John Sadler in the Guardian today, with a mildly diverting article about the dumbing down of football punditry.

What is the way forward for improving TV football punditry? My suggestions:

1. Being a former player is not enough.

I think a vaguely successful managerial career should be a minimum requirement, if you are supposed to be explaining tactics and formations. I would also accept ten years of experience as a football journalist - the best football punditry around at the moment is Jimmy Hill's Football Supplement, shown on Sky, which is just four hacks sitting around reading the sports pages and debating football, with Jimmy interrupting randomly like a senile uncle.

2. Tell me something I don't know

There's no point in pundits telling me that the defending has been sluggish, or that the finishing has been poor. I know this, I'm watching the fucking game. Instead, show me something that I can't necessarily see for myself, because my understanding of football is limited. How the tactics have changed across the half/game; how the players are using space; what impact the formations are having on the flow of play - stuff that is obvious to the sophisticated observer, but not to the casual fan. Gordon Strachan used to do this to great effect on MOTD2, and Andy Grey is decent with his chalkboard - but this type of analysis shouldn't be parceled off into discrete packages ("Strachan's View"), it should be the meat and veg of all football punditry. Explain the game, don't just summarise the obvious.