Coleman doesn’t see his future in punditry

But Sky took it to another level with just obnoxious loud mouths Souness, Keane etc who just are there seemingly to generate headlines for the back page of The Sun.

He's a gobshite and talks consistently shite on the box, the odd time I view Sky.

Ronaldo blanked him the other week, when the RS played United.

He commands no respect and should have been sacked for spitting against that United supporter from his car.

He's one many ex-professionals who talk blight every week, MotD and Sky.

Good luck to Ossie, he has a balanced view and his honest when does his stinks commentating.

Critises players he's not fit to clean the boots of let alone coaches who would leave him for dead.

Now we just need a player to address and ratify our terrible luck!

Agree with Seamus staying away, it's a complete swamp that detracts from the game, I can't watch it.

Most punditry is uninformed drivel spouted by ignorant types who are chasing money in return for their nonsense.

Seamus Coleman is a man of integrity and good sense, and far too fine a person to be involved in the sordid little world of TV pundits.

1) Wore a red shirt
2) Unable to do analysis
3) Failure as managers
4) No memories

i like to watch footy not listen to these no-hopers while they draw yellow boxes on screens. Pathetic

I didn't mind Wolstenholme and Coleman back in the day when football was a good and honest game played on a level playing field for every team not just the top dogs.

I assume it's because they haven't spent their entire career being spoilt, overpaid, arrogant tossers like Carra and the rest, and are much more down to earth.

How the media companies can justify paying these idiots the huge money they do is a scandal. I often think that media pundity is the geriatric home for players who have no marbles, exposed after their football legs have gone.

They certainly could not manage a team and it would be questionable if today they would be up to playing.

Michael #16

A real and very good point.

Hardly any of them have shown they can manage or coach a team –you get as much insight from the person next to you in the pub.

What annoys me is that the pundits are unable to explain the rules of football. Saying "it was never a penalty for me" doesn't count as an explanation.

The facts and laws that led them to their conclusions are never mentioned because I suspect they don't know the rules – and just go off their experience of previous referring decisions (even if under different rules).

What the feck does that mean???

The inconsistency of the refs is only beaten by the inconsistency of the pundits.

"There wasn't enough in it for me" when a player is pulled back in the penalty box, followed 10 minutes later by "He was entitled go down there" just leaves me fuming.

It shouldn't be about winning penalties – it's either a foul or not. Seems to me that cheating is an accepted part of the game now.

I have to give a bit of lee-way on this next one, they may be saying "He struck that with his favoured left foot" but it comes across to me as his 'favourite left foot', I think that description may be the correct version, because over the years I've seen many players who qualify for that category.

As a counterpoint, the women pundits have played football at a level that would not get them into a national league side.

They play, week-in & week-out, in front of crowds that Stalybridge Celtic would consider poor. As a result, they are not under as much pressure as the male professionals, and do not get the scrutiny, until they play in internationals. The internationals draw big crowds because, compared to the men's game, the tickets are given away.

I accept that as fans, of football, they have an opinion. But I don't think most of them are any more qualified to talk about the Premier League than a season ticket holding fan or a retired Halifax Town player.

The politically correct motivation of diversity is driving who is allowed on our screens. As a result, I always record televised sport and fast forward over all the garbage most of the pundits, whoever they are, are spouting.

(Except for Leon Osman!)

As a counterpoint to that, I see a large number of male pundits barely able to string a sentence together, let alone offer any intelligent insight into the game underway.

Whereas if you watch stuff like Tifo football, where the pundits have no playing experience, you get exceptional analysis.

In many respects, the pundits are being asked to talk bollocks and entertain (in some cases just to provoke). Apart from a few exceptions, they're not there to add any wisdom to the debate.

Personally, I think Osman, sadly, is not one of those exceptions.

So if a few of the pundits are women, that's fine by me, and might help get girls interested in a brilliant sport too. And in fairness, plenty of the women (just as they do on ToffeeWeb) do know what they're talking about and plenty of the men (again as per ToffeeWeb – perhaps including myself) don't know what they're on about.

Well, maybe, but only if you were a white male?

From my experience, commentators like Chris Sutton, Robbie Savage, Jim Beglin, Paul Merson, Matt Le Tissier, and countless others are the demonstration that 'ex-professional pundits are in the majority, vast vast majority, still white men.

And in their vast majority, are a bit shit, with uneducated, in researched views, all too focused on 'hot-topics' and when analysing any team other than one of the Sky 6, it becomes patently obvious that they watch very little football outside of MotD and whoever is playing on Sky.

Some (not all), of the female commentators, however, I find that they often watch much more, simply because they have to do research, they have to prepare themselves, because they get criticism so much more easily than male commentators.

Jim Beglin can say whatever he wants, and he'll get criticism for being an idiot by some, but he'll never get criticism for being a man.

