Jamie redknapp and carragher

[Roger]

Matty saying he finds them disrespectful to saints. I agree fed up with them saying vvd doing right thing and saints selling club yet they say countinho shouldn't go to Barca.

[Micky]

I wouldn't worry about it Rog. Pundits are generally still paid from the dregs of the footballing trough, so they have to stay onside and generally go with the populist view, which will always be to support the big club. Very few will have the balls to actually speak truthfully about anything really, they don't want to lose their inside contact's, or rile them for that matter. Not many appear to have any real idea about the real detail of most major stories, and they just trot out a half assed opinion, I find out all rather amusing really.

 

Right across the footballing spectrum, we have some quite appalling pundits, who offer nothing in the way of real insight or understanding, and come across as nothing short of very dim.

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

[Golac's Iron Gonads]

It's such a contrast when you hear american football pundits. Maybe one day we'll have such erudite and coherent pundits.

[Golac's Iron Gonads]

I saw something online about how Michael Owen has just reviewed the 10 films he has watched in his life and I tried to think of another sport that would employ a man who is quite clearly an utter moron. I couldn't think of one.

[saintadam]

Redknapp have been far worse than Carragher lately. And that ****er has even played for us. Carrager has played for Liverpool is whole life so he's always gonnna be biased towards Pool.

[eurosaint]

I saw something online about how Michael Owen has just reviewed the 10 films he has watched in his life and I tried to think of another sport that would employ a man who is quite clearly an utter moron. I couldn't think of one.

 

Boxing ??

[Golac's Iron Gonads]

Boxing ??

 

I haven't watched a boxing match for nearly 20 years. I seem to recall the pundits at least understood their sport. But you could be right. I think I should be aiming my ire mainly at British sport coverage rather than specific sports.

[alpine_saint]

Take comfort in the fact that Redknapps missus has got fed up of him and is out every night knobbing anything with a pulse.

 

He only came to us anyway because Daddy organised him one last payday.

[simo]

Not a whole brain cell between them !

[Fan The Flames]

Redknapp have been far worse than Carragher lately. And that ****er has even played for us.

 

I wonder what's going to influence him more, his short time playing for a club that was insignificant in his career or having a dad that most Saints fans hate. I can't believe how short sighted fans can be.

 

Anyway they are a couple of ****s.

[revolution saint]

You could substitute both Carragher and Redknapp with the average articulate man on the street and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference. They offer no insight and no real opinion save what they've read on the internet or back pages - frankly anyone can do that. Least with Gary Neville he offered something different and was interesting. Even Pardew was good the other night giving the perspective of a manager.

[Donatello]

Not sure why Carragher is coming in for as much stick as Rednapp. I listened to their debate on Sky and he seemed fairly balanced (not completely unbias, of course). Perhaps I've missed something though. Rednapp is on another level though, agreed, always has been. Plonk.

[angelman]

I haven't listened to them as already bored of football. Not that I have watched it, but its been on TV on Tuesday, Wednesday, last night. On tonight, tomorrow, Sunday, Monday and probably every day next week as well. Far rather just go to SMS than listen to the opinions of ex Scousers on TV.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. They are biased, naturally so, but unfortunately it leads to a lack of objectivity. Gary Neville was one of the rarer ones when it came to objectivity.

[John Boy Saint]

You could substitute both Carragher and Redknapp with the average articulate man on the street and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference. They offer no insight and no real opinion save what they've read on the internet or back pages - frankly anyone can do that. Least with Gary Neville he offered something different and was interesting. Even Pardew was good the other night giving the perspective of a manager.

The same Alan Pardew who was given his first managerial chance at Reading, signed a new contract with them and "ten minutes later" when Reading refused to let him go to West Ham (then in the same division) so resigned from Reading to join them. Should have had John Madejski on there for the view of the club owners. When Pardew pulled his stunt at Reading Madejski didn't hold back on letting his feelings be known on Pardews behaviour.

[Millbrook Saint]

Not sure why Carragher is coming in for as much stick as Rednapp. I listened to their debate on Sky and he seemed fairly balanced (not completely unbias, of course). Perhaps I've missed something though. Rednapp is on another level though, agreed, always has been. Plonk.

 

Is that the same Carragher who openly admitted that when he was down here working for Sky, that he was chatting to Clyne, telling him how he should move up there. Nope not sure why any of us would be ****ed off when a scouser opens his big gob

[whelk]

Carragher is an excellent pundit

[jasonb]

Apart from visiting this site I zone right out of everything except the Saints game itself. It's the only thing that counts.

