Former Players as Pundits

Why is it that broadcasters assume that great players will make great pundits?

Playing rugby doesn't require erudition, articulacy. Depending on your position, you don't even need to know that much about tactics. What, then, makes broadcasters think that former players will be just as good at dicussing and analysing the game as they were at playing it?

It's not enough to know what you're talking about; that's useless unless you can express it. And yet there are a fair few former players currently working as pundits who come out with nothing more than the most basic observations and cliches. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they supposed to be adding to the viewing experience, pointing out things we may have missed, explaining why a certain play worked or went wrong or why a refereeing decision went the way it did?

It's high time broadcasters selected their pundits based on the insight they provide rather than what they achieved as players.

Andy Nicol springs to mind.

Andy Nicol isn't so bad - he's better than he used to be. Shane Williams is worse.

Shane wants to be everybody's best mate. He needs to learn to urine people off.

He should slap Sonja. Oh hang on, that would make everyone like him.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Andy Nicol isn't so bad - he's better than he used to be. Shane Williams is worse.

I haven't heard Shane yet. Just on S4C where he did a good job.

Nicol never seems to offer anything bar the blatantly obvious, he was never a very renowned or regarded player despite his caps.

Personality is a key factor that the main characters have to have in abundence. The occasional inciteful comment helps.

Yeah well Philip Mathews wasn't even a good player.

Jiffy is very poor Scott Gibbs was a joke

Gwyn J is very good

Huw Davies is great

Butler & Moore are a top team.

The old pundit debate - always a good one during the build-up to a big weekend.

The Good: Wood, Moore, Cussiter (think he's been spot on), Dayglo, Castaignade

The Bad: Matthews, Butler, Nicol, Shane W,

The Ugly (ie really bad): Guscott, Jiffy - the 2 main pundits?????????????????

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Why is it that broadcasters assume that great players will make great pundits?

Playing rugby doesn't require erudition, articulacy. Depending on your position, you don't even need to know that much about tactics. What, then, makes broadcasters think that former players will be just as good at dicussing and analysing the game as they were at playing it?

It's not enough to know what you're talking about; that's useless unless you can express it. And yet there are a fair few former players currently working as pundits who come out with nothing more than the most basic observations and cliches. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they supposed to be adding to the viewing experience, pointing out things we may have missed, explaining why a certain play worked or went wrong or why a refereeing decision went the way it did?

It's high time broadcasters selected their pundits based on the insight they provide rather than what they achieved as players.

I find it difficult to understand how somebody who didn't have an intimate knowledge of the game through years of playing it would make a better pundit than somebody who had. Name a televised sport that doesn't have current or ex particpants involved as pundits... I can't think of one.

I think your beef is more to do with your dislike of the pundits' personalities than their ability to commentate or offer insight. Some are more articulate than others.

Perhaps I should have made myself clearer: they should still employ former players as pundits, but the main criterion should be how well they can talk about the game, not how well they played it. I'm not saying they should have pundits who never played the game.

Commentators should be appointed based on their skill at commentating - no playing experience needed.

Pundits have to be a mix of how well they talk about the game and their playing experience. With the BBC you need that experience of playing to gain acceptance with the vast majority of fans who have only a passing knowledge of the game. However too many of the pundits have very little to add. The ones in studio who discuss matter at HT, Final Whistle are often too bland - while (on BBC anyway) the co-commentators just do not seem to add to the commentary most of the time.

SKY and ESPN are better at this.

The two worst are Shane Williams and Phil Vickery.

Williams has a very limited vocabulary and everything is 'great' or 'not great'. He really adds very little.

Phil Vickery didn't cover himself in glory at the world cup. Monotone voice.

Ben Kay is very good.

LondonTiger wrote:Commentators should be appointed based on their skill at commentating - no playing experience needed.

Pundits have to be a mix of how well they talk about the game and their playing experience. With the BBC you need that experience of playing to gain acceptance with the vast majority of fans who have only a passing knowledge of the game. However too many of the pundits have very little to add. The ones in studio who discuss matter at HT, Final Whistle are often too bland - while (on BBC anyway) the co-commentators just do not seem to add to the commentary most of the time.

SKY and ESPN are better at this.

Agreed, ESPN in particular are head and shoulders above the rest.

