not keen on Shearer either:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/80...

He's got a point hasn't he?

and I think he is prepared to be critical and provoke argument as his comments on Walcott show. I think Lineker's ok too especially now he's toned down the lads mag humour.

However, Shearer is very tedious and provides no insight and I find Mark Lawrenson just plain odd. For me, Steve Claridge is impressive as is Tony Cascarinho. It is interesting that controversial footballers like Colleymore and Robbie Savage turn ou to be intelligent analysers too.The MOTD set-up does seem very cosy and smug though, so I do think Colley has a point.

He has very dogged opinions.

But if it's still a Saturday night highlights programme, does anyone watch it? If you're that interested you'll get Sky or whatever. A magazine format presented by James Richardson would be good.

and The Guardian's footie podcast is always entertaining. There's a programme on in the wee small hours on 5 live with news and views from around the world which is good too. The bloke that does the South American stuff whose name escapes me is really good.

is one of the BBC's flagship programmes and it shows.

These programmes have to appeal to a wider audience than just the average rabid Millwall fan chasing after a Watford defender. MOTD is as much for people who only get their fix of football from MOTD and nowhere else so it has to have mass appeal to corale the passing couch potato.

But the Lineker-Hansen-Shearer triptych is increasingly likely to inflict a repetitive strain injury to my brain. They are stupefyingly boring these days, all looking like the cats that got the cream or as if 5 minutes before going on air they've been enjoying having their egos massaged for the previous 4 hours by fawning short-skirted research assistants in the green room who giggle inanely every time Gary pulls one of his faces from the Walker's crisps ads.

Lineker presents like a man who wants the TV gigs Alan Titchmash gets and would probably be happier doing 3 months of "19th hole PR" for a golf complex on the Algarve. His perma-tan and cilit banged teeth mark him out as a man working his way to a publicly-supported dotage normally reserved for large-jawed woven-wigged comedians fronting dance shows and tubby Irish radio presenters distilled for 50 years in blarney.

Hansen tries to love himself onscreen as much as Lineker does but seems to still have the shackles of being an ex-pro the way Lineker doesn't anymore. As a result he's definitely groomed himself enough to be a housewive's favourite but retains the stilted and resigned air of a man expecting a jockstrap wedgie from Graeme Souness in the changing room. He's jocular in a way that isn't as annoying as Gary and is capable of informed insights into the games shown on MOTD but as soon as he starts talking about football he becomes more life-sapping than an HMRC demand for unpaid tax: it's like he's consciously willing his gonads to shrink up into his stomach to avoid painful entrapment at the hands of "Ulubatli" Souness.

As for Shearer he is there to serve a purpose. When someone finds out what that purpose is let me know. Great forward, hero of Euro '96, talisman of Newcastle FC, black hole of punterdom. Shearer talks and acts like a man permanently trying to get in on the joke little realising that the joke is him. He's invariably a few steps behind where the studio discussion is and makes comments that you'd love to claim in his defence are spur of the moment because they are so crashingly banal, but instead feel like they've been recited and rehearsed ad infinitum since last Tuesday. Every time the camera turns to him it's like the producer has edited in an out-take rather than go with the good version. I'm also convinced Shearer says around 300 words more on MOTD than he does for the whole of the other 6 days and 23 hours of the week. I keep expecting him to stand up and start reciting some mnemonic to help him remember the names of Premiership managers.

MOTD: it's the best argument yet for a winter break in the football season.

I suspect there's a good reason to explain why Top Gear isn't presented by Nigel Mansell, but nobody seems to have dropped the hint to the football unit of the BBC's Sports Department.

i.e. singular when it is in fact a review of all the Matches of the Day In The Premier League? Surely a case for the Trade Descriptions Act...

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Alan_Hansen

Stan C has picked up on one of my biggest bugbears about TV commentators and pundits: the lack of awareness of anything outside the preening bubble of the Premiership, combined with a ‘can’t be bothered’ attitude to research.

The zenith of this came with the recent England international against Hungary when a combination of circumstances meant that Joe Hart’s goalkeeping understudies were the relatively unknown Scott Loach (but not that unknown - he’s been first-choice keeper for the under-21s for the past year) and Frank Fielding. Their presence in the squad was known for at least 24 hours before kick-off, giving plenty of time for the ITV commentary team to read up on their backgrounds, watch videos of them in action, talk to journalists who cover their clubs - the sort of thing the much derided John Motson, for example, would do as a matter of course.

Did they do any of that? Did they buggery. All we got was a few lame, jokey comments from Chiles and co. about not knowing which keeper was which and wondering if anyone in the stadium recognised them. It was pathetic.