 

Don't get me wrong, years ago I was all over everything. Pre and post match analysis, news paper reports you name it.

 

As I've gotten older I've no time for anything other than the 90mins once a week.

 

All the other stuff is noise in the background at best, in fact white noise makes more sense than most of the drivel clinging onto the game these days.

[beatlesaint]

Redknapp have been far worse than Carragher lately. And that ****er has even played for us. Carrager has played for Liverpool is whole life so he's always gonnna be biased towards Pool.

 

you only have to look as far as who Jamie's Dad is to determine why he is such a brainless *****.

[OldNick]

you only have to look as far as who Jamie's Dad is to determine why he is such a brainless *****.

and why he doesn't criticise agents

[captainchris]

Take comfort in the fact that Redknapps missus has got fed up of him and is out every night knobbing anything with a pulse.

 

He only came to us anyway because Daddy organised him one last payday.

 

Oh the irony is beautiful isn't it....

In addition he was a very average player and diabolical for us...

[whelk]

Oh the irony is beautiful isn't it....

In addition he was a very average player and diabolical for us...

 

What a couple of sad individuals you are. Because a pundit doesn't gush over your team constantly you delight in his family breaking up.

Sad little (or probably should say obese) men.

[whelk]

Oh the irony is beautiful isn't it....

In addition he was a very average player and diabolical for us...

 

And it's not irony you thick tw at

[saintadjg]

I assumed you were taking the **** calling Card a great pundit.I can't tell who's trolling and who's serious anymore . For the record he's ****ing terrible as are most of them.So biased to their old club(usually LFC) they show no impartiality.

[dellboypete]

Carragher is an excellent pundit

 

Only when I've got the subtitles switched on!

[Sidney Fudpucker the 3rd]

Pair of C***s.

[OldNick]

What a couple of sad individuals you are. Because a pundit doesn't gush over your team constantly you delight in his family breaking up.

Sad little (or probably should say obese) men.

Football is a very emotive subject and people lose focus about things. You are right that it is sad that a family is breaking up, but it is a natural reflex to throw a jibe back without thinking when something you care about is being threatened. Redknapp showed Saints fans and our club no respect at all in his enthusiasm to strengthen his favoured team. He did not see that the hypocrisy of his Coutinho shouldn't be allowed to go, but VVD must be allowed to go stance.

Maybe fans are wrong to thrw the jibes about Redknapps personal life, but at the same time football is so ingrained that it affects many of our personal lives. To some its as Shankly said 'football is not life or death, its more important than that.'

[LuckyNumber7]

I've always quite liked Jamie Redknapp but thought his comments the other day about VVD and Saints were really disrespectful to us and showed a real lack of understanding of the whole situation. Equally Chris Sutton spouted a load of similar nonsense, another moron who thinks he knows it all.

 

I have actually warmed to Carragher, I think he has improved as a pundit and usually at least tries to be impartial, but he will naturally always have some bias. Gary Neville is by far the best out there though.

[Chez]

It's such a contrast when you hear american football pundits. Maybe one day we'll have such erudite and coherent pundits.

 

why do pundits always have to be ex footballers? This job requires the person to speak well...about football. They don' have dribble, tackle, shoot or run for 90 minutes., So why do they get every single punditry job? Half of them struggle to put two words together, the other half just tell us what we know week after week after week.

 

I know some people have multiple talents, but a good footballer doesn't necessarily equal a good speaker. Ok, so they have some insight into the game, but they all seem to see exactly the same things every week. MOTD for example tends to have two or three pundits that 9 times out of 10 agree with each other...on everything. I see no point whatsoever in employing two people to do the same job.

 

By no means perfect, but when journalists are employed to speak on radio shows like the Monday night football, they bring a completely different opinion and angle to proceedings. In my eyes this job should be given to someone that firstly speaks well, identifies things that perhaps others have not seen and gives fresh input to proceedings, not simply telling us what we already know.

 

To a degree the BBC has served up different opinions in the form of Savage and Sutton, but sadly they have gone down the route of employing controversial big mouths rather than clever thinkers.

 

Certainly there are some decent pundits out there, but when I see people like Clinton Morrison being employed by Channel 5 to talk about the game I wonder if TV producers just lack the balls to say **** this, we'll get a man off the street that speaks well to be the pundit rather than just any old player they can get hold of to fill a sofa.

