Do we need these pundits in the first place? It's rare for me to watch tv/armchair football,but if i do i tend to record it so that i can flick past the "experts"analysis. Drawing circles,shining lights on players to show how they did or didn't do this or that wtf!!! Have an interview with a manager or a player after each match then get on with it!!!
I like a little punditry, although I grew up watching in the Jimmy Hill era of "Cor, Wow, look at that extraordinarily mazy run by Rodney Marsh!" It may be slightly overdone these days, but I do like a little when it is clear and concise and adds something.
What I do not like even a tiny, little bit is the endless and thorough speculation and analysis of salaries, job security, transfer options, directorial appointments and so on.
I am no intellectual, but when I watch football I sometimes stand among people who may be further down the brainpower scale than I am. I hear the most preposterous guff spoken in angry, angry tones about the appointment of a director of football or investment in new stadia or pay scales for playing staff. These are people who cannot spell Wonga even though they bank with them... but they have stern views on matters far, far from the field of play.
I also dislike the endless discussion of refereeing decisions on TV. Part of the beauty of the game is the fallibility of the (human) referee. They make mistakes.
There was an excellent interview with Sir Clough (was it with Mottie?) where BC lambasts the media for spending far too long dissecting the game and discussing refereeing decisions. There was much to dislike about BC, but his teams showed deference to the referee... (although I think SAF got to the Irish lad after he went to Man U and perhaps brought out some of his more dissenting characteristics).
