Without being biased, is Ince just a terrible pundit, what does he bring to the table that someone dragged off the street couldn't say?

Probably 20+ years playing the sport professionally.

He's been pretty good so far. He looks a bit grotesque but his comments are fair.

Couldn't agree more. Horrible person, chip on his shoulder about something.

ClaretAndJew wrote:Probably 20+ years playing the sport professionally.

Are you genuinely defending him? He’s appalling.

And he thinks he won the league in 1992.

Another penalty for Palace, Zaha fouled again. Newcastle’s run-in not straightforward either.

Not an especially relevant thought, but he reminds me of Zammo from Grange Hill.

He's only on because they are showing 4 games otherwise he'd be in bed by now.

Vino blanco wrote:Couldn't agree more. Horrible person, chip on his shoulder about something.

Thanks mate , thought I had early onset dementia after the first few comments on my post.

I hope Newcastle get relegated, so all these so called pundits, who praise him non stop, can swallow their words.

WestMidsClaret wrote:He's only on because they are showing 4 games otherwise he'd be in bed by now.

Probably with his son's agent

TheFamilyCat wrote:Are you genuinely defending him? He’s appalling.

And he thinks he won the league in 1992.

Just answering what he brings to the table compared to someone that's dragged off the street.

Vino blanco wrote:I hope Newcastle get relegated, so all these so called pundits, who praise him non stop, can swallow their words.

If we'd played properly in the 2 games against them they'd only be a point above Cardiff, and really in deep trouble.

Hope his fee is about £6.52 for being able, just about, to say Bournemouth were bad and Burnley were good. Truly insightful. If I paid for my TV licence, I'd think it was money well spent.

Pimlico_Claret wrote:Without being biased, is Ince just a terrible pundit, what does he bring to the table that someone dragged off the street couldn't say?

Always sounds as if he is about to burst into tears.

simonclaret wrote:Another penalty for Palace, Zaha fouled again. Newcastle’s run-in not straightforward either.

“Milivojevic has scored 13% of all successful penalties in the PL this season”

That’s an embarrassing statistic for PGMOL. Essentially, if Palace got decisions like we did, they’d be down with Huddersfield and Fulham.

I remember when Lee Carsley finished as Rovers top scorer one year in the PL. he got about 10. All from penalties. Ridiculous.

He's okay but only just. Unfortunately he has the awful habit of constantly repeating the words "know what I mean".

Foulthrow wrote:“Milivojevic has scored 13% of all successful penalties in the PL this season”

That’s an embarrassing statistic for PGMOL. Essentially, if Palace got decisions like we did, they’d be down with Huddersfield and Fulham.

I remember when Lee Carsley finished as Rovers top scorer one year in the PL. he got about 10. All from penalties. Ridiculous.

Ince:- "He doesn't miss these, that's 10 out of 11..."

Foulthrow wrote:“Milivojevic has scored 13% of all successful penalties in the PL this season”

That’s an embarrassing statistic for PGMOL. Essentially, if Palace got decisions like we did, they’d be down with Huddersfield and Fulham.

I remember when Lee Carsley finished as Rovers top scorer one year in the PL. he got about 10. All from penalties. Ridiculous.

If you have players capable of running at pace with the ball into the box, (like Zaha, Vardy and Sterling) you're always likely to have a lot more penalty shouts and awards. From what I recall I don't think that Palace have benefited from any particularly dodgy decisions.

HatfieldClaret wrote:Ince:- "He doesn't miss these, that's 10 out of 11..."

He's already getting into the Michael Owen of punditry and I'm not aware of any harsher comparison to make.

WestMidsClaret wrote:He's only on because they are showing 4 games otherwise he'd be in bed by now.

Many things said about Paul Ince on this thread.

All I will say is I would rather listen to Paul Ince than Garth (fat **** ) Crooks

Garth Crooks does have the comedy value though. It’s an actual relief when Ince manages to finish a sentence

Where's danny Murphy these days ?

nil_desperandum wrote:If you have players capable of running at pace with the ball into the box, (like Zaha, Vardy and Sterling) you're always likely to have a lot more penalty shouts and awards. From what I recall I don't think that Palace have benefited from any particularly dodgy decisions.

That’s not really the point though is it? Ok, so maybe Palace aren’t necessarily getting soft ones, but as we’ve seen, we don’t even get stonewall penalties. This bloke has had 13% of all penalties, which is more than twice what it should average to. And I’d argue that teams at the lower end of the league (as Palace are) should be averaging below 5% of all penalties as the top six should be getting the lion’s share.

I have a real issue with the amount of penalties Palace get. It’s becoming easier for referees to give them to CPFC and pretty impossible for us. If you say that each penalty is worth an average of one point that is more than the difference between Palace staying up and going down.

I thought Alex Scott was quite good.

Shame many on here would've switched it off seeing her and Gabby Logan on there.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:I thought Alex Scott was quite good.

Shame many on here would've switched it off seeing her and Gabby Logan on there.