[adrian lord]

Neville has a brain and always respectfully delivers some really interesting discussions and insights, he is in a different league to Carragher. Sky missed Neville badly when he had the disastrous management episode. But he has returned chastened and is an even better and more respectful pundit for it. Hats off to Gary. Not sure why Redknapp gets anywhere near a TV studio.

[Micky]

why do pundits always have to be ex footballers? This job requires the person to speak well...about football. They don' have dribble, tackle, shoot or run for 90 minutes., So why do they get every single punditry job? Half of them struggle to put two words together, the other half just tell us what we know week after week after week.

 

I know some people have multiple talents, but a good footballer doesn't necessarily equal a good speaker. Ok, so they have some insight into the game, but they all seem to see exactly the same things every week. MOTD for example tends to have two or three pundits that 9 times out of 10 agree with each other...on everything. I see no point whatsoever in employing two people to do the same job.

 

By no means perfect, but when journalists are employed to speak on radio shows like the Monday night football, they bring a completely different opinion and angle to proceedings. In my eyes this job should be given to someone that firstly speaks well, identifies things that perhaps others have not seen and gives fresh input to proceedings, not simply telling us what we already know.

 

To a degree the BBC has served up different opinions in the form of Savage and Sutton, but sadly they have gone down the route of employing controversial big mouths rather than clever thinkers.

 

Certainly there are some decent pundits out there, but when I see people like Clinton Morrison being employed by Channel 5 to talk about the game I wonder if TV producers just lack the balls to say **** this, we'll get a man off the street that speaks well to be the pundit rather than just any old player they can get hold of to fill a sofa.

 

Most definitely, this.

 

Couldn't agree more with pretty much everything you have said. I would love to see 'a man off the street' with no footballing background at all (apart from an obvious love of the game) in a pundits chair, as opposed to the ex footballer / ex manager. I know Sky have done the Fan Zone thing and that's not what I'm alluding to at all, there are plenty of people out there who would easily be able to give a much more insightful and knowledgeable opinion to TV audiences than some of the so call 'expert' pundits.

 

Expert - Ex - has been, spurt - drip under pressure.

[Micky]

Neville has a brain and always respectfully delivers some really interesting discussions and insights, he is in a different league to Carragher. Sky missed Neville badly when he had the disastrous management episode. But he has returned chastened and is an even better and more respectful pundit for it. Hats off to Gary. Not sure why Redknapp gets anywhere near a TV studio.

 

Yep - and when doing analysis not afraid to put the boot into United either. Pretty fair and unbiased.

[Pass the Dutchie]

why do pundits always have to be ex footballers?

 

Indeed. Here in the Netherlands, I can't think of any pundit who's an ex footaller. They're generally just people with a lot of knowledge about the game (some more than others) and a pleasant voice.

[farawaysaint]

Everyone should tweet these two now and ask for their thoughts on Coutinho's transfer request

[alpine_saint]

I wonder if they still have their white Armani suits...

[benjii]

why do pundits always have to be ex footballers? This job requires the person to speak well...about football. They don' have dribble, tackle, shoot or run for 90 minutes., So why do they get every single punditry job? Half of them struggle to put two words together, the other half just tell us what we know week after week after week.

 

I know some people have multiple talents, but a good footballer doesn't necessarily equal a good speaker. Ok, so they have some insight into the game, but they all seem to see exactly the same things every week. MOTD for example tends to have two or three pundits that 9 times out of 10 agree with each other...on everything. I see no point whatsoever in employing two people to do the same job.

 

By no means perfect, but when journalists are employed to speak on radio shows like the Monday night football, they bring a completely different opinion and angle to proceedings. In my eyes this job should be given to someone that firstly speaks well, identifies things that perhaps others have not seen and gives fresh input to proceedings, not simply telling us what we already know.

 

To a degree the BBC has served up different opinions in the form of Savage and Sutton, but sadly they have gone down the route of employing controversial big mouths rather than clever thinkers.

 

Certainly there are some decent pundits out there, but when I see people like Clinton Morrison being employed by Channel 5 to talk about the game I wonder if TV producers just lack the balls to say **** this, we'll get a man off the street that speaks well to be the pundit rather than just any old player they can get hold of to fill a sofa.

 

Exactly.