To drag this back to the original point, the same applied to the BBC team during the World Cup, where it was frequently obvious that Shearer in particular hadn’t bothered to do even the most basic research, so that any footballer who didn’t play in the Premiership or Champions League was a mystery to him. For the amount these people are paid, we’re entitled to expect better.

Of course he has. I'd like to think that a few more people might start to make some noise about this, as it's the only thing that might (and even then it's a slim chance) deliver us from this ghastly farrago of platitudes and flatulent twattery.

I've said this before here, but either the presenter or the pundits have to go - preferably both. Otherwise, hard though it is to countenance such a thought, it will probably get even worse.

I'd say this about Lineker: when he started presenting, he was awful - wooden and uncomfortable. He improved a lot over the years, but reached a plateau, from which he's now descending (and those awful puns! Can't he veto them?). Hansen was brilliant from the start, but has, someone said above, become self-parodic. Shearer? Awful at the start, and you know he won't get any better. Although in fairness, I should add that his defence of Torres on Sunday was about the only time I've seen him get a little worked up, AND deliver an actual point that was worth making. Not surprising, perhaps, as he'd know being a former centre-forward. I still think it's a flash in the pan, though.

I think the complaint would have been a lot stronger if he had singled out Alan Shearer. The comments made above suggest that nobody has a good word to say for him but everybody else has their supporters.
The main problem I have with Shearer is that I'm paying his wages and I woudl rather pay them to him if he was on gardening leave! His insightful analysis seems to extend little further than to give a potted rundown of the match that wouldn't have taxed an 8 year old to come up with, all mainly read from a bit of paper in front of him. Just dreadful.

Always surprises me that people listen to it on the TV. I tend to watch the game then mute it when the open collared brigade start whittering. I pick up the Ukulele or go back to the crossword or replenish the snack bowl.

The only punditry I've heard for a couple of years was during the world cup when watching football in company I felt it impolite to turn the sound off. After Germany out-thought and played Argentina I heard Alan H describe Germany's free flowing exciting counter-attacking football as 'ruthlessly efficient' and when that poor lad missed that last minute penalty Alan S said 'he'll be disappointed with that'. I don't find my enjoyment of football impaired by missing this level of insight.

I think the BBC just play safe in their choice of pundits.
Stan does have a point but he's not exactly the answer to it let's be honest. I do think it's time to inject new blood but let's not go down the Colin Murray route, He's ok on Fighting Talk but don't like him on MOTD2. He's a kind of indie Lineker,bad jokes and too chummy by half.
Martin Keown talks sense but has Nigel Mansell syndrome. I think Lee Dixon does ok but Clarence Seedorf showed them how to do it during the World Cup.

We get nice, lengthy highlights from every match in the league. You don't have to go back very far until you reach the point where we only got goals from some the matches, and originally, as people have pointed out, many of the matches weren't shown at all.

The technology involved in filming the matches has really come on, and been really well applied. The slow motion replays of the key points of the action are really fantastic, without being flashy, and bring out the beauty of the game.

The way that the seperate highlights are edited together flows nicely. The commentators have got the knack of commentating for highlights much better than they have commentating for live games. When you don't know the score, its perfectly possible to watch the MOTD highlights of a game and get almost as excited as you would be if you were watchig it live. And you only have to watch the highlights from other channels or from other countries to see that this is a difficult atmosphere to foster. I am convinced that these games are edited together by skilled professionals who understand the games that they're looking at.

The punditry is average to poor, of course, but surely any thinking person can see that the most important thing is that we get to see every game, in well edited, carefully selected highlights. In that respect, the programme is surely as good as any top level British Football highlights show has ever been. Have people forgotten how unconceivably lame the ITV version of the Premiership highlights were?

Good point, well made as we say in the blogging game. The program is top quality except for the pundits. Mmmmm - so what. Shearer is the weakest link, Graham Souness would definaitly shake it up but probably a bit too hot to handle for Gary.

point but I don't think that's the issue. Quite frankly, when I watch MOTD I just want to watch the main games and maybe a few interviews afterwards with a minimum of witless comment. There are far too many commentators out there who have very little of interest to say. If there's been a bit of genuine controversy, fine, comment on that but don't analyse the bloody thing to death. Football these days just seems like an excuse to find jobs for the unemployable and appealing to the lowest common denominator. There are a few honourable exceptions - Charlie Nicholas and Pat Nevin always come across pretty well and of course there's the incomparable Jeff Stelling.

record it and hit the fast forward as soon as that smarmy git Lineker's mug appears, works everytime. All these deluded idiots like Shearer blaming Capello after the World Cup and letting those wasters Rooney, Gerrard, Lampard off the hook yet again - disgraceful.
I know football as a whole from the FA, to the Clubs to the BBC seems to think every footbal fan is a complete moron - I won't be doing with it.

