Female Gaa Commentators / Analysists

crusier

For the record I'm very fond of women. But when it comes to listening to them analysing matches on TV i.e men's Gaa match's I have a problem. By all means let them analyis the sports they played in at their level but to me it's just tokenism and a tick box exercise by broadcasters to the politically correct. The same is happening in soccer. I'm sure I'm going to be slaughtered by the politically correct but it needed to be said.

callaway92

In fairness, most of the male analysts are atrocious on RTE for example too.

Clichè after clichè

“Y’know”...
“Sure lookit”
“X Team shot Y wides which is not good enough” with no context behind it..

crusier

callaway92 wrote: »

In fairness, most of the male analysts are atrocious on RTE for example too.

Clichè after clichè

“Y’know”...
“X Team shot Y wides which is not good enough” with no context behind it..

Can't argue with that in fairness

How Soon Is Now

Its going on for the majority of sports unfortunately but ya equality...

Whatever keeps people happy sure!

Misguided1

I think calling any of them (men or women) 'commentators' is a stretch these days.
Marty Morrissey is getting worse. Doesn't know the names of the players, and is so one sided it is shocking.

For me - a commentator needs to have played the game to the highest level and have an in-depth understanding of it.
Rugby commentators are much better in that they actually comment on what is going on rather than how beautiful it looks.

the kelt

Is it that theyre female?

Do you need to have played the game to certain level to be good enough to be an analyst?

For what its worth female or male none of our analysts are what you would call stellar, actually theyre all pretty poor and all have played the game to a certain level.

stoneill

They seem to know a lot more about the sports than I do.

kala85

Shefflin is the best.

Donal og is a pure ejjitt

the kelt

the kelt wrote: »

Do you need to have played the game to certain level to be good enough to be an analyst?

I think you do really to have any credibility, have there been GAA analysts before this that didn't?


When will there be male analysts that didn't play at the highest levels, as it seems like an easy gig if you don't mind personal abuse

NoBread

Misguided1 wrote: »

For me - a commentator needs to have played the game to the highest level and have an in-depth understanding of it.
Rugby commentators are much better in that they actually comment on what is going on rather than how beautiful it looks.

I don't agree. Some of the best commentators in many sports have never played the sport to a high level, in some cases at all. And so many of the best players who are called back to commentate when they retire are dreadful.
Mícheál Ó Muircheartaigh never played hurling in any championship to the best of my knowledge, but there was no one I'd rather listen to commentate on a game.
Sonia O'Sullivan is one of our greatest athletes (if not the greatest) but TV really isn't her forté.

Some people can understand a sport better than they can play it, others can play it better than they understand it.

the kelt

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you do really to have any credibility, have there been GAA analysts before this that didn't?


When will there be male analysts that didn't play at the highest levels, as it seems like an easy gig if you don't mind personal abuse

Thats the thing.

It seems to be a prerequisite that you played the game to a certain level yet none of them are actually that good at it? Theyre not all bad but it seems just having played the game is all thats required whether good or not is my point.

Its a bit like the old "lets give your man the managers job sure he was a great player and that other fella never played at that level" despite the fact one could be better at the actual job of coaching/managing.

As someone mentioned soccer for example id much prefer to listen to Ken Early analyse a game than the been there and done it pundits that actually do.

callaway92

Misguided1 wrote: »

For me - a commentator needs to have played the game to the highest level and have an in-depth understanding of it.
Rugby commentators are much better in that they actually comment on what is going on rather than how beautiful it looks.

This is an awful take. In fact, people who read the game on a daily basis as their job etc would probably have a better insight into it than most players.

The unfortunate thing is that viewers on TV generally would be casual to the point that they just want to see former players that they know doing the coverage and will take their ‘they need to get stuck in more’ as gospel.

Deskjockey

Joanne Cantwell is very good I think.(know she is an anchor moreso than a commentator)

Ursula Jacob isn't brilliant, and doesn't bring any great insight to the thing, but you could say that about half of the analysts on there, male or female

Rolo2010

crusier wrote: »

For the record I'm very fond of women, in fact it's been a bit of a weakness at times. But when it comes to listening to them analysing matches on TV i.e men's Gaa match's I have a problem. By all means let them analyis the sports they played in at their level but to me it's just tokenism and a tick box exercise by broadcasters to the politically correct. The same is happening in soccer. I'm sure I'm going to be slaughtered by the politically correct but it needed to be said.

