General World Cup Discussion Thread

[StevieH]

swiss were outstanding. that'll be the hitzfeld factor. so, so organised and every player did their job. first game i've really enjoyed this world cup.

First game i haven't fallen asleep!

OK, bit of an exaggeration, but most of the games the passing has been sloppy, the finishing lousey, and the pace so slow.

Lowest number of goals for a World Cup in 80 years.

Hope these supposedly top teams start getting their shit together and start actually playing.

As long as that ball is in play, look for more of the same.

yep. increased use of the pitches probably won't help either.

[bkkjames]

swiss were outstanding. that'll be the hitzfeld factor. so, so organised and every player did their job. first game i've really enjoyed this world cup.

First game i haven't fallen asleep!

OK, bit of an exaggeration, but most of the games the passing has been sloppy, the finishing lousey, and the pace so slow.

Lowest number of goals for a World Cup in 80 years.

Hope these supposedly top teams start getting their shit together and start actually playing.

As long as that ball is in play, look for more of the same.

yep. increased use of the pitches probably won't help either.

the good thing is that by 2018 the England Team will have an advantage at playing at Wembley - these pitches are not quite there yet but ok for a warm-up.

[ThiagoBras]

Switzerland was the anti christ of football. The Wolves, Wigan and Hull of English football

THIS IS NOT THE FUTURE OF THE BEAUTIFUL GAME AND WILL NOT ATTRACT ANY NEW SUPPORTERS

rubbish, good defending is still good football. inter just won the european cup using that tactic. football isn't just about goals.

and stop shouting.

Good defending is an art, no doubt, and it ll win you prizes like Inter proved, but seriously, it won't attract that many new supporters. I just prefer good attacking and some good midfield actions over boring focussing on defending...

[rixalex]

Good defending is an art, no doubt, and it ll win you prizes like Inter proved, but seriously, it won't attract that many new supporters. I just prefer good attacking and some good midfield actions over boring focussing on defending...

Agreed but teams have to play to their strengths. Berating Switzerland for not playing attacking flair football when they sneaked ahead of Spain is silly. They did a great job of defending from a good half hour barrage and fans who understand the game appreciate and applaud the skill it took to do so.

[bkkjames]

Good defending is an art, no doubt, and it ll win you prizes like Inter proved, but seriously, it won't attract that many new supporters. I just prefer good attacking and some good midfield actions over boring focussing on defending...

Agreed but teams have to play to their strengths. Berating Switzerland for not playing attacking flair football when they sneaked ahead of Spain is silly. They did a great job of defending from a good half hour barrage and fans who understand the game appreciate and applaud the skill it took to do so.

That's all nice and diplomatic it Rix, but you can't tell me that when Blackburn puts up the great wall of Allerdyce and we can't break it down, you applaud them for doing it?

Edited June 17, 2010 by bkkjames

[rixalex]

That's all nice and diplomatic it Rix, but you can't tell me that when Blackburn puts up the great wall of Allerdyce and we can't break it down, you applaud them for doing it?

I wouldn't applaud them but nor would i blame them.

[noel2499rk]

Switzerland was the anti christ of football. The Wolves, Wigan and Hull of English football

THIS IS NOT THE FUTURE OF THE BEAUTIFUL GAME AND WILL NOT ATTRACT ANY NEW SUPPORTERS

That's a bit harsh on Wigan out of all the teams in the bottom half they are the ones that try to play the most football, Stoke on the other hand are as anti football as they come.

If these lesser teams like the Swiss came out and attacked Spain they would lose every time and you would never see any upsets. Surely one of the main reasons for watching football is that every little team on their day can beat the big boys, if every team played open attacking football then the team with the most talented players would win every time.

[VictorMeldrewBKK]

I would like to thank adidass for making this year's world cup the dullest in recent memory.

When the best players in the world can barely put two passes together without that rubber piece of crap bounding away and the goal totals way down compared to recent WC's, something is off big time and I don't think its the players.

