What to say if you like it
Displaying the sort of hesitancy we’ve come to love in Big Brother’s Eugene, Clive Anderson hosts a lightweight debate on the week’s sporting issues.
What to say if you dislike it
An attempt to squeeze some comedy juice out of sport that flops because the humour is more tacky tabloid than brainy broadsheet
What was good about it?
• Clive Anderson remains endearing but he struggled through his autocued jokes and got no response from the audience. No wonder he looked sweatier than a Premiership striker after a night of roasting.
• Gary Stephens is a reasonable football pundit; Darren Campbell was an interesting studio guest (but not as good as Harry Redknapp on show one); and Alyson Rudd from The Times was a reasonable contributor in the seat reserved for a journalist. She pointed out the media’s Mourinho adoration is because: “We’re so starved of interesting people.” Hasn’t she interviewed Alan Shearer recently?
• Coverage of a clash between the two worst teams in non-league football March and Chatteris Town.
What was bad about it?
• Psychologist Oliver James came out with so many unfounded generalisations that we even doubt the one interesting fact he produced: a third of outstanding sports stars lost a parent before the age of 14. (Clive Anderson warned viewers against sacrificing a spouse in order to raise a champion)
• Football agent Rachel Anderson was subjected to the usual scurrilous claims that agents milk millions from the game. An unfounded defamation, we are sure.
• The abysmal animated sequence about the week’s winners and losers
• The round-up of quirky sporting stories from the newspapers lacked humour, too
• Darren Campbell’s claim that Chelsea’s Premiership win was good for Manchester United as “they’d got complacent.”