Anderson

Status
Not open for further replies.
The English football journalists seems to be all retarted. Probably De Gea was at fault too for that Cole shoot.
 
JonMotsonsFur said:
Although the majority of us agree he was good the other night, here's what the Guardian have to say about him...



What bell writes this stuff?
Click to expand...

I've stopped reading articles and reports about matches and players ages ago because reading them was beginning to drive me mad. Nowadays I just watch a match, form my own opinion and leave it at that.
 
It's the same with pundits. They're supposed to their knowledge from the game but they just conform to the what most football journos do.

As Michael Cox points out, we need more Gary Nevilles in punditry and media.

Gary Neville's punditry is the best, but others need to raise their game

The Sky man is celebrated for his research, neutrality and controversial analysis, but this should be the general standard

Share 947
inShare11
Email

Gary Neville commentating for Sky
Gary Neville's punditry skills have been exaggerated by the poor standard of the opposition. Photograph: Sky Sports

It requires considerable experience of watching British football coverage to understand why Gary Neville is such a celebrated pundit, for he has become universally popular for merely filling his job description. His step-by-step analysis of Stoke City's goal at West Ham last week was masterful, yet so simple – he pointed out a hand signal, a couple of blocks and a clever run. Shouldn't this be the general standard?

After all, providing insight upon a sport you've played at the highest level shouldn't be particularly challenging. Neville made his punditry debut for ITV at the 2002 World Cup, whilst sidelined with the early 21st century curse of the broken metatarsal, and the Brazil side that won the competition is a decent analogy for Neville's punditry – clearly the best, but their quality exaggerated by the poor standard of the opposition.

Neville's popularity is essentially rooted in three factors. First, he argues against the consensus. Last season, for example, when Chelsea were struggling to adapt to André Villas-Boas's high defensive line, they conceded a goal when Ashley Cole was stationed behind the rest of the Chelsea defence, playing an opponent onside. To every other pundit, and to the vast majority of television viewers, the problem was clear – Cole was in a bad position. But Neville said the opposite. Cole, he said, was the only Chelsea defender in a good position – the other three were to blame.

Second, Neville is thorough; his Monday Night Football offerings are clearly the result of meticulous research. Putting together a 15-minute sequence on the art of diving, as he did towards the end of last season, takes dedication and commitment others lack. One Sky colleague comments on how Neville treats punditry the same way he treated professional football, where he succeeded primarily through hard work and intense preparation, rather than natural talent.

Third, despite being a symbol of Manchester United, Neville appears neutral. This is actually more important when applying to individuals rather than clubs, and is in stark contrast to his colleague Jamie Redknapp, who remains determined not to criticise friends – which is particularly difficult considering he appears to be mates with, or related to, a number of key Premier League characters.

In this respect, Redknapp's fault is nothing more than being a nice man, and he's become more critical, but at the start of his television career the situation was ludicrous. When analysing England's Euro 2004 defeat to France, when England conceded a penalty courtesy of Steven Gerrard's wayward backpass and David James's clumsy challenge on Thierry Henry, Redknapp managed to blame Ashley Cole for not thumping the ball downfield. Both Gerrard and James, of course, had been Redknapp's team-mates at Liverpool. Neville has avoided such partisanship, seemingly in spite of his coaching role with England.

Pundits are frequently quizzed on areas they're not experts on (refereeing decisions, for example) and this applies more specifically to roles on the pitch, so Neville is, naturally, most engaging when discussing defending. Presenter introductions often contain "jokes" about how the punditry lineup is based heavily around one position – Gary Lineker did so when opening the BBC's Germany v Italy coverage at Euro 2012, with Gianluca Vialli, Alan Shearer and Jürgen Klinsmann alongside him. That's four world-class strikers, yet there was no specific focus on goalscoring.

Sky's Goals on Sunday does this excellently. A relaxed roundup of the previous day's action is interspersed with friendly but engaging analysis – perhaps in the knowledge that many are witnessing the goals for a second time, so the discussion takes a different slant. Often it is serving managers who appear on the show – it was David Moyes last weekend – but even players produce good insights, because they're asked about their own areas of expertise. Last season Ian Wright and Jermain Defoe appeared together, and although that lineup is hardly likely to rival Marcelo Bielsa in terms of deep football thinking, the duo were constantly asked about finishing, about movement in the box and about striking partnerships. Somewhat surprisingly, it was excellent television, and as illuminating on the subject of scoring goals as Neville is about preventing them.

