Ian Wright WTF!

mike gunnz · 28 Nov 2007 at 10:11

Can anyone explain to me why oh why Ian Wright is a pundit on Match of the Day?

My specific gripe is with England matches and the complete lack of objectivity from the studio pundits when Wrighty's son Sean is playing and "Ian Wright is in the studio providing expert analysis." Theres an oxymoron.

When Sean Wright-Phillips has a reasonable game the pundits over-praise him in order not to cause Ian offence, yet when he has a shocker, as he often does, and as he did against Croatia causing him to get pulled off at half time then there is zero criticism from Hansen & co. But then again how can they say anything negative when his bloody dad is sitting next to them?!

They laid into Gareth Barry who also got taken off at half time but Sean in my opinion recieved no crticism for his performance because his old man was sat there. I expect better from MOTD, and feel like us the punters are taken for idiots.

So who agrees or disagrees with my rant?

mike gunnz · 28 Nov 2007 at 10:20

Andybtsn said:
I like Wright, he brings some banter to the studio and you can see he's a true fan.

Agreed.

But dont you think the whole point of half time analysis is undermined by his presence impacting on the objectivity of others?

And I take your point about SWP perhaps not playing all that badly, but he was taken off so he couldnt have been great either.

mike gunnz · 28 Nov 2007 at 10:30

Tom0 said:
Ian wright is a **** head. I cant believe hes a commentator.

Come on offer a bit more than this mate.

mike gunnz · 28 Nov 2007 at 10:36

Andybtsn said:
He isn't a commentator.

Edited. Thanks.

mike gunnz · 28 Nov 2007 at 11:34

He used to do a radio show on 5-Live with Mark Wright. It was brilliant as he had such a good rapport with all the footballers, retired and current. He'd get them to phone the show and the banter was superb.

None of the bland "So are you enjoying your football at the moment Wayne?" type questions.

mike gunnz · 28 Nov 2007 at 12:37

malc30 said:
Considering Ian said that he would Not have played Sean then i think his objectivity is Sound.
Ian Wright is fine by me.

I said the objectivity of the other pundits (Hansen & Co), not the objectivity of Wrighty.

Whether he said Becks should start in front of SWP isnt really the issue (although I admit I missed the comment).

My point is that Wrighty's presence affects the objectivity of the others, therefore should he be there? Are they less likely to criticise SWP in the presence of his dad?

mike gunnz · 28 Nov 2007 at 12:58

Alan Green & Jimmy Armfield on Radio 5 Live are my favourites. None of the telly ones do it for me.

mike gunnz · 28 Nov 2007 at 14:17

drunkenmaster said:
shearer couldn't be more tied to newcastle yet everyone, himself included, described the game as a pathetic performance. Alan smith is heavily biased AGAINST arsenal.

The difference is, Shearer described the Newcastle team performance as pathetic.

My original post is discussing singling out the individual for criticism - in this case SWP.

mike gunnz · 28 Nov 2007 at 14:20

Hmmm, Lots of interesting opinions, and a lot of support for the boy Wrighty.