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

[iBaba]

Of course they do, it's obvious, no? A non-player may have a good knowledge of sports, but he can never be of a good judge as the one who has been on field; an ex-player can always better tell what goes on player's mind during various situations than the one who has never been on the field, simply because former has experience of actually being on the field.
 
Experience always triumphs knowledge IMO.

While that might not really be the case, I think its a huge advantage for a player to become a pundit. A player has the first hand information, experience and expertise on how the game is played as well as the analysis aspect since they're in the field. But it is also noteworthy to mention that it's not everyone that have the ability to express their experiences because some people are not really good at communicating. However, there are non-players who are very good at analyzing games, rules and tactics and may even do well more than those experienced players.

[Juse14]

I concur that ex-players possess a particular edge as footballing connoisseurs. Their direct involvement on the pitch offers an in-depth understanding of strategy, tactics and team camaraderie, areas hard for non-professionals to grasp because they have never played themselves.

Nonetheless, this does not imply that an individual who is not a past player cannot become an outstanding expert. There are many football analysts who are great and intelligent even though they have never played professionally. They frequently introduce varying points of view plus a number-based analysis which can make the discussion more interesting.

In the end, a mixture of ex-players and non-ex-player analysts can craft well-rounded yet captivating football narratives. The former players bring tales from their time on the field, stories rife with experience and grit. On the flip side, non-ex-player analysts often offer fresh viewpoints coupled with detailed analysis. Both aspects serve as pieces of a jigsaw that fit together: one completes the other. And both, in turn, enlighten us, the viewers, on different shades present within the game.

[Casdinyard]

If you were to ask a question about the war, are you going to ask someone who was in the trenches fighting for his life, or a historian who studied every facet of the war when it happened? Cause I'm pretty sure that a lot of us here, including myself, would ask for the vet's opinion and stories more than we'd ask the other guy. Experience and being in the moment when shit went down is something we hold in high regard compared to analysis made by someone who is an expert in the field. In regards to sports, the same thing can be said. While the landscape changes a lot in games like football and basketball veterans who have been there, the fact alone that they have been able to play, bonus points if they were able to bag championships is more than enough badges for us to really take their opinions as standard.

And it's not for naught too, oftentimes these players turned pundits really do offer valuable insights, sometimes even more valuable than those offered by experts on the field. And as they become field analysts they get to be in this middle-ground where they can see how it really looks from an outsider's perspective, while also knowing what it takes to be in the field in the first place.

[KTChampions]

While that might not really be the case, I think its a huge advantage for a player to become a pundit. A player has the first hand information, experience and expertise on how the game is played as well as the analysis aspect since they're in the field. But it is also noteworthy to mention that it's not everyone that have the ability to express their experiences because some people are not really good at communicating. However, there are non-players who are very good at analyzing games, rules and tactics and may even do well more than those experienced players.

Yes, practitioners always have an advantage over theorists because they know from their own experience that a bad game/bad decisions are caused not only by poor theoretical preparation or inability to think, but by the fact that the enemy is bothering you. Many experts (who are purely theorists) make this mistake of expecting players to play perfectly when it is simply impossible. Another question is that the percentage of thinkers among players who could become experts is not so large; nevertheless, a different qualification is required here than just being a good player.

[SamReomo]

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

Yes, I agree, former players have enough knowledge about the game and they can be good pundits than those who haven't played the games themselves. In real life practical experience plays more vital and important role than theoretical knowledge.

We can sure say that some former players may not perform well as pundits but most of them will surely perform better than non-players and if they have good communication skills then they can perform 10x better.

[AmoreJaz]

I concur that ex-players possess a particular edge as footballing connoisseurs. Their direct involvement on the pitch offers an in-depth understanding of strategy, tactics and team camaraderie, areas hard for non-professionals to grasp because they have never played themselves.

Nonetheless, this does not imply that an individual who is not a past player cannot become an outstanding expert. There are many football analysts who are great and intelligent even though they have never played professionally. They frequently introduce varying points of view plus a number-based analysis which can make the discussion more interesting.

In the end, a mixture of ex-players and non-ex-player analysts can craft well-rounded yet captivating football narratives. The former players bring tales from their time on the field, stories rife with experience and grit. On the flip side, non-ex-player analysts often offer fresh viewpoints coupled with detailed analysis. Both aspects serve as pieces of a jigsaw that fit together: one completes the other. And both, in turn, enlighten us, the viewers, on different shades present within the game.

