Do ex-players make better pundits than non-players?

[SatoPrincess]

Football is a game of passion. And as fans we love to see the players we grew up with on the screens contributing to football in some way after they have retired. So it is not surprising when former players like Xabi Alonso, Ryan Giggs, Thierry Henry, Frank Lampard, Wayne Rooney, e.t.c. transition to become managers. Some are successful at it, others are not so fortunate in their new role. It is assumed that with their experience and knowledge of the game, they would make great managers but that’s not always the case.

However it is a different story when it comes to former players becoming football pundits. Many highly respected and knowledgeable football analysts are former players like Gary Neville, Roy Keane, Rio Ferdinand., Ian Wright e.t.c. After Covid, I have noticed more podcasts and sports shows featuring former players. One in particular that caught my attention is to CBS Sports' Champions League, featuring these amazing trio:
1. Jamie Carragher: Former Liverpool defender and England player who has become a popular pundit known for his in-depth analysis of the game.
2. Thierry Henry: Former Arsenal player and France under-21 manager. A football legend who loves the game.
3. Micheal Richards: Former Manchester City and England player who gained recognition for being   youngest defender to be called up to the England squad.



With their experience and knowledge of the game, the trio along Kate Abdo have a great chemistry and make football analysis interesting to watch. Even a person who is not a football can easily fall  in-love with the sport by just watching these guys talk football. This makes me wonder if former players make better pundits than non players. Do you agree?

And here it is to spice it up - Which of the them will you follow their sports betting tips based on their pre-match analysis - the ex-players pundits or the non-players pundits

[Lida93]

This makes me wonder if former players make better pundits than non players. Do you agree?

No they don't make better pundits than non players...

I do listen to one of the domestic sports radio stations in my country and how the sports analysts from that station analyze football matches before and after one may wonder if they were former football legendaries but truth is, they have never played football in their life. I don't miss their program when I have the free time to.

In the just concluded Euro2024 finals, before that match between Spain vs England, former football legendaries including those that are pundits were called to make their predictions about what the outcome of the match could be before the game kicks off. A lot of them made predictions that failed at the end of the game, just  about 2 or 3 predicted the scores exactly as it outplayed. So been a good pundit in my opinion, it transient beyond and not limited to being former player(s).

[Coin_trader]

With their experience and knowledge of the game, the trio along Kate Abdo have a great chemistry and make football analysis interesting to watch. Even a person who is not a football can easily fall  in-love with the sport by just watching these guys talk football. This makes me wonder if former players make better pundits than non players. Do you agree?

I’m not an expert on football but in general sports commentary ex-players is superb on providing insights on the match since they are talking from experience and player point of view which is more valuable than non player knowledge that usually just by the book.

The actual and theoretical always has some discrepancy on sports so ex-players has disadvantage but the only only was not all ex-players has the interest to become a pundit after their career as player ended that’s why only few becomes a pundit while the majority pursue coaching stuff and other job that is more hands on in the sports.

[Distinctin]

They know the game; they played it, so most likely they are better than non-players. However, if we compare how they could convert their knowledge to sports betting, I think there's no guarantee they'll have a better win rate compared to a non-player. It's easy for them to do the job they are used to as they are in that field already, but the truth is that only a few sports bettors are profitable in sports betting.

We can listen to their in-depth analysis or whatever you call it, but we can't fully rely on their tips if they are calling a pick on a certain game on which team to win and what player to bet on.

[Porfirii]

This makes me wonder if former players make better pundits than non players. Do you agree?

No they don't make better pundits than non players...

I do listen to one of the domestic sports radio stations in my country and how the sports analysts from that station analyze football matches before and after one may wonder if they were former football legendaries but truth is, they have never played football in their life. I don't miss their program when I have the free time to.

In the just concluded Euro2024 finals, before that match between Spain vs England, former football legendaries including those that are pundits were called to make their predictions about what the outcome of the match could be before the game kicks off. A lot of them made predictions that failed at the end of the game, just  about 2 or 3 predicted the scores exactly as it outplayed. So been a good pundit in my opinion, it transient beyond and not limited to being former player(s).

I am of the same opinion as you, and that's because we cannot neglect the component of chance in every match. A football match is not deterministic, it's not as easy as "given a few inputs (players, referee, weather) you get certain output (score)", as there are so many factors totally out of our control. And it is not much different for former players, because they can know a bit more about some of these factors, which equal to a drop of water in a sea of possibilities.

