Gary Neville and the standards of football punditry

GodCubed

Mod-ern Day Legend
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
13,615
Reaction score
0
Points
0
It requires considerable experience of watching British football coverage to understand why Gary Neville is such a celebrated pundit, for he has become universally popular for merely filling his job description. His step-by-step analysis of Stoke City's goal at West Ham last week was masterful, yet so simple – he pointed out a hand signal, a couple of blocks and a clever run. Shouldn't this be the general standard?

After all, providing insight upon a sport you've played at the highest level shouldn't be particularly challenging. Neville made his punditry debut for ITV at the 2002 World Cup, whilst sidelined with the early 21st century curse of the broken metatarsal, and the Brazil side that won the competition is a decent analogy for Neville's punditry – clearly the best, but their quality exaggerated by the poor standard of the opposition.

Neville's popularity is essentially rooted in three factors. First, he argues against the consensus. Last season, for example, when Chelsea were struggling to adapt to André Villas-Boas's high defensive line, they conceded a goal when Ashley Cole was stationed behind the rest of the Chelsea defence, playing an opponent onside. To every other pundit, and to the vast majority of television viewers, the problem was clear – Cole was in a bad position. But Neville said the opposite. Cole, he said, was the only Chelsea defender in a good position – the other three were to blame.

Second, Neville is thorough; his Monday Night Football offerings are clearly the result of meticulous research. Putting together a 15-minute sequence on the art of diving, as he did towards the end of last season, takes dedication and commitment others lack. One Sky colleague comments on how Neville treats punditry the same way he treated professional football, where he succeeded primarily through hard work and intense preparation, rather than natural talent.

Third, despite being a symbol of Manchester United, Neville appears neutral. This is actually more important when applying to individuals rather than clubs, and is in stark contrast to his colleague Jamie Redknapp, who remains determined not to criticise friends – which is particularly difficult considering he appears to be mates with, or related to, a number of key Premier League characters.

In this respect, Redknapp's fault is nothing more than being a nice man, and he's become more critical, but at the start of his television career the situation was ludicrous. When analysing England's Euro 2004 defeat to France, when England conceded a penalty courtesy of Steven Gerrard's wayward backpass and David James's clumsy challenge on Thierry Henry, Redknapp managed to blame Ashley Cole for not thumping the ball downfield. Both Gerrard and James, of course, had been Redknapp's team-mates at Liverpool. Neville has avoided such partisanship, seemingly in spite of his coaching role with England.



Pundits are frequently quizzed on areas they're not experts on (refereeing decisions, for example) and this applies more specifically to roles on the pitch, so Neville is, naturally, most engaging when discussing defending. Presenter introductions often contain "jokes" about how the punditry lineup is based heavily around one position – Gary Lineker did so when opening the BBC's Germany v Italy coverage at Euro 2012, with Gianluca Vialli, Alan Shearer and Jürgen Klinsmann alongside him. That's four world-class strikers, yet there was no specific focus on goalscoring.

Sky's Goals on Sunday does this excellently. A relaxed roundup of the previous day's action is interspersed with friendly but engaging analysis – perhaps in the knowledge that many are witnessing the goals for a second time, so the discussion takes a different slant. Often it is serving managers who appear on the show – it was David Moyes last weekend – but even players produce good insights, because they're asked about their own areas of expertise. Last season Ian Wright and Jermain Defoe appeared together, and although that lineup is hardly likely to rival Marcelo Bielsa in terms of deep football thinking, the duo were constantly asked about finishing, about movement in the box and about striking partnerships. Somewhat surprisingly, it was excellent television, and as illuminating on the subject of scoring goals as Neville is about preventing them.

Sky's La Liga coverage is also interesting, partly because of guests that have ranged from Rafael Benítez to Fabio Capello, but also because there's a focus on overall strategies – not just post-commentary on goals, but discussion upon the pattern of the game, using video examples of pressing, for example, or diagonal balls. Meanwhile, ITV's Champions League coverage deserves credit because they've created a fine partnership in Roy Keane and Lee Dixon – Keane talks primarily about attitude and team spirit, Dixon concentrates on tactical and technical aspects.



There is little to recommend in Match of the Day's analysis. In fairness, the producers are in an impossible position, forced to cater to a huge range of tastes, from those who simply want to see goals, to those who want detailed, in-depth debate about offside traps and overlapping full-backs.

When the mere running order is argued furiously across social networks, it's impossible to please the majority with the actual discussion – but the suspicion is that neither purist nor casual fan is satisfied by the current arrangement.

Match of the Day's experiment with Vincent Kompany was interesting yet ultimately fruitless in terms of analysis. The Belgian is, if anything, too statesmanlike and media-friendly for the role – he insisted that no, he wasn't remotely pleased to see his side's major title rivals lose against a side battling relegation. Michael Owen was no more illuminating – but their mere appearances were a sign that Match of the Day is seeking to evolve its coverage and use different faces. The likes of ESPN and ITV have increasingly featured journalists on round-up shows, but as Neville has shown, there is no substitute for an insightful ex-pro when talking about on-pitch matters.

