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

[mirakal]

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.

Of course, when it comes to any type of gambling, or let's say sports betting, no one comes an edge and make certain decisions to win, since it's always the house that often wins. But it's undeniable that former players have certainly the best knowledge and skills,tips and strategies to share when it comes to their game, and not those who have not played the game or the non-players. Although they might gained some knowledge and share some suggestions, but it's not certainly from experience but from reading various books that talk about sports. So it goes to show that ex-players make better pundits than non-players, but they can never guarantee winning bets in sports betting.

[peter0425]

Although they might gained some knowledge and share some suggestions, but it's not certainly from experience but from reading various books that talk about sports. So it goes to show that ex-players make better pundits than non-players, but they can never guarantee winning bets in sports betting.

To be honest I have seen some ex-players give off analysis and opinions that are not really accurate or true anymore. Yes they might have gained knowledge due to experience but their experience might be totally different to the time today.

The sport community is always changing and so does the players and their strategies and techniques. So that’s why I think some ex-players might not always be right.

[Spaceman1000$]

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

Of course former football players will easily do better either in football coaching or analysis, the simple reason is that, they have first hand experience of the way the game is been played and can easily read the playing abilities of each player on the pitch, this is not to say that non football players cannot do same or even better, because we've seen the likes of jose mourinho despite not being a football player, he has been apple to manage some of best teams in the world with incredible accolades to his career, but however this can actually be made easy because of a passion that has been developed by the individual that hasn't played football before to understudy the game and follow through on most football competitions that are happening across the globe, so in doing so they easily understand and make good pundits but not better than ex football players. The percentage of football pundits is high on ex football players than non players.

[aoluain]

I would say that at the very least former players would have an advantage over non players
at being Soccer pundits.

Top former players like Thierry Henry for example are always going to be sought after
as pundits because they have a following.

What about former managers and sports journalists, I think they could be just as
good as former players!

[topbitcoin]

I would say that at the very least former players would have an advantage over non players
at being Soccer pundits.

Top former players like Thierry Henry for example are always going to be sought after
as pundits because they have a following.

What about former managers and sports journalists, I think they could be just as
good as former players!

yes maybe because former players have experience on the field directly on the field, so they will really know how a technical on the field, and manta reporters or journalists also those who always analyze are also not worse than former players, they can become professional coaches or as experts in talking about abilities and possibilities in football.

But speaking of who is more likely to become an expert in football it depends on the intelligence and knowledge of that person too, both players and non-players, I think this will go back to his ability to analyze a match, and the point is knowledge and also the ability to become a football expert, because this is a career journey I will not miss an important thing in a career journey cannot be separated from a lucky life that can make someone an expert in every industry, including football.

[Davidvictorson]

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.

You are welcome. Yeah, I thought about it because it and recalled that I have watched some of these prematch analysis from punters and they give their predictions and tips. I also agree with you that having all available information and not depending on the one from punters is a good risk management strategy because their not infallible too. It is interesting to see how the discussion around  this has evolved. And it looks like everyone thinks the ex-players do better as pundits.

[sana54210]

This isn't A better than B talk. There are some ex players that are better pundits than some non-players, and there are some non-players that are better pundits than ex-players. It also depends on the sport as well, because not all sports have the same stuff as football does. In the end, I think you need both of them, it is much better if you could have both of them together, would allow people to have a situation that would make it better for everyone else.

It's important to realize that non-players knows the "media" part of it better, and they have worked their way there, so they are really good at the job itself, whereas most ex-players are there because of their fame and not their talent and yet some turns out to be talented pundits as well.

So we can't say one is better than the other, but we can definitely say that they both compliment each other, which is why I think it is important that we get to see how they are going to work. Like for NBA, they had inside the nba, shaq, kenny, barkley together, all ex-players, and yet they had ernie leading the show because he knows what he is doing and he had to moderate the whole thing to make sure that we are dealing with something good, and not chaos.

[nimogsm]

I think, first of all, they know more details from the inside since they know a lot of people, plus their media exposure helps them to be experts and nothing more. They will be more trusted than an ordinary reporter or sports journalist since they themselves are athletes in the past. They are used I don’t know if they are in this to place bets on the match, whether it’s possible to listen to their forecasts for the game. But not exactly, you shouldn’t expect a 100% guarantee from the forecast.

