with any valid opinions pal. Dont worry though, its symptomatic of the spoilt brat mentality that permeates this forum.

,

[Tokyo-Saint]

[kwsaint]

No pal, you're misunderstanding what i'm saying. Your thread title was "Pundit worse than Lawrenson" and then knocked his report and marks. IMO this was a fairly accurate reflection of the players performance, give or take a point here or there, so i asked you, quite politely, what i was missing and what had he said that was so wrong, you can see this in post 2 of this thread. You could have chosen to answer and explain your post, given your rational for deciding the pundit was worse than Lawrenson and what he had said to lead you to this opinion, perhaps even given your marks, which would have clearly and concisely not only answered my question but given credence to your view. Instead you have got on your high horse, throwing your toys about,wailing and screaming and stropping that you "literally cant be arsed with this" and that you are being shouted down. it's not my fault you can back up your statements with any valid opinions pal. Dont worry though, its symptomatic of the spoilt brat mentality that permeates this forum.

,

 

I'll answer post 2 then:

 

1)Hart did make 3 or 4 very good saves that kept the scoreline down. But for me, he also made defensive errors like running out of his penalty area when the defender had it covered. It's these mistakes which was why I felt 8 was a high score for me. For me, he wasn't as consistent as a world class goalie should be even though he can be if he gets back on form. I would have given him a 6.

2)As I said earlier, I felt Cleverley didn't look like a first XI player to me. He hasn't got the confidence on the ball and his control is sloppy. I would have given him a 3 tbh and given Henderson a run since he's had far less game time for England. These friendlies should have been trying out new tatics and players rather than keep going back to the old ones imo. The likes of AL prove that picking players who are on form maybe a better strategy than players who are "better". Imo cleverley isn't any where near on form.

3)Thought Smalling was a 4 since he hasn't got the dominance of command a centre back should have. Whenever Lovren or Fonte play for saints, I'm sure you can agree with me that there is a command that they go forward as a unit and back as a unit. Maybe this is harsh on him since it's tactics rather than him himself but I feel an international player of his quality should have more dominance in the defence third of the pitch.

4)I'm trying to be unbiased with this one but it may be hard. Lallana didn't have a good a game as he did against Chile granted but he showed good vision, crossed the ball well and oozed confidence on the ball. Yes he may have miscontrolled it at times but I felt only 5 was harsh. I would have given him a 6 or a 7.

 

Apologies if I offended you earlier. I'm not looking to argue on this forum just to have a debate. Feel free to criticize any of my points.

[Lighthouse]

In a desperate bid to get back to the original question; Dean Windass. Not sure whether you would class him as a pundit but he used to do occasional match reports for Northern games on GSS. Never have I heard such razor sharp insight into a game of football as, "oh Jeff! oh it's goal Jeff, 'e's 'eaded ball it's... With 'is 'ead! It's in Jeff."

[trousers]

Turks / CB Fry - how much do you typically pay people to start threads you can then shoot down? I've got some good discount offers available at the moment and I can probably undercut kwsaint quite considerable, especially for bulk orders. You get a free Groundhog Day picture and with every order too. Win win.

[Bearsy]

My top 5 pundits that make me change channel, in reverse order:

 

Michael Owen

Colin Murray

Jamie Redknapp

Peter Schmeichel

Garth Crooks

 

Congratulations Garth Crooks!

[Turkish]

I'll answer post 2 then:

 

1)Hart did make 3 or 4 very good saves that kept the scoreline down. But for me, he also made defensive errors like running out of his penalty area when the defender had it covered. It's these mistakes which was why I felt 8 was a high score for me. For me, he wasn't as consistent as a world class goalie should be even though he can be if he gets back on form. I would have given him a 6.

2)As I said earlier, I felt Cleverley didn't look like a first XI player to me. He hasn't got the confidence on the ball and his control is sloppy. I would have given him a 3 tbh and given Henderson a run since he's had far less game time for England. These friendlies should have been trying out new tatics and players rather than keep going back to the old ones imo. The likes of AL prove that picking players who are on form maybe a better strategy than players who are "better". Imo cleverley isn't any where near on form.

3)Thought Smalling was a 4 since he hasn't got the dominance of command a centre back should have. Whenever Lovren or Fonte play for saints, I'm sure you can agree with me that there is a command that they go forward as a unit and back as a unit. Maybe this is harsh on him since it's tactics rather than him himself but I feel an international player of his quality should have more dominance in the defence third of the pitch.