Busy girl as she is on the Sky pundit bench today too at Goodison Park.

I like Alex Scott far preferable to the usual suspect dinosaurs like She-Rah and Sourness

Logan and Scott or Chappers and Ince?

Foulthrow wrote:That’s not really the point though is it? Ok, so maybe Palace aren’t necessarily getting soft ones, but as we’ve seen, we don’t even get stonewall penalties. This bloke has had 13% of all penalties, which is more than twice what it should average to. And I’d argue that teams at the lower end of the league (as Palace are) should be averaging below 5% of all penalties as the top six should be getting the lion’s share.

I have a real issue with the amount of penalties Palace get. It’s becoming easier for referees to give them to CPFC and pretty impossible for us. If you say that each penalty is worth an average of one point that is more than the difference between Palace staying up and going down.

But it is the point IMO.
We've had a couple of stonewall penalties turned down - maybe 3, but we don't constantly have players running at pace into the box and taking players on. It's not really our tactics, and up to recently we didn't have the players, though in McNeill we now do.
We generally rely on the high ball or cross from deep into the box. You're far less likely to win a penalty using these tactics since when players challenge for a 50 / 50 ball in the box the referee will generally allow for some contact since neither player is in possession of the ball, and in any case, it's often quite difficult to decide whether there is a foul, and if so, who is to blame. (All the tussles that Barnes has being obvious examples).
However, when someone like Zaha can run at pace with the ball almost tied to his feet it's very difficult to time a tackle perfectly. This was clear when we played Palace at home. You will recall that we were very reluctant to put tackles in, which mean't that their wingers, (Zaha in particular) were causing us havoc as they cut into the box. Zaha's goal was an obvious example of this.
We simply didn't dare put a tackle in because he is fast and skilful, and the chances of committing a foul are high. (I'm sure that Dyche's instructions that day were to stay on our feet. We didn't give a penalty way, but we did concede 3 goals.)
Really it's quite simple - keep pumping the ball long and your chances of winning a penalty are much lower than if you take player on in the box.
In general we also look a lot better team and more dangerous when we try to pass the ball round and into the box.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:I thought Alex Scott was quite good.

Shame many on here would've switched it off seeing her and Gabby Logan on there.

I think putting Ince on with Scott and Logan was shrewd move by the BBC. Female pundits get some stick for their perceived lack of knowledge but putting them on next to Ince instantly makes them more credible.

TheFamilyCat wrote:I think putting Ince on with Scott and Logan was shrewd move by the BBC. Female pundits get some stick for their perceived lack of knowledge but putting them on next to Ince instantly makes them more credible.

now thats funny

Good to see that the Palace have allowed Meghan Markle to get involved in the national game. I thought she did very well considering.

nil_desperandum wrote:But it is the point IMO.
We've had a couple of stonewall penalties turned down - maybe 3, but we don't constantly have players running at pace into the box and taking players on. It's not really our tactics, and up to recently we didn't have the players, though in McNeill we now do.
We generally rely on the high ball or cross from deep into the box. You're far less likely to win a penalty using these tactics since when players challenge for a 50 / 50 ball in the box the referee will generally allow for some contact since neither player is in possession of the ball, and in any case, it's often quite difficult to decide whether there is a foul, and if so, who is to blame. (All the tussles that Barnes has being obvious examples).
However, when someone like Zaha can run at pace with the ball almost tied to his feet it's very difficult to time a tackle perfectly. This was clear when we played Palace at home. You will recall that we were very reluctant to put tackles in, which mean't that their wingers, (Zaha in particular) were causing us havoc as they cut into the box. Zaha's goal was an obvious example of this.
We simply didn't dare put a tackle in because he is fast and skilful, and the chances of committing a foul are high. (I'm sure that Dyche's instructions that day were to stay on our feet. We didn't give a penalty way, but we did concede 3 goals.)
Really it's quite simple - keep pumping the ball long and your chances of winning a penalty are much lower than if you take player on in the box.
In general we also look a lot better team and more dangerous when we try to pass the ball round and into the box.

I don’t think we’re disagreeing here. My issue is that Palace get all these penalties yet you don’t see it being matched, even by the top six, who also have players with pace and trickery.

Zaha WINS a lot of penalties because he runs with his legs out wide. Any contact at all and down he goes but the poor defender has done no wrong, he’s just chasing back. If he ran in a straight line he wouldn’t get them.
No arguments about yesterdays though. Stupid defending by Yedlin.

Ian wright impersonating Alf Garnett....

expoultryboy wrote:Where's danny Murphy these days ?

On MoTD2 now.

Gabby Logan been one of the best presenters for years. In fact probably the best since Des Lynam. Far better than Lineker.

Pimlico_Claret wrote:Without being biased, is Ince just a terrible pundit, what does he bring to the table that someone dragged off the street couldn't say?

Hopefully they could pronounce `think` correctly. The other pundit, Alex Scott, is also incapable of using /th/. What is it wiv people from down Sarf?

