Jump to content

Are ex chelsea players better pundits and analysts?


enigma

Recommended Posts

I have only ever seen a handful (if that, in fact) of ex chelsea players who are pundits on t.v. and for the most part, they are very good in front of camera and really go in depth.

 

Pat nevin is someone who stands out most. I only remember seeing him 2 times on BBC MOTD and he was really informative; much better than Robbie Savage, Jermaine Jenas, Shearer and the like and unlike the aforementioned, he actually provides brilliant analysis. 

 

Michael Duberry is another ex player who doesn't just talk for the sake of talking, he actually knows what he's talking about. 

 

Ruud Guillit is obviously another, but he only seems to appear on CL nights for Sky. 

 

Scott Minto who presents Revista de la liga too, who seems decent. 

 

Gianluca Vialli has always impressed me when I've seen him occasionally. 

 

Albert Ferrer is a decent pundit on Revista de la liga. 

 

I am sure there are a few others I haven't mentioned, but the above pundits are good and should feature more tbh. I always thought Pat Nevin would get more of a chance on Sky or BBC, but they seem so bias towards Liverpool, Utd and Arsenal that they only hire their ex players as pundits.

 

However, the likes of Scholes, Keane, Henry, Redknapp, Souness, Shearer, Linekar, Jenas, etc, etc, seem useless and unnecessary appointments tbh. There was so much hype surrounding Henry joining Sky, but he's turned out to be a real let down and isn't much better than Redknapp or Souness. 

 

What are your thoughts on ex chelsea players as pundits? Who would be your choices for MOTD and Sky sports, and do you think ex-chelsea players seem to be the better pundits on the rare occasion they appear? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Anyone but ex Liverpool, they desperately try to cling onto the hope that Liverpool still mean something by demeaning other clubs and bigging Liverpool up.

 

I want to see more people with actual in depth football knowledge be pundits. They need to be intelligent and insightful. I think someone like Mata or Roberto Martinez would be excellent pundits when they retire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



They seem better because you rarely see them. Not going to go through the whole list but Ruud Gullit for example isn't any better than the likes of Scholes. I also think it's a bit unfair you lumping Shearer with those names as he does actually know what he's talking about, just doesn't have the best platform (MOTD) in which to explain his views further. His articles and such are pretty good. 

 

But anyway, I don't think ex chelsea players are better pundits than any other ex players. Pat Nevin is our best one, Liverpool have probably two top pundits, Man Utd have around the same as well. They probably seem worse because there's just so many of them on TV. 

 

You make a decent point.

Although I remember Marcel Desailly, such excitment and enthusiasm... but not the easiest to understand.

I absolutely loved Desailly! He spoke with such passion, was a breath of fresh air at the time. Wonder what he's up to these days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nevin is decent because he's been given a chance to provide fairly in depth analysis on the BBC website before.

 

Ruud is decent because he's got a bit of personality about him so you engage with him because he seems interested in what he's saying whereas someone like Mark Lawrenson for example slumps in his chair seems uninterested. 

 

I think Shearer has got a lot better over the last couple of years and his delivery has improved too. 

 

I don't like Jenas, it looks like they pulled a 12 year old off the street and stuck him in front of a camera, he's from the school of stating the bleeding obvious with his analysis. 

 

I like Roy Keane most of the time, he doesn't mince his words and isn't afraid to go against the view of everyone else he is working with. 

 

Souness is just bitter and angry about everything all the time. 

 

Henry is a massive disappointment, he just grumbles his way through most of the time as if what he is being asked doesn't interest him... Comes to life when discussing what attacking players did right or wrong though. 

 

Scholes delivery is awful and monotone so regardless of what he is saying I can't engage with him. 

 

I don't actually mind Savage, I think he's another whose delivery is good and isn't afraid to express and opinion that maybe isn't universally agreed, he prompts discussion. 

 

Always nice to see Ballack on TV just cause he's a gent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Unfortunately, I think Lampard is starting to dream of being a Tory MP.

 

Nevin is only ever going to be used for in depth and tactical analysis.  I think he's slightly too dry for the general viewing public.  That's why they've got the likes of Redknaap, and Jenas, and Savage because they talk enough sh*te that they resonate with the majority of who is watching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Desailly, punditry not his strong point I think it would be fair to say, although the language barrier probably has quite a lot to do with that.

JFH was bad as well. Maybe he's improved now, but when he first did it, he was pretty awful.

Someone who player for Chelsea - Gavin peacock... Now a full fledged Christian minister in Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Desailly, punditry not his strong point I think it would be fair to say, although the language barrier probably has quite a lot to do with that.

JFH was bad as well. Maybe he's improved now, but when he first did it, he was pretty awful.

Someone who player for Chelsea - Gavin peacock... Now a full fledged Christian minister in Canada.

 

PEacock has gone a little hard on the Christianism.  He recently won himself very few friends by stating that women should know their place in the home and be subservient to their husbands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chelsea Megastore Away Shirt
Chelsea Megastore Away Shirt

Chelsea Megastore Away Shirt

Cundy is brilliant. Yes he's biased but also very honest.

Nevin is under rated but I agree he's a little dry for tv.

Neville is by far the best though.

I actually quite like Jenas, he's not too bad. Speaks quite well.

I hate it when pundits just use the same old cliches, reasons, lines. Be orignal for crying out loud..

I remember reading an article that was talking about pundits and it was saying that in a few years time, it will look alot different. All of the Liverpool pundits will be gone and it will be filled with Chelsea and City pundits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Neville, but there's something about Carragher and his scouse accent that just cheapens the whole experience for me.

I don't mean to sound obnoxious, but he does come across a little whiny and unprofessional.

I don't mind Phil Thompson most of the time, even though he's unashamedly biased, and the scouse accent isn't always bad. Probably the most pleasant voice I've ever come across was during a stay in hospital some years ago being treated by a doctor from Liverpool.

Edited by GhostOfDembaPast
Link to comment
Share on other sites





100% Frank is highly intelligent and has a great personality. Him and Gary Neville would make a good TV pair.

Did you ever hear him confront the radio DJ on air? Lamps seems like such a fair guy not afraid to confront wrongdoing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In or Sign Up