Quote:
Originally Posted by MindFckr
I can't figure out if it's hilarious or sad that the pundits who make millions of pounds are offering "fat bloke in the pub" type insight. For example every one of them are saying Leicester are legitimate title contenders. As soon as some teams, especially smaller ones start treating Leicester like they have serious attacking threat they should be done for. Also they are conceding ****ton of goals, but they react like they never seen the table/games/stats and just getting shown the points on the table. Just utterly clueless.
I think it would be more interesting if they just invited DuckSauce and have discussions about projections/models/player scorepoints and just cut out the parts where he notoriously sniffs his own farts about how he got 10 to 1 on Chelsea not getting top4. I mean I'm 100% sure he'd have more insight that most of the pundits out there, but I guess people enjoy watching people in suits who were decent at kicking the ball some years before...
Well of course most of the viewers are casual and are fine with the service being proposed right now, the big names themselves like Henry or Ferdinand is attractive enough for them and they aren't interested in deeper analysis.
I personally would find someone like DS annoying as well. People that swear by the analytics and like to pretend that it's the only truth without any flaws are equally annoying to me. As Caley tweeted not long ago "it should contribute to the discussion but it shouldn't be the discussion". There has to be a fine balance and I don't even think you could call reading a xG result as insight as there is no comprehension to be made besides reading two numbers. What is interesting is the why and how did the teams manage to create chances (holes in opponent defense, pressing, passing, etc...) and that's what's lacking the most but I do think Neville and Carra have been doing a not so bad job sometimes highlighting some of the teams leaks especially defensively. Guys like Henry are clueless and limited though.
For those who watch snooker on BBC, i'm always amazed by the quality of punditry over there, it's excellent for the most part and asking myself the questions how comes that elite snooker players have such elite knowledge for the game while football players don't seem to know much I think it's just a function of the nature in the game. Like in snooker you have to constantly be thinking and have a transversal vision about the game while in football - and I am not saying brain doesn't count in football - you can get away with not having a deep and knowledgeable vision of the game as a footballer. I bet masterminds like Pirlo type would be great pundit.