The Guardian continues it's war against football on telly

[cymrococh]

http://football.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/...1724011,00.html

 

With just 100 days to go England has gone Bent,' said Gary Lineker, using a crass mix of pun and innuendo to introduce live coverage of a friendly match against a team chosen because they rhyme with one of England's World Cup group opponents.

If that made you wince, what followed on the BBC1 prime-time broadcast would have made you despair. Given five minutes to fill before England and Uruguay kick-offed, Alan Hansen, Alan Shearer and Ian Wright were flummoxed. Shearer, a creosote fence upon which others can sit, said: '99.9 per cent of the squad has been chosen.' Even allowing for the fact that footballers count up to 110 per cent (to incorporate their agents' fees) this still made no sense. Yet it was marginally preferable to Wright dreaming of 'giving Uruguay a good hiding. It would be good.'

 

At half time, the tin-eared trio degenerated further as they chuntered on about a sweepstake no one else was privy to and complained that England were only behind because of a 'wonder goal'. Apparently, these don't really count, and, come to think of it, Ronaldinho's in the last World Cup should have been disallowed on these very grounds, in which case England would have won on penalties, because they always do, and gone on.

By the end, England having beaten a team who failed to win any of their 10 away games in failing to qualify for the World Cup, the goons, adopting the low standards they presumably apply to their own work, agreed it had been 'fantastic' and 'great stuff'. The programme ended with: 'Crouch gets off the couch to prove he's no slouch.' Which, in its use of a treble ouch, at least summed up their pundits' efforts.

 

The letters written in response to Paul Wilson's article last week suggest that many of you find the pundits unilluminating. They fail to cast any light on proceedings and, as they blunder around in the dark, they do not even entertain.

 

There is neither wit nor insight, just stuff and drivel. The only qualification for the job is having represented your country at the highest level. Eloquence or a semblance of critical acuity is surplus to requirements. They are employed for what they once were rather than how they might appear. They are beneficiaries of the Old England Cap network.

 

It is a chauvinistic system, which will only grate more come the World Cup when blind patriotism will compound the darkness and the viewer will be left having to witness hysterical studio celebrations if England win and grunts and whinges if they don't.

 

It is odd that the BBC, so keen to air programmes that tell us 'How to...' cook, dress and maximise our profits on the housing market, should not have given a thought to instructing highly paid employees how to make a television programme. This failing became explicit when Sally Gunnell, ending her gushing broadcasting career with her first meaningful contribution, complained that the Corporation had given her no training. To which the BBC might reply: 'Where do you start?' To which the viewer might reply: 'If that's what you think, why employ her?'

 

It is also odd that the BBC football department never employ someone to leaven the diet by providing the other side's point of view. On Wednesday, for instance, it might have been more instructive to hear from Gus Poyet on the Uruguay team than Wright on his chances of winning the in-house lottery.

 

And it is downright bizarre they never listen to their own radio station. On Wednesday, Alan Green, Terry Butcher, Graham Taylor and Mike Ingham commentated on the game with a humour and honesty so lacking with the Old England Cap network, even if Butcher, an experienced manager, is eligible for membership. If someone was playing poorly, they said so. If they were irked by the plethora of substitutions, they said so. If they thought Paul Robinson constituted a health risk to his own team-mates, they said so. They offered their opinions - pretty much the sine qua non of being a critic or pundit - and stood by them when challenged. They did their job.

 

So skewed are the priorities that doing this only leads them into trouble. When Green gave his opinion of Bolton, thereby upsetting Sam Allardyce, he was chastised by those who must feel that critics should not criticise and must think that the vital thing when discussing Big Sam is not to irk Big Sam.

 

On BBC all that is necessary is that you are recognisable and uncritical. Their choices are more patsy than pundit - employed to work in the same way as Unilever might sign up a soap star to shift product. And, as a result, the BBC's coverage is now studded with forgettable adverts that most viewers wisely skip.

 

It is most unlikely that anything will change between now and the World Cup. The BBC squad is probably, in the words of Shearer: '99.9 per cent chosen'.

 

Perhaps, though, they might use that 0.1 per cent of opportunity to welcome back an old employee to the team. Interviewed on The Guardian website last week, David Icke said: 'The BBC sports department when I was there was seriously to the right of Ghengis Khan and if people think I am strange they should have met some of the production staff I worked with. Margaret Thatcher and the Queen were the pin-up girls for many of them. I hope it's different now, for the sake of those who work there. As they used to say about the BBC - they get so confused they stab each other in the chest.'

 

Now that's the kind of hard-hitting punditry we could do with hearing a lot more of in Germany.

[Kvarme Ate My Food]

yo

[matty]

"it's" = It is, it has

 

"its" = possessive pronoun

 

hope this helps.

[cymrococh]

I actually missed the comma after "The Guardian".

 

you tw*t.

[Guest Anders Honoré]

shouldn't it be after 'continues' then?

[cymrococh]

shouldn't it be after 'continues' then?

Double Hit!!

 

Osgarth The Dwarf wins! +100HP