4)I'm trying to be unbiased with this one but it may be hard. Lallana didn't have a good a game as he did against Chile granted but he showed good vision, crossed the ball well and oozed confidence on the ball. Yes he may have miscontrolled it at times but I felt only 5 was harsh. I would have given him a 6 or a 7.

 

Apologies if I offended you earlier. I'm not looking to argue on this forum just to have a debate. Feel free to criticize any of my points.

 

See that's more like it, it's easy this isn't it!!!

 

I would have given Hart a 7, he made a couple of errors and the red mist seems to descend every time the ball gets played in behind his centre halves, it cost Man City and Chelsea and could have cost England, that said he did make a couple of decent saves and was probably Englands best player.

 

However Englands worst player was Walker, Caught out of position so many times, gave the ball away cheaply on numerous occasions. Marked him two higher than i would.

 

Wasn't impressed with Smalling and to be honest this is the case for all Englands centre backs, Cahill, Jagiklea are okay, Smalling and Jones are not ready yet. I disagree with some of the people on here and think Jones will eventually become a very good player but he's a 21 year old lad still finding his way in the game. I'd like to see Micheal Dawson given a go in the next friendly as at the moment think he is better than both of those two at the moment. Oh for the days when we could pick from Terry, Ferdinand, Woodgate & King!

 

Lallana was good and efficient without being spectacular, kept the ball well and grew into the game again. I'd have given him a 6.

 

Townsend, fans love him because he has that all important quality of being a pacey wide man, however when you actually look at his performance he runs at pace in straight lines, the better defences will work him out, either show him out wide or inside where he will run into trouble.

 

the thing that struck me most was the difference between the two teams. The Germans were playing quick one and two touch football, pass and movement, kept it simple and broke at pace whereas England players were individuals wanting to be the star man. Townsend taking everyone on, Rooney trying the difficult thing when a simple ball was on, Barkley trying step over after step over, Gerrard shooting wildly from 40yards when a simple sideways pass was on, Struridge poor touch and again trying the difficult when the simple was an option.

 

What i'm really struggling with is why you were so incensed by his report and marks when he actually didn't see it that much different to either of us.He gave Smalling and Cleverly the joint lowest mark and we both agree that they were poor, he marked Walker & Hart a point or two higher than we would and Lallana one lower. Other than him marking Lallana slightly lower than we would have thus lunping him in with the players that were poor i cant see how his report makes him such a terrible pundit you claim he is. it's not like he was claiming Smalling, Walker and Cleverly were great and Lallana and hart were awful was it.

[Hatch]

The reason they have pundits is because idiots need to have the game explained to them,

 

I have just watched the game , I do not need someone else to tell me what happened, I have see it with my own eyes and can form my own

opinion based on years and years of watching thousands of matches.

 

The pundits are there for the women, children and idiots who know sod all.

[Bearsy]

The reason they have pundits is because idiots need to have the game explained to them,

 

I feel that way bout commentators, I already know that Gerrard passed to Rooney and Rooney got dispossessed! I just saw it! I would sooner it was just crowd noise.

[kwsaint]

What i'm really struggling with is why you were so incensed by his report and marks when he actually didn't see it that much different to either of us.He gave Smalling and Cleverly the joint lowest mark and we both agree that they were poor, he marked Walker & Hart a point or two higher than we would and Lallana one lower. Other than him marking Lallana slightly lower than we would have thus lunping him in with the players that were poor i cant see how his report makes him such a terrible pundit you claim he is. it's not like he was claiming Smalling, Walker and Cleverly were great and Lallana and hart were awful was it.

 

My reason for being incensed was more the laziness behind his reporting. There seems to be a lack atm of critical pundits (the only one I can think is actually pretty good is Gary Neville). I felt as an article it could have been much longer and he could have gone into more depth about why we played badly (e.g. there was no clear strategy as to how we were going to win the game; unlike saints who's defence moves up as a unit, ours tended to drift and there seemed to be quite a few times when germany were through one on one with Hart purely because our offside trap was lazy). My beef is that he's the "bbc football expert" or whatever his title is officially. When I watch rugby, for example, the commentary is interesting and is always critical. Cricket as well although that's a slower game so they have to talk about something. It's not necessarily bad because I disagree with him (as you pointed out we agree on quite a lot) I just feel it was an incredibly lazy report.

