Best/Worst Pundit

383 posts
User avatar
genome
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 19644
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 13:29
Location: Universe

Re: Best/Worst Pundit

by genome » 07 Jan 2020 09:50

sandman Danny Murphy is a happy wee soul isn't he?


I genuinely muted it and put some music on instead while I was watching the game. Can't stand him on commentary.

User avatar
stealthpapes
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7314
Joined: 05 Jun 2013 13:25
Location: proverbs 26:11

Re: Best/Worst Pundit

by stealthpapes » 07 Jan 2020 13:19

URZZZZ
sandman Danny Murphy is a happy wee soul isn't he?


Think we can conclude Murphy was a big fan of Xhaka too


genuinely thought that was Lawro. Christ, did Xhaka piss on his flower pots?

URZZZZ
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4075
Joined: 20 Apr 2013 18:30

Re: Best/Worst Pundit

by URZZZZ » 08 Jan 2020 00:36

stealthpapes
URZZZZ
sandman Danny Murphy is a happy wee soul isn't he?


Think we can conclude Murphy was a big fan of Xhaka too


genuinely thought that was Lawro. Christ, did Xhaka piss on his flower pots?


For some reason, a lot of pundits, football fans around the world etc give him bad press

Personally don’t think he’s as bad as people make him out to be. He’s not amazing for sure but he’s still a decent enough option for Arsenal

User avatar
Franchise FC
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5388
Joined: 22 May 2007 16:24
Location: The Frozen North

Re: Best/Worst Pundit

by Franchise FC » 08 Jan 2020 06:59

URZZZZ
stealthpapes
URZZZZ
Think we can conclude Murphy was a big fan of Xhaka too


genuinely thought that was Lawro. Christ, did Xhaka piss on his flower pots?


For some reason, a lot of pundits, football fans around the world etc give him bad press

Personally don’t think he’s as bad as people make him out to be. He’s not amazing for sure but he’s still a decent enough option for Arsenal

For an awful moment then I thought you were talking about Lawro :shock: :shock:

sandman
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 12454
Joined: 01 Oct 2008 18:25
Location: Slaughterhouse soaked in blood and betrayal

Re: Best/Worst Pundit

by sandman » 08 Jan 2020 08:00

Franchise FC
URZZZZ
stealthpapes
genuinely thought that was Lawro. Christ, did Xhaka piss on his flower pots?


For some reason, a lot of pundits, football fans around the world etc give him bad press

Personally don’t think he’s as bad as people make him out to be. He’s not amazing for sure but he’s still a decent enough option for Arsenal

For an awful moment then I thought you were talking about Lawro :shock: :shock:


He was talking about Lawro. Much better option than Luiz or Mustafi.


User avatar
Franchise FC
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5388
Joined: 22 May 2007 16:24
Location: The Frozen North

Re: Best/Worst Pundit

by Franchise FC » 08 Jan 2020 10:09

sandman
Franchise FC
URZZZZ
For some reason, a lot of pundits, football fans around the world etc give him bad press

Personally don’t think he’s as bad as people make him out to be. He’s not amazing for sure but he’s still a decent enough option for Arsenal

For an awful moment then I thought you were talking about Lawro :shock: :shock:


He was talking about Lawro. Much better option than Luiz or Mustafi.

:D :D

User avatar
stealthpapes
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7314
Joined: 05 Jun 2013 13:25
Location: proverbs 26:11

Re: Best/Worst Pundit

by stealthpapes » 08 Jan 2020 16:47

lol

User avatar
Franchise FC
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5388
Joined: 22 May 2007 16:24
Location: The Frozen North

Re: Best/Worst Pundit

by Franchise FC » 09 Jan 2020 16:13

Always thought Robbie Savage was OK (a bit controversial for the sake of it at times), but he's dropped a few points today with his comments about marks given to players for performances.

Apparently, Phil Jones was given an average score of just under 3 for his performance against City the other night. Savage is arguing that no player should ever be given a mark under 5. If that's right, then don't bother marking out of 10, just do it out of 6 because the first 4 obviously don't count. His rationale is that Phil Jones has worked hard, played for his country and, and, and …
My view is 'so what' - if the performance was that bad then 2 or 3 is perfectly acceptable as a mark given.

The problem is that it does seem to be fairly widespread that 4 or 5 represents a bad performance, 6 or 7 average and 8, 9 & 10 good or better. Strikes me as counter-intuitive as 5 should probably represent average.

Come on Robbie, don't let us down now.

User avatar
John Smith
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4162
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 23:47
Location: We should never ponder on our thoughts today cos they hold sway over time

Re: Best/Worst Pundit

by John Smith » 09 Jan 2020 16:38

Martin Tyler simply has to go. Quite a few others saying it on Twitter now so I can't be the only one. His style now oozes arrogance: he refuses to get excited as if he knows the goal is coming and it's a formality.

Best: Ian Darke - makes the BT subscription almost value for money.