Anyway, some of us support teams who don't make it onto MOTD anymore, and if you think that is a bad programme try watching The Championship - jesus, that is poor! And just who is that patronising lady reading out the emails? If I want to be spoken to like a four year old I'll watch bloody Jackanory!

I will add my support to a new magazine format show fronted by James Richardson, the old CH4 Football Italia show was superb and he is excellent on the Guardian Football Weekly podcast.

It's always worth reading Martin Samuel and I think he's got this topic spot on.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1313747/Martin-Samuel-...

Personally I think it could be worse. I'm not quite sure why people care so much about the pundits. There's so much yack about football all day every day when really there isn't really that much to say about it. Just watch the games. They speak for themselves. I like Lee Dixon, who doesn't seem to have any agenda other than to try and explain aspects of the game that a layman might not see.
I find Match of the Day 2 unwatchable though. Why does everything have to be "funny" these days. I'm getting bored of people trying to be "funny" all the time. Except when they actually are funny, obviously.
Interesting to watch that Pop Quiz clip. It was a proper quiz. Its modern equivalent is just people batting lame "jokes" back and forth rather hysterically and desperately.

but people would listen to him more seriously if he actually had any worth as a pundit himself.
Two Saturdays ago he ranted that Wolves were a disgrace and Karl Henry should be banned for 8 games after the unfortunate broken leg suffered by Bobby Zamora. Unfortunately, Stan hadn't actually seen the tackle and was making his judgement based on a few Tweets he'd recieved. This meant he also wasn't aware Henry's challenge was fair and hadn't even warranted a free kick.

The further MOTD is away from the Talksport mentality the better.

Correct me if I'm wrong but he seems to be on Radio 5 almost permanently over the weekend, and then pops up on the now dreadful MOTD 2 as well.

Overexposed just a tad, I feel.

whole BBC sports dept needs a Radio 1 style night of the long knives to clear out all the smug dead wood. For Bates and DLT read Hansen and Lawrenson.

Over here in Baby Britain we've always felt our punditry was better than the BBC or ITV but it does seem that yours is getting worse all the time. Over the 60 odd games of the World Cup traditionally I would tour the various channels but this year after a couple of away games I stayed with RTE for the tournament.
We discovered that Dietmar Hamann is an articulate and incisive analyst and Ossie Ardiles has a wicked sense of humour. I wonder if these guys had been on the BBC for a month would the format have allowed them to express themselves to the same degree?
RTE has Eamon Dunphy on its panel. As well as being an ex footballer he is also a journalist and this perspective makes such a difference.
The Guardian podcast is indeed terrific. If you had James Richardson talking to another journalist and then turning to Lee Dixon or Steve Claridge (but not Shearer) and asking him to comment would, I suspect, get a lot more from them.
As it stands Dixon is the new Hansen - a good pundit being made bad by the backslapping format.

I would much rather watch a MOTD featuring (for instance) Henry Winter, Jim White, Patrick Barclay and Richard Williams than the ex-players the BBC is so obsessed with.

I realise he has strange views on other matters but his knowledge of football is second to none

plays the role of "Joe Public" on Sky to perfection allowing the pundits to give genuine insight without the need to show off. Lineker, Hansen (if he says grit and determination one more time) and Shearer give the impression of wanting to be smarter and more informed than each other, they have almost made MOTD unwatchable. The sad thing for me is that the same pundits on MOTD2 with Adrian Chiles relaxed and were far better than on MOTD, I'm afraid Murrays mania has ruined what was the perfect end to the weekend.

To see Gullit, Souness, Hoddle and co on a Champions League night on Sky with Keys prompting then sitting back and letting their knowledge and experience come through is as close to punditry perfection as you are likely to get.

Sports progs are better when you have a presenter who is a journalist/broadcaster first and foremost, and thus "one of us", supported by pundits. The problem with MOTD now is that you've got, essentially, three pundits all being matey with one another.

I read a really good article today about Carlo Ancelotti and his coaching of Zinedine Zidane at, presumably, Juventus. Apparently ZZ taught *him* a great deal about the psychology of a team and how to undermine opposing defenders en masse, rather than just man-marking and being skillful. Such methods can turn a whole defensive line the wrong way.

I suppose managers like Murinho, Ferguson, Venger and Ancelotti probably try to avoid MOTD because they operate at such a different level? It would be like Bob Dylan being interviewed by Cheggers.