Strategy moving forward, copy Blackburn and Bolton.

Oh and if you can, quickly change your score predictions downward!

Zzzzzz

[noel2499rk]

Wonderful result for the Swiss - all credit to Hitzfeld. They should be able to follow Spain to the last 16.

I predict Chile will win the group with Spain second and the Swiss going home.

[NADTATIDA1]

Well i think the two games tonight had more action in them and hopefully more of the same from this round,Argentina were great against the Koreans who despite getting thumped i thought never looked like they give up on the game.

Messi and Tevez were fantastic and Higuan getting the hat-trick capped a great performance,lets hope the first round of games was just most teams being to scared to loose,i think we will see the tournament get going now just a shame about the racket....come on Mexico This could be a real cracker!!

[bkkjames]

I feel really bad for the French 

Nice goal by our new signing though. 

[salty]

Argentina look formidable as you would expect any side which includes Messi. But they are poor defensively and I feel this will cost them later on in the tournament.

Good win for Mexico tonight. Looks like France are on the way out. What a shame.

Germany playing in 1st game Friday. Will they look as impressive as in the Australia game?.

[carmine]

Argentina look formidable as you would expect any side which includes Messi. But they are poor defensively and I feel this will cost them later on in the tournament.

Good win for Mexico tonight. Looks like France are on the way out. What a shame.

Germany playing in 1st game Friday. Will they look as impressive as in the Australia game?.

They will look good again i think as Serbia were very poor cfirst game. I'd like to see the Germans tested before going overboard about them though...even if i do have them in a sweepstake...

[salty]

Well, that was a turn up for the books. Well done Switzerland.

Ya just gotta twist the knife doncha?

I'm hanging with the Spaniards though I reckon they are still a bit of class.

Spain must be worried about Torres, Iniesta and Fabregas lacking match sharpness. Their defence is dodgy. They have it all to do now to win the group and avoid a likely meeting with Brazil in the last 16.

[CNF55]

Really enjoyed the Argentina - Korea match. Lot of pace, technical skill, although the Koreans looked a bit out of sorts in the first half. Second half was much better and I think that Korea did not deserve the final score - definitely one goal too high.

[alfieconn]

Well, that was a turn up for the books. Well done Switzerland.

Ya just gotta twist the knife doncha?

I'm hanging with the Spaniards though I reckon they are still a bit of class.

Spain must be worried about Torres, Iniesta and Fabregas lacking match sharpness. Their defence is dodgy. They have it all to do now to win the group and avoid a likely meeting with Brazil in the last 16.

Been telling two friends for a while that it is strange that Brazil have 2 players who couldn't really cut in the premier league in Elano and Robinho,Harry has reminded me that they also have a player too old for the Arse in Silva and a squad player in Gilberto who couldn't get in spurs reserves , make you wonder don't it .

Edited June 18, 2010 by alfieconn

[bkkjames]

Well, that was a turn up for the books. Well done Switzerland.

Ya just gotta twist the knife doncha?

I'm hanging with the Spaniards though I reckon they are still a bit of class.

Spain must be worried about Torres, Iniesta and Fabregas lacking match sharpness. Their defence is dodgy. They have it all to do now to win the group and avoid a likely meeting with Brazil in the last 16.  

Interesting thoughts about Brazil, they have 2 players who couldn't really cut in the premier league in Elano and Robinho, a player too old for the Arse in Silva and a squad player in Gilberto who couldn't get in spurs reserves , make you wonder don't it .

Funny how Dos Santos can make the grade in Arry's Army

[alfieconn]

o.Interesting thoughts about Brazil, they have 2 players who couldn't really cut in the premier league in Elano and Robinho, a player too old for the Arse in Silva and a squad player in Gilberto who couldn't get in spurs reserves , make you wonder don't it .

Funny how Dos Santos can make the grade in Arry's Army

Another well constructed post by JImbo .

