Joey Barton

Bloke's a fucking parasite.

Can't see this having much success for her... not any libel here.

Joey's bang on the money.

He is with regards to the female pundits.

Tokenism at its worst...

Not sure I've said they can't tbh mate?

I’m no fan of this idea that everything modern has to be neutral but many of the women are just not good presenters, they are just box ticking. Nothing wrong with good presenters like Gabby Logan and Claire Balding. They can pronounce words (novel), know their stuff and anchor a discussion well.

I agree with that sentiment, & a man with a League 2 playing career wouldn't ever be asked to pundit on a PL game. However I would say I would sooner listen to, say, Alex Scott (who I think is good) over such pundits as Michael Owen & Thierry Henry (both awful despite having top careers).

Savage is a vain, petulant ‘child’ with delusions of his own talent as a player.

But he’s ‘box office’. People like listening to his bullshit, so he attracts an audience.

So he gets invited back, not for the depth of his footballing knowledge, but for his ability to spout cringingly embarrassing crass opinions and his childish whingeing.

Standard is irrelevant if what they are spouting is rubbish. Bollocks is bollocks.

Garth crooks someone else who talked nonsense and got away with it without challenge.

Remember Steve Claridge? Absolute helmet and shite at punditry too.
I agree with the above sentiments that there are both good and shit pundits whether male or female, but imo Barton's shit stirring because he's now irrelevant and knows it. Wanker of the highest order.

Same rules but World's apart in terms of standard.

Each to their own but when I watch any sport I want those who have comparative experience as Co commentary or providing opinions.

I want a footballer who played in stadiums with thousands watching and on TV with millions watching rather than one who mostly played in front of hundreds for both.

I want a former/Current boxer who fought the best or at least fought to a high level for significant prize money in arenas packed with thouaands and a significant TV audience providing opinions rather than someone who fought in a division with only 3 fighters with winning records and mostly in arenas where their fight is a moment to have a piss and grab a beer.

If you're going to less than that then you may as well get League Two footballers on to express their opinions or 2-54 record journeymen to offer theirs.

Mourhinio may have had a negligible career as a player but he wouldn't be offered a chance to express opinions if he hadn't proved himself as a manager. Aluko and Scott achieved their 'success' at a much lower standard of sport and on a level which cannot compare with the players and matches they are offering opinions on. They may offer opinions you agree with - maybe not - but that's not the same as offering opinions based on a career at the highest level of the sport.

Again, that's the difference.

disagree tbh as there have been some REALLY boring footballers who meet your criteria, michael owen for example has the personality of a wet paper towel. jermain jenas is equally boring but at least he's nice to look at.

i do agree that pundits need to have been a professional player - if only to bring legitimacy to what they're saying. but personality and the ability to convey their thoughts in an easily digestible manner is far more important than the standard they played at imo. and as i said, the women pundits still played professionally and for hundreds of games so they do know what they're talking about. just because their ability isn't like an owen doesn't mean they haven't experienced the same highs or lows as him or made the same mistakes or game changing moments that he did.

i've got no issue with a league 2 player being a pundit in a champions league game. quite frankly i'd rather see a knowledgeable yet entertaining league 2 player be a pundit than a boring former elite level player provide insight on a game.

and besides, the shit that the pundits come out with isn't actually stuff they've researched or looked into. the brainiacs working behind the scene do all the leg work for them and provide them with the information to convey to the audience.

there's literal tonnes of analogies to be made about any and every sport, to take your boxing analogy into account look at cus d'amato as a prime example. afaik he didn't ever make it as a pro but he was a world class coach, and why? because he had the brain for it and understood how to train and bring out the best from the likes of tyson and patterson. would you have changed the channel had he been a pundit or whatever on a big unification match just because he was a relatively shit boxer?

the likes of mourinho and saachi had to work their way up to where they are now. its the same for the likes of alex scott in punditry, how do we know if they will be any good if they're never given the opportunity?

Yeah, a big fuck off to meritocracy. And affirmative action rules, right?

Because we are STILL not colour blind, despite MLK's meritocratic "I Have A Dream" speech some 61 YEARS AGO.

That's progress for you!

I like Wrighty. The fact people on here that I respect think he’s a twat has got me worried😂 What am I missing?😂