Most of the men are crap too. It's nothing to do with political correctness. Just RTÉ hiring people who aren't good enough for the job which a problem beyond their sports coverage as well.

ahnowbrowncow

NoBread wrote: »

Some people can understand a sport better than they can play it, others can play it better than they understand it.

But that's not why they're being picked. They're being picked because of their gender, they certainly haven't improved the analysis from what I've seen.

With all else being equal the person being picked should be the one who is most qualified i.e. played at the higher level.

Rolo2010

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

But that's not why they're being picked. They're being picked because of their gender, they certainly haven't improved the analysis from what I've seen.

With all else being equal the person being picked should be the one who is most qualified i.e. played at the higher level.

Most of the male presenters should be fired on this basis then. The presenter for the Joe McDonagh final was no worse than any of the men and most of them have been covering the ladies games.

How Soon Is Now

Rolo2010 wrote: »

Most of the men are crap too. It's nothing to do with political correctness. Just RTÉ hiring people who aren't good enough for the job which a problem beyond their sports coverage as well.

Oh its all to do with political correctness ha. Its been an across the board thing for Rte and Sky to just even up the numbers.


It doesn't matter if half the lads are not up to it standard wise because I'm yet to come across any women who have been introduced in the last few years for any sports I've watched that where worth it.
Sure its always going to stand against you when your given a job not based on how good you are but because the company wants to look like they care.

NoBread

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

But that's not why they're being picked. They're being picked because of their gender, they certainly haven't improved the analysis from what I've seen.

That's true, and if anything it hinders the advancement of gender diversity.
As mentioned already, Joanne Cantwell is good I think, but an anchor is different I guess.

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

With all else being equal the person being picked should be the one who is most qualified i.e. played at the higher level.

Maybe, as they'll likely have more insight, but it's very rare that you'll have everything else equal. Usually a good commentator or analyst will stand out above the next best.

the kelt

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

But that's not why they're being picked. They're being picked because of their gender, they certainly haven't improved the analysis from what I've seen.

With all else being equal the person being picked should be the one who is most qualified i.e. played at the higher level.

But playing hurling/Football at a high level has nothing to do with being cogent, coherent with an ability to get a point across on TV?

Thats the issue really not whether the gender.

Rolo2010

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Oh its all to do with political correctness ha. Its been an across the board thing for Rte and Sky to just even up the numbers.




It doesn't matter if half the lads are not up to it standard wise because I'm yet to come across any women who have been introduced in the last few years for any sports I've watched that where worth it.
Sure its always going to stand against you when your given a job not based on how good you are but because the company wants to look like they care.

No, it's not. I've listened to several of the women and they're not that bad. And I don't like the commentators and analysts in general.

Effects

crusier wrote: »

For the record I'm very fond of women, in fact it's been a bit of a weakness at times.

Ah would you fúck off with that shíte.

By all means let them analyis the sports they played in at their level.

Why should women have to stick by this rule, but men don't?

How Soon Is Now

Rolo2010 wrote: »

No, it's not. I've listened to several of the women and they're not that bad. And I don't like the commentators and analysts in general.

To be honest especially with the crowd not being there now id mute the sound altogether :pac:

KIB4Life

Misguided1 wrote: »

I think calling any of them (men or women) 'commentators' is a stretch these days.
Marty Morrissey is getting worse. Doesn't know the names of the players, and is so one sided it is shocking.

For me - a commentator needs to have played the game to the highest level and have an in-depth understanding of it.
Rugby commentators are much better in that they actually comment on what is going on rather than how beautiful it looks.

To be honest a lot of the analysts in the Sunday Game currently are bad and I think shows that just because someone might have been a great player doesn’t mean that they are going to be a good analyst or pundit. In terms of commentary Darragh Moloney is by far and away the best by never gets the All Ireland Final, Marty even though he is from my own parish is poor at times, probably better on the radio, Ger Canning is dreadful as well.

The best analysts I feel in the hurling at the moment on RTÉ are Daly, Cummins, Tyrrell and Duignan, I also think Micheál Donoghue is good as well but I have only seen him on it a few times. Donal Og and Derek McGrath are the worst. Two massive egos who think they know everything.

Donal Og made some very tasteless comments about Antrim after the match yesterday. McGrath is the biggest dose of all, haven’t seen him in awhile so don’t know if he is still on it, but when he was used to come out when this words know seems to have heard, just to make the point of how much intelligent is and how much cleverer he is compared to everyone else.

