Something i have been saying for years lol, same situation with Sturridge too in my opinion.
I think the whole "Walcott is a striker played out wide, therefore it's fine that he can't cross" might be wearing a little thin now that he hasn't played as a striker in about four years.
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.
But their job isn't just to KNOW about the game, it's to convey their knowledge in a proper, interesting and in-depth manner. Shearer, for example, is ******* atrocious at conveying anything past "If you kick a ball towards goal it might go in". A wonderful footballer? Yes. Someone who has a unique and interesting insight into the game? Perhaps. A pundit who can actually put those insights and views across to the viewer? Christ no. I'm not asking for half an hour of analysis with diagrams and pie charts, I just want someone articulate and well-researched, who can put across their point of view with brevity whilst not sacrificing their points.
Maybe they WOULD love to talk for as much time as Neville gets, but nothing they've ever said has ever given the slightest indication they'd do it in such an informed and well-researched manner as him. That's the difference here; not time, but effort and research. It's their job and they should treat it as such, not just a pension.
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.
Adequate shouldn't really be good enough. They should be striving to be the best, not just chugging along throwing out the same tired old cliches because it's safe and "adequate".
They don't need to chuck it all out and start again. Just look at how effective Lee Dixon was. Whether or not a prospective pundit was/is a good footballer or not shouldn't be the first thing the BBC looks at; rather, they should look at whether they'd be a good broadcaster, because this is broadcast TV. This doesn't happen anywhere else. Brian *** wasn't chosen to present science programmes on the Beeb because he is the best physicist, he was chosen because he can present complex advanced physics in an approachable and intelligent manner to an audience that is even more varied than the one that MotD broadcasts to. He's a very clever person, yes, but in this role he's primarily a very good presenter, and that's the sort of model MotD should follow.
There's a growing market for the more intelligent, considered punditry Neville provides here in the UK. Neville's success and huge popularity as a pundit - even amongst fans of teams who should hate him really - is indicative to me of people WANTING that kind of commentary. The thing is, they've NEVER been offered this kind of punditry before. Who are we to say that the majority of people want what they see on MotD when they've never been offered the alternative? Treat the audience like adults and perhaps they'll actually enjoy it.