Edited June 18, 2010 by alfieconn

[bkkjames]

o.Interesting thoughts about Brazil, they have 2 players who couldn't really cut in the premier league in Elano and Robinho, a player too old for the Arse in Silva and a squad player in Gilberto who couldn't get in spurs reserves , make you wonder don't it .

Funny how Dos Santos can make the grade in Arry's Army

Another well constructed post by JImbo .

Sorry did I forget to put in the ?

[StevieH]

good article for those who were insistent about needing english tv commentary to enjoy the world cup. the usual suspects are talking as much crap as ever.

Tom English: 'The level of punditry is patronising and insulting'

Published Date: 16 June 2010

By Tom English

http://sport.scotsman.com/football/Tom-English-39The-level-of.6364084.jp

IT'S FAIR to say that it's not just ITV that has taken some stick for some of their coverage at this World Cup, particularly the coverage of the tournament's lesser lights. The BBC have been getting it in the neck as well. To give you an example, what I'm talking about here is things like Alan Shearer's self-proclaimed "expert analysis" that amounts to a conveyor belt of cliches and the kind of insight that even a child of six would describe as laughable.

Before the Algeria versus Slovenia game in Group C on Sunday, Shearer seemed to be speaking for the entire BBC panel when he said, "Our knowledge of these two teams is limited." Limited! What the former England striker was saying was that he hadn't done his homework, that he hadn't spoken to any of his vast array of contacts in the game, hadn't tapped into the BBC's huge research machinery, hadn't even bothered, seemingly, to peruse the internet for some background on Algeria and Slovenia or even flick through a newspaper or a magazine. Shearer was content to sit in front of the cameras and tell the viewers that, really, he didn't know much. Hardly a revelation to those of us who have groaned our way through his anodyne commentaries in the past, but embarrassing all the same.

Why do the BBC deem that acceptable? Why is Shearer not taken aside and told, 'Listen, if you can't be bothered doing some research on this game then get lost'. It's a different, and entirely more professional story, on radio where the wonderful 5 Live and, closer to home, the award-winning Radio Scotland present their football coverage in a proper fashion. How does Shearer (but not just Shearer) get away with opting out like that?

And here's another one. The Beeb got carpeted by some viewers for their treatment of that Algeria game. So what happened before the kick-off in yesterday's lunch-time match between New Zealand and Slovakia? In a six-and-a-half minute introduction just one player out of the 22 on show was given a name-check, and here is how it happened.

Lee Dixon: "Slovakia have got some decent players, Hamsik, the pick of them. Young player, plays on the left side."

Gary Lineker: "He's at Napoli."

Lee Dixon: "That's right."

Alan Hansen (chuckling): "Somebody gave you him, by the way."

What Hansen meant, I think, was that his colleagues must have been fed the Hamsik reference by another party, that they couldn't have come up with his name all by themselves. It's not like Dixon or Lineker produced a dossier of facts about Hamsik, a file of information on who he is and where he has been. All they did was mention his name and the fact that he was rather good. That was it. Hansen seemed to think this was worthy of a gently-mocking put-down, as if the other two were some kind of class swots. As such, he was almost revelling in his own ignorance.

There's a lot of this going about, on BBC and ITV. The level of punditry is cringe-making. It's lowest common denominator stuff. Patronising and insulting, much of it. Emmanuel Adebayor's mobile phone started ringing in his pocket live on air the other day. His respect for the viewers didn't even amount to him making sure the thing was switched off. Edgar Davids has been unintelligible, Gareth Southgate hasn't said one interesting thing, Kevin Keegan has been nothing more than a cheerleader for England and Andy Townsend has been his usual bland self, trotting out statements of the obvious with a rapid-fire gusto. "I tell you what, for me, he's gotta hit the target from there!"

And you are paid how much, Andy?