A bit like Joe Brolly used to be like, but at least Brolly had a sense of humour and could say something funny and had at least a bit of charm. As regards the women doing the analysis I don’t think Ursula Jacob is that good on the it. Elaine Alyward was doing the co commentary for the Joe McDonagh and Camoige final and I felt that she was fairly good on the analysis, and would have been helped if she had a better commentator with her.

Joanne Cantwell I feel thinks that she has to argue with every point a pundit makes and I would have preferred if they were going to pick a woman for the job that they might have picked either Jacqui Hurley or Evanne Ní Chuilinn. As regards the football analysis the pundits are even worse on RTÉ Tomas O’Sé and Ciaran Whelan are the only good ones. I think Sky’s coverage is actually a lot better nowadays in both hurling and football.

Anyway I think the GAA hour is the best Gaa podcast and show out there I know they were involved in a bit of controversy with Eddie Brennan, but that aside the podcast is brilliant a great mixture of analysing and a bit of humour and craic. Some very good analysts in the likes of Cheddar Plunkett and Cian Ward who are the two best analysts out there in my opinion.

partyguinness

"I am not racist but..."

How Soon Is Now

partyguinness wrote: »

"I am not racist but..."

Haven't seen many if any black women doing the sport on Rte actually ?

Surprising considering!

Misguided1

NoBread wrote: »

I don't agree. Some of the best commentators in many sports have never played the sport to a high level, in some cases at all. And so many of the best players who are called back to commentate when they retire are dreadful.
Mícheál Ó Muircheartaigh never played hurling in any championship to the best of my knowledge, but there was no one I'd rather listen to commentate on a game.
Sonia O'Sullivan is one of our greatest athletes (if not the greatest) but TV really isn't her forté.

Some people can understand a sport better than they can play it, others can play it better than they understand it.

Totally agree about Micheal - he's the best. He commentates for radio which means that he actually tells you what is happening. He is your eyes on the pitch. Knows every player and their background. He put a huge amount of work in before games. I never get the sense that Marty does that. But he doesn't analyse the game. He doesn't bring the perspective that having played the game might bring. And that is what we have become accustomed to hearing.

Having been a great athlete doesn't mean you will be a great commentator. I don't think any of the current RTE pundits are good at all. But I'm sure there are good ones out there......somewhere......

ahnowbrowncow

the kelt wrote: »

But playing hurling/Football at a high level has nothing to do with being cogent, coherent with an ability to get a point across on TV?

Thats the issue really not whether the gender.

As I said, the analysis has not improved so they're obviously not picking female panelists based on their ability to get an insightful, coherent point across.

Also, if the sole criteria for the job is getting a coherent point across rather than having insight, why are only lady footballers getting the role? Why not let a media student apply for it?

So if candiates have an equal ability to get a coherent point across, the next selection criteria should be the level they played the game at and therefore insight they can offer. i.e. How many of the female panelists know what it's like to play in front of 80,000 people?

I don't care about the gender of the person commentating or analysing, I just want to see the best applicant get the role, which is highly unlikely with gender quotas.

jmayo

Misguided1 wrote: »

I think calling any of them (men or women) 'commentators' is a stretch these days.
Marty Morrissey is getting worse. Doesn't know the names of the players, and is so one sided it is shocking.

For me - a commentator needs to have played the game to the highest level and have an in-depth understanding of it.
Rugby commentators are much better in that they actually comment on what is going on rather than how beautiful it looks.

Some people here seem to mixed up between the difference of a commentator and an analyst, expert or pundit.

An analyst or expert ideally needs to have played the game(s) to some decent level so that they can talk from experience.
But that doesn't mean the best players will make the best analysts,
i.e. Thierry Henry being a prime example.
Sounding as dull as ditchwater doesn't help in this regard.
Also see Kevin Moran and Frank Stapleton.
Also will admit James Horan would make that list.

A commentator is the guy (well usually guy) that just gives a play by play description of what is happening on the pitch.
They need to be able to remember players names (unbelievable how many seem to forget that little nugget), give an adequate description of the flow of the game without making it sound boring even if it is.

They should ideally know when to speak and when not to.
Sometime less is better e.g Jimmy Magee's commentary of Maradona's second goal against England was one of the best.

Bill McLaren in rugby was brilliant and I think Micheal O'Muircheartaigh learned a thing or two from him.
Peter O'Sullevan in horse racing was another brilliant guy much like Peter Alliss in golf.
They just were very listenable.
They could drop in anecdotes if nothing much was happening and fill space when needed.
They might not have been ever brilliant at the sports, but generally they made it enjoyable for listeners or laterally viewers.