URZZZZ
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4075
Joined: 20 Apr 2013 18:30

Re: Best/Worst Pundit

by URZZZZ » 09 Jan 2020 16:40

Franchise FC Always thought Robbie Savage was OK (a bit controversial for the sake of it at times), but he's dropped a few points today with his comments about marks given to players for performances.

Apparently, Phil Jones was given an average score of just under 3 for his performance against City the other night. Savage is arguing that no player should ever be given a mark under 5. If that's right, then don't bother marking out of 10, just do it out of 6 because the first 4 obviously don't count. His rationale is that Phil Jones has worked hard, played for his country and, and, and …
My view is 'so what' - if the performance was that bad then 2 or 3 is perfectly acceptable as a mark given.

The problem is that it does seem to be fairly widespread that 4 or 5 represents a bad performance, 6 or 7 average and 8, 9 & 10 good or better. Strikes me as counter-intuitive as 5 should probably represent average.

Come on Robbie, don't let us down now.


I sort of see where he's coming from but don't necessarily agree

When rating players, people are often subjected to biases depending on the players they like/dislike so sometimes it can be a bit of a pointless exercise. People scoring below 4 should be a rare occurrence but in the real world it isn't

I'd put 5 as slightly below average, 6 as slightly above average and work from there.

User avatar
BR0B0T
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11409
Joined: 08 Nov 2016 23:25

Re: Best/Worst Pundit

by BR0B0T » 09 Jan 2020 21:44

Franchise FC Always thought Robbie Savage was OK (a bit controversial for the sake of it at times), but he's dropped a few points today with his comments about marks given to players for performances.

Apparently, Phil Jones was given an average score of just under 3 for his performance against City the other night. Savage is arguing that no player should ever be given a mark under 5. If that's right, then don't bother marking out of 10, just do it out of 6 because the first 4 obviously don't count. His rationale is that Phil Jones has worked hard, played for his country and, and, and …
My view is 'so what' - if the performance was that bad then 2 or 3 is perfectly acceptable as a mark given.

The problem is that it does seem to be fairly widespread that 4 or 5 represents a bad performance, 6 or 7 average and 8, 9 & 10 good or better. Strikes me as counter-intuitive as 5 should probably represent average.

Come on Robbie, don't let us down now.


you can get marked 0 -10

10! = 55

55 / 11 = 5 = average mark (in my book)

User avatar
Silver Fox
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 20365
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 10:02
Location: From the Andes to the indies in my undies

Re: Best/Worst Pundit

by Silver Fox » 10 Jan 2020 09:18

John Smith Martin Tyler simply has to go. Quite a few others saying it on Twitter now so I can't be the only one. His style now oozes arrogance: he refuses to get excited as if he knows the goal is coming and it's a formality.

Best: Ian Darke - makes the BT subscription almost value for money.


This might be the stupidest most back to front opinion I've ever seen

User avatar
John Smith
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4162
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 23:47
Location: We should never ponder on our thoughts today cos they hold sway over time

Re: Best/Worst Pundit

by John Smith » 10 Jan 2020 09:39

Silver Fox
John Smith Martin Tyler simply has to go. Quite a few others saying it on Twitter now so I can't be the only one. His style now oozes arrogance: he refuses to get excited as if he knows the goal is coming and it's a formality.

Best: Ian Darke - makes the BT subscription almost value for money.


This might be the stupidest most back to front opinion I've ever seen

Fair enough. Please provide your counter opinion then.


User avatar
Franchise FC
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5388
Joined: 22 May 2007 16:24
Location: The Frozen North

Re: Best/Worst Pundit

by Franchise FC » 10 Jan 2020 10:38

John Smith
Silver Fox
John Smith Martin Tyler simply has to go. Quite a few others saying it on Twitter now so I can't be the only one. His style now oozes arrogance: he refuses to get excited as if he knows the goal is coming and it's a formality.

Best: Ian Darke - makes the BT subscription almost value for money.


This might be the stupidest most back to front opinion I've ever seen

Fair enough. Please provide your counter opinion then.

Can't comment on Ian Darke, but Tyler irritates the hell out of me. His 'And It's Live' at the adverts before a game is cringeworthy every time.
Yes, Martin, we know it's live, otherwise we wouldn't be watching it.

sandman
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 12454
Joined: 01 Oct 2008 18:25
Location: Slaughterhouse soaked in blood and betrayal

Re: Best/Worst Pundit

by sandman » 10 Jan 2020 11:24

Always remember Ian Darke, in Commentary on a Spurs match, saying "Clive Allen is off tomorrow to watch Young Boys".

User avatar
From Despair To Where?
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10786
Joined: 19 Apr 2004 08:37
Location: Goin' up around the bend.

Re: Best/Worst Pundit

by From Despair To Where? » 10 Jan 2020 17:09

URZZZZ
Franchise FC Always thought Robbie Savage was OK (a bit controversial for the sake of it at times), but he's dropped a few points today with his comments about marks given to players for performances.