[Davidvictorson]

I think that ex-players make better pundits. However, I don't think we should bring in any comparison because if a non-player who has been a pundit for years providing in-depth analysis of several football tournaments, championships and cups from club matches, Continental cup, and world cup games has horned his skills we cannot say that they will be on the same level with ex-players who even though have been in the pitch yet may not have had the same experience. They may understand the game but will need more experience to provide an expert analysis as a non-player with experience.

*PS - This is more of a football topic than a gambling discussion topic not of course if we add to the  sports betting discussion element to it. And here it is to spice it up - Which of the them will you follow their sports betting tips based on their pre-match analysis - the ex-players pundits or the non-players pundits

What do you think SatoPrincess?

[Slow death]

In my opinion, former players have greater advantages when they become football commentators because they know many coaches and players, they know how many coaches act and think before and at the time of the game, they know how many former colleagues of their players behave. So with this privileged information, former players who become commentators are able to provide good commentary on games compared to people who have never played football. I have seen this big difference here in my country, because when they call former football players from my country's national team to comment on a game that my country's national team will play against another national team

comments from former players from my country's national team are more consistent and can have a higher level of accuracy in predicting the result of the game and what will happen during the game, while commentators who have never played for my country's national team They can't make very precise comments when my country's national team plays. Now when it comes to former players becoming coaches, things become complicated, because to be a good coach, you need to be a good extrategist and that doesn't depend on whether or not you are a good player. depends on studying a lot

[EluguHcman]

This makes me wonder if former players make better pundits than non players. Do you agree?

There is this different between being able to analyze the football games as a commentator and serving as a Coach of analysing and drafting formations for an individual team.

Being a certified pundits, individuals must had got experiences in the field of being participated in the field events such as being once a footballer.
Haven gotten experience in the football field gives you a better narration and stabilities to denote encounters which a non player may think it may be easy as viewed compared to what the players encounters in a live game.

However, a pundits who is a former players would be more visionary and better pundit than one who is a non player but just a football loving fan because it is usually easy to say than what the reality truly is.

[traderethereum]

Yes, I agree with that because if a person can represents his show well, audience will interest and will always wait for his show. Usually, the show will invite women who really have knowledge with the show so she can talk much about that.
It usual to use someone who have a great chemistry to guide the show so that can makes the rating of the show increase. It happens in many show and not just in sports and that is one of the strategy that they use to make their show have a good rating.
Former players can also be a good choice but not all former players have a good skills to guide the show. The director must find former players who have much follower and reputable so the show can have a good rating.

[Kelward]

I think that being a superb sports pundit has to do with the passion for commentary, not necessarily being an ex player. I've seen many none players who do excellent jobs as sports pundits, you could see the raw passion when they're analyzing players and matches. But I must admit that an ex player pundit adds color to sports commentary, football fans like to see some of their favorite ex footballers in the pundit. I believe that the presence of ex players as pundits makes some people to pick interest in listening to what they have to say. Although as far as match predictions go, even ex players can get it wrong despite their practical experiences in football, still people likes to hear what their opinions are.

[stadus]

This is a show and a business, so they would get people who are already popular and have an idea about the game. Commentary skills and knowledge can be learned, especially if you have played the sport you are commenting on, as it would be easy for you to relate to what is happening on the field. So I think ex-players are really better than non-players because most of the popular commentators were players themselves before they got into that job.

It's happening in different sports. For example, in the NBA, most of the commentators are ex-NBA popular players. Their popularity interests viewers and makes them more likely to watch the show.

[Pokapoka124]

I think ex players are better pundits because they played the game, they understand the psychology of being a player, they understand dressing room politics, fights and internal issues of a club. All this makes them a more As far as predictions go, I would listen to their predictions and analysis but that would not be the deciding factor for my bets because these ex players are human and can be bias when it comes to their own club or rival teams. For example, Thierry Henry is a Arsenal Legend and the rivalry between Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur was hot in his day. I don’t expect his predictions concerning Hotspur to not be bias in some way. I am only giving an example and this may not be true of Thierry Henry, but it is true for some other ex players turned pundits.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

Some ex-players can be better pundits, while some non-players can also be great pundits. It all depends on how close attention the person has been paying to sports games (activities) and also how deep the person is in keeping every single detail about sports. If someone has decided to be doing these for a number of years, they will have a very large knowledge of sports, which can make them a good pundit. The person could be an ex-player or a non-player. Not every ex-player can just become a pundit, and not all non-players can do that either. Before a person can become a pundit, they must have been dedicated to learning about sports before they can become professional pundits. Just my opinion, though. 