Another stonewall penalty for deliberate handball by Bournemouth ignored.

Woodleyclaret wrote:Another stonewall penalty for deliberate handball by Bournemouth ignored.

What?
Do you mean the Barnes shot that hit Ake on the arm and went narrowly wide (2nd half)?
That was never stonewall, and everyone (except you obviously because you saw it as "stonewall") would be up in arms on here if it had been awarded against us.
It's the sort of decision that has occasionally been given in the past, but any team penalised for this would consider that they had been very harshly treated, and you can bet that if Arsenal got one in injury time for that against us both Dyche and yourself would be very unhappy.

HiroshimaClaret wrote:Hopefully they could pronounce `think` correctly. The other pundit, Alex Scott, is also incapable of using /th/. What is it wiv people from down Sarf?

Dunno, southern people probably have similar queries when hearing northerners talk.

nil_desperandum wrote:What?
Do you mean the Barnes shot that hit Ake on the arm and went narrowly wide (2nd half)?
That was never stonewall, and everyone (except you obviously because you saw it as "stonewall") would be up in arms on here if it had been awarded against us.
It's the sort of decision that has occasionally been given in the past, but any team penalised for this would consider that they had been very harshly treated, and you can bet that if Arsenal got one in injury time for that against us both Dyche and yourself would be very unhappy.

Barnes had this exact situation in the game against Wolves, ball blasted at him and it hits his hand from a few yards away. Now, on Goals on Sunday last week Darren Moore said that was a "stonewall" penalty. I disagree, I thought there's not much he could have done. In this case the 2 could be said to have cancelled each other out over the two games and we won both.

Next season though, this will pretty much be given every time. The Champs League are given penalties when the ball hits a hand and with VAR I can see this being given every time as well.

If the only complaint someone had about my punditry was that they don't like my accent then I'd consider that I've done a pretty decent job to be fair.

If there was a ‘stonewall’ pen, it was the physical assault that Wilson made on Mee as he was up heading from the Corner late on. Wilson realised Mee had outflanked him at the last minute and literally just ran into him to put him off his header. His feet didn't leave the ground and he made zero attempt to play the ball.

Stonewall is a phrase you rarely hear outside football. I do enjoy folks' interpretation of `stonewall'. A few seasons ago I went to watch Chesterfield at Accy - went into the away end. There was a huge shout for a penalty for Chesterfield which was turned away - basically because it was never, ever a penalty. But at half time this guy was on his phone to someone screaming "absolute stonewall, stonewall" over and over again. It absolutely was not but it amused me.

claret wizard wrote:Barnes had this exact situation in the game against Wolves, ball blasted at him and it hits his hand from a few yards away. Now, on Goals on Sunday last week Darren Moore said that was a "stonewall" penalty. I disagree, I thought there's not much he could have done. In this case the 2 could be said to have cancelled each other out over the two games and we won both.

Next season though, this will pretty much be given every time. The Champs League are given penalties when the ball hits a hand and with VAR I can see this being given every time as well.

Good post, and I agree, but with Champs League it's basically a reinterpretation of an existing rule which clearly says that a handball has to be deliberate.
As you imply in neither of the last 2 matches did Barnes or Ake show intent to handle the ball, and I don't think many on this board would have agreed with Moore last week had the Barnes "handball" resulted in a penalty kick.

nil_desperandum wrote:Good post, and I agree, but with Champs League it's basically a reinterpretation of an existing rule which clearly says that a handball has to be deliberate.
As you imply in neither of the last 2 matches did Barnes or Ake show intent to handle the ball, and I don't think many on this board would have agreed with Moore last week had the Barnes "handball" resulted in a penalty kick.

Just wait until the Law and its implementation is re-written for next season, along with the introduction of VAR, and these incidents will be scrutinised and given as penalties just so that we are falling in line with what UEFA and FIFA wish for the game.
To be honest, I think that the majority of things which are happening in the game are driven by the media because they have been investing a lot of money and want their say.

And there we go, Danny Rose just now, never a penalty and given by VAR in the Spurs v City game. That’ll be the norm next season. Both the incident against Wolves by Barnes, and the Ake one on Sat would be given as well.

claret wizard wrote:And there we go, Danny Rose just now, never a penalty and given by VAR in the Spurs v City game. That’ll be the norm next season. Both the incident against Wolves by Barnes, and the Ake one on Sat would be given as well.

Not sure I agree. While I don’t think the Rose incident was a penalty it was different to the Barnes and Ake ones. In those instances the arm was by the side and that will be interpreted as a natural position. Rose’s arm was in the air and that will be interpreted as ‘making himself big’.

martin_p wrote:Not sure I agree. While I don’t think the Rose incident was a penalty it was different to the Barnes and Ake ones. In those instances the arm was by the side and that will be interpreted as a natural position. Rose’s arm was in the air and that will be interpreted as ‘making himself big’.

Try sliding along the ground feet first with your arms by your side.