Often, they're not the biggest names. The ex-Arsenal and West Ham midfielder Stewart Robson is excellent in his role as ESPN's Italian football co-commentator, delivering sharp tactical insights while the match is still in play, while the former Middlesbrough midfielder Robbie Mustoe has made a name for himself on US television. Michael Robinson, most famous at Brighton, is a key figure in Spanish television.

Occasionally, you witness a guest pundit with great intelligence – Jens Lehmann is superbly analytical (and disturbingly calm), the former Tottenham goalkeeper Erik Thorstvedt is another. When Barcelona faced Real Madrid in the Champions League last year, Eidur Gudjohnsen was wonderful when discussing the difference between Pep Guardiola and José Mourinho.

None have won as many titles as Alan Hansen or scored as many goals as Alan Shearer, but in terms of insight, they shouldn't be any less respected. The thing about ex-professionals is that they retain their competitive streak – pair Hansen with Shearer and the Scot is happy to spout cliches, but when he was alongside Dixon, he sensed competition and upped his game.

Losing Dixon was a blow, but the BBC aren't in a disastrous position. One fine appointment – someone in the mould of Gudjohnsen, perhaps – could be the catalyst for others to step up. Match of the Day remains the most prominent football show on television – it simply needs to find its Neville.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/nov/27/gary-neville-punditry-sky-bbc

------------------------------------------------------------


Thought this was a particularly interesting article, especially as it comes from a knowledgeable journalist looking in (Michael ***) to the situation at depth and with a particular figure in mind.
 
Last edited:
why I love him as a pundit
[video=youtube;d6RG6yxgeFE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6RG6yxgeFE[/video]
 
Found this article on reddit this morning, such a good read. Can't stand him as a person, but what a pundit. I think it defines 'raising the bar' - he makes every other pundit on television look clueless.

Also still amazed he praises Man City sometimes, when he started I thought it would be a Roy Keane situation all over again where Man United are perfect and Man City are Satan spawn.

The only thing that I constantly think of is - with all this tactical analysis and player movement etc that he's clearly excellent at, why not just become a Manager and dominate? lol
 
For Neville to win over some Pool fans says it all what a sensational job he does. Chelsea fans even had a chant when in his playing days calling him a c**t but now days mainly because of his commentary in last seasons Champs League triumph he is actually well respected.

The thing which annoyed me about MOTD at the weekend was Linekar on Twitter, i like he engages with tweets but he kept saying well we had so many viewers this week so we must be doing something right. That's because it's the first and easiest place to see all the goals Gary and some don't have a choice. I absolutely despise the "pundits" on MOTD especially Hansen, Lawensen and Shearer and they do need a change in my opinion.
 
For Neville to win over some Pool fans says it all what a sensational job he does. Chelsea fans even had a chant when in his playing days calling him a c**t but now days mainly because of his commentary in last seasons Champs League triumph he is actually well respected.

The thing which annoyed me about MOTD at the weekend was Linekar on Twitter, i like he engages with tweets but he kept saying well we had so many viewers this week so we must be doing something right. That's because it's the first and easiest place to see all the goals Gary and some don't have a choice. I absolutely despise the "pundits" on MOTD especially Hansen, Lawensen and Shearer and they do need a change in my opinion.

Shearer is laughably inept. Not only is his 'analysis' completely uninteresting, but he's also borderline illiterate!
 
Top footballer, top Pundit....Nuff said.

Fair play to him for taking his job seriously and keeping neutral which cant be easy really
 
For Neville to win over some Pool fans says it all what a sensational job he does. Chelsea fans even had a chant when in his playing days calling him a c**t but now days mainly because of his commentary in last seasons Champs League triumph he is actually well respected.

The thing which annoyed me about MOTD at the weekend was Linekar on Twitter, i like he engages with tweets but he kept saying well we had so many viewers this week so we must be doing something right. That's because it's the first and easiest place to see all the goals Gary and some don't have a choice. I absolutely despise the "pundits" on MOTD especially Hansen, Lawensen and Shearer and they do need a change in my opinion.

I actually record it and just fast forward the analysis i find it that bad. I think between us on here we could do a miles better job
 
I actually record it and just fast forward the analysis i find it that bad. I think between us on here we could do a miles better job

I do the same mate, watch the highlights and fast forward through the "analysis".
 
I do the same mate, watch the highlights and fast forward through the "analysis".