Sky's La Liga coverage is also interesting, partly because of guests that have ranged from Rafael Benítez to Fabio Capello, but also because there's a focus on overall strategies – not just post-commentary on goals, but discussion upon the pattern of the game, using video examples of pressing, for example, or diagonal balls. Meanwhile, ITV's Champions League coverage deserves credit because they've created a fine partnership in Roy Keane and Lee Dixon – Keane talks primarily about attitude and team spirit, Dixon concentrates on tactical and technical aspects.

There is little to recommend in Match of the Day's analysis. In fairness, the producers are in an impossible position, forced to cater to a huge range of tastes, from those who simply want to see goals, to those who want detailed, in-depth debate about offside traps and overlapping full-backs.

When the mere running order is argued furiously across social networks, it's impossible to please the majority with the actual discussion – but the suspicion is that neither purist nor casual fan is satisfied by the current arrangement.

Match of the Day's experiment with Vincent Kompany was interesting yet ultimately fruitless in terms of analysis. The Belgian is, if anything, too statesmanlike and media-friendly for the role – he insisted that no, he wasn't remotely pleased to see his side's major title rivals lose against a side battling relegation. Michael Owen was no more illuminating – but their mere appearances were a sign that Match of the Day is seeking to evolve its coverage and use different faces. The likes of ESPN and ITV have increasingly featured journalists on round-up shows, but as Neville has shown, there is no substitute for an insightful ex-pro when talking about on-pitch matters.

Often, they're not the biggest names. The ex-Arsenal and West Ham midfielder Stewart Robson is excellent in his role as ESPN's Italian football co-commentator, delivering sharp tactical insights while the match is still in play, while the former Middlesbrough midfielder Robbie Mustoe has made a name for himself on US television. Michael Robinson, most famous at Brighton, is a key figure in Spanish television.

Occasionally, you witness a guest pundit with great intelligence – Jens Lehmann is superbly analytical (and disturbingly calm), the former Tottenham goalkeeper Erik Thorstvedt is another. When Barcelona faced Real Madrid in the Champions League last year, Eidur Gudjohnsen was wonderful when discussing the difference between Pep Guardiola and José Mourinho.

None have won as many titles as Alan Hansen or scored as many goals as Alan Shearer, but in terms of insight, they shouldn't be any less respected. The thing about ex-professionals is that they retain their competitive streak – pair Hansen with Shearer and the Scot is happy to spout cliches, but when he was alongside Dixon, he sensed competition and upped his game.

Losing Dixon was a blow, but the BBC aren't in a disastrous position. One fine appointment – someone in the mould of Gudjohnsen, perhaps – could be the catalyst for others to step up. Match of the Day remains the most prominent football show on television – it simply needs to find its Neville.
Click to expand...
 
All this stuff about him having poor conditioning is totally over blown IMO. He put in a real shift against West Ham and when he came off after 83 minutes he didn't look any more tired than any other player tbh. In fact he looked very disappointed to be going off.

When people see Anderson moving around less (i.e. Not sprinting so much) they assume he is just too tired to do anything. I think it's more a case of not being able to keep the explosive side of his game up for the full 90. Hardly surprising.
 
simonhch said:
All this stuff about him having poor conditioning is totally over blown IMO. He put in a real shift against West Ham and when he came off after 83 minutes he didn't look any more tired than any other player tbh. In fact he looked very disappointed to be going off.

When people see Anderson moving around less (i.e. Not sprinting so much) they assume he is just too tired to do anything. I think it's more a case of not being able to keep the explosive side of his game up for the full 90. Hardly surprising.
Click to expand...

He's not in top condition though. If he really worked on it he would be more effective throughout the game, rather than have periods where he goes quiet. If Anderson had Valencia's engine he would be a much better player and touching world class. Conditioning is the vital thing he is missing in my opinion and it's something that will make him more consistent too. There's nothing stopping him either, it's up to him.
 
What I've always recognised about Ando though is that in games were he tires if he receives the ball he has some of the nicest one touch passes going. Can still change play really quickly without having to do much.
 
simonhch said:
All this stuff about him having poor conditioning is totally over blown IMO. He put in a real shift against West Ham and when he came off after 83 minutes he didn't look any more tired than any other player tbh. In fact he looked very disappointed to be going off.