[Ryu_Ar1]

Actually in this case I think it depends on the ability to research it seems that it does not mean that former players who have retired are much better than non-players and vice versa because after all when discussing soccer I think it depends on passion and foresight and in this case not all former players will be better than non-players.

The reason some former pro players can understand better is because maybe they have the advantage that they were once in the player's position so they know what to do and what to criticize when the competing players make mistakes.

This is actually the same not only about observers but for coaches and all forms that are in football are also like that because we cannot generalize the position of former pro players to be superior considering that all have their own capacity for that even though in the matter of advantages and privileges, former players who have experienced playing in a competition are better than non-players.

[Mate2237]

Yes I agree on the notion that ex-football players make good pundits. Those who are not part of a football team and only using their knowledge to analyse sports also make or take information from ex-players for their pundits. And I can view this from the point of the former Super Eagles player Jay-Jay Okacha, who is also a pundits in Super Sport TV show in DSTV and GOTV. And he was doing well when analyzing the Matches in Pidgin English. The ex player knows many things that the non play didn't.

The non players pundits analysis it from the prediction angle who the ex player analysis is from experience and the moves he has done they the ones the players has done. So he has more experience than the none player pundits.

[MAAManda]

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.

That's how it is nowadays, sport is no longer just sport, now it is sportstainment, this industry is getting more advanced because there is a lot of attraction so that more and more viewers want to watch. One way is by bringing ex-players to the event, it makes the event more interesting.

But not all are like that, we can still see pundits who are not ex-players, for example in our country, there are lots of non-players who have become famous pundits, apart from their good analysis, it's also because of the entertainment they provide at events.

[joniboini]

As always, we can't generalize everything because there will always be an exception. I don't think there is any research done on this topic either. I can see how ex-players can give better perspective, especially on the dressing room analysis or something similar, but I've seen a lot of non-explayers give great tactical analysis online. If we're talking about TV or public platform in general, I also agree that some pundits are there for the entertainment, not necessarily good analysis so whether you're an ex-player or not doesn't matter if you can't make the program entertaining.

I believe in my local public platform, I saw more ex-coaches that become good pundits instead of ex-players. Not sure if they played as a pro in the past but even if they did they're not that popular as far as I'm aware.

[ethereumhunter]

That will depends on the person because if they have knowledge and much experienced from what they gets when they are still players. They can analyzes the team and the strategy. They can talk about the strategy that the team use and they can predict what the coach wants with their team so they can gives their opinions to public. But they will not say that their prediction will be better because they are not an active player anymore and not use all of their time to watch the sports.

But the situation in the field can changes anytime and those ex-players can not always follows the condition so they will not be better pundits especially if they don't search for more information about the match. We can see that not many ex-players can show or share their knowledge to public and only ex-players that really know and have much experienced in the fields that can do that.

[TravelMug]

I think, first of all, they know more details from the inside since they know a lot of people, plus their media exposure helps them to be experts and nothing more. They will be more trusted than an ordinary reporter or sports journalist since they themselves are athletes in the past. They are used I don’t know if they are in this to place bets on the match, whether it’s possible to listen to their forecasts for the game. But not exactly, you shouldn’t expect a 100% guarantee from the forecast.

Not just in football though, in any other sports media, they will get a former player to analyst the game for them so yeah, based on their experienced, they could be a better pundits than non-players. And as far as I can remember, there is one sports analyst who are really criticizing players, but when they guest the player, the player will just laugh what this sports news anchors are saying because he doesn't have the experience to tell what's wrong or right because obviously, he wasn't able to see the game itself.

So it's really better to hire people that knows that sports and be the face of let's say that network instead of getting someone who just says anything he want but at the end of the day, for me he doesn't have the right because of his lack of experienced.

[Pokapoka124]

Top former players like Thierry Henry for example are always going to be sought after
as pundits because they have a following.

Thierry Henry is a good pundit and gives in-depth analysis of the game. I enjoy his football analysis but to be honest I think Thierry Henry can be biased when it comes to matters concerning Christiano Ronaldo. The two have a history and it looks like Thierry Henry has not forgotten about their clashes in their prime. That’s the only area I can fault the Arsenal Legend.