[Smartvirus]

I mean, you can’t deny their in depth in sight of the game given that, you get a more clear view of the game from a watching position compared to when your actually playing on the pitch. Your view is a 360 degree while on the pitch, you can only view from an angle. On this, I could give them that but, somewhere they could easily have it wrong although not in most cases is, in whom to substitute.
I say this with particular reference to the just concluded Euro2024 when the Netherlands played Türkiye in the quarter finals. I think that was Paul Marson, I can’t recall correctly, he was so certain on a second half substitute for M. Depay. According to him, Depay wasn’t making much impact and should be on the bench but, 25minutes into the second half, Depay produced an assist and Netherland got an equalizer.
For them retired players having to criticize the game, I like to believe they would be good at the job as, they know just how they could have hit it but, my critic side have not always allowed me to get the best of them.

[shivansps]

This makes me wonder if former players make better pundits than non players. Do you agree?

And here it is to spice it up - Which of the them will you follow their sports betting tips based on their pre-match analysis - the ex-players pundits or the non-players pundits

A very good question was asked at the end. I wouldn’t look at whether that person was a football player or not, I looked at his results, because in betting it doesn’t matter who you were, even Ronaldo himself, in betting you don’t have to play football, in bets you have to guess. Therefore, the winner is not the one who played football better, but the one who makes the correct predictions. This is a conversation from someone I would trust with my bet, a former professional or an analyst with no experience playing football.
As for football experts, I really like to see former professional football players in the role of commentators and presenters, they are more interesting to watch, because they are football stars in themselves.

[Apocollapse]

Ex-players who become pundits are not objective, they always support their ex teams whatever the performance is and they have better connection to the teams. They're not better than non players pundits, but it will be fun for having them because the non players can mock the ex-players.

I don't like pundits who can't judge objectively, if I watch a match from official broadcast, the pundits should be objective, it's different if I watch a match in their social medias, they can do anything they want.

[Wiwo]

Yeah they will definitely, because every of their football analysis will be born out of they wealth of knowledge about the game over time and also if you check well most of the ex players are doing pretty well already on their role as an analyst, ex-players if the get to choosing between them and none players for that job, I think they will make the first option for such a role.

Although there may be some among them that may still fail in being a good pundit but the ratio at that is low since a significant number of them are successful at that job.

[Marvelockg]

Being good at football analysis is not dependent on wether or not you've once played as a football player or not. There are football players that are obviously good at it and although at this time, it's almost becoming a norm that after retirement most ex footballers goes on to start thier personal podcasts but I wouldn't agree That thier experience in Thier football Carrier would make them a better analyst.

The most ideal people that are best in doing football analysis are football journalist or even people that do commentary of football. Have you imagined someone like Peter Drury hosting a football analysis podcasts? Which ex-footballer can give better analysis than him? Most times, ex players don't know much details about games they where active at the time they where in their primes and wouldn't have the ability to give an unbiased analysis on such player and games but a journalist that has been actively involved in all the stories making headlines and made all his carrier from those kind of stories would obviously do a better job than the x players. Some x players can't even do any analysis on a game they've just partook in.

[crwth]

Am I correct? A pundit is someone who is an expert depending on the field right? Of course players would be the best when it comes to that because they know the game on a different level rather than just non-players who just watch it. Of course they have different contributions looking at the thing, but a person with experience is more valued in my opinion.

[Hatchy]

Which of the them will you follow their sports betting tips based on their pre-match analysis - the ex-players pundits or the non-players pundits

The ex player will have more table analysis of the game compared to that of a non player. That because they have been in those fields, they've ran it, so they understand very well each strategy that would be recommended for a successful match win. These people are retired so they will definitely have more experience when it comes to analysis. Don't forget it's easier said than done. Someone who has never entered any match before but uses his own idea and from what he has watched on TV broadcast may not analyze the game the way an ex will. So yes a former player will make a better pundit than a non player.