Sportsound Watch

[Guest TheJTS98]

23 minutes ago, Junior_Arab said:

Similarly, I also find it quite irritating when I’m listening to podcasts and journalists or features writers talk (always with the benefit of hindsight of course) about a managers tactics or a mistake that a player has made in a really patronising “what was he thinking?” way. 

There was a belter for that last week on Football Weekly. One of the contributors made a tactical suggestion about England using an extra attacking midfielder and then said 'I'm not sure if Southgate has thought about that'.

Fucking hell!

[NorthBank]

9 hours ago, TheJTS98 said:

I agree with your sentiment. I'm just not sure where they turn.
The modern media landscape of working for free and rakes of 'freelancers' means that the standard in football journalism is probably as low as it's ever been. I don't see much evidence of a cohort of high-quality replacements chomping at the bit to come in and do that job well.
Further evidence of this can be seen by looking at the kinds of dross BBC Scotland publishes on its website about football. Dross is being kind to some of the names who frequently pop up on there with risible nonsense or clickbait shite.
 

If they don't try to find intelligent pundits then we are stuck with the current dross. Give some new blood a try at least. Chris Iwulemo sounded decent to me as does Marvyn Bartley although he is still playing but maybe one for the future.

Surely there must be better out there than Chick Young, Jane Lewis and Paddy Bonnar et al? And promote Eileidh Barbour.

Edited April 4, 2021 by NorthBank

[Jamie_B]

Chick Young should have been put out to pasture long, long ago. In the last couple of years he’s actively touted Jim Duffy for Scotland and John Hughes for Celtic. I mean I’d have loved for the latter appointment to happen but come on, the guy is blatantly losing his grip on reality.

[Junior_Arab]

Just realised who I sounded like in my mega-post above...

 

[Frank Grimes]

45 minutes ago, VictorOnopko said:

Great player, legend on the field in his day, obviously. Sadly he's long been a shite, lazy pundit who tells the nation almost every week on OOM that he is cold/bored/wants to go home/is glad the game is finished.  His tone of voice is so depressing that it casts a pall over whatever game he is at.

I don't actually mind him on Scotland match nights, in the build up etc., in a kind of "view from the rocking chair" way, from a man who has achieved great things and rocked up at World Cup Finals in the very distant past, and is now raising an elderly eyebrow at our leaky defence.  But, week to week in the league?  Nope. 

Let your spree commence.

 

[Sergeant Wilson]

59 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Willie Miller has openly said, almost boastfully, that he doesn't do research on teams.

It wouldn't be hard to demand and enforce some standards. Get everyone some training on how to properly report. Replace those who aren't up to it via an interview process where ability is tested, rather than just inviting yet another former Rangers/Celtic/Sevco player.

We've clearly seen that having the played the game does not bestow upon someone good insight.

 

Of course absolutely none of this will happen.

He probably only gets a single fee for a days work and doesn't think it merits much more effort. You'd think personal pride would gee him on to appear a bit more knowledgable, but it would appear not. No-one with any editorial in put will have the bottle to tell him or simply can't be bothered as the audience will listen anyway.

[Monkey Tennis]

Yes, I say this all the time, but the failure of the pundit to convey the most basic bits of information on OAM is infuriating.   

Even when I've been listening all afternoon, I often forget who exactly is at each ground.  Obviously, when I just catch ten minutes in the car or whatever - an experience hardly unique to me - I haven't a clue.  Similarly, although I kind of know who plenty named players play for, my knowledge is far from encyclopaedic.  Again, I doubt if this makes me special.

It means that when I get told breathlessly about a goal or penalty miss or something, unless I'm specifically told which teams are involved and what the development now makes the score, I'm often in the dark.  

I find it incredible that they're not explicitly instructed simply to start each contribution with a recap of the score in the match they're watching.  No such instruction is clearly given though, and the pundit is rarely smart or insightful enough to recognise what's necessary.  They often need to realise that it's not just Richard Gordon they're telling about events.

[Dons_1988]

Is a lot of this not symptomatic of Scottish football in general, particularly among the media? 

Always seems to be a culture that it’s a bit shit and a bit quirky but it’s all a good laugh so who cares. OAM seems to pride itself in being an absolute shambles. 

[Bogbrush1903]

41 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Is a lot of this not symptomatic of Scottish football in general, particularly among the media? 

Always seems to be a culture that it’s a bit shit and a bit quirky but it’s all a good laugh so who cares. OAM seems to pride itself in being an absolute shambles. 

It's called money for old rope for the boys in the game.  We're the mugs being fed their shite. 

The only thing it shines a light on is how bad the coaches and managers in Scotland are... 

[Monkey Tennis]

2 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

OAM seems to pride itself in being an absolute shambles. 

I actually quite like the format.  Its USP is that kind of hectic atmosphere of lots of things happening at once and it's quite a good idea.  However, for it to be effective we need to know what these things in fact are.  

That bit is reliant on having a certain standard of pundits, who understand the nature and priorities of their role.