 

The best football pundits are Tim Vickery, James Richardson etc. but they get shunted into obscure slots so mouth-breathing dinlows like Sutton and Wright can spew their intestinal smear over the airwaves.

[benjii]

It's partly a lack of education. Most football ex-pros of current punditry age would have had barely any formal schooling and are often from disadvantaged parts of the country. Compare their output to ex-pro cricket and rugby pundits and it is hardly surprising that those with a decent education (even when gained at a minor public school or a solid grammar school) are far more comprehensible and reasoned.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Most definitely, this.

 

Couldn't agree more with pretty much everything you have said. I would love to see 'a man off the street' with no footballing background at all (apart from an obvious love of the game) in a pundits chair, as opposed to the ex footballer / ex manager. I know Sky have done the Fan Zone thing and that's not what I'm alluding to at all, there are plenty of people out there who would easily be able to give a much more insightful and knowledgeable opinion to TV audiences than some of the so call 'expert' pundits.

 

Expert - Ex - has been, spurt - drip under pressure.

 

Don't talk rubbish. It's not as easy as you think. The man in the street would be a gibbering wreck . Zero credibility, you only have to hear radio phone in to know that. Why on earth would anyone want to listen to Fred the plumber or Andy the lorry drivers opinion on a game?

 

There's some really thoughtful pundits about, Stewart Robson the best imo

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lickierambert]

why do pundits always have to be ex footballers? This job requires the person to speak well...about football. They don' have dribble, tackle, shoot or run for 90 minutes., So why do they get every single punditry job? Half of them struggle to put two words together, the other half just tell us what we know week after week after week.

 

I know some people have multiple talents, but a good footballer doesn't necessarily equal a good speaker. Ok, so they have some insight into the game, but they all seem to see exactly the same things every week. MOTD for example tends to have two or three pundits that 9 times out of 10 agree with each other...on everything. I see no point whatsoever in employing two people to do the same job.

 

By no means perfect, but when journalists are employed to speak on radio shows like the Monday night football, they bring a completely different opinion and angle to proceedings. In my eyes this job should be given to someone that firstly speaks well, identifies things that perhaps others have not seen and gives fresh input to proceedings, not simply telling us what we already know.

 

To a degree the BBC has served up different opinions in the form of Savage and Sutton, but sadly they have gone down the route of employing controversial big mouths rather than clever thinkers.

 

Certainly there are some decent pundits out there, but when I see people like Clinton Morrison being employed by Channel 5 to talk about the game I wonder if TV producers just lack the balls to say **** this, we'll get a man off the street that speaks well to be the pundit rather than just any old player they can get hold of to fill a sofa.

 

There's two main reasons for this:

 

1. It's a form of clickbait. If Robbie Savage runs at the mouth it generates more hits for the website than a guardian journalist saying something reasonable and intelligent. For better or worse, this is how online media survives.

 

2. People take ex footballers seriously. That's everyone from intimidated TV execs to viewers. Most of what they say is tosh but occasionally they give you insight which non ex-pros can't.

[benjii]

Don't talk rubbish. It's not as easy as you think. The man in the street would be a gibbering wreck . Zero credibility, you only have to hear radio phone in to know that. Why on earth would anyone want to listen to Fred the plumber or Andy the lorry drivers opinion on a game?

 

There's some really thoughtful pundits about, Stewart Robson the best imo

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Oh yes, I agree with this too.

 

The average man on the street comes armed with all the gravitas of a comprehensive education and that's the last thing that is needed.

[Micky]

Don't talk rubbish. It's not as easy as you think. The man in the street would be a gibbering wreck . Zero credibility, you only have to hear radio phone in to know that. Why on earth would anyone want to listen to Fred the plumber or Andy the lorry drivers opinion on a game?

 

There's some really thoughtful pundits about, Stewart Robson the best imo

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It's not rubbish - it's my opinion thank you. When I allude to the man in the street, obviously I would want to ensure that he had some sort of media training before sitting in front of the cameras on national television - perhaps I never made myself clear.

 

And, for your information, if we cannot have the 'thoughtful pundits' that you speak of, then I would prefer to listen to the man in the street over the likes of Garragher, Wright, Redknapp et al.

[whelk]

Ultimately pretty much all of them can get in your tits. Even the erudite journalists spout crp frequently. Ultimately the game is quite basic and only so many things you can say about it.

The mix on MOTD3 works well although again depends on panel . I actually loathe Henry Winter but most of broadsheet journos are good value. Anyone who doesn't get their tenses right should be banned.