This is my take also on this topic. Because even if we say, ex-players have their advantages because they have their first-hand experience in the field but there are still underlying factors that can influence the results of the game. But I would say, they can be good when it comes to how they will describe it in terms of technicalities.

However, those non-players, they will try hard not to show that they are not dumb about the sports. That they know what they are talking about. Hence, they are surely doing their homework and studying about the sports itself. They will also watch previous commentaries from other analysts so they can get an idea how to be articulate on their craft.

[Fredomago]

I concur that ex-players possess a particular edge as footballing connoisseurs. Their direct involvement on the pitch offers an in-depth understanding of strategy, tactics and team camaraderie, areas hard for non-professionals to grasp because they have never played themselves.

Nonetheless, this does not imply that an individual who is not a past player cannot become an outstanding expert. There are many football analysts who are great and intelligent even though they have never played professionally. They frequently introduce varying points of view plus a number-based analysis which can make the discussion more interesting.

In the end, a mixture of ex-players and non-ex-player analysts can craft well-rounded yet captivating football narratives. The former players bring tales from their time on the field, stories rife with experience and grit. On the flip side, non-ex-player analysts often offer fresh viewpoints coupled with detailed analysis. Both aspects serve as pieces of a jigsaw that fit together: one completes the other. And both, in turn, enlighten us, the viewers, on different shades present within the game.

This is my take also on this topic. Because even if we say, ex-players have their advantages because they have their first-hand experience in the field but there are still underlying factors that can influence the results of the game. But I would say, they can be good when it comes to how they will describe it in terms of technicalities.

Yes, bringing up the reason behind why they are picking side and what are the possibilities for that pick I mean the explanation will give you also a chance of compare, though still not an assurance even how good they are there's always a chance that they'll be losing too, you are in the gambling space even how good the reason if luck will not permit things to happen then you might lose your money.

There's always factors that you need to consider and both Ex-players and non-players can't control if changes during the live events happened, no one have a control with injuries which can affects the outcome of the game.

[GreatArkansas]

For me, there will be just small advantages for ex-players over non-players, but it does not limit the non-players to exploring and learning more about the games.
It still depends, the advantage of ex-players to non-players is that they just played on the field.
There are a lot of non players that really into the game and have well knowledge on everything.

[Sandra_hakeem]

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?

For the most part, yes. What I don't understand is why so much users are saying that a non-player could have a better experience and therefore, a better pundit than a player.. Why would anyone create an open challenge against a professional swimmer that trains underwater and has a good resistance, air management and receptive lungs due to healthy diet? These players have been in different competitions and have played atleast 13 years of their career on the pitch...

I wouldn't even listen to anyone that says whatever is in their minds; I'm not saying these players have ultimately the secret/ formation to winning any games, but for the most part, they can select players and make useful evaluations that any regular football fan can't.

[MAAManda]

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

I agree that ex-players are better at analysis & observation than non-players, that's because they have direct experience when they were still active players, but this can't be an absolute thing, maybe in some parts of the country we can find ex-players that less good than non-players.

[stadus]

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

I agree that ex-players are better at analysis & observation than non-players, that's because they have direct experience when they were still active players, but this can't be an absolute thing, maybe in some parts of the country we can find ex-players that less good than non-players.

But that's very rare since we won't have a chance to see them on TV because the program will select those who are popular so people will watch the game. That's the trend now and it's how the business is run. You can't hire people to be on the commentary job who are not known to the fans; otherwise, no one would watch the game/show, even if that person with the job is very good and well-versed about the specific game.

[Cryptomultiplier]

For me, there will be just small advantages for ex-players over non-players, but it does not limit the non-players to exploring and learning more about the games.
It still depends, the advantage of ex-players to non-players is that they just played on the field.
There are a lot of non players that really into the game and have well knowledge on everything.

The non players who are good and classify as good pundit, actually did more work than an ex-player with field experience and a tacit knowledge of the game, to study the game, the style, the technical difference and prowess and also to be current with the rules of how the game works.
Non players may have to consume much more materials to be on top and may even have to see a lot of games to gain a viewing experience that  is relatable to real or ex players.

[bitbollo]

even if they are big players and have a lot of experience this not means they will able to provide or effective make better pundits than others.
as any human in they world they have also their idea not based on facts, they have many bias in their expectation...
Of course they can perform better versus a "perfect stranger" (or some one that doens't know a certain game or competition) but no more. I don't think they can have a bigger (real) advantage..