[TonyFerrino]

4 hours ago, Jamie_Beatson said:

Chick Young should have been put out to pasture long, long ago. In the last couple of years he’s actively touted Jim Duffy for Scotland and John Hughes for Celtic. I mean I’d have loved for the latter appointment to happen but come on, the guy is blatantly losing his grip on reality.

That should be a sackable offence.  Was he drunk?

[Mark Connolly]

27 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I actually quite like the format.  Its USP is that kind of hectic atmosphere of lots of things happening at once and it's quite a good idea.  However, for it to be effective we need to know what these things in fact are.  

That bit is reliant on having a certain standard of pundits, who understand the nature and priorities of their role.

OAM is an excellent format, but it's got worse and worse over the years. I'm sure the decline is nothing to do with the decrease in actual reporters and the increase in former players being employed.

[Dons_1988]

34 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I actually quite like the format.  Its USP is that kind of hectic atmosphere of lots of things happening at once and it's quite a good idea.  However, for it to be effective we need to know what these things in fact are.  

That bit is reliant on having a certain standard of pundits, who understand the nature and priorities of their role.

Yeah I wasn’t particularly aiming my criticism at the format but the execution. 

[TheScarf]

16 minutes ago, Mark Connolly said:

OAM is an excellent format, but it's got worse and worse over the years. I'm sure the decline is nothing to do with the decrease in actual reporters and the increase in former players being employed.

That’s exactly why it is. You’ve gone from professionals who have had media training, to ex- pros who are dinosaurs who think it’s still 1986.

[A96]

46 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I actually quite like the format.  Its USP is that kind of hectic atmosphere of lots of things happening at once and it's quite a good idea.  However, for it to be effective we need to know what these things in fact are.  

That bit is reliant on having a certain standard of pundits, who understand the nature and priorities of their role.

Can’t argue with that. 

I think they need to recognise the strengths and weaknesses of the various pundits.  Willie Miller , for instance is , in my opinion , decent as a co-commentator but absolutely hopeless on OAM.  Sometimes when I’m at Pittodrie , I’ll also listen to OAM and on countless occasions there’s been some action that Willie just doesn’t bother mentioning. 

I know they seem to come in for a lot of flak, but I actually think Allan Preston and Billy Dodds are both pretty good on OAM. For the most part they’ll only pipe up about the game they’re covering when there’s an appropriate incident. And when there’s a goal they don’t waffle on before telling the listener which team have scored.  

The female who does the games at Inverness and Dingwall is possibly even worse than Chick Young as far as getting round to stating which team has just scored and what the score is now. 

Heather Dewar usually takes so long telling us about the tieam lineups that almost inevitably she’ll be interrupted by someone reporting on one of the other games.....(not Willie Miller)

Pat  Bonner doesn’t have any strengths

 

 

 

 

[kingjoey]

1 hour ago, Mark Connolly said:

OAM is an excellent format, but it's got worse and worse over the years. I'm sure the decline is nothing to do with the decrease in actual reporters and the increase in former players being employed.

I like OAM and, probably in the minority of one, think that in reality the only thing wrong with it is that we usually don’t know which team has scored a goal. Other than that I actually like most of the banter.

[Guest TheJTS98]

2 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I actually quite like the format.  Its USP is that kind of hectic atmosphere of lots of things happening at once and it's quite a good idea.  However, for it to be effective we need to know what these things in fact are.  

That bit is reliant on having a certain standard of pundits, who understand the nature and priorities of their role.

Agree with this. The format is great. The execution is the problem.

I don't mind it being hectic. That's all part of the fun, and football is meant to be fun. My problem is the standard of information and analysis.

I actually think the standout is Derek Ferguson. He falls over his words a lot, but he's the one who most regularly provides some actual insight into what is happening tactically and gives you wee nuggets about what teams could do to change a game or why a game has changed. His general opinions on football can be a bit rubbish, but his actual analysis of what's happening is good. He was a smashing player who should have done more with his career, and he applies what he knows quite well to analysing games.

[DiegoDiego]

Derek Ferguson also seems to relish being sent to cover Ayr vs Alloa or whatever. Instead of "pretend" moaning about the lack of succulent lamb he seems genuinely excited and thankful to be there.

With the likes of Miller you think "Well if he doesn't care about this match, why should I?"

[House Bartender]

A gem from Charlie Adam - just what is needed? Any team wants someone in that role to "dictate play" but ...

"Scott Wright's been excellent all evening. He's dictated play and shown what is needed to be a Rangers player"

Learning the words of the Sash? 

[Mark Connolly]

I'm on the "Derek Ferguson is decent" train as well. He struggles a bit from time to time, but he generally gets his point, and more importantly the actual facts of the game, across relatively coherently, and definitely has the "I'm getting paid to watch football, fucking brilliant" enthusiasm of a proper fan. I've mentioned before, and I may be well off, but he always struggles with his HT and FT reports,  I always wondered if he was dyslexic and struggled to read back what he has prepared (or had prepared for him).