Clarence Seedorf was in the BBC studio the other night for the Italy versus Paraguay match and he was making a point about the positive impact an Italian substitute had made on the game. He was referring to Antonio Di Natale, winner of more than 30 caps for the Azzurri and the leading goalscorer in Serie A in the season just gone, but Seedorf couldn't remember his name. Hadn't a clue. Neither did the blokes alongside him, Hansen among them. "He was the No 10," said a smiling Seedorf, who then reached for a team-sheet on the desk for help before realising that it was the Dutch team-sheet. "That's no use," he laughed. Indeed, Clarence.

Hansen thought this was priceless. "That might be highlight of the World Cup so far," he trumpeted. The programme ended and still nobody had figured out that the No 10 was Di Natale. You would hope that behind the scenes the BBC producers were holding their heads in their hands with embarrassment, but you wouldn't bank on it. Of course, in the squirm factor stakes there are many challengers. Mick McCarthy claimed just before kick-off in the Argentina versus Nigeria game that he'd only just realised that the Juan Sebastian Veron that appeared on his team-sheet was the same Veron who'd played for Manchester United and Chelsea. Quite a statement of ignorance, that.

In fairness to McCarthy, he does have something to offer in his reading of the game. It's just that there is so much that makes you wince in between. What we're getting a lot of from both sides is glib nonsense, crap jokes and crass stereotyping. Adrian Chiles is flavour of the month on ITV, but his popularity is not what it was. It wasn't his fault that ITV HD pressed the wrong button at the wrong time during England's opening game and missed Steven Gerrard's goal, but Chiles has been distinctly unconvincing in the anchor role. He wants to be the funny man when the job demands gravitas. He wants to throw in one-liners when he should be attempting to spearhead a proper discussion about a match.

His introduction to England's game against the Americans was mortifying. Wielding a baseball bat and sending a message to America, he said, "Just stick to your sports, why don't you?" Chiles was also seen patting a burger, adding: "We really love Americans, just wouldn't eat a whole one." He made himself look like a clown.

Keegan's summing-up: "It was a very, very good performance, good enough to win any game." This classic piece of Keegan claptrap should have been jumped upon and ripped apart for the nonsensical garbage that it was, but it sailed through pretty much. Chiles doesn't do confrontation – neither does the BBC – and it's a terrible weakness. There is no edge, no passion. It's all so bloody harmless and dull.

ITV needed somebody with a backbone to turn around to Keegan and say to him, 'Okay Kevin, what you're saying there is a load of junk. Explain how getting a draw against a team of journeymen like America is very good, explain the selection of James Milner out of position, explain why the rank ordinary Shaun Wright-Phillips was brought on instead of the classy Joe Cole, explain the failure of Gerrard and Frank Lampard to function together yet again, explain why this negated Wayne Rooney's impact'. Kev didn't do any of that, though.

There are many days ahead when our intelligence will be insulted by "expert analysts" who speak to us like simpletons who've just staggered home from the pub. We could do a lot worse than hitting the mute button from here on in. Or getting the commentary off the radio.

[rixalex]

Good win for Mexico tonight. Looks like France are on the way out. What a shame.

Of course they shouldn't even be there in the first place.

[sharecropper]

Anyone else think that apart from the footy/World Cup threads, Thai Visa is deader than France's World Cup chances?

[bkkjames]

Anyone else think that apart from the footy/World Cup threads, Thai Visa is deader than France's World Cup chances?

yep, probably due to the internet explorer problem or webfact ran out of Red / Govt stories? 

[noel2499rk]

Well, that was a turn up for the books. Well done Switzerland.

Ya just gotta twist the knife doncha?

I'm hanging with the Spaniards though I reckon they are still a bit of class.

Spain must be worried about Torres, Iniesta and Fabregas lacking match sharpness. Their defence is dodgy. They have it all to do now to win the group and avoid a likely meeting with Brazil in the last 16.

Been telling two friends for a while that it is strange that Brazil have 2 players who couldn't really cut in the premier league in Elano and Robinho,Harry has reminded me that they also have a player too old for the Arse in Silva and a squad player in Gilberto who couldn't get in spurs reserves , make you wonder don't it .

