Match Threads Spurs vs Arsenal - Match Thread - Day 11

[GodGomes]

From an ex-pro pundit what I think they should bring to the table to add value is pretty simple - insight which isn't incredibly obvious.

Now and again that isn't possible, because of the nature of the game, but in most cases pundits (and Neville is probably the best at this, though Shearer has his moments as does Murphy to a lesser extent) should be informing the viewer of important factors they may have missed, not understood or need further explanation of while watching the game. Tim Cahill is another very good pundit IMO.

As I say Neville is the current best at this - and not just on MNF with his really in-depth stuff. He'll offer it during commentary, at half time and after games. He'll point out tactical elements that most fans would miss, or not understand the impact of. He'll offer solutions, detail decisions made by managers and often focus on more than just movement and positioning. He'll go into enough detail for fans to get a new insight without spending hours repeating himself. He's at his best during commentary with this I think.

Most other pundits don't do anything like this. They'll say one team was great and one was bad, tell us Player A had a great game and Player B had a stinker, and at most offer some replays of things we've already seen and obviously noticed ourselves. Loads of them (and Scott does this a lot) fall back on the old "If I criticise a player it will look like I know what I'm talking about" strategy and offer up repeated statements of "He's got to do better here" etc. We know all that, we watched the game. They're not offering anything more than if you put the average fan in the chair. Lawro has been getting away with this for decades, but interestingly no-one seems to complain when he's getting absolute dogs abuse on here.

Alex Scott is one of these latter bang average pundits. She offers obvious commentary (state the thing that happened), sub-standard English skills, and generally pleasant banter. Just like most pundits. She's less insightful and less articulate than Jenas, to use one of your examples. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out when some people start blathering on about how amazing she is - she isn't. She's just another pundit in a long list of them. I have nothing against her personally - I don't think any of those average pundits should be commenting on the game because they're getting paid a fortune to not offer us anything. There's no difference between Scott and a hundred other ex-pro's though for some reason she seems to be held up as being far better than she actually is (maybe it's because as several people have said, she's quite fit). The difference is only that Scott gets talked up like she's the new Cruyff and all the others either get ignored or abused.

Of course any suggestion of this gets jumped on by Woko Haram as evidenced by the reactions in this thread.

nobody reacted against any of your aforementioned criticism. they reacted to someone saying that Alex Scott was only picked because she was hot, and Jamie Redknapp would still be picked if he wasn’t. that is blatant sexism and i’m not sure why you’re moving the goalposts to talk about something else entirely unrelated - a la her punditry skills.

 

[Rusta81]

Totally agree , we played in second gear after the second . Should they have scored the tactic would change . Just an easy win tbh

 

[Bobbins]

nobody reacted against any of your aforementioned criticism. they reacted to someone saying that Alex Scott was only picked because she was hot, and Jamie Redknapp would still be picked if he wasn’t. that is blatant sexism and i’m not sure why you’re moving the goalposts to talk about something else entirely unrelated - a la her punditry skills.

Except if you actually read my last few posts I got disagree ratings when I pointed out that she is bang average as a pundit, and even got accused of having an agenda against her because I don’t think she’s football’s best pundit.

So yes, they did actually overreact to the legitimate criticism, and I never said anything sexist or unfair. No goalposts have been moved and you should probably make sure you actually respond to the correct person in future.

 

[rez9000]

nobody reacted against any of your aforementioned criticism. they reacted to someone saying that Alex Scott was only picked because she was hot, and Jamie Redknapp would still be picked if he wasn’t. that is blatant sexism and i’m not sure why you’re moving the goalposts to talk about something else entirely unrelated - a la her punditry skills.

One thing I'd say on this - I do believe that Alex Scott was picked because of her attractiveness. However, that doesn't mean I think she is not a good pundit - it's because TV companies think in those terms.

Essentially, if you had two female pundits - one who conforms to the 'mainstream standard' (for want of a better phrase) of physical attractiveness and another who was the opposite, then pretty much every TV production company would choose the former. The football knowledge of the individual in question would not be a primary deciding factor.

When it comes to male pundits, the way they look is less of a factor, but it does still apply. If you had a "regular-looking chap" and someone who was, let's say, thought to be disfigured, once again, the knowledge of the person in question would not be a primary deciding factor. They'd pick Jamie Redknapp over Ian Dowie every time, even if Ian Dowie was the doyen of punditry and Jamie Redknapp was the pretty-boy know-nothing that he is.

So, it is perfectly feasible to say that an individual is selected because of their physical attributes. That doesn't automatically carry a concomitant judgement of that person's abilities in other areas.

Likewise, saying that people prefer to see a pretty person on TV as opposed to a 'minger' is unfortunately, the reality of the situation. If it was a case of visual entertainment only and I had a choice, unsophisticated though it might be my preference would be to look at something that is more physically beautiful. Which would you rather look at: a perfect sunset or a smog-belching industrial chimney? The same principle applies.

And in the same vein, someone saying they don't think Alex Scott is a very good pundit isn't automatically sexist. Saying that criticism of a woman is automatically sexist is actually the sexist act. Why? Because one is then putting people into the 'mustn't be criticised' group on the basis of their gender, not on the content of their character or minds. Essentially saying all women are immune from criticism, so prejudging them on the basis of their gender. Prejudging. Pre-judice. Prejudice - the basis of all discrimination.