Ex Manchester United players who turned pundits are known to be very critical of the club. They complain bitterly about the current state of the club and constantly take shots at the players when they flop. I think it pains them to see that the club cannot be at the same level as it was in the Sir Alex Ferguson era.

[alegotardo]

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 don't know if former players are better than coaches or analysts and experts who spent their entire lives doing this.
But I believe the reason former players get a position as a coach or analyst is because their career demands a very premature end.
The average retirement age for players is 35 years old... in other words, this athlete's body no longer has the physical conditioning to continue performing optimally on the field.
Well, the mentality of a "middle-aged" person is still 100%, that is... that person still has a lot to contribute to football with all the experience they have acquired on the field, so why not give them space?

Football will always have room for well-qualified professionals, and a former player can certainly take on this role.

In other words... my opinion is not that he is better or worse than someone else, but rather that he has the "qualification" for this and that he should not be "discarded" if he wants to continue working in this area.

[Pokapoka124]

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 don't know if former players are better than coaches or analysts and experts who spent their entire lives doing this.
But I believe the reason former players get a position as a coach or analyst is because their career demands a very premature end.
The average retirement age for players is 35 years old... in other words, this athlete's body no longer has the physical conditioning to continue performing optimally on the field.
Well, the mentality of a "middle-aged" person is still 100%, that is... that person still has a lot to contribute to football with all the experience they have acquired on the field, so why not give them space?

Football will always have room for well-qualified professionals, and a former player can certainly take on this role.

In other words... my opinion is not that he is better or worse than someone else, but rather that he has the "qualification" for this and that he should not be "discarded" if he wants to continue working in this area.

This may be controversial but I have to ask. Does having a playing career automatically qualify you for the role of a professional pundit? Just because you played and you’re retired does not mean you have in-depth understanding of the sport. Experience on the pitch may be helpful but that’s not all there is to it. It’s funny how players and fans think that retired players can become great managers because they had a successful football career. The best managers/pundits aren’t always ex-players. I think most of these former players get the job because of their fame and the ratings they are going to bring to the show.

[TheUltraElite]

A football player is not a gambler unless they have been doing it for long time in which case I doubt why they were playing football for that long. You see, to be a good gambler you have a good manipulator because of the money coming in is not for gambling itself but by promoting the casino and writing books and all that shows and all.

Most players lack basic education and thus the above is almost too difficult for them, unless they are very gifted. Most of them end up in scam campaigns before they know it and end up apologizing to public. But is another story.

So my take would be a big no.

[Fredomago]

I think, first of all, they know more details from the inside since they know a lot of people, plus their media exposure helps them to be experts and nothing more. They will be more trusted than an ordinary reporter or sports journalist since they themselves are athletes in the past. They are used I don’t know if they are in this to place bets on the match, whether it’s possible to listen to their forecasts for the game. But not exactly, you shouldn’t expect a 100% guarantee from the forecast.

Not just in football though, in any other sports media, they will get a former player to analyst the game for them so yeah, based on their experienced, they could be a better pundits than non-players. And as far as I can remember, there is one sports analyst who are really criticizing players, but when they guest the player, the player will just laugh what this sports news anchors are saying because he doesn't have the experience to tell what's wrong or right because obviously, he wasn't able to see the game itself.

So it's really better to hire people that knows that sports and be the face of let's say that network instead of getting someone who just says anything he want but at the end of the day, for me he doesn't have the right because of his lack of experienced.

ANd it make sense hearing the opinions of people who knows and understand the game completely though there are some who thinks that they master the game and thinks that they are always right when putting their opinions on the line, but for those productions owners, they also use ex-players to gain the attentions of the fans, a sure viewers which really good for the productions.

In the gambling side, they have their points which you can use as basis in choosing games and choosing teams or players to bet with how they analyze the game and how they bring factors you might have that good ideas before placing your picks.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I think ex players make better pundits than non-players in some ways. Obviously they know the game better having played it. It had to be the right ex players though, sometimes footballers aren’t the most intelligent and can find it hard to convey what they mean in intelligent way that millions of viewers can make sense of. If an ex player is pretty smart and can hold a good conversation then they make great pundits

With the woke mob everywhere at the moment we have sports channels in the UK using ex female footballers as pundits on mens football. It really annoys me as most of them are crap and really irritating.