How awful are RTE's panellists?

I'm lucky, in a way, that I can watch RTE's coverage of the world cup as the commentators and co-commentators are first class, and Apres Match is always a hoot, but in the studio.....there has to be a sacking or three.

Tonight Eamo has been spouting off that the North Korean captain plays, first, for Dynamo Moscow, then at half-time just now, that he plays in Moscow - when any goon can read his profile and see he plays in Rostov.

A couple of nights ago Johnny, who I find one of the more literate, states "I know nothing about them, so I can't comment." IT'S YOUR JOB!!!!!!! How hard is it to read a few lines from a researcher and at least make an effort to care. Okay, so it's not the sky league and Ireland aren't there, but please try.

Worse was Souey on the USA team, not alone were they all journeymen playing in nowhere leagues or "not playing at all", but his statement that they wouldn't be good enough to survive as a team in the Premier League! Come on, I know our pundits generally haven't a clue about anything other than what they know - ie Sky league football, but please try to remember that other competitions do exist and give the viewer some decent feedback.

Dietmar Hamann, however, does seem to be holding his own, as does Ronnie Whelan, and Kevin Kilbane is quite good. Liam Brady looks and sounds like he couldn't be bothered (or he's trying to ape Mick McCarthy for miserableness). So there are tiny positives, but the main men just seem to be painting by numbers!

Apologies for the rant and it's probably all been lost on people at home, I just expected more! Blame homesickness!

I will admit the lads dont get it right alot of the time. Dunphy spouts alot of rubbish, most of it sensationalist. Gilesy is a damn good tactical analyst but his widespread knowledge of football players isnt great and he does rely on reverting back to the past, in his day etc. Am a fan of Brady who is usually quite knowledge and Souness does offer something different as a non Irish contributor to the aforementioned three.

But for sheer entertainment, you cannot beat them. Compared to UTV and SKY they are miles ahead. BBC can be decent at times, but I do miss MO'Neill on this years WC coverage.

Where else would find classics like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlWkUYWSpCw

We probably wont appreciate Billo, Giles and Dunph fully until they are gone.

Really knowledgeable pundits are few and far between really, especially when it comes to the World Cup. Any viewer who keeps tabs on the lesser European leagues or the Copa Libertadores would probably have a better idea about some of these teams than the TV talent. I'd expect things to improve as the tournament proceeds, hopefully some good heated banter from Dunphy, Giles & Souness.

I agree on Hamann. Very listenable for such a stoic character. Ardiles is supposed to turn up too at some point. Plus, you never know when Souness will make molestation analogies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elroy

We probably wont appreciate Billo, Giles and Dunph fully until they are gone.

---

Very true. The dynamic between the three is irreplaceable really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spudulika

I'm lucky, in a way, that I can watch RTE's coverage of the world cup as the commentators and co-commentators are first class, and Apres Match is always a hoot, but in the studio.....there has to be a sacking or three.

Dietmar Hamann, however, does seem to be holding his own, as does Ronnie Whelan, and Kevin Kilbane is quite good. Liam Brady looks and sounds like he couldn't be bothered (or he's trying to ape Mick McCarthy for miserableness). So there are tiny positives, but the main men just seem to be painting by numbers!

Apologies for the rant and it's probably all been lost on people at home, I just expected more! Blame homesickness!

---

I actually enjoy Dunphy, Giles and Souness is top class. I wasnt impressed with Hamann or Kilbane at all, saying nothing of note. Liked Irwin though

Bill O herily was a right pain tonight though, maybe time for him to move on..................

Can't stand rte coverage in general Thats why I watch UTV or BBC but I do switch over at times to see what Dunphy has to say knowing it's usualy contraversial. But the next time I hear Mick mcarthy I defo switching over to rte ..... Can't beat sky

Ah ya got to love the irish analysts. . I cant stand watching fools like motson, linekar, andy gray, jamie redknapp and that sort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ciaran W

Ah ya got to love the irish analysts. . I cant stand watching fools like motson, linekar, andy gray, jamie redknapp and that sort.

---

Don't get me started. The greatest fools on TV are laughing Bill O'Herlihy and "I agree with John" Dunphy. Last night at half time, Dunphy says "I think North Korea will hold on for a draw" when anyone who has watched football would realise that it is in the 2nd half when teams under constant pressure usually crack. There was NEVER a chance of them holding on. Of the 3 Laughing Bill and Dunphy are a joke (Laughing Bill makes a controversial statement which he found on the back of a corn flakes box and that sends Dunphy off on a rant). Giles just says the same old thing time and time again as he pulls at the side of his jacket. So it has been for 30 years and there is no doubt it has worked. It is entertainment but don't mix it up with serious analysis.

What I will never forgive RTE for is that the 3 have viciously attacked every Irish manager since Eoin Hand without any balance in the Panel.

