The original British version of the quiz show that's become a worldwide hit. Host asks hopeful contestants a series of questions, each more difficult than the last. As the questions get ... See full summary »
A Game Show where contestants must compete against 'The Chasers,' a cast of the show's eccentric and pompous know-it-all characters, in a variety of questions in order to win money by answering more of them correctly than the Chasers.
This show used to be fantastic. Alan Hansen was a genius, pure genius. He was unbiased, ruthless,and diplomatic with his punditry. When Gerrard had a good game, you knew that he had a good game and when he had a bad one, you knew. Every pass he made, every run he made, every goal, every interchange, he'd analyze in the space of 2 minutes. A true connoisseur of the game, he could paint a picture in your head with the stroke of a few sentences. He revolutionized the world of sports punditry and turned it from an opinion based business into an art form. You also had Lawrenson, the Robin of the pair. He was there mainly for comedy relief, but he also had his moments of brilliance. Like Adam West and Burt Ward in 1966, the chemistry between them was top class. Opinions bouncing off one another, clear, concise, carrying a presence on screen, there was no stopping the former Liverpool defenders when on form and whenever Linekar tried to sneak something between them, it was always intercepted, reminiscent of their playing days. Now the show is a mess. The punditry is too robotic and there's more chemistry between a bowl of cornflakes and a plank of wood than there is with the likes of Phil Neville and Danny Murphy. The BBC have tried to bring in new blood and ostracize the old guard and it's come back to bite them. Here, I'll analyze some of the pundits:
Shearer: The only good pundit left. Has a great knowledge of the game. Shares good banter with Linekar, is entertaining on screen, his analysis is always on point and concise. Whenever he's on, he carries his punditry partner.
Murphy: Bland. He just says what you want to hear half of the time and is more suited for ITV with Chiles and his motley crew than he is the BBC. Most of the time when a team plays atrocious, he tries to mitigate it. Instead of lambasting the performance he'll feebly grumble, "Well they didn't do that bad did they. Put the defensive errors, the lack of chances created and the scoreline aside, they didn't do bad and they're sure to improve." Joke of a pundit.
Neville: Read 'Murphy'. There's no wonder why a petition was set up to get him axed from the show and no we don't need reminding of the fact that there was every week Phil. His brother should give him some lessons in punditry.
Ferdinand: #2Sidez to this guy. Sometimes he offers a refreshing insight, other times he's pretty dull. Hopefully we see more of him when he hangs his boots up in a few years time, I feel he has potential to be a good pundit.
Savage: Hilarious guy who's not utilized enough by the show. A wasted talent.
Gullit: Read Murphy. Just comments on the Dutch players most of the time.
And that's why MOTD has gone downhill in recent years.
0 of 0 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this