Apparently, Phil Jones was given an average score of just under 3 for his performance against City the other night. Savage is arguing that no player should ever be given a mark under 5. If that's right, then don't bother marking out of 10, just do it out of 6 because the first 4 obviously don't count. His rationale is that Phil Jones has worked hard, played for his country and, and, and …
My view is 'so what' - if the performance was that bad then 2 or 3 is perfectly acceptable as a mark given.

The problem is that it does seem to be fairly widespread that 4 or 5 represents a bad performance, 6 or 7 average and 8, 9 & 10 good or better. Strikes me as counter-intuitive as 5 should probably represent average.

Come on Robbie, don't let us down now.


I sort of see where he's coming from but don't necessarily agree

When rating players, people are often subjected to biases depending on the players they like/dislike so sometimes it can be a bit of a pointless exercise. People scoring below 4 should be a rare occurrence but in the real world it isn't

I'd put 5 as slightly below average, 6 as slightly above average and work from there.



I'm just amazed anyone takes those ratings seriously.

User avatar
6ft Kerplunk
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7377
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 10:09
Location: Shoegazing Sheißhaus

Re: Best/Worst Pundit

by 6ft Kerplunk » 13 Jan 2020 11:58

From Despair To Where?
URZZZZ
Franchise FC Always thought Robbie Savage was OK (a bit controversial for the sake of it at times), but he's dropped a few points today with his comments about marks given to players for performances.

Apparently, Phil Jones was given an average score of just under 3 for his performance against City the other night. Savage is arguing that no player should ever be given a mark under 5. If that's right, then don't bother marking out of 10, just do it out of 6 because the first 4 obviously don't count. His rationale is that Phil Jones has worked hard, played for his country and, and, and …
My view is 'so what' - if the performance was that bad then 2 or 3 is perfectly acceptable as a mark given.

The problem is that it does seem to be fairly widespread that 4 or 5 represents a bad performance, 6 or 7 average and 8, 9 & 10 good or better. Strikes me as counter-intuitive as 5 should probably represent average.

Come on Robbie, don't let us down now.


I sort of see where he's coming from but don't necessarily agree

When rating players, people are often subjected to biases depending on the players they like/dislike so sometimes it can be a bit of a pointless exercise. People scoring below 4 should be a rare occurrence but in the real world it isn't

I'd put 5 as slightly below average, 6 as slightly above average and work from there.



I'm just amazed anyone takes Savage seriously.


Corrected for you.

Stranded
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 12011
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 12:42
Location: Propping up the bar in the Nags

Re: Best/Worst Pundit

by Stranded » 13 Jan 2020 12:21

URZZZZ
Franchise FC Always thought Robbie Savage was OK (a bit controversial for the sake of it at times), but he's dropped a few points today with his comments about marks given to players for performances.

Apparently, Phil Jones was given an average score of just under 3 for his performance against City the other night. Savage is arguing that no player should ever be given a mark under 5. If that's right, then don't bother marking out of 10, just do it out of 6 because the first 4 obviously don't count. His rationale is that Phil Jones has worked hard, played for his country and, and, and …
My view is 'so what' - if the performance was that bad then 2 or 3 is perfectly acceptable as a mark given.

The problem is that it does seem to be fairly widespread that 4 or 5 represents a bad performance, 6 or 7 average and 8, 9 & 10 good or better. Strikes me as counter-intuitive as 5 should probably represent average.

Come on Robbie, don't let us down now.


I sort of see where he's coming from but don't necessarily agree

When rating players, people are often subjected to biases depending on the players they like/dislike so sometimes it can be a bit of a pointless exercise. People scoring below 4 should be a rare occurrence but in the real world it isn't

I'd put 5 as slightly below average, 6 as slightly above average and work from there.


Not that they are important but always thought the accepted way of things for ratings was all players start on a 6 i.e. effective but nothing special and depending on how they play this shifts up or down. So a 6 is basically your base level i.e. you turned up, didn't screw up monumentally but didn't only anything particuarly well.

The footballers version of an Effective/Meets Standards on an annual appraisal.

User avatar
Zammo
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4412
Joined: 09 Jun 2005 13:22
Location: Back In The Village

Re: Best/Worst Pundit

by Zammo » 14 Jul 2020 14:23

Clive Tyldesley been given the ITV elbow as main commentator and he aint happy about it.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/clive-tyldesley-video-replaced-itv-18593689

Matterface to replace.

South Coast Royal
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1268
Joined: 16 Jan 2020 17:29

Re: Best/Worst Pundit

by South Coast Royal » 14 Jul 2020 15:47

Zammo Clive Tyldesley been given the ITV elbow as main commentator and he aint happy about it.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/clive-tyldesley-video-replaced-itv-18593689

Matterface to replace.


Great news-one of the worst commentators ever.
I know Foxy will be pleased as well.

383 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

It is currently 01 Oct 2020 06:45