Equal Opportunities For Everyone

!!

 

Agreed I think some players make terrible managers and pundits because they are so single minded and with Roy everything is black and white in his world- you either did your job or you shouldn’t be on Pitch according to him, no tactical insight whatsoever.

 

Can anyone ever remember a time when they were told something they didn't know about a game they were watching?
Pundits and commentators just sshhhh

 

I can't think of many of the ex-pros who offer much in the way of insight or entertainment from my perspective. Micah Richards is quite fun I guess, and Roy Keane has the occasional entertainingly mental soundbite but on the whole they're pretty woeful. I don't see why people are so wedded to the employment of ex-players in this area - they get jobs just because they used to play football regardless of how entertaining or insightful they are. Martin Keown offers absolutely nothing on either front yet continues to be employed.

I think a lot of the assessment is biased as well. People start from the presumption that because they are an ex player they are going to be a better pundit, or because they are a woman they will be worse. I think the results of anonymised punditry would surprise you.

 

You might have to choose between entertaining and insightful.

Kamara, Merson, Nicholas, Thompson etc. from Sky were entertaining. Had to go though, most of em. Nowt to do with what the viewing public wanted.

They have shipped in second rate replacements, in terms of entertainment.

Who gives a toss about "insight" on Gillette Soccer Saturday?

But there we go. Another one bites the dust.

 

What sad tw@ has got time to go through his rambling nonsense and edit it all.. I would seriously go and seek help pal euthanasia maybe do society a favour

 

I was talking about analysis during matches rather than Soccer Saturday, which is a bit of a different kind of football coverage.

But anyway, Sky will have replaced them because they think it's what the viewing public want. Sky are capitalist, they won't do anything that they think won't increase their profits.

 

We like and relate to people for many different reasons. It may be someone's accent, the timbre of their voice, their delivery, all of which enhance what they say and all of which would be lost by anonymising them. You anonymise 20 different actors performing the to be or not to be soliloquy and you've got exactly the same words from all. Only by allowing them to identify themselves does it come alive, or not.

 

Well you say that, but I bet if Sky said "Right, on Channel 501 we've got Charlie, Matt, Merse and Tommo" and on Channel 502 we've got their replacements, who do you think would be switching over to watch Sue Smith?

 

I dunno, but Sky obviously reckon that people would.

 

I agree it wouldn't work in practice but I couldn't come up with a better hypothetical way to assess their input free from bias.

 

They don't though. They're doing it to be politically correct these days.

Do you think that there's been a flood of female presenters and pundits recently because somebody's realised that they're better than the ones we had before?

Get real.

 

I would if I wanted to understand what was going on!

 

Not hard to be better than Merson for eg. He sometimes can barely string a sentence together.

 

Soccer Saturday became a big hit purely because of Jeff and the Lads.

What is wrong with that?

If you don't like it, watch one of the alternatives.

 

Maybe they've realised that they're decent pundits, and by employing them they might attract a wider audience of viewers.

You really think that a company founded by Rupert Murdoch would be doing it out of a sense of social justice or conscience? I think you're the one who needs to get real.

 

Murdoch's Sky do indeed do things correctly.

We get the messages about Corona. We get Black Lives Matter all the time. We get things on the news which are quite sensibly balanced.

We get boring pundits now. Just because the old ones are not the right gender or colour.

That's Murdoch for you.

What have you seen that indicates that Sky is racist or sexist or indeed in anyway not moving with the times?

 

I've not said they're racist or sexist, just that they're driven by making money, and will be banking on a new lineup being better for that purpose. And that relies on it getting viewers. So Sky will be counting on it being what the viewing public do want regardless of what you want or what you think the viewing public want.