I enjoy ESPN's coverage, I like the pundits and Judith Chalmer's young loon is a pretty decent presenter. The style is relaxed but the quality of the insight is actually very good and they've got the best token blonde babe interviewer in my opinion. Altogether entertaining stuff.

Few movie directors have ever acted... so yes, in theory and in practice, you don't need to have been a player to know what you're talking about....or to be more precise, to know what you've just seen and comment on it.

The major worry I always have is that so many people, in places like this, so many people who claim to know so much of the detail of the game they watch and the game they play...they seem to always champion the idea of having 'pundits' that can throw technical light on aspects of the game.

They don't want wafflers or jokers or entertainers, they want hard grind stats and analysis.

Of what? I say. Of a game you've just watched yourself and have made your own mind up on ..and will go onto 606V2 as quickly as possible to let everybody know you've made up your mind and it won't be changing? The stats are there on sites that give them...we don't need number crunching and po-faced internal dynamics of scrum talk from pundits week in and week out. We want an overview of opinions on the game we've all just watched... what was wrong, what could have been changed, who might have come on. Not a half hour of "stop it there!" and circles and arrows on the screen to elucidate.

If I want to go to rugby school or learn the basics, or brush up on the technicalities of a scrum over and over and over again, week in and week out...then I'll study all those things at my leisure, over the internet etc.

I don't want plodding techno speak from pundits...I want their opinions (and everyone has one of those) on the game of the day. I want their opinions because knowing opinions is entertaining as you can either agree or disagree with their views. That's fun not education. I don't care who is talking as long as they have something genuine and involving to say and not just filling time with cliched stock answers to stock questions.

Plus.. I think it's a natural...pundits that agree with our own views are the knowledgeable ones, the ones who don't are the wafflers

Jimpy wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Why is it that broadcasters assume that great players will make great pundits?

Playing rugby doesn't require erudition, articulacy. Depending on your position, you don't even need to know that much about tactics. What, then, makes broadcasters think that former players will be just as good at dicussing and analysing the game as they were at playing it?

It's not enough to know what you're talking about; that's useless unless you can express it. And yet there are a fair few former players currently working as pundits who come out with nothing more than the most basic observations and cliches. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they supposed to be adding to the viewing experience, pointing out things we may have missed, explaining why a certain play worked or went wrong or why a refereeing decision went the way it did?

It's high time broadcasters selected their pundits based on the insight they provide rather than what they achieved as players.

I find it difficult to understand how somebody who didn't have an intimate knowledge of the game through years of playing it would make a better pundit than somebody who had. Name a televised sport that doesn't have current or ex particpants involved as pundits... I can't think of one.

I think your beef is more to do with your dislike of the pundits' personalities than their ability to commentate or offer insight. Some are more articulate than others.

i always thought Jake Humphrey did a brilliant job for the F1 despite never driven an F1 car.

I have enjoyed ESPN's coverage when Ive seen it too, a shame they are losing the rights!

I agree with Fly in a way though, especially for the 6N there will be a lot of casual fans, so maybe half an hour of stats and slow-mo's wouldnt be appropriate. As it is I don't normally pay too much attention to the post match chat, 'will Ireland be disappointed with that loss Keith?' 'Wales will be happy to have won that game Jonathan won't they?'.

Frankly for that level of punditary anyone with a knowledge of rugby could answer but having the little bar at the bottom pop up and say ' Joe Bloggs- 150 appearances for Old Wimorians 2nd XV' somehow isn't the same as a former international, despite being potentially more articulate.

there's an (angry-sounding) article on exactly this subject in today's Herald

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/opinion/why-ex-players-should-just-move-over-and-let-the-professionals-in.20412562

nathan wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Why is it that broadcasters assume that great players will make great pundits?

Playing rugby doesn't require erudition, articulacy. Depending on your position, you don't even need to know that much about tactics. What, then, makes broadcasters think that former players will be just as good at dicussing and analysing the game as they were at playing it?

It's not enough to know what you're talking about; that's useless unless you can express it. And yet there are a fair few former players currently working as pundits who come out with nothing more than the most basic observations and cliches. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they supposed to be adding to the viewing experience, pointing out things we may have missed, explaining why a certain play worked or went wrong or why a refereeing decision went the way it did?

It's high time broadcasters selected their pundits based on the insight they provide rather than what they achieved as players.