When people see Anderson moving around less (i.e. Not sprinting so much) they assume he is just too tired to do anything. I think it's more a case of not being able to keep the explosive side of his game up for the full 90. Hardly surprising.
Click to expand...

Ando looked fitter v West Ham but there's denying he's been struggling for fitness in his previous matches this season. At this level of football, you really do need to be up for it in the 92nd minute. (Maybe the manager has used his three subs and so on.) No excuses, save returning from injury or extreme old age. He's getting there, so there's no reason to dog him right now, but Ando does have to pay attention to his fitness in a way that players like Cleverley and Carrick simply do not. The latter two just stay in condition, period. Ando just has to take special care that his body is prepared for the demands of prem action.
 
Cleverley and Carrick don't play at the same pace as Ando, very few players do - I doubt either of them would last 60 minutes if they ran the way Anderson does during games.
 
Shimo said:
Cleverley and Carrick don't play at the same pace as Ando, very few players do - I doubt either of them would last 60 minutes if they ran the way Anderson does during games.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Yes maybe he can improve his fitness a bit as many players can but idiots here will always be on his back no matter how fit he becomes.
 
Shimo said:
Cleverley and Carrick don't play at the same pace as Ando, very few players do - I doubt either of them would last 60 minutes if they ran the way Anderson does during games.
Click to expand...

Cleverley normally gets through more miles than anyone else for us when he plays, so that's not strictly true. But it is a much more economical sort of movement, gliding around being an option and then shifting the ball on neatly. Ando spends so much of his time on the pitch doing the tiring, labour-intensive stuff, like those driving runs of his. So in a way I agree with you.

His fitness at the moment is fine, for me. To be honest if he gets a really good run in the side this season, it'll improve by necessity. Hard to be one of the uber-fit players (like Evra, for example) when you're constantly either getting injured or being dropped from the side for long periods.
 
feck sake. Hope he's not out for long. He's been fantastic this season whenever he's played.
 
Big blow if he is out of the derby. Gutted for him, seems to pick up an injury everytime he is in good form.
 
Hope its not a bad one, lad looked gutted.
 
Didn't look too good going by his reaction. Typical really, just as he started to show some good form. Big loss for the City game.
 
Relying on Anderson is bit like Arsenal relying on Diaby. He'll come in put in a couple of good displays and inevitably get injured. Then he'll spend months on the sidelines before coming in and putting in a couple of good displays again. Its pointless, we need a new midfielder.
 
Such a shame. But it's what many of us have been worried about and clearly the reason why he hasn't featured as much.

It's no coincidence that 3 appearances in a week and now he is injured, surely.
 
So Anderson starts to look promising after getting some appearances, but then gets injured. Where have I heard that one before?
 
Maybe that's why he's not been starting every week. He's obviously got the ability but Jesus this lads injury prone. #gutted
 
ArmchairCritic said:
It's the Ando cycle:

1)Come in and look good.
2)Start playing shit.
3)Briefly improve again before getting injured and disappear for a few months.
4)Come back in training and have everyone accuse you of being fat
5)Back to 1).

All that said he looked ok tonight I feel, was the only one matching the physicality of Galatasaray, passing was a bit off as was his touch.
Click to expand...

:(
 
Really, really hope it's not too bad. We just cannot go to city with Carrick/Scholes/Giggs, it just can't happen.
 
Justin said:
Hopefully just caution taking him off
Click to expand...

He stayed down after the challenge on the edge of the box, hobbled off with a grimace on his face. Don't think it's a precautionary substitution, sadly.
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
Relying on Anderson is bit like Arsenal relying on Diaby. He'll come in put in a couple of good displays and inevitably get injured. Then he'll spend months on the sidelines before coming in and putting in a couple of good displays again. Its pointless, we need a new midfielder.
Click to expand...

Good comparison. Tired of this cycle.
 
It's a strain somewhere which means a few weeks. Hopefully he'll be back before Christmas.
 
feck me. And that after such a great halftime. Hopefully nothing serious but didnt look good at all :(
 
Really disappointing he has picked up an injury. Was looking good out there. Hopefully just a minor one, or precautionary. I wanted him to be fit and ready for the City game
 
What happened? I saw him down by the 18 yard box but, didn't pick up how the injury happened. Damn the knives are going to come out about how if he can't keep fit nonsense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.