Elano and Robinho would shine in any team, if the manager is prepared to build the team around them and then not ask them to do any tracking back or defending. Unfortunately no team in the premiership would ever consider having two players like this.

When they played together at Santos in Brazil before they came to Europe they would both score 20-30 goals a season each.

[Abrak]

ITV needed somebody with a backbone to turn around to Keegan and say to him, '....explain the failure of Gerrard and Frank Lampard to function together yet again....'

Oh please.... that would be patronizing to the viewer.

[noel2499rk]

good article for those who were insistent about needing english tv commentary to enjoy the world cup. the usual suspects are talking as much crap as ever.

Tom English: 'The level of punditry is patronising and insulting'

Published Date: 16 June 2010

By Tom English

http://sport.scotsman.com/football/Tom-English-39The-level-of.6364084.jp

IT'S FAIR to say that it's not just ITV that has taken some stick for some of their coverage at this World Cup, particularly the coverage of the tournament's lesser lights. The BBC have been getting it in the neck as well. To give you an example, what I'm talking about here is things like Alan Shearer's self-proclaimed "expert analysis" that amounts to a conveyor belt of cliches and the kind of insight that even a child of six would describe as laughable.

Before the Algeria versus Slovenia game in Group C on Sunday, Shearer seemed to be speaking for the entire BBC panel when he said, "Our knowledge of these two teams is limited." Limited! What the former England striker was saying was that he hadn't done his homework, that he hadn't spoken to any of his vast array of contacts in the game, hadn't tapped into the BBC's huge research machinery, hadn't even bothered, seemingly, to peruse the internet for some background on Algeria and Slovenia or even flick through a newspaper or a magazine. Shearer was content to sit in front of the cameras and tell the viewers that, really, he didn't know much. Hardly a revelation to those of us who have groaned our way through his anodyne commentaries in the past, but embarrassing all the same.

Why do the BBC deem that acceptable? Why is Shearer not taken aside and told, 'Listen, if you can't be bothered doing some research on this game then get lost'. It's a different, and entirely more professional story, on radio where the wonderful 5 Live and, closer to home, the award-winning Radio Scotland present their football coverage in a proper fashion. How does Shearer (but not just Shearer) get away with opting out like that?

And here's another one. The Beeb got carpeted by some viewers for their treatment of that Algeria game. So what happened before the kick-off in yesterday's lunch-time match between New Zealand and Slovakia? In a six-and-a-half minute introduction just one player out of the 22 on show was given a name-check, and here is how it happened.

Lee Dixon: "Slovakia have got some decent players, Hamsik, the pick of them. Young player, plays on the left side."

Gary Lineker: "He's at Napoli."

Lee Dixon: "That's right."

Alan Hansen (chuckling): "Somebody gave you him, by the way."

What Hansen meant, I think, was that his colleagues must have been fed the Hamsik reference by another party, that they couldn't have come up with his name all by themselves. It's not like Dixon or Lineker produced a dossier of facts about Hamsik, a file of information on who he is and where he has been. All they did was mention his name and the fact that he was rather good. That was it. Hansen seemed to think this was worthy of a gently-mocking put-down, as if the other two were some kind of class swots. As such, he was almost revelling in his own ignorance.

There's a lot of this going about, on BBC and ITV. The level of punditry is cringe-making. It's lowest common denominator stuff. Patronising and insulting, much of it. Emmanuel Adebayor's mobile phone started ringing in his pocket live on air the other day. His respect for the viewers didn't even amount to him making sure the thing was switched off. Edgar Davids has been unintelligible, Gareth Southgate hasn't said one interesting thing, Kevin Keegan has been nothing more than a cheerleader for England and Andy Townsend has been his usual bland self, trotting out statements of the obvious with a rapid-fire gusto. "I tell you what, for me, he's gotta hit the target from there!"

