Ian Wright was employed by the BBC as a football pundit, presumably because A. He has played the game, and B. He's a bit of a "character." Unfortunately these reasons give Mr Wright a chance to have some on-screen therapy, while the rest of us contort in pain at his useless prescence and his determination to show just how ignorant he really is.
It seems that being an ex-player is certainly no guarantee that you can speak knowledgeably about a football match. You can empathise with the men on the pitch a little bit, but unless you keep abrest of current events in the football world you just end up looking like a prat. Last year when Greece won Euro 2004 it was considered a shock, partially because they were outsiders, but also because none of the pundits knew who the damn players were. Jeez, you get paid to watch sport and talk about it, at least learn about the teams taking part. Otherwise there is no point broadcasting a half-hour of tacked-on "analysis" that someone's mum could have written. The worst offender was of course Ian Wright, who simply referred to them as "him", "that guy", "the number 9" and all kinds of other cretinous labels. There are many small countries that football fans don't learn about in school, and here the men on TV surely need to know more, not less about them. The viewer is looking to be informed in these moments, and Ian Wright can't cut it.
As for being a character, well, he has quite a range. Insufferably patriotic windbag, ignorant xenophobe, spoilt brat, tactless loudmouth chewing on sock. He's truly like a one-man Shakespere production. When England win you have to put up with his triumphalist gloating, when they lose he whines so much that someone in the same studio surely feels compelled to go up to the referee and say: "go on, give England five more goals, if not for me, then for Ian's sake." Whatever character he chooses, he never ceases to not be entertaining.
As if to stake his own claim for a role as TV pundit, David Beckham also made an ass out of himself in the post-match interview, another silly ritual that needs to be stopped, since it demonstrates what I said above: playing the game does not guarantee you will have anything smart to say about it. Beckham was asked a number of questions in a three minute interview, but somehow the answers all came back to one theme:
"...tonight has been a bit of an embarrasement for the lads but, um, you know, we stick together, this is what this team is all about, we've always done that, even when we've been criticised we stick together."
"..you know, as I've said, we stick together"
"...together now as a team we stick together, we're gonna get the criticism of course, each player will, but at the end of the day, you know, we stick together"
"...everyone is disappointed, but you know what, we stick together"
hmm, maybe if the team wasn't so stuck together they might not have lost so sluggishly. There is a lot of debate among the current crop of football analysts, scientists, psychologists, whatever the hell they think they are, about what Beckham's "position" in the team should be. Well, I'm no expert, and perhaps tactics have yet to evolve this far, but I recommend him being in a headlock for ninety minutes while being kicked in the balls by fans who are smart enough to realise that they don't get good value for money at football matches these days. That would be entertaining.
<< Home