I don't agree with anyone who says that Alex Scott isn't a good pundit. I enjoy watching her, I like the way she speaks, and, I readily admit, her physical attractiveness is part of my judgement of her quality as a pundit. I'm a heterosexual man and I have a biological attraction to women. But I do the same with a male pundit inasmuch as I expect them to be well-presented and articulate enough to make themselves understood. I'll say this: when she first started, I didn't like her punditry at all. She stuttered, she wasn't confident and I didn't feel she was offering any insight. I found her attractive, but I still thought she wasn't a good pundit. She has improved and for that she deserves the same credit as anyone who improves their skills.

I don't know if everyone's seen it, but Trix posted a thread in General Football about a non-binary child and zer parent's accusation of discrimination against a grassroots football club. That, like this, is an example of people not knowing what equality actually is and simply applying inferences that they have come to without taking a step back and looking at it through a reasoned and non-emotive prism.

Just to finish: that's my last word on the subject in this thread as this really isn't the forum, but I'm happy to speak to anyone in a PM if they wish to discuss the subject further.

 

[Fidget]

One thing I'd say on this - I do believe that Alex Scott was picked because of her attractiveness. However, that doesn't mean I think she is not a good pundit - it's because TV companies think in those terms.

Essentially, if you had two female pundits - one who conforms to the 'mainstream standard' (for want of a better phrase) of physical attractiveness and another who was the opposite, then pretty much every TV production company would choose the former. The football knowledge of the individual in question would not be a primary deciding factor.

When it comes to male pundits, the way they look is less of a factor, but it does still apply. If you had a "regular-looking chap" and someone who was, let's say, thought to be disfigured, once again, the knowledge of the person in question would not be a primary deciding factor. They'd pick Jamie Redknapp over Ian Dowie every time, even if Ian Dowie was the doyen of punditry and Jamie Redknapp was the pretty-boy know-nothing that he is.

So, it is perfectly feasible to say that an individual is selected because of their physical attributes. That doesn't automatically carry a concomitant judgement of that person's abilities in other areas.

Likewise, saying that people prefer to see a pretty person on TV as opposed to a 'minger' is unfortunately, the reality of the situation. If it was a case of visual entertainment only and I had a choice, unsophisticated though it might be my preference would be to look at something that is more physically beautiful. Which would you rather look at: a perfect sunset or a smog-belching industrial chimney? The same principle applies.

And in the same vein, someone saying they don't think Alex Scott is a very good pundit isn't automatically sexist. Saying that criticism of a woman is automatically sexist is actually the sexist act. Why? Because one is then putting people into the 'mustn't be criticised' group on the basis of their gender, not on the content of their character or minds. Essentially saying all women are immune from criticism, so prejudging them on the basis of their gender. Prejudging. Pre-judice. Prejudice - the basis of all discrimination.

I don't agree with anyone who says that Alex Scott isn't a good pundit. I enjoy watching her, I like the way she speaks, and, I readily admit, her physical attractiveness is part of my judgement of her as a pundit. I'm a heterosexual man and I have a biological attraction to women. I'll say this: when she first started, I didn't like her punditry at all. She stuttered, she wasn't confident and I didn't feel she was offering any insight. I found her attractive, but I still thought she wasn't a good pundit. She has improved and for that she deserves the same credit as anyone who improves their skills.

I don't know if everyone's seen it, but Trix posted a thread in General Football about a non-binary child and zer parent's accusation of discrimination against a grassroots football club. That, like this, is an example of people not knowing what equality actually is and simply applying inferences that they have come to without taking a step back and looking at it through a reasoned and non-emotive prism.

Just to finish: that's my last word on the subject in this thread as this really isn't the forum, but I'm happy to speak to anyone in a PM if they wish to discuss the subject further.

I second this.
If you believe in equality, then you have to be looking at fair criticism.
Clowns are also entertaining though.............in nearly every deep vein running through existence, we should admit that, generally, if you are good looking, you still stand a better chance on TV, or in films. If you are a funny person, you stand a better chance in Comedy. If you are disabled, you are more likely to visit a hospital. If you eat crap, you stand a better chance of being large.
Not everything is sexist, racist, or anything else-ist.
And not everything is equal in everything either.
End of for me too.

 

[NorthSide]

Literally the complete opposite of having an agenda, as she is completely bang average. She doesn't offer any insight into football which fans don't already know - it's absolutely predictable what she's going to say every time she speaks.

So in that way, she's the same as 90% of current pundits, most of whom have no place commenting on top-level football. If you're not going to offer any kind of value then I don't think you belong in that sphere. She's just another Leon Osman.

Yeah, but as we were totally crushing Arsenal dreams it was nice to have someone who self identifies as Arsenal there to explain how clueless their attacking was, and be forced to mention they were never gonna score and were scoring awesome goals.

 

[Bobbins]

Yeah, but as we were totally crushing Arsenal dreams it was nice to have someone who self identifies as Arsenal there to explain how clueless their attacking was, and be forced to mention they were never gonna score and were scoring awesome goals.

Completely agree, I'm always happy when they have pundits with real associations with the clubs on - that's why it's so galling to always be lumbered with Souness on Sky as some kind of Spurs pundit when he's nothing of the sort.

I'd have been just as happy seeing Keown or preferably Wright on from the Arsenal perspective of course.

 

[shoggy33]

I'd like to take this opportunity to completely reverse my opinion on Aurier, Dier and Lloris. I'd basically written them off but they've all been absolutely magnificent these season. Special word for sissoko as well who always seems to turn up in the big games.

I'd like to take this opportunity to completely reverse my reversed opinion. I'd also like to take back that special word.

 

[hughy]

I'd like to take this opportunity to completely reverse my reversed opinion. I'd also like to take back that special word.

It's almost as if form is a thing.

 

[shoggy33]

It's almost as if form is a thing.

Form is temporary, incompetence is permanent (maybe a bit harsh on lloris).