And you are paid how much, Andy?

Clarence Seedorf was in the BBC studio the other night for the Italy versus Paraguay match and he was making a point about the positive impact an Italian substitute had made on the game. He was referring to Antonio Di Natale, winner of more than 30 caps for the Azzurri and the leading goalscorer in Serie A in the season just gone, but Seedorf couldn't remember his name. Hadn't a clue. Neither did the blokes alongside him, Hansen among them. "He was the No 10," said a smiling Seedorf, who then reached for a team-sheet on the desk for help before realising that it was the Dutch team-sheet. "That's no use," he laughed. Indeed, Clarence.

Hansen thought this was priceless. "That might be highlight of the World Cup so far," he trumpeted. The programme ended and still nobody had figured out that the No 10 was Di Natale. You would hope that behind the scenes the BBC producers were holding their heads in their hands with embarrassment, but you wouldn't bank on it. Of course, in the squirm factor stakes there are many challengers. Mick McCarthy claimed just before kick-off in the Argentina versus Nigeria game that he'd only just realised that the Juan Sebastian Veron that appeared on his team-sheet was the same Veron who'd played for Manchester United and Chelsea. Quite a statement of ignorance, that.

In fairness to McCarthy, he does have something to offer in his reading of the game. It's just that there is so much that makes you wince in between. What we're getting a lot of from both sides is glib nonsense, crap jokes and crass stereotyping. Adrian Chiles is flavour of the month on ITV, but his popularity is not what it was. It wasn't his fault that ITV HD pressed the wrong button at the wrong time during England's opening game and missed Steven Gerrard's goal, but Chiles has been distinctly unconvincing in the anchor role. He wants to be the funny man when the job demands gravitas. He wants to throw in one-liners when he should be attempting to spearhead a proper discussion about a match.

His introduction to England's game against the Americans was mortifying. Wielding a baseball bat and sending a message to America, he said, "Just stick to your sports, why don't you?" Chiles was also seen patting a burger, adding: "We really love Americans, just wouldn't eat a whole one." He made himself look like a clown.

Keegan's summing-up: "It was a very, very good performance, good enough to win any game." This classic piece of Keegan claptrap should have been jumped upon and ripped apart for the nonsensical garbage that it was, but it sailed through pretty much. Chiles doesn't do confrontation – neither does the BBC – and it's a terrible weakness. There is no edge, no passion. It's all so bloody harmless and dull.

ITV needed somebody with a backbone to turn around to Keegan and say to him, 'Okay Kevin, what you're saying there is a load of junk. Explain how getting a draw against a team of journeymen like America is very good, explain the selection of James Milner out of position, explain why the rank ordinary Shaun Wright-Phillips was brought on instead of the classy Joe Cole, explain the failure of Gerrard and Frank Lampard to function together yet again, explain why this negated Wayne Rooney's impact'. Kev didn't do any of that, though.

There are many days ahead when our intelligence will be insulted by "expert analysts" who speak to us like simpletons who've just staggered home from the pub. We could do a lot worse than hitting the mute button from here on in. Or getting the commentary off the radio.

This has been the case for years sadly. I've been listening to five live and it is light years ahead of the TV punditry and commentary. Even Robbie Savage is good he's not afraid to take the piss out of himself and actually being honest like saying the first thing he would do if playing against Messi would be to kick him as hard as possible in the first couple of mins.

For me the best punditry on the world cup is here on theGuardian podcast with James Richardson

[StevieH]

ITV needed somebody with a backbone to turn around to Keegan and say to him, '....explain the failure of Gerrard and Frank Lampard to function together yet again....'

Oh please.... that would be patronizing to the viewer.

why would it? is it too much to expect a former england manager to offer a bit of genuine analysis rather than trotting out the usual hackneyed cliches?

