Except that they analyse how they think the game will go and then get it completely wrong. Then they analyse how they think the second half will go and get it wrong again.
Then they analyse the game afterwards and blame one side for being so poor and for daring to wreck their pre-match analysis.
No they don't sit of the fence - Dunphy just airs his personal prejudices on the national airwaves and Giles usually agrees with him and vice versa. And Laughing Bill.....well he just laughs.
ANyone see Lawrenson having a go at Mourinho after the Liverpool game because he never played the game and therefore didn't understand the game ? Playing the right footed Gallas at left back was one argument he cited in favour of his argument. Doh! As if it takes a pundit to be able to work that out than he has to drag the ball back onto his right foot to cross. I reckon most of there "experts" have as much clue about the game as you or I and that you don't have to have had to play at the highest level to be able to read a game or predict the outcome. Indeed most so-called pundits are failed managers. Mourinho has won a lot more as a manager than Lawrenson ever did in his short managerial career at Preston. He is resented by many of the pundits because he never played the game.