Murray Walker was another although he ended up just being listened to for his gaffs.

AFAIK the co commentating expert is something that only I think came in from 80s onwards.
They are meant to be an expert and add an experts opinion during the match, especially during a break in play.
They have to be listenable, give concise opinion and quickly or otherwise they are no benefit.
They are meant to see things that the commentator wouldn't spot like the dirty tackles, etc.
Johnny Giles was excellent at using his massive experience at that.

And then there are presenters.
They are not meant to give expert opinion, but facilitate others to do so.
They are meant to prompt and ask the questions a normal viewer might ask.
Bill O'Herlihy was excellent as he played the normal guy on the street and got the best TV out of his pundits.

Effects

Effects wrote: »

Ah would you fúck off with that shíte.


Why should women have to stick by this rule, but men don't?

But this is the point of the thread, women should be hired on the same basis as men, but it appears as if they've been given preferential treatment.


Men do have to have played at this level. A lot of us, male and female, could spout similar sh1te to what's presented by male analysts at the moment but only women get the opportunity without having played at this level.

carq

Looking forward to Anna Geary coming in for 2021 and giving us some teamwork anecdotes from her cork camogie days.

callaway92

carq wrote: »

Looking forward to Anna Geary coming in for 2021 and giving us some teamwork anecdotes from her cork camogie days.

She won’t mention anything that includes praise for the Cork Team/Paudie Murray, so that’s a moot point.

The_Kew_Tour

Marty is on 6k a week.

That is a disgrace in itself.

The fact the last few years his ego seems been getting bigger and bigger makes it worse. He really has tagged into the “Party with Marty” vibe and thinks everyone finds it funny.

callaway92

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Marty is on 6k a week.

That is a disgrace in itself.

The fact the last few years his ego seems been getting bigger and bigger makes it worse. He really has tagged into the “Party with Marty” vibe and thinks everyone finds it funny.

Ya he’s pretty much a parody of himself and it’s weird

Tombo2001

crusier wrote: »

For the record I'm very fond of women. But when it comes to listening to them analysing matches on TV i.e men's Gaa match's I have a problem. By all means let them analyis the sports they played in at their level but to me it's just tokenism and a tick box exercise by broadcasters to the politically correct. The same is happening in soccer. I'm sure I'm going to be slaughtered by the politically correct but it needed to be said.

That says more about you than it says about the commentators, hearing what you want to hear,

ahnowbrowncow

Tombo2001 wrote: »

That says more about you than it says about the commentators, hearing what you want to hear,

What does it say about them? That they don't like people getting jobs based on their gender i.e. gender discrimination? You'll have to elaborate.

What I've found more so recently is that they almost go out of their way to not specify when it's the women playing..

They'll be like 'Last night spurs beat Liverpool 5-0' and you'll be like 'wtf!' but then you'll realise it's the ladies so it doesn't matter..

Effects

Deleted User wrote: »

Men do have to have played at this level.

No they don't. Marty Morrissey never played senior football, did he? Don't say that being a sub counts. Surely there's way more people who played at senior level that should have the job ahead of him.

Fr Tod Umptious

I'm sure the 1979 equivalent of boards.ie was awash with comments about Liz Howard doing analysis on The Sunday Game.

ahnowbrowncow

Effects wrote: »

No they don't. Marty Morrissey never played senior football, did he? Don't say that being a sub counts. Surely there's way more people who played at senior level that should have the job ahead of him.

There'a big difference between being a commentator and a panellist.

carq

The sky sports anchor seem quite good to be fair to her.
Not sure her background but definately at ease in front of the camera.

crossman47

jmayo wrote: »

Some people here seem to mixed up between the difference of a commentator and an analyst, expert or pundit.

An analyst or expert ideally needs to have played the game(s) to some decent level so that they can talk from experience.
But that doesn't mean the best players will make the best analysts,
i.e. Thierry Henry being a prime example.
Sounding as dull as ditchwater doesn't help in this regard.
Also see Kevin Moran and Frank Stapleton.
Also will admit James Horan would make that list.

A commentator is the guy (well usually guy) that just gives a play by play description of what is happening on the pitch.
They need to be able to remember players names (unbelievable how many seem to forget that little nugget), give an adequate description of the flow of the game without making it sound boring even if it is.

They should ideally know when to speak and when not to.
Sometime less is better e.g Jimmy Magee's commentary of Maradona's second goal against England was one of the best.

