Steve Claridge -

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Stewart Robson is currently the best - he only seems to do radio at the moment and the Times Podcast. I agree with above about Gavin Peacock.

I can't make my mind up about Claridge. He does seem to understand lower league supporters which I like.

 

[alan partridge]

Take the main 3 on the Beeb:

Hansen - Stereotype of miserable killjoy. Wildly OTT defensive criticisms;
Lawro - Stereotype of miserable full stop. Always with the crap dry put-down;
Shearer - No stereotype, just BORING.

Can I get a 'this'?

That's perfect. Sums them up completely.

I don't mind Clarridge. I take the point that there's no way he could know about 72 clubs inside out but he can't go on there and answer questions with a 'How should I know, dunno anything about Yeovil'. Bit of an impossible job really.

 

[withdeanwombat]

Claridge.

Rochdale.

Laws of the game.

Plonker.

 

[johnny jigsaw]

I had a quick flick through his autobiography in WHSmiths yesterday, well the Brighton chapter at least.

To sum up, he didn't get on well with McGhee, liked Bob Booker, Charlie, Danny Cullip and Darren Currie. He was on £1100 a week while here. He got the hump with McGhee because he was let go, having been told that he was unaffordable, but was then replaced by Mark McGammon on £1800 a week, who he thought was a worse player than him (he has a valid point).

 

[The Large One]

Claridge is OK. Dixon is pretty good.

Kids know f*** all.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

1 He always has a good thing to say about the club (except the Rochdale farce but he look suitable ashamed after that)
2 He wrote a really good column in the Guardian on up and coming players
3 He's a payers player, not a manager...he doesnt do courteous... probably doesnt know how to spell it even
4 He cant know everything about every time but eh cant say that on TV

I agree Leroy comes across better and maybe punditry is not for him but as a writer he's good and its nice to have brighton supporter (not fan) on TV commenting on the league.... he stuck for us a lot during the Adams/Slade days.

 

[The French Mistress]

I had a quick flick through his autobiography in WHSmiths yesterday, well the Brighton chapter at least.

To sum up, he didn't get on well with McGhee, liked Bob Booker, Charlie, Danny Cullip and Darren Currie. He was on £1100 a week while here. He got the hump with McGhee because he was let go, having been told that he was unaffordable, but was then replaced by Mark McGammon on £1800 a week, who he thought was a worse player than him (he has a valid point).

Cheapskate.....buy it !

 

[Willow]

Can I get a 'this'?

That's perfect. Sums them up completely.

I don't mind Clarridge. I take the point that there's no way he could know about 72 clubs inside out but he can't go on there and answer questions with a 'How should I know, dunno anything about Yeovil'. Bit of an impossible job really.

I agree with this. Claridge does a decent job, although he does seem to have lost some of his chirp over the years, I remember he was a bit of a joker when he first started commentating.

I think the problem with Match of The Day punditry is the use of ex players. They can't be too critical or indescreet as it will upset their mates in the game. Loose cannons would make far more interesting viewing. Roy Keane perhaps? Otherwise get in some of the top sports writers from the papers.

 

[johnny jigsaw]

Cheapskate.....buy it !

I'll wait until it reaches the bargain bins! I plumped for Phil Stant's book instead.

 

[Lord Bamber]

He was on £1100 a week while here. He got the hump with McGhee because he was let go, having been told that he was unaffordable, but was then replaced by Mark McGammon on £1800 a week, who he thought was a worse player than him (he has a valid point).

I cannot believe THIS!

£700 per week EXTRA for Mark McGammon - Another blinding piece of McGhoosim

 

[sten_super]

I think the problem with Match of The Day punditry is the use of ex players. They can't be too critical or indescreet as it will upset their mates in the game. Loose cannons would make far more interesting viewing. Roy Keane perhaps? Otherwise get in some of the top sports writers from the papers.

I think this is absolutely right. The Game (Times) and Guardian podcasts are far more insightful than any of the TV nonsense, and are staffed exclusively by journalists.

On the current discussion, Claridge has good and bad points. I like that he's opinionated, although he is convinced that he's always right, which is a bit of a problem when he's done no research. I don't understand why/how he's allowed to get away with so little research; I can only assume it's because he's paid for his appearances, rather than to be a full time journo like most of the BBC bods. Still I'd much rather have a proper journalist telling me this stuff than some part-timer who only has the job because he used to be a player.

I actually think Dixon does a half-decent job on MOTD2; he's certainly better than the idiots they have on the Saturday night. I don't watch enough of Sky to know about their commentators.

 

[drew]

Well I sit in the 'don't like Steve Claridge' camp.
My reasons are:-

1. He puts down anyone who hasn't played the game professionally as people who aren't entitled to comment on it.
2. His presentation skills are dour. Keeps his head down and is pretty monotone in delivery.
3. The Rochdale incident sums it up. He acts like he is the fountain of all knowledge with regard to the rules and the new phenonema of the ball not being in play but being active when the ref blows his whistle.
4. And when proven by all on sundry that he was wrong, he hasn't the decency to hold up his hand and admit he was wrong. He was the only one on the Football League show who mentioned the 'active' situation yet a week later it was dizzy Lizzy who stated that 'we' apologise for the error. Why 'we' when it was only one person arguing that case?

As for other pundits, I think Matt Holland is good. Lawrenson seems to have made a career out of stating the bleeding obvious and hanging on the coat tails of Hansen and Shearer. Hansen must spend hours waiting for the right frame to freeze to identify when the back four were all out of position. Well, show me a back four who, for 90 minutes, have remained in exactly the same formation. Hansen and Lawro act like they never made any mistakes and were the perfect players. Neither have been a success at management and wasn't Lawro the Newcastle defensive coach when it was their defence that cost them that massive points lead over Manure!!!!

 

[seagullsoverlincoln]

i actually like Dixon and Claridge and certainly prefer listening to them than Souness, Hoddle and Redknapp Jnr. Might be showing my age but worst ever pundit in my opinion,Mike Channon,a complete
f***ing idiot.

 

[GT49er]

Might be showing my age but worst ever pundit in my opinion,Mike Channon,a complete
f***ing idiot.

Nah, Mick's alright, a good lad - just more interested in horses than football these days.
Wish there was a YouTube club of the day he trapped the ball right in front of the North Stand by sitting on it - it seemed like for ages, but was probably only a couple of seconds - while our defenders ran round like headless chickens; then he just got up, beat one defender - I think he passed it to a team-mate then. Can't be sure; was still laughing!

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

If anyone wants to listen to Stewart Robson - listen to the latest The Game podcast from the Times. He describes why punditry is so poor - for example the concentration on referees decisions rather than the tactics that many of the pundits do not understand.