I find it difficult to understand how somebody who didn't have an intimate knowledge of the game through years of playing it would make a better pundit than somebody who had. Name a televised sport that doesn't have current or ex particpants involved as pundits... I can't think of one.

I think your beef is more to do with your dislike of the pundits' personalities than their ability to commentate or offer insight. Some are more articulate than others.

i always thought Jake Humphrey did a brilliant job for the F1 despite never driven an F1 car.

Ably supported by ex drivers and team owners though....

Bayfield and Healy are very good, even compensating for the moron that is Craig Doyle.

Ben Kay is decent as well, and Will Greenwood over on Sky is superb, both insightful and entertaining.

Lynagh is a good pundit, and every now and then Stuart Barnes will surprise you with something more insightful than his usual references to his playing days.

On the flip side I find Andy Nicol and Jerry Guscott intolerable. Cliched, ill-informed and arrogant. Inverdale is an appaulling anchor as well. On Sky I think Dewi Morris is lazy (probably because he's Welsh), and Scott Quinell is as sharp as jelly. I started off liking Fitzpatrick, but I find him boring now.

The Sky team needs to be refreshed. Keep Will Greenwood and Stuart Barnes - move on Quinnell and Morris.

From an Irish perspective I like Wallace and Howe. Keith Wood I find hard to dislike purely because he was such an awesome player, but he's not the most insightful.

Who said Wood was a useless pundit????

The cheek!

I've often wondered do BBC lawyers turn people who might have something meaningful to say into drones who say the same stuff every week without raising a pulse. "Yeah, is that right? Right, never heard you say that before... .......... so what you're saying is that if the lads do that they could win and if they don't it'll be tough??? Wow. So they might win or lose but you're going for a loss? Rivetting stuff.

It seems there is a list of things nobody can say -

Don't say too much, because fair trade people will be onto us about others not getting their time to speak.
Don't interject as it's unmannerly and our mannerly audience don't like such violence on the screen. Wait your turn.
Don't stand on the wrong side or break protocols. It's you (Guscott) on the extreme right on the pitch and those other two eejits (Wood and Davis or whoever) who can take turns beside you. But you're the primary visual cue that it's rugby, so be prominent at all times.
Don't accuse the coach of being useless as such words before the nine o'clock watershed will have us in court. If you have to be negative about players or coaches, just say "I don't know what he's trying to do" or "It all seems confused for some reason"

Nope - it's crap...call it what it is.

I do think corporate fear of the trials and enquiries have deadened all true discussion and produced a big book of allowed comments and phrases that get repeated and repeated...and repeated.

Oh I forgot the toughest rule of all...Never appear on an outside broadcast before April without a scarf properly coiled in the BBCRuggers knot. Dress code will be ruthlessly applied.

Don't blame the lawyers. Brian Moore is himself a lawyer, and you certainly can't accuse him of being bland. He'd never wear a scarf indoors.

Dean Ryan is another good Sky pundit, gives great technical analysis, which raises the benefit of former players that also have coaching experience (not all examples of that are great though obviously).

I'm not always sure about Kay for ESPN, he does some stuff well but a lot of the time he is commentating rather than doing punditry he's often lacking in knowing certain rules of the game, with Healy gleefully chiming in to correct him. I also think that having both Healy and Kay has an effect on ESPN's tone for Tigers games.

Where's Ieuan Evans these days?

He probably exhibited the most extreme 'disconnect' between playing ability and punditry ability, after Zinzan.

Had two tools in the box, 'parity up front' and, when he'd forgotten that one, which was every other sentence, would resort to 'show some phyzzikalideee'.

While wobbling his head infuriatingly.

Brilliant player though.

Casartelli wrote:Where's Ieuan Evans these days?

Still pops up on Sky from time to time.

Hopefully the only part of Sky's rugby coverage BT take on is Will Greenwood. The rest are awful. Dean Ryan was superb but guess he will have his hands full with Scotland.

They are there to represent the game and answer the most basic questions, the introducer is the guy holding the whole show together.

Martyn Williams is an example, really doesn't offer much except the most basic regurgatated crap.

Shane Williams is struggling too, but in his defence he has only just begun and is learning the ropes.

As much as Jiffy annoys people he's great at what he does, give the insight to whats going on, to a public with a limited knowledge of the game. There are only a small core of people with such knowledge, I think we all forget these days that even die hards get the odd rules wrong, and the general supporter doesn't know too much about the uncommon laws, not to mention the fair weathers knowing little about whats actually happening.