"A night to rejoice" says Laughing Bill following the game in Paris because we had played well. Enough said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OwlsFan

What I will never forgive RTE for is that the 3 have viciously attacked every Irish manager since Eoin Hand without any balance in the Panel.

---

Your dead right there Owls fan Dunphy has attacked every Irish manager since Charlton , why doesn't he get up an make a job of it...... because he hasn't a clue what hes on about and is only there to make controversial comments.

At least Souness has experience and knows what hes talking about and as someone said earlier hes not Irish and it gives the show a balance when there discussing the Irish team.

I havnt seen Ossie yet but Hamman seems to be making a good job of it but id rather watch a channel with serious annalist's that why I dont watch RTE.

weird that the Irish fans are criticising the RTE panel, and the foreign fans are praising it: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3...yze-the-action
If anyone is on the football365 forum, there's a dedicated RTE World Cup panel thread, well worth a read through

When Saturday Comes had a similar article during the last Euros or World Cup.

stu, there was an article in FourFourTwo around the same time

I think RTE rejoice in their reputation as a straight-talking panel who are not afraid of criticism and controversy, as opposed to the powder-puff analysis offered by the other channels.

I do think the panel, especially Dunphy, are willing to make comments just for the sake of generating controversy, which is part of a wider and rather primitive RTE view that any controversy is good television. That said, I think their willingness to cut close to the bone does mean they are more likely to make the critical comments which we as viewers know to be true, but are not used to seeing on other channels.

I think their positive reputation is more from their willingness to say something is crap when it is crap, and identify somebody as spoofing when they are spoofing, rather than a greater level of insight into the mechanics of the game.

slightly off topic, does anyone know why RTE are not doing radio commentary on the games?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

slightly off topic, does anyone know why RTE are not doing radio commentary on the games?

---

To cheap (:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

slightly off topic, does anyone know why RTE are not doing radio commentary on the games?

---

To cheap (:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

I think RTE rejoice in their reputation as a straight-talking panel who are not afraid of criticism and controversy, as opposed to the powder-puff analysis offered by the other channels.

I do think the panel, especially Dunphy, are willing to make comments just for the sake of generating controversy...

---

I think only Dunphy is really guilty of that, though he's guilty enough for the lot of them. Billo just says what he needs to say to get the panel talking (I really don't get the level of criticism of him here - sure he plays dumb, but it works), while Giles plays it pretty straight. Honestly, what I wouldn't give for a regular panel of Giles and Souness. The latter is willing to be criticial when he's on RTE, knows the game better than Dunphy and isn't as prone to raving wildly about how the most successful managers and players in the game are clowns and chancers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

I think only Dunphy is really guilty of that, though he's guilty enough for the lot of them. Billo just says what he needs to say to get the panel talking (I really don't get the level of criticism of him here - sure he plays dumb, but it works), while Giles plays it pretty straight. Honestly, what I wouldn't give for a regular panel of Giles and Souness. The latter is willing to be criticial when he's on RTE, knows the game better than Dunphy and isn't as prone to raving wildly about how the most successful managers and players in the game are clowns and chancers.

---

the panel with Brady and Souness yesterday was a bit bland though, it needed someone like Dunphy to inject that wild card comment to get them talking

As I've mentioned on the WC predictions thread it could be worse for you guys you could have the BBC/ITV. Here's Tom Engish on the joke that is English punditry:

IT'S FAIR to say that it's not just ITV that has taken some stick for some of their coverage at this World Cup, particularly the coverage of the tournament's lesser lights. The BBC have been getting it in the neck as well. To give you an example, what I'm talking about here is things like Alan Shearer's self-proclaimed "expert analysis" that amounts to a conveyor belt of cliches and the kind of insight that even a child of six would describe as laughable.

Before the Algeria versus Slovenia game in Group C on Sunday, Shearer seemed to be speaking for the entire BBC panel when he said, "Our knowledge of these two teams is limited." Limited! What the former England striker was saying was that he hadn't done his homework, that he hadn't spoken to any of his vast array of contacts in the game, hadn't tapped into the BBC's huge research machinery, hadn't even bothered, seemingly, to peruse the internet for some background on Algeria and Slovenia or even flick through a newspaper or a magazine. Shearer was content to sit in front of the cameras and tell the viewers that, really, he didn't know much. Hardly a revelation to those of us who have groaned our way through his anodyne commentaries in the past, but embarrassing all the same.

Why do the BBC deem that acceptable? Why is Shearer not taken aside and told, 'Listen, if you can't be bothered doing some research on this game then get lost'. It's a different, and entirely more professional story, on radio where the wonderful 5 Live and, closer to home, the award-winning Radio Scotland present their football coverage in a proper fashion. How does Shearer (but not just Shearer) get away with opting out like that?