[hansum]

IM not too bothered about the half/full time analysis as i can make my own judgements about what happened but the article is right in that these people should have done a bit of research, but the BBC is so lavish with money its unbelievable and like all govt. departments no one will ever be fired for not doing there job ... the BEEB have taken twice as many people to the WC then ITV so someone must be able to do some research. 460 i believe. Sky are light years ahead of Beeb and ITV who if anyone can remember back in the 80s should remember these 2 companies done there best to ruin football as for 2 years they refused to buy the TV rights thus showing no highlights football. (you didnt get live games back then)

Its the commentators on the actual match that get my goat .... more and more they seem to talk absolute <deleted> not at all related to the game, and go off on a truly boring tangent .... the other day one moron on astro started going on about a golf course near to the ground. Im of the opinion they should just speak when neccesary, they seem to forget we're watching the game so dont need to be informed on every minute incident, most are worse then a cokehead for not being able to shut the fcukup.

Most commentators i'd be willing to bet never went to a football match until they got a job as a journalist, and have always got in the ground for free hence they dont have that inner knowledge about football that you cant acquire as an adult.

Edited June 18, 2010 by hansum

[carmine]

IM not too bothered about the half/full time analysis as i can make my own judgements about what happened but the article is right in that these people should have done a bit of research, but the BBC is so lavish with money its unbelievable and like all govt. departments no one will ever be fired for not doing there job ... the BEEB have taken twice as many people to the WC then ITV so someone must be able to do some research. 460 i believe. Sky are light years ahead of Beeb and ITV who if anyone can remember back in the 80s should remember these 2 companies done there best to ruin football as for 2 years they refused to buy the TV rights thus showing no highlights football. (you didnt get live games back then)

Its the commentators on the actual match that get my goat .... more and more they seem to talk absolute <deleted> not at all related to the game, and go off on a truly boring tangent .... the other day one moron on astro started going on about a golf course near to the ground. Im of the opinion they should just speak when neccesary, they seem to forget we're watching the game so dont need to be informed on every minute incident, most are worse then a cokehead for not being able to shut the fcukup.

Most commentators i'd be willing to bet never went to a football match until they got a job as a journalist, and have always got in the ground for free hence they dont have that inner knowledge about football that you cant acquire as an adult.

As far as the pundits and their banal pre match/half time analysis, it's just the good old boys yet again, taking the piss, not even having the professionalism to do their research before a fat pay day and some free tickets. Jobs for the boys.

How else could someone like Shearer, equiped with the personality of a baboon get the gig?

[tigerfish]

IM not too bothered about the half/full time analysis as i can make my own judgements about what happened but the article is right in that these people should have done a bit of research, but the BBC is so lavish with money its unbelievable and like all govt. departments no one will ever be fired for not doing there job ... the BEEB have taken twice as many people to the WC then ITV so someone must be able to do some research. 460 i believe. Sky are light years ahead of Beeb and ITV who if anyone can remember back in the 80s should remember these 2 companies done there best to ruin football as for 2 years they refused to buy the TV rights thus showing no highlights football. (you didnt get live games back then)

Its the commentators on the actual match that get my goat .... more and more they seem to talk absolute <deleted> not at all related to the game, and go off on a truly boring tangent .... the other day one moron on astro started going on about a golf course near to the ground. Im of the opinion they should just speak when neccesary, they seem to forget we're watching the game so dont need to be informed on every minute incident, most are worse then a cokehead for not being able to shut the fcukup.

Most commentators i'd be willing to bet never went to a football match until they got a job as a journalist, and have always got in the ground for free hence they dont have that inner knowledge about football that you cant acquire as an adult.

As far as the pundits and their banal pre match/half time analysis, it's just the good old boys yet again, taking the piss, not even having the professionalism to do their research before a fat pay day and some free tickets. Jobs for the boys.

How else could someone like Shearer, equiped with the personality of a baboon get the gig?

roll on the years of when the likes of john terry, frank lampard, rio ferdinand and wayne rooney get the job.

gawd help us!

Edited June 18, 2010 by tigerfish