We surround ourselves with, lets face it a very knowledgable bunch on this board, and therefore forget that the comentators aren't really directed to us, they are to promote the game using the faces the public know and love.

I don't mind Jiffy, as long as he isn't commentating or discussing Wales. It all gets a bit too emotive and personal at that stage.

A co-commentator who is improving is Scott Hastings.

I wonder if the BBC could allow viewers to choose between 2 sets of commentatros for each match.

1. Your token totty female presenter (Claire Balding), plus your bland token totty male expert for the ladies (Jerry Guscott) and your ugly but bland male expert for the 6 weeks a year 6 Nations "Swing low sweet chariot singing" "I used to play rugger at school - got buggered a lot you know" rugby fan (Eddie Butler);

2. And for those that know something about rugby the likes of Bayfield, Moore, Wood, etc.

My guilty secret - Ian Robertson a decent ex player and decent commentator.

Jiffy...a defibrillator. Essential equipment in any studio with dead bodies

Him and Nigel Owens should have a show all of their own devoted to Jiffy pontificating (with tongue in cheek more often than people realise) on what refs get wrong, and Nigel giving the heave ho on what commentators and players don't know.

I'd watch it. Two of the most entertaining people in rugby.

You should watch 'Jonathan' on S4C, Fly. They're both on that.

...as in Ross?

Jiffy pontificating (with tongue in cheek more often than people realise)

Like when he kept saying "eh, that O'Mahowney, what a player he is, eh?" in the Rabo play off semi final last year.

a classic for me was...oh I can't remember the game but I think it was an all Welsh Derby and an Irish ref (Clancy I think)... Clancy kept going to a linesman for info briefings on this and that. Jiffy was getting annoyed by all the hold ups, but humourously so. You knew he was in good form.

So when Clancy went for more info at one point, that was enough for Jiffy. In his most comical whispered tone he said something like "OH!...Here we go, here we go. Those two are at it again. Sherlock and Watson"

"Ooh Dudley, we wouldn't want you to escalate your sanctions. Escalate your sanctions hahaha what is he on about!"

NUMBERSssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss out wide

I'm off home catch you later

Whisky and the under 20's game awaits

SecretFly wrote:Jiffy...a defibrillator. Essential equipment in any studio with dead bodies

Him and Nigel Owens should have a show all of their own devoted to Jiffy pontificating (with tongue in cheek more often than people realise) on what refs get wrong, and Nigel giving the heave ho on what commentators and players don't know.

I'd watch it. Two of the most entertaining people in rugby.

Are you taking the urine Fly?! You do realise (but maybe not) that Jonathan Davies has his own programme on welsh language TV co hosted by Nigel Owens? A bit of a chat show, plenty of laughter (laughter is the only bit I understand as I don't speak the lingo), welsh 'stars' on the couch (read ex rugby players and s4c actors). You should give it a go!

SecretFly wrote:a classic for me was...oh I can't remember the game but I think it was an all Welsh Derby and an Irish ref (Clancy I think)... Clancy kept going to a linesman for info briefings on this and that. Jiffy was getting annoyed by all the hold ups, but humourously so. You knew he was in good form.

So when Clancy went for more info at one point, that was enough for Jiffy. In his most comical whispered tone he said something like "OH!...Here we go, here we go. Those two are at it again. Sherlock and Watson"

This is why I live the Scrum V commentary on BBC2 Wales. It's a bit of fun. They take the mick out of each other, laugh at what the pitch side pundit is wearing, laugh at poor skills, etc. It's a bit like two blokes in the pub, but that's what I want on a Friday night with a glass of rouge in hand. The 6N punditry can be very stuffy at times. Far too serious. They're like news broadcasters sometimes, reporting from the Middle East. Inverdale doesn't help as he seems like a man without much of a sense of humour.

....or that boring, toss pot Woodward

A sense of humour goes a long way. I'd love Andrew Merthens to be a pundit. He was a real character. Sometimes just being someone easy to laugh at is alright. Murray Mexted came up with some gibberish nonsense at times and you were assured of a laugh or two. Yet mixed in with that hilarity, he was capable of making some really insightful comments. I agree with the OP is that what's we want from the pundits. I can see the images in front of me and raising your voice when a passage of play gets exciting (like Tony Johnson) is not enough.

