Football punditry: The good, the bad and the ugly.

The role of the football pundit is a weird one. Clearly most of the viewers or listeners are tuning in primarily to watch the game. Yet you only have to look at twitter during a live game or listen to a lounge full of viewers to know that the co-commentators and pundits can make a massive difference to people's enjoyment of the game.

No doubt who you prefer to listen to depends on your taste. Are you looking for someone who will hype up the excitement? Someone who will add some real insight to the action taking place? Someone with a soothing voice?

For me the best pound-for-pound pundit working on tv/radio is Pat Nevin. When he's co-commentating he's adds insight as well as describing the action in a way that's easy on my ears, when he's in the studio he'll nearly always highlight something interesting from the game and on magazine programmes he's able to be both interesting and do the amusing banter the genre requires. I'd like to think these observations aren't coloured by the fact I know he's got some Everton in his heart.

Coming up on the rails is new boy, the freshly retired Gary Neville. He's contributed more to my enjoyment of Sky games in the last four months than Jamie Redknapp has in the last three years. Aside from Neville (and Redknapp) Sky have some other half decent analysts - Graeme Souness can be interesting when he's not being partisan and Ray Wilkins has a lot to add despite the far too regular shouts of 'my word'! At least he's stealing from a broadcasting legend I suppose!

Where things go really downhill are on our main two terrestrial channels. Somewhere along the line the producers on these channels must have decided that anything too complex will cause the masses to turn-off. The worst two in my book are Jim Beglin and Alan Hanson. I can only assume they must have made a pact to provide shit punditry during retirement over a half-time cuppa in the Anfield bootroom at some point in 1983. If they did, they've stuck to their word.