[Barry the Badger]

I feel that way bout commentators, I already know that Gerrard passed to Rooney and Rooney got dispossessed! I just saw it! I would sooner it was just crowd noise.

 

I can understand why commentators were needed up until about 15 years ago, as the picture wasn't always good enough to see who was who. But now, it is a bit pointless really, wish they'd always give an option for no commentary.

[Barry the Badger]

My reason for being incensed was more the laziness behind his reporting. There seems to be a lack atm of critical pundits (the only one I can think is actually pretty good is Gary Neville). I felt as an article it could have been much longer and he could have gone into more depth about why we played badly .

 

Chances are that's not his brief. He's probably been asked to put together a relatively short overview with player ratings and a few words on each, to appeal to the masses not to the hard-core tactician.

 

Don't let that get in the way of your ANGER though.

[Hamilton Saint]

I can understand why commentators were needed up until about 15 years ago, as the picture wasn't always good enough to see who was who. But now, it is a bit pointless really, wish they'd always give an option for no commentary.

 

Agreed. Their motto ought to be "less is more". What's needed is commentary about tactics and once-in-a-while summarizing. As the game proceeds, and viewers get used to recognizing palyers on the field, the repetitive identification of players is not needed.

 

Non-stop commentary during sports games is a north-American disease, but it seems to be spreading!

 

I always remember watching the Wimbledon tournament many years ago on the American network NBC. They had a "colour commentator" on there called Bud Collins. He's one of those broadcasters who just won't shut up. At the beginning of one game, the American network switched to the BBC commentary. The commentator was the legendary Dan Maskell. Maskell was a terse, laconic commentator, who didn't always feel the need to say anything, if the proceedings unfolding in front of your eyes were obvious. In this quick game, the server wrapped it up with four quick points. Maskell did not say a single word. At the end, when NBC switched back to their own commentators, they laughed uproariously - and then proceeding to jabber away non-stop for the rest of their broadcast.

[Bearsy]

They had a "colour commentator" on there called Bud Collins.

 

Don't think ur sposed to call them that anymore bro.

[Turkish]

one of my personal hates about pundits is they state the bleeding obvious all the time. You dont need an ex professional to give their opinion that a player is playing well or a team is playing well etc, you can see that for yourself. What you want is a deeper analysis of where a player is going wrong or why a system is or isn't working. Instead you get Adrian Chiles making stupid comments and Andy Townsend stating the obvious. That is why Gary Neville was such a breath of fresh air, talks sense and highlights things the average fan wouldn't spot and doesn't talk in cliches like some of them do.

Edited 21 November, 2013 by Turkish

[Le Timmier]

I quite like watching games via internet stream that have foreign commentary. Despite being able to understand very little of what's being said, it still makes about as much sense as the some of the utter nonsense that the likes of Andy Townsend comes out with. (Townsend is my personal, stand-out hate figure in any commentary box, despite his Saints background) You obviously still get the crowd noise and atmosphere through the commentators voice - and if you buy some cheap lager and use a bit of imagination it has the added advantage of feeling like you're in a bar on holiday somewhere.

[von Dwinger]

I thought that Lawro's scores weren't too far out....

 

I would have probably given Lallana a 6 but although he worked hard and showed some nice touches he didn't create much in the end and can see why some may think he was only worth a 5...

 

I think its far too early to predict who will be on the plane at this stage... there is bound to be injuries and losses of form... will just have to wait and see..

[Tamesaint]

I think its far too early to predict who will be on the plane at this stage... there is bound to be injuries and losses of form... will just have to wait and see..

 

Bet 365 have Lallana at 5/2 to make the squad. Rickie is 6/4 ,Luke 10/1 whilst James Ward Prowse is 33/1.

 

Lallana was10./1this time last month.... so he must be impressing somebody !!

[Frank's cousin]

The Frank's cousin saints pundit player ratings

 

England v Germany B

 

 

Saint Adam 10

Saint Rickie 10

Saint Jrod 10 (superb unused sub performance)

The mancs 3

The Scousers 3

The cockney's 1 (just for being cockneys)

 

The Germans - well thank feck they were without Neuer, Lahm, Schweinsteiger, Muller, Ozil, Khadira, Schurle...etc.. Sam looked good though.

[adrian lord]

McNulty must be Hart's uncle.