I know, I thought similar.
It's clearly an honest misunderstanding where, to be fair, you questioned it in a very reasonable way given how emotive it could have been. Think it's best you leave the posts as they are because I'd imagine a lot of people could interpret it the same as you initially did.
I think others explained it better than I ever could (thanks peeps). Reading the initial post it can read a certain way if you're not familiar with the term, so I understand why you questioned it.
Yep. And let’s be clear, Gabby Agbonlahor would still be an absolutely terrible pundit whether he was black, white or fucking purple.
Whereas in todays game it means Robbie Savage is sat with a coloring in book and crayons and describes the doodling he is making.
Naah, keep them in, and don’t feel bad at all. You asked a reasonable question in a reasonable manner. I’m sure you won’t be the only one wondering and it will make it clear to others.
in a nutshell it is adding insight aka colour to the commentator describing the match.
Don't delete them please.
Hmm, interesting. Personally I’ve never called the co-commentator a pundit, to me a pundit is studio or pitch side only.
I think McCoist is excellent tbh.
Yeah, keep that convo in because I'd never heard the term before and having it explained as succinctly as it was has made me feel slightly cleverer now than before I came into this thread.
Absolutely. it was clear it was a good-faith exchange re honest confusion. I was baffled that the term somehow slipped under the radar for some in the UK, but that may be because I'm a dual UK/US citizen that's been living in the US for decades.