Bill McLaren in rugby was brilliant and I think Micheal O'Muircheartaigh learned a thing or two from him.
Peter O'Sullevan in horse racing was another brilliant guy much like Peter Alliss in golf.
They just were very listenable.
They could drop in anecdotes if nothing much was happening and fill space when needed.
They might not have been ever brilliant at the sports, but generally they made it enjoyable for listeners or laterally viewers.

Murray Walker was another although he ended up just being listened to for his gaffs.

AFAIK the co commentating expert is something that only I think came in from 80s onwards.
They are meant to be an expert and add an experts opinion during the match, especially during a break in play.
They have to be listenable, give concise opinion and quickly or otherwise they are no benefit.
They are meant to see things that the commentator wouldn't spot like the dirty tackles, etc.
Johnny Giles was excellent at using his massive experience at that.

And then there are presenters.
They are not meant to give expert opinion, but facilitate others to do so.
They are meant to prompt and ask the questions a normal viewer might ask.
Bill O'Herlihy was excellent as he played the normal guy on the street and got the best TV out of his pundits.

I agree with most of that, especially about Giles. He could alert you to a change in the trend of a game well before it became obvious.

Fr Tod Umptious

crossman47 wrote: »

I agree with most of that, especially about Giles. He could alert you to a change in the trend of a game well before it became obvious.

A good co commentator should be able to tell you want will happen next, not what has just happened.

Tony Romo that does NFL on CBS is a good example of this.

the kelt

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

As I said, the analysis has not improved so they're obviously not picking female panelists based on their ability to get an insightful, coherent point across.

Also, if the sole criteria for the job is getting a coherent point across rather than having insight, why are only lady footballers getting the role? Why not let a media student apply for it?

So if candiates have an equal ability to get a coherent point across, the next selection criteria should be the level they played the game at and therefore insight they can offer. i.e. How many of the female panelists know what it's like to play in front of 80,000 people?

I don't care about the gender of the person commentating or analysing, I just want to see the best applicant get the role, which is highly unlikely with gender quotas.

Thats my point female or male do you have to know what its like to have played in front of 80k people to get the role?

I agree by he way that analysis hasnt improved with the females, actually they have been worse in my view but its isnt improving maybe because they keep picking people not an ability as an analyst but because the played in front of 80k people!

benji79

carq wrote: »

Looking forward to Anna Geary coming in for 2021 and giving us some teamwork anecdotes from her cork camogie days.

Saw her on the camogie. Really poor I thought for someone who’s played plenty at high level. Just a load of cliches. Like someone who got the gig but didn’t put in any research and just bluffs through it with general talk

The others on with her were better to be fair. Bit more details and substance to their points

Effects

Effects wrote: »

No they don't. Marty Morrissey never played senior football, did he? Don't say that being a sub counts. Surely there's way more people who played at senior level that should have the job ahead of him.

Marty Morrissey is a presenter/commentator same as Joanne Cantwell, we're talking about analysts/experts.

ahnowbrowncow

the kelt wrote: »

Thats my point female or male do you have to know what its like to have played in front of 80k people to get the role?

I agree by he way that analysis hasnt improved with the females, actually they have been worse in my view but its isnt improving maybe because they keep picking people not an ability as an analyst but because the played in front of 80k people!

No its not necessary but it's an advantage, hence why I said all things being equal which we are agreeing it is, as the analysis has not improved.

It allows the panellist to offer an opinion on something that the ordinary Joe soap hasn't experience of eg. Making a point on a players performance if they choke or excel on the big day and if crowds and nerves had any affect etc. It's just an example of how playing at a higher level would afford you more insight.

I view it as a one would a CV, it enhances your application and places you above the other candidates that do not have it and there's very little else between you.

Being knowledgeable and articulate are more desirable attributes for a panellist imo than playing level.

KIB4Life

carq wrote: »

The sky sports anchor seem quite good to be fair to her.
Not sure her background but definately at ease in front of the camera.

Yeah no Grainne McElwain I think she’s from Monaghan, used to the coverage for TG4 for Peil na mBan, even though I used know what she saying there but she is very good alright. The whole thing of pundits having to have played at a high level to be a pundit in nonsense the likes of Shefflin, Sean Cavanagh, and the Gooch have made me realise that just become you might have been a brilliant player doesn’t mean that you are going to be a knowledgeable and good pundit and analyst.