[SatoPrincess]

The non players who are good and classify as good pundit, actually did more work than an ex-player with field experience and a tacit knowledge of the game, to study the game, the style, the technical difference and prowess and also to be current with the rules of how the game works.
Non players may have to consume much more materials to be on top and may even have to see a lot of games to gain a viewing experience that  is relatable to real or ex players.

It’s one thing to have theoretical knowledge of the game and it’s another to have practical understanding and knowledge of the game. It doesn’t matter how much materials the non-players have read or even if they can recite the history of each club. Having those “knowledge” does not give them an advantage over ex-players because those information can be pulled from the internet. Nothing beats having first hand experience of playing a game.

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?

I think that’s a great idea. Thanks for the suggestion. I’ve added it to the OP. To answer the question, I’d pay more attention to the ex-player’s analysis but I’m going to ignore the betting tips of the others. When it comes to betting, I believe it is safer to have all the information available. Mind you, predictions fail so it is sometimes better to follow your gut when it comes to placing bets so when you lose you know it’s on you.

[EarnOnVictor]

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

It's not necessary you were an ex-player to be an excellent pundit, it depends on the individual. The same thing goes for the managerial role in football, being an ex-player doesn't automatically make you the better coach, but for your talent and ability to constructively express yourself.

Of course, these guys are in the limelight already, so they are mostly preferred by media houses for further publicity. Some people may even watch that interview simply because Thierry Henry and others are the guests, thereby burying the worth of others who are not ex-players or popular.

[Agbamoni]

Yeah, they do make better pundits than non-players. When you think about the verse knowledge and experience, they have gained playing football during their times you will understand that they have more to say and analyze and a lot to share with the fans out there that they could easily relate to. At the same time non-players can be super good as pundits because they have been following football since the early stage and these kinds of persons, perhaps might have watched all the leagues and matches in football. Because it takes someone who has such varied experiences to share insights and make good analyses in the game of football.

[Hirose UK]

Former players can analyze games well because they really understand the strengths of each team, they have really deep insight and knowledge, making it easier for former players to analyze match results better.
But I wouldn't call them experts because they understand all this because of the experience they have gained previously when they were still active as players, after all there are still several opportunities for failure in the analysis.
Someone can be said to be an expert when they can really create an analysis that is 100% guaranteed to be correct overall, this will be very difficult because in match there will definitely be several big surprises where the top team loses.
What is different is that former players can find out more knowledge and insight into everything in more detail, non-players or just fans and commentators only judge based on some information and the little knowledge they have.

[DubemIfedigbo001]

I root for the ex-players, they have all been there, they've experienced it first hand and it is easier for them to properly dissect the game and make meaningful realizations, evaluate team quality, individual player performance and the impact a player can make in a team judjing from the player's form.

It is easier and more effective for you to discuss and contribute to something based on experience compared to someone who just learned about it and is making references out of brain knowledge only.

Beyond the effectiveness of predictions, there are lots of references ex-players draw upon from their experieces, thereby making the discussion a very enjoyable one and the time spent watching the analysis more productive because you learn a lot from the kings of the fields compared to learning from the kings of the screen.

[shield132]

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.

Yeah, it's assumed that with experience we expect them to become good managers but it's not like that in most cases. For example, Pep Guardiola, Jurgen Klopp and Jose Mourinho weren't good football players, they weren't performing at high level but their managerial skills, the philosophy of football and their vision, strategies are phenomenal while Maradona and some other highly talented footballers didn't become good managers but on the other hand, there are also some like Zydane and Xabi Alonso who were very talented players, managed to become very good managers.

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?

Yes, this trio along Kate Abdo is very nice. I enjoy when I see their videos, I especially like the moment when Jamie Carragher talks about Messi vs Ronaldo "It was never a debate..." and then Kate Abdo tries to play on his nerves and remind him that Messi called him a donkey. That moment was very hilarious and funny.

[Wexnident]

Definitely yeah. It's similar to how news media call on retired personnel on a certain topic whenever a certain issue arises sometimes. Especially in cases where it was their field of specialization and was especially niche. 

Wouldn't day that everyone has it in them though. Sometimes they may know the sport but suck at actually vocalizing it, especially in some cases where you might want a no hardcore fan to actually understand something say, complex that just happened.

I'd say there's also people who analyze for a living but reputation wise I'd say I'd pick a former player than a non former one