Lucy Ward, however, will be castigated because of being a woman first.

Not if you're Mitrovic, Adams, Maupay etc, then it's "Oh he's trying to buy a foul there." Absolutely sickening.

I always record MotD myself because I can't stand the smug drivel from Lineker and his cohorts, but mainly because there's absolutely nothing worse than a woman commentating on a Premier League game. It's excruciating.

People can call me sexist all they want, I don't really care. But, in my view, women should stick to the women's game and men to the men's game.

But it won't happen because there's no real market for the women's game which is watched by one man and his dog. Therefore the major companies bring them on board for the men's game.

Another bastion lost to the PC gang.

Good ones!

A former player undoubtedly has a perspective, having played at the same professional level, of the game most will not have. The problem is most of them are frankly terrible at commentary.

But for me, the good ones are gold. I appreciate their perspective.

And I honestly could care less if the commentator is male or female, again with a caveat. Of all the female commentators I've heard, like one or two was any good at all. Most of them are frankly awful, and absolutely smack of "box ticking" hires as Andy @32 mentions.

Just get good, intelligent commentators. I could care less what gender, color, age, orientation, whatever! Stop box-ticking, stop hiring idiots, stop hiring biased buffoons, etc. Hire qualified individuals and close your eyes while you do it to any external "noise" about identities. Rebecca Lowe (female), Tim Howard (black), Robbie Earl (black) all spring to mind! I never, ever see gender or color – I love them as commentators and pundits. They are spectacular.

But we get what we get.

The good thing about all this is that some very qualified individuals are getting opportunities that they wouldn't have years ago. The bad thing is some really unqualified people are butchering opportunities that we have to suffer through because of the societal push to afford said opportunity.

Some of it, I'd argue, is an overreaction – but that would fill pages and therefore I'll leave it at that. I'm a firm believer that the last few years the PC movement has over-reached, and we're seeing a "correction" lately.

I'm also a firm believer that society is doing a dance, trying to find a balancing act, and I have a lot of confidence we will, as human beings, find that balance in the end.

The push and pull of politics and societal values will continue forever, long after anyone on TW is here on earth. The human race has, in the main over time, done a fabulous job of advancing and becoming more aware and cognizant of where they should ultimately be.

Commentators are just pawns in the gigantic dance to strike the right balance. So the push and pull goes on and on, and in the end we're all better for it.

So says I. Take it or leave it.

And lastly, I despise political correctness, for the record, just so you know where I'm coming from. But even despising it, I'd argue it's done a hell of a lot of good in many respects.

The reason for their skill is not just that they are more eloquent, articulate and, frankly, intelligent. It is because they have neutrality, no axe to grind and a viewpoint that is in line with the viewer or reader. They are skilled communicators.

We now have the appalling situation of good players, average players, and really average players becoming pundits. I enjoy women's football but having the box-ticking, utterly cliche-ridden, half-witted ex-women players joining the cretinous males who have stunk out our living rooms for years, is unbearable.

It is a vomit inducing, matey, lads and ladettes club that is absolutely fucking rotten. Not one iota of insight, discernment, subtlety, eloquence or courage. Only the desire to have their contract renewed to continue being sniggering self regarding oafs.

Seamus, you are better than that.

From what I could see he was only a commentator never a player but his understanding and how he contributed to others' understanding of the sport cannot be overstated. To some extent it can take someone from the audience to get it and put it into words to find the proper story.

That's a GREAT shout. Doc was to hockey what peanut butter is to jelly.

An amazing announcer that underscores Andy Crook's excellent point @34. Never played the game but knew it inside and out and was the best of commentators / announcers in any sport on planet earth.

A very small and almost geeky-looking fella, all the previous NHL players loved the man dearly - it was patently obvious.

Great shout.

Boxing's Al Bernstein.

Played the game and are pretty good, The 2 Robbies (Earle and Mustoe) are in the studio pundits for NBC soccer here in the States.

Generally, I mute my TV or computer during half-time for any sport. I leave it on for them.

Their game will very soon become a parody of the men's game. *And how many men provide commentary or analysis on the women's game? Just asking.

* I was tempted to write “Full of tits” here but thought better of it.

Spot on there, Dann,y about sports journalists, none better than the late Peter Wilson of the Daily Mirror when he was writing about boxing or tennis, especially boxers. Whether in the ring or out of it, his knowledge of them was profound. When he wrote about the actual fights, you felt like you were in the ring with the boxers and he could put you in your place if you had a different opinion to him.

I think he liked Henry Cooper a lot, the man and the boxer, because he obviously knew him. When I wrote to him about Henry's two fights with Ali and suggested that Henry wasn't a real test for the great Ali, he wrote back with a nice letter but finished by saying only one man had stayed on his feet throughout the two fights. Well, I couldn't really argue with that!!