I’d much rather someone that might not have been successful or might not have been the best player, but is actually good at analysing the game, this is something that Sky seem to do well. They have the mix of Jamesie O’Connor and Peter Canvana in the box analysis and slowing things down to show something like a tactic that the viewers might not have realised or that might not have been picked up on camera.

Then the coverage itself has improved since McElwain took over from Wyse and Carney as they have someone now that has come from a GAA background and knows more about the GAA then the two previous presenters. The commentary from Sky is decent enough at lot better when Dave McIntyre is there must be one of the most hardest working commentators out and very versatile can do the GAA, soccer and rugby and is very good at all of them. Mike Finerty on the other hand is dreadful and makes Ger Canning and Marty look brilliant in comparison. Just shows no passion or enthusiasm when commentating there could have been a brilliant score and he makes it sound like he is just after reading the death notices on the radio.

The co-com on Sky aren’t the best I don’t think either on Sky, Nicky English and Paul Earley are alright, but weak enough I feel. Even though the co-com isn’t much better on RTÉ even though Cummins and Duignan can be decent. But whenever Dessie Dolan is on co-com on the football he just states the obvious or even at times says things that don’t make sense, for a teacher he doesn’t come across as the most articulate.

Rolo2010

Deleted User wrote: »

Marty Morrissey is a presenter/commentator same as Joanne Cantwell, we're talking about analysts/experts.

The person who started this thread is talking about both.

seligehgit

As a presenter on Sky Grainne Mc Elwain impresses me,miles ahead of Rachel Wyse.She is a very solid presenter on TG4 too.

Joanne Cantwell is a good anchor,a much superior incarnation of her previous self who was inclined to aggressively interview persons,Jimmy Barry Murphy in particular comes to mind.An absolute gentleman who was not not deserving of same.

Des Cahill should have been put out to pasture a long time ago,too comfortable and stale in the job.Re the football analysts Tomas O Se me likes,Ciaran Whelan is not as good as in times gone by.Pat Spillane and Colm O Rourke in the absence of Joe Brolly are no longer even controversial.They have grown lazy with a lack of research,dated and no longer relevant.Colm O Rourke was long the voice of reason as the other 2 locked horns.

Dessie Dolan is very poor as a co commentator but I do not think Kevin Mc Stay gets a fair shake,decent analyst who is IMO unfairly perceived as rabidly anti Dublin.

Darragh Maloney is the pre eminent commentator,Ger and Marty are not so good.

Re the hurling analysts Brendan Cummins and Anthony Daly are the best IMO.Henry Shefflin is decent,enjoy Jackie Tyrell.Donal Og is rather disappointing,going off topic with bizarre tangents.

Sky are just great Mc Guinness,Canavan..JJ Delaney,Jamsie O Connor.

I'd love to see Tommy Walsh on the television.

Brilliant analyst on the podcasts of which The GAA Hour is my favourite.

Kieran Donaghy is a welcome addition to Sky.Great on OTB.

TBH I do not know enough of the female analysts,have a tendency to just watch the ladies games ( primarily gaelic football ) as opposed to delve into much in the way of the analysis.I have come across Ursula Jacob and Anna Geary.They are no worse than many of their male counterparts.They have played a highest level.

It is hard to say what balance of playing experience,ability to cut out the barstool talk,formulate a coherent,sensible sentence.You can bet your bottom dollar none of these persons have had any media training,attended Carr Communications nor been a member of toastmasters.It's straight into the studio.A tall task for even the most eloquent and self confident of individuals,on site training it is.

Rolo2010

Rolo2010 wrote: »

The person who started this thread is talking about both.

Yes the thread is about both but the requirement for having been a senior intercounty player only applies to male analysts and this doesn't seem fair.

elefant

seligehgit wrote: »

It is hard to say what balance of playing experience,ability to cut out the barstool talk,formulate a coherent,sensible sentence.You can bet your bottom dollar none of these persons have had any media training,attended Carr Communications nor been a member of toastmasters.It's straight into the studio.A tall task for even the most eloquent and self confident of individuals,on site training it is.

I'vev always been very curious as to how the panelists/co-commentators on the Sunday game are selected. Is it just a case of someone involved with the show has some relatively famous player's phone number, and so we'll give them a shot at it? It's hard to believe that with some of the fare served up that there was an actual application and selection process. I'd imagine these are well-paid, publicly funded gigs.

There are tactically perceptive and astute club footballers and managers that would be far, far more enlightening to listen to analysing a game, while also being far more polished public speakers, than some of the highly decorated inter county players who seem to be parachuted onto the flagship show immediately on retirement.