.....could be describing the Premiership itself, surely.
I don't think that these games have happened yet but could you guess the results?

Man. U./Chelsea/Arsenal (and, at a push) Liverpool/Man. City v

Tottenham (70 games and counting without a win at the Big Four)
West Ham
Bolton
Blackburn
Fulham
Wigan Athletic
Sunderland
Newcastle
West Brom
Wolves

The constant prediction of doom for Blackpool is a red herring......there are already shed-loads of predictable results in this dire 'competition'.

People are right in saying that the Premiership isn't as competetive as it could be. There are at least 16 teams who you can say quite categoriclly have no chance of winning the damn thing, or even breaking into the top three.

What you do get, though, is fierce competition between the different teams playing at the same level. We don't know who will be relgated this year. We don't know who will qualify for the Europa League and the Champions league. We probably don't know whose going to win it, though I suppose we can make a good guess.

And I'm sorry to sound elitist, but while I think competition is a good thing, for me its not an absolute pre-requisite of enteratining football. When Arsenal's "Invincibles" dominated the league, it was anything but competitve, but it was still some of the best football I've ever seen.

Fearne Cotton. "That goal was amaaaaazing! So was that one!"

Those of us that remember the late 70s and 80s will remember it was essentially Liverpool and then everyone else made up the numbers. In the nineties it was all Man United with a splash of Arsenal. At least there are 4 or 5 horses now.

The BBC has lots of people on their books who have informed opinions about football and know how to articulate them - David Pleat, Gabriele Marcotti, Danny Murphy to name but three - but they don't look right. What MOTD's producers are most interested in are a bunch of nice-looking chaps in smart-casual wear that most people who be happy having round for a meal and a glass of Chardonnay on a Saturday night.

No one has yet mentioned Mark Bright ... watching the imaginatively titled 'Football League Show' last night I was initially fascinated my Mark Bright's punditry:

Question.

Waffle, gabble: 5 secs
Repeat the question: 10 secs
Describe the incident as just seen by the viewers in an inarticulate way in short sentences: 40 seconds
Offer up some inane cliches: 20 seconds

Question.

Waffle, gabble: 5 secs
Repeat the question: 10 secs
Describe the incident as just seen by the viewers in an inarticulate way in short sentences: 40 seconds
Offer up some inane cliches: 20 seconds

Question.

Waffle, gabble: 5 secs
Repeat the question: 10 secs
Describe the incident as just seen by the viewers in an inarticulate way in short sentences: 40 seconds
Offer up some inane cliches: 20 seconds

Until I lost the will to live and turned the sound down until the Spurs Arsenal result came on

The question is: why?

Too little football, too much yak. I'm sure that the interviews and punditry add up to take more time than the highlights.

They need to change the proportions, so in a 90 minute show we get 80 minutes of football, ten minutes of punditry, and none of those boring post match soundbite interviews.

Agree the problem is the need for attractive people for telly but that still doesn't rule out our man James Richardson or his well handsome mate Rafael Honigstein...

...to MOTD - they can revamp it, remodel it or include some dancing girls, Everton will always be the last game on (even Pip Neville noted this!).

MOTD generally does a better job of things than the others from the point of view of the way football itself is presented and edited. But that is usually true of all BBC sports presentation. Commentators vary from quite good to bloody hopeless, and I wish all broadcasters would do away with the second chappie who chips in with an 'expert' view now and then; I'm thinking particularly of Twonk-in-Chief, Mr Jim Beglin.
The pundits in the studio are, likewise, variable as regards insight and erudition. I used to find Gordon Strachan entertaining on MOTD2 but, for some reason or other, he now manages Middlesbrough. Andy Thomas is just wrong, as is most of ITV's sports presentation. Mind you, I have fond memories of the late Brian Moore's ineptitude which had a kind of charm. Alan Hansen is the worst offender when it comes to talking in cliches but just about all sports commentary is an agglomeration of hackneyed phrases of one kind or another - especially so in the case of football. Gary Lineker can be a bit smug but he's better than Adrian Chiles who should have stuck with 'Working Lunch', where not many people ever saw him. Alan Shearer is only just semi-articulate but I guess the equal opportunies policy requires that the BBC give these rustic types with their quaint dialects a shot at things here and there. Mark Lawrenson can be amusing - Walter Matthau to John Motson's Jack Lemmon.
Thank heaven for the fast-forward button.

Following on from last week's "no-one knows a lot about him" about France international Hatem Ben Arfa, this week he managed to call David Silva, "Villa"... twice

...recently managed to clear up a big misunderstanding. He said Gonzalo Jara was no relation to Jamie O'Hara. I guess the clue would be the different colour and surname then...