And here's another one. The Beeb got carpeted by some viewers for their treatment of that Algeria game. So what happened before the kick-off in yesterday's lunch-time match between New Zealand and Slovakia? In a six-and-a-half minute introduction just one player out of the 22 on show was given a name-check, and here is how it happened.

Lee Dixon: "Slovakia have got some decent players, Hamsik, the pick of them. Young player, plays on the left side."

Gary Lineker: "He's at Napoli."

Lee Dixon: "That's right."

Alan Hansen (chuckling): "Somebody gave you him, by the way."

What Hansen meant, I think, was that his colleagues must have been fed the Hamsik reference by another party, that they couldn't have come up with his name all by themselves. It's not like Dixon or Lineker produced a dossier of facts about Hamsik, a file of information on who he is and where he has been. All they did was mention his name and the fact that he was rather good. That was it. Hansen seemed to think this was worthy of a gently-mocking put-down, as if the other two were some kind of class swots. As such, he was almost revelling in his own ignorance.

There's a lot of this going about, on BBC and ITV. The level of punditry is cringe-making. It's lowest common denominator stuff. Patronising and insulting, much of it. Emmanuel Adebayor's mobile phone started ringing in his pocket live on air the other day. His respect for the viewers didn't even amount to him making sure the thing was switched off. Edgar Davids has been unintelligible, Gareth Southgate hasn't said one interesting thing, Kevin Keegan has been nothing more than a cheerleader for England and Andy Townsend has been his usual bland self, trotting out statements of the obvious with a rapid-fire gusto. "I tell you what, for me, he's gotta hit the target from there!"

And you are paid how much, Andy?

Clarence Seedorf was in the BBC studio the other night for the Italy versus Paraguay match and he was making a point about the positive impact an Italian substitute had made on the game. He was referring to Antonio Di Natale, winner of more than 30 caps for the Azzurri and the leading goalscorer in Serie A in the season just gone, but Seedorf couldn't remember his name. Hadn't a clue. Neither did the blokes alongside him, Hansen among them. "He was the No 10," said a smiling Seedorf, who then reached for a team-sheet on the desk for help before realising that it was the Dutch team-sheet. "That's no use," he laughed. Indeed, Clarence.

Hansen thought this was priceless. "That might be highlight of the World Cup so far," he trumpeted. The programme ended and still nobody had figured out that the No 10 was Di Natale. You would hope that behind the scenes the BBC producers were holding their heads in their hands with embarrassment, but you wouldn't bank on it. Of course, in the squirm factor stakes there are many challengers. Mick McCarthy claimed just before kick-off in the Argentina versus Nigeria game that he'd only just realised that the Juan Sebastian Veron that appeared on his team-sheet was the same Veron who'd played for Manchester United and Chelsea. Quite a statement of ignorance, that.

In fairness to McCarthy, he does have something to offer in his reading of the game. It's just that there is so much that makes you wince in between. What we're getting a lot of from both sides is glib nonsense, lalalala jokes and crass stereotyping. Adrian Chiles is flavour of the month on ITV, but his popularity is not what it was. It wasn't his fault that ITV HD pressed the wrong button at the wrong time during England's opening game and missed Steven Gerrard's goal, but Chiles has been distinctly unconvincing in the anchor role. He wants to be the funny man when the job demands gravitas. He wants to throw in one-liners when he should be attempting to spearhead a proper discussion about a match.

His introduction to England's game against the Americans was mortifying. Wielding a baseball bat and sending a message to America, he said, "Just stick to your sports, why don't you?" Chiles was also seen patting a burger, adding: "We really love Americans, just wouldn't eat a whole one." He made himself look like a clown.

Keegan's summing-up: "It was a very, very good performance, good enough to win any game." This classic piece of Keegan claptrap should have been jumped upon and ripped apart for the nonsensical garbage that it was, but it sailed through pretty much. Chiles doesn't do confrontation – neither does the BBC – and it's a terrible weakness. There is no edge, no passion. It's all so bloody harmless and dull.

ITV needed somebody with a backbone to turn around to Keegan and say to him, 'Okay Kevin, what you're saying there is a load of junk. Explain how getting a draw against a team of journeymen like America is very good, explain the selection of James Milner out of position, explain why the rank ordinary Shaun Wright-Phillips was brought on instead of the classy Joe Cole, explain the failure of Gerrard and Frank Lampard to function together yet again, explain why this negated Wayne Rooney's impact'. Kev didn't do any of that, though.

There are many days ahead when our intelligence will be insulted by "expert analysts" who speak to us like simpletons who've just staggered home from the pub. We could do a lot worse than hitting the mute button from here on in. Or getting the commentary off the radio.

Not a huge fan of Ronnie Whelan, but thought he was excellent yesterday. Like him, I also noticed that there is an awful lot of messed up passing in this world cup, the simple straight passes, and its an ability thing rather than the ball.