• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Bellend commentators

Didier has been excellent. G-Nev always is. Bilic is great. Evra so far has been fairly dreadful. Henrik Larsson seemed alright to me, not great, but okayish.
 
Could not give a flying fuck who pundits football as long as what they have to say adds to my enjoyment of the game.
 
I saw Aluko on ITV the other day and i have no idea why she was there to be honest she added nothing but then neither did Giggs who was as bad if not worse. Some are only employed because of who they are and while it may not be case having Aluko on is always going to be seen as ticking a box imo unless she can prove by being excellent why she is there.

Didn't see Scott but pretty sure she has been working for the BBC while playing for a while so i can understand why she is on and from what i have read she was quite good. I have no problem with a woman being a pundit if she knows what she is talking about but i feel the same way about most of the ex pros that are on because quite a few of them have no fucking clue.

People who haven't played as pundits just doesn't happen does it when it comes to games. Only one i can really think of is Balague who used to be on during the Spanish games on Sky. Can't see that changing anytime soon either but again i wouldn't be against it if they know what they are talking about, if they don't then it's an easy thing to criticise. With an ex pro they can always counter with well they used to play at this level so fuck you.
 
Paddingtonwolf said:
Absolutely.

Sadly plenty of them don't. Lawrenson actively detracts from the enjoyment!
Click to expand...

He whines like a bad supertramp lp.

The there are men, women, black and white who fail to add anything for me when they pundit
 
Should add Aluko was much better at half time today, thought she got it spot on that despite Costa Rica having the best chances Serbia were the better. have no issue with anyone if they talk sense.
 
slink said:
I have no issue with anyone if they talk sense.
Click to expand...

Exactly, race or gender just don’t matter. If you’re good you’re good and if you’re shit you’re shit. Quite simple really.

Dowie is really taking the jam out of my donut today.
 
With Brazil playing today I would have enjoyed Tim Vickory's views on all things Brazilian, sadly the game is on ITV.
 
Who are BBC rolling out for the Germany game? Quite looking forward to that one.
 
I’m going to miss the Germany game, pretty pissed off with that especially as I have them in the sweep. Will catch the Brazil game though.
 
Boozad said:
Exactly, race or gender just don’t matter. If you’re good you’re good and if you’re $#@! you’re $#@!. Quite simple really.

Dowie is really taking the jam out of my donut today.
Click to expand...

The dictionary definition of bell end pundit
 
Paddingtonwolf said:
Who are BBC rolling out for the Germany game? Quite looking forward to that one.
Click to expand...

Klinsmann is with them, so him Shearer and someone else I'd expect. As for commentary Steve Wilson and Murphy most probably. Might be Keown instead I guess.
 
Johnny75 said:
You know I don't subscribe to that theory you cheeky git. WW is right in that pundits should be on there for being good and I don't think either Scott or Aluko are good and they are clearly there because they're women and that's my point.
Click to expand...

But many people have said they think Scott is good, and Aluko had some praise for her work today. Just because you might not agree doesn’t mean they are there because they are women. Just because you don’t rate them doesn’t mean that the person employing them can’t think they are good additions to a team.
 
You're deluded if you think they're there because they're good at their job. It's because they're women.

As much as I'd like to think pundits are based on ability that simply isn't the case.
 
Pip Neville mentioning Tony Cruise early doors.
 
Quite surprising how many of you watch all the pundity segments, generally I'll only turn a game on just as it's about to kick off, fuck off and do something else at half time and then switch it off as soon as it's full time, only really caught a bit of the France build up yesterday because it was the early kick off so I hadn't started doing anything else yet and the alternative options on TV were bleak to say the least. Considering many of you seem to actively dislike a majority of the pundits put to use then why do you bother tuning in for those parts?
 
Phi Neville needs to speak normally, and not like he's telling a bunch of kids an exciting story.
 
Germany v Mexico is clearly one of the most decent games in this round. So why put Jonathan Pearce on it for crying out loud?
 
I thought Dowie was ok earlier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top