[Mr Saints]

Carragher is alright but Redknapp is awful. Heard Simon Jordan on Talksport recently, best pundit I've heard in years.

[Foxstone]

Apart from being ginger (but maybe in the next few years) Redknapp is getting more like his old man everyday spouting a load of populist crap to keep his bank account rolling ... I'm just waiting for his first "F'sure" of the season.

[angelman]

Carragher is alright but Redknapp is awful. Heard Simon Jordan on Talksport recently, best pundit I've heard in years.

 

Whatever you think of Jordan as a person, he is actually pretty intelligent. As has been pointed out, the problem with ex pros is by and large they aren't the sharpest tools in the box. Can't you remember players taking the mick out of Le Saux because he read a broadsheet rather than the Beano? That sort of sums it up.

[Chez]

There's two main reasons for this:

 

1. It's a form of clickbait. If Robbie Savage runs at the mouth it generates more hits for the website than a guardian journalist saying something reasonable and intelligent. For better or worse, this is how online media survives.

 

2. People take ex footballers seriously. That's everyone from intimidated TV execs to viewers. Most of what they say is tosh but occasionally they give you insight which non ex-pros can't.

 

BBC has no advertisers to pamper to, so why would it need clickbait? Besides I'm talking about TV and radio. By the way, I am on the BBC website every day and I doubt I have ever read a Savage, Sutton or Shearer ghosted article. Couldn't give a **** what they think about the game to be honest.

 

I don't take Savage or Clinton Morrison seriously, do you, but I do listen intently to the likes of Tim Vickery and guillem balague. They offer genuine insight and real knowledge. Shearer gets paid £400,000 a year by the BBC, but his knowledge of the world game is woeful. He just tells people what they already know.

[Chez]

Don't talk rubbish. It's not as easy as you think. The man in the street would be a gibbering wreck . Zero credibility, you only have to hear radio phone in to know that. Why on earth would anyone want to listen to Fred the plumber or Andy the lorry drivers opinion on a game?

 

There's some really thoughtful pundits about, Stewart Robson the best imo

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

by man on the street he means a non ex footballer, but someone that speaks eloquently on TV or radio - not some random, guy dragged out of a pub. If you are employed to speak with insight on TV, the very least you should be able to do is, er, speak well. My point is that these footballers are robbing a living off better qualified people.

[Chez]

Whatever you think of Jordan as a person, he is actually pretty intelligent. As has been pointed out, the problem with ex pros is by and large they aren't the sharpest tools in the box. Can't you remember players taking the mick out of Le Saux because he read a broadsheet rather than the Beano? That sort of sums it up.

 

agreed. He also offers a different angle. Footballers just see the same thing.

 

Not sure why the commentators are not used as pundits. They see hundreds of games, do **** load of research so have a real knowledge of the game, get up close with the current players and managers and beyond, plus....THEY SPEAK WELL.

 

 

Another question, why on earth isn't BBC's chief football correspondent Phil McNulty used as a pundit? Much much mcuyh ratgher have himprsnet 606 than ****ing savage.

 

 

Having sadd of that I do think Jemaine Jenas is excellent on the radio.

[Chez]

Ultimately pretty much all of them can get in your tits. Even the erudite journalists spout crp frequently. Ultimately the game is quite basic and only so many things you can say about it.

The mix on MOTD3 works well although again depends on panel . I actually loathe Henry Winter but most of broadsheet journos are good value. Anyone who doesn't get their tenses right should be banned.

 

Agree journalists speak much better about the game than ex footballers. Winter is a bit of a tosser though.

[Professor]

Some good insights from Chez and I'd think most of us on here would agree with it. It's a shame that some mindless rubbish does get broadcast to whole football audiences but ultimately what these people say doesn't actually make any difference to the game. It's just background noise and can be ignored. What is annoying is that people such as Redknapp, Savage, Wright and others get paid for doing no work at all. There doesn't appear to be any preparation, insight or analysis, so that all the audience get is the first thing that comes into some empty heads.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Agree journalists speak much better about the game than ex footballers. Winter is a bit of a tosser though.

 

**** me, no. They're up players & managers arses more than ex players. Look what they're like with Redknapp & Fat Sam, now they're all in love with klopp. Terrible idea, they're pretentious enough as it is without put them up as experts. Crickets got it right, one or two professional tv men holding it together & ex players giving an insiders view.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk