I'll never forgive Clare Balding for insulting that jocky's teeth a few years ago - it was awful.
John Inverdale is the worst though. Some of the interviews he conducted at Dorney Lake with British rowers who had come 2nd and third were beyond disgraceful, he kept going on at them about "losing" and "falling short" and so on. I couldn't believe what I was watching.
I thought the presenting was pretty poor apart from Claire Balding. Gary Linekar, Inverdale, humpheries and Logan seemed too dismissive of other athletes other than GB ones (yes I know they were their athletes).
However, analysis from the likes of Michael Johnson, Colin Jackson (athletics), Mark Foster, and Ian Thorpe (swimming) were extremely insightful and respectful of all the athletes (possibly understanding the journey each one has made to be there).
The problem with football punditry though is you can be found out very easily. Some pundits like hansen and Shearer come out with such obvious stuff that it borders on patronisng to the average football supporter, at the end of the day there isn't much to understand about football (you know when someone messes up). Other pundit like Gary Neville try to vere away from cliched drivel.
As for the BBC pundits not researching the teams that are playing, thats just unprofessional and unforgivable.
Good post
I couldn't for the life of me understand why they had John McEnroe talking about sports other than tennis. Michael Johnson I can understand to a point because he is a performance specialist, but tennis isn't even a proper Olympic sport.
Shearer come out with such obvious stuff that it borders on patronisng to the average football supporter
------
Shearers idea of analysis is to describe what happened but using a 5 year olds vocabulary.
Sign in if you want to comment
Clare Balding...
Page 9 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9
posted on 13/8/12
I'll never forgive Clare Balding for insulting that jocky's teeth a few years ago - it was awful.
John Inverdale is the worst though. Some of the interviews he conducted at Dorney Lake with British rowers who had come 2nd and third were beyond disgraceful, he kept going on at them about "losing" and "falling short" and so on. I couldn't believe what I was watching.
posted on 13/8/12
Thorpe was better
posted on 13/8/12
I thought the presenting was pretty poor apart from Claire Balding. Gary Linekar, Inverdale, humpheries and Logan seemed too dismissive of other athletes other than GB ones (yes I know they were their athletes).
However, analysis from the likes of Michael Johnson, Colin Jackson (athletics), Mark Foster, and Ian Thorpe (swimming) were extremely insightful and respectful of all the athletes (possibly understanding the journey each one has made to be there).
The problem with football punditry though is you can be found out very easily. Some pundits like hansen and Shearer come out with such obvious stuff that it borders on patronisng to the average football supporter, at the end of the day there isn't much to understand about football (you know when someone messes up). Other pundit like Gary Neville try to vere away from cliched drivel.
As for the BBC pundits not researching the teams that are playing, thats just unprofessional and unforgivable.
Good post
posted on 13/8/12
I couldn't for the life of me understand why they had John McEnroe talking about sports other than tennis. Michael Johnson I can understand to a point because he is a performance specialist, but tennis isn't even a proper Olympic sport.
posted on 13/8/12
Shearer come out with such obvious stuff that it borders on patronisng to the average football supporter
------
Shearers idea of analysis is to describe what happened but using a 5 year olds vocabulary.
Page 9 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9