Passion is an overused term but sometimes someone who makes you get caught up in the event is important. Brian Moore, for all his foibles, gets passionate for his side and gets enraged with scrum decisions. That's where insight comes into it but also someone who is not shy to express their opinion. Justin Marshall is pretty awful as a commentator and has three different shout levels but I will give him credit for his impartiality. He'll call it as he sees it and when I listen to some pundits who are so guilty of home bias (which they all are nowadays without McLaren, just to differing degrees), it really riles me. Commentators who seem to be fans at the ground who call out instructions like Numbers, shift it irk me as well. There's nothing wrong with pointing out there are numbers out wide, just don't make it sound like you're the winger out on the field. The Australian commentators are at least humorous and I do enjoy listening to them search for the excuses at the end (I've blocked out most of the 90s). Phil Kearns being the worst.

All in all a dry commentator like Sean Fitzpatrick, Nisbett, Zinny, Woodward, Nichol bores me to tears. I'd rather have someone who injects some life into their commentary even though this can be excruciating at times like Jiffy and Marshall or the French commentators. We want insight in the breakdown moments and too often we don't get jack from the pundits and they are too often devoid of humour as well to cover up their overwhelming bias. So really it's hard work most of the time listening to the commentary.

Ex Players seem most of the time unaware of new rule changes. I wonder why commentary teams don't have a ref who can make sideline comments or come in with some comment. I guess people don't want a high and mighty voice who is the voice of right and wrong but often I get the feeling that most of the time the ref's decisions are either foreign to the commentators or there to be dismissed by the commentary team. He wasn't off his feet there etc and no surprise that the ref is vilified. Why not get a pundit in there who can explain the decisions. Who cares if he disagrees. A ref with access to all the camera angles is not going to undermine a decision by someone who sees things happen real time. We just want to know what the f is going on half the time, notably the scrum and the breakdown area.

I think every Irishman would agree that Frankie Sheehan is the worst pundit / commentator out there.

Ben Kay and Will Greenwood are both top pundits IMO, a shame they're not on the beeb for the 6N.

Every single sports broadcaster in all sports use former athletes. I think they do it assuming that the former sports person will have considerable knowledge about the sport they're broadcasting on, which is useful. However, I agree that not everyone has the personality to be a broadcaster, but that's something that takes experience and everyone has to start somewhere (looking at you, Shane!). Likewise, there are some brilliant broadcasters who are absolutely crap when it comes to commentating or doing sports coverage.

Andy Nicol's classic contribution just after half time was to inform us that if Italy scored some points it would be close whareas if England scored it wouldn't. Now that had never occured to me!

Phillip Matthews and Michael Lynagh every time for me, passionate, objective and intelligent.

Jiffy gets on everyone's nerves and should probably be reserved for just welsh viewers, Nicholl is out of his depth, Jerry same as Jiffy for the anglos and for me the biggest comment from the weekend was the amateur psychologist Woodward stating how good this would be for England before playing Wales. Dream on Woodie, that has taken a lot of confidence from the english squad and there are now seeds of doubt. A 20-25 point win would have settled things and kept the chariot going in the right direction. BS at it's best. I can see him after the first Lions Test hammering telling his players "that's just what we needed to win the next 2"

Listened to a bit of the England Italy game on 5Live yesterday, Matt Dawson was using some of Bill Mclaren's analogies (eg; Leaping like a salmon) but without any of the charm.

I was listenintg to that as well. Dawson veers from insightful pundit, prepared to shoot down cliche and platitudes to his annoying 'Question of Sport' entertainer mode.

I'll tell you what though, I take my hat off to the cricket commentators. How do they manage to keep talking about the same old thing ALL DAY for a week! Even when it rains and there's nothing to talk about, they still manage it. I think the rugby boys would be stuffed if they had to do it for a whole day. Takes some serious waffling skills to manage that!

There is one guy though who is the epitome of boring on the cricket - Bob Willis. Grey hair, grey skin, grey suit, grey voice - everything is just grey and boring! He speaks so sloooooooooooooooow. Great for having a snooze in the afternoon though.

Glas a du wrote:Yeah well Philip Mathews wasn't even a good player.

Yes he was. Ireland v Australia 1991 WC he was excellent.