I find it funny that alan shearer one of the great goalscorers of his generation tries to critiques defences, every week he tries to lament defences and it is blatantly obvious he has no idea about defending what i find even more hilarious he has aspirations to go into management. i'm not sure if this is on purpose but they seem to just take a match each and analysing it on there own. whereas before you would have say alan hansen analysing the defense and someone else the attack etc or mix it up. I think what doesn't help is the monotone and dispassionate way they talk too. personally i lost all time for the so called pundits when alan hansen went OTT about walcott saying he is rubbish because he doesn't have a football brain can't cross etc. I think people forget he is a striker made to play on the wing something a so called pundit would know
 
I find it funny that alan shearer one of the great goalscorers of his generation tries to critiques defences, every week he tries to lament defences and it is blatantly obvious he has no idea about defending what i find even more hilarious he has aspirations to go into management. i'm not sure if this is on purpose but they seem to just take a match each and analysing it on there own. whereas before you would have say alan hansen analysing the defense and someone else the attack etc or mix it up. I think what doesn't help is the monotone and dispassionate way they talk too. personally i lost all time for the so called pundits when alan hansen went OTT about walcott saying he is rubbish because he doesn't have a football brain can't cross etc. I think people forget he is a striker made to play on the wing something a so called pundit would know


Something i have been saying for years lol, same situation with Sturridge too in my opinion.
 
A few footballers surprised me in post match interviews on their tactical nous. Theo Walcott for one, very articulate. Joe Hart another who I think would be a very good pundit due to his brutal honesty.

I was dreading Andy Grays replacement but Gary Neville has been a revelation.
 
If they changed MotD to be what we wanted, loads of people would be very unhappy. A lot of the people who tune into the show don't want indepth analysis, they don't want stats and figures, they want to see the highlights and hear the situation described to them in the same old easy cliches.

What MotD should do is run an alternate panel, accessible via the red-button. They need to offer a wider range of choices, rather than completely changing their existing coverage.
 
If they changed MotD to be what we wanted, loads of people would be very unhappy. A lot of the people who tune into the show don't want indepth analysis, they don't want stats and figures, they want to see the highlights and hear the situation described to them in the same old easy cliches.

What MotD should do is run an alternate panel, accessible via the red-button. They need to offer a wider range of choices, rather than completely changing their existing coverage.

that is a very good idea.
 
The majority of fans don't appreciate that side of the sport.. It's very "American" to them and they prefer to have a sporting icon belittling professionals for making mistakes as if this has never happened before.. It's the way football has always been. Neville does a great job but I don't think that sort of punditry should take over, I appreciate MOTD and the mind-numbing boredom it puts me though.. Although, some of the guest they have on their are horrendous (most recently Kompany & Owen). Also, how Harry Redknapp is allowed on is beyond me, the guys a total pleb. At the end of the day, regardless of what people think about Shearer and co. they are ex-pro's, nobody knows the game better than them but they only get so long to talk about a match, it could 15 minutes, it could be 3.. So don't condemn them for not having the freedom Neville has, as I'm sure they'd love to.

At the end of the day, MOTD is casual viewing, people who pay for subscription services such as Sky Sports can expect much more depth to their programming but the BBC's hands are pretty much tied and I think they do an adequate job of it.
 
The majority of fans don't appreciate that side of the sport.. It's very "American" to them and they prefer to have a sporting icon belittling professionals for making mistakes as if this has never happened before.. It's the way football has always been. Neville does a great job but I don't think that sort of punditry should take over, I appreciate MOTD and the mind-numbing boredom it puts me though.. Although, some of the guest they have on their are horrendous (most recently Kompany & Owen). Also, how Harry Redknapp is allowed on is beyond me, the guys a total pleb. At the end of the day, regardless of what people think about Shearer and co. they are ex-pro's, nobody knows the game better than them but they only get so long to talk about a match, it could 15 minutes, it could be 3.. So don't condemn them for not having the freedom Neville has, as I'm sure they'd love to.

At the end of the day, MOTD is casual viewing, people who pay for subscription services such as Sky Sports can expect much more depth to their programming but the BBC's hands are pretty much tied and I think they do an adequate job of it.

You dont have to be in depth. And they certainly have the money, Shearer gets pais £1.5m a year. Lee Dixon was excellent, without being over complicated. When you look at places like Revista la liga, there are lots of people like that who come on and talk intelligently without overdoing. Shearer is borderline retarded. Lee Dixon showed exactly how it could be done. No excuse for it really.
 
He's the level they should ALL be at. How he is should not be revolutionary, or special it should be the norm. Simply shouldn't have daft, stupid people doing the commentary. They should know better.
 
I decided to watch it last night and it was dross. Every match then same thing criticise the defense, the space between the CB's was to big blah blah blah.... why didn't they go in depth on swansea? get some OPTA stat's? everyone wants to see teams get it down and play why not show some analysis of this?
 
All I have ever wanted from MOTD is somebody to teach Lawrenson to pronounce 'moment'

At the merrrrment it is not looking likely
 
Last edited:
Top