I've found her pretty clear. She just objectively explains how the rules are applied. It's not her fault the way the rules is ridiculous.
All the games I've watched whenever she's called what the VAR or ref after going to the monitor will do she gets it spot on.
Fair enough….. but for me it’s like I’m listening to her and then zone out and all I hear is some buzz words as she explains something three different ways.
I’m not being sexist because I really couldn’t care less who they have on as an expert but I just find her delivery very confusing.
I've written a more detailed response below but I think you are being treated/downvoted a little unfairly. I think she's clearly very knowledgeable. She's clearly drunk too much of the FIFA/UEFA/IFAB Kool Aid and does use buzzwords (but I can live with that). But, more than anything, I just sort of agree that there is something hard to follow about her sentence structure/diction/syntax which all just seems a bit muddled. Perhaps most others aren't struggling but I, like you, find her difficult to follow (despite her bringing some obvious positives to the coverage).
You have described it well. I’m being downvoted for a number of reasons and triggered a few people who think I’m being sexist which is not really the point here.
She's fantastic and explains things clearly and rationally according to the existing rules. One of the best I've ever seen at this in the media. She also handles the childishness of the pundits perfectly well.
If you're not getting it I think the problem is you.
I don't think they're being childish. They are frustrated. They have played the game at a high level so can give their view as an ex player. They are speaking from a passionate perspective whereas Christina is talking in a very technical passive way.
I think she clearly knows her stuff but I don't see the point of her in this context.
I think Unkel has been excellent over the past few years. Explains everything quickly and simply. I know we often disagree with the decisions, but I think it's great that we now get to understand the rationale behind every significant decision.
The first time she came on, I thought to myself, how many certain types of insecure men are going to be triggered by this? I reckon nobody complains if it is a dude but a woman (oh no!) with an American accent... The Power of Christ Compels You!
Does Gabby Logan or Laura Woods hosting the programme and therefore asking the expert men questions about football count?
I agree with many of the top comments here, Christina has done a great job of explaining things clearly, regardless of what people, including the pundits, think the rules ought to be. Which makes me think, wouldn't VAR work so much better if we could hear the VAR officials ourselves and they explained decisions this, rather than broadcasters needing to get somebody else in.
You do care. You can admit it. Zero percent chance you complain about this if it is a guy doing it. Your title is 'VAR woman'. Obviously her being a woman makes it a problem for you.
Not really Paul, I didn’t know how else to describe her when submitting the post.
I really don’t have a problem with her being a woman, just so you know.
She's a bit of a mixed bag for me but generally good.
1. She's clearly intelligent, knowledgeable and methodical.
2. She's not particularly erudite. Her explanations are sometimes a little rushed, garbled and just generally not expressed in a particularly elegantly way. I think this may just be nerves. Hopefully she will relax as we see more of her.
3. I do think (like most refs) she doesn't truly understand the game / has a tendency to overthink things. This imo was highlighted by her debate around the Ronaldo penalty shout with Keane, where I thought her analysis was entirely wrong and showed a lack instinctive feel for the game.
4. She's a bit of a IFAB/FIFA/UEFA stooge and, like Peter Walton, seems to always want to back the officials. Her starting point seems to be that the decision is correct and then she uses her (impressive) knowledge to work backwards to justify that position. This is perhaps an issue with her remit but she'd be more impressive if she had a little bit more licence to be opinionated. On top of the facts (which are great), I'd actually like to hear her opinions about how she thinks the game should be officiated. The penalty last night is probably a good example of this. I think her explanation was correct but it would be good to get her actual opinion about that particular law and eg what she would do with the handball law if she was in charge at IFAB.
5. She's a good antidote grumpy old geezers with limited understanding of the rules / their own agendas. I like Ange Postecoglou and he has been consistent in criticising the use of VAR but she countered him with a good point about how VAR (if used well) should lead to more consistency on things like handballs than just letting the onfeild refs decision stand every time. I think that's a fair point given that lots of people (including myself) have called for greater consistency for years. Ange's opinion isn't necessarily wrong but Christina is right that VAR (at least in principle) should improve consistency and, in fact, I think they have been consistent with handballs at this Euros.
I'd give her a 7.5/10. Decent start. It's good to have someone intelligent and analytical on the broadcast.
It's just boring. We just had two high level ex professionals and a prem manager hardly getting a word in whilst the var expert got far too much air Time. All she basically said was that the ref wax following the rules. Move on and discuss the .match, the players etc
It’s ridiculous. People falling over themselves to praise how “clear” she is, she adds absolutely no value and frequently talks bullshit. I was glad when Roy Keane challenged her bullshit.
Think she’s better than any other ref I’ve heard speak about the rules
Well that’s good, certainly, and I will have to keep at it.
I like her. Speaks really well and explains things in a way I wouldn’t have been originally looking for.
I will persevere… but I do find her difficult to follow.
I've found her pretty clear. She just objectively explains how the rules are applied. It's not her fault the way the rules is ridiculous. All the games I've watched whenever she's called what the VAR or ref after going to the monitor will do she gets it spot on.
Fair enough….. but for me it’s like I’m listening to her and then zone out and all I hear is some buzz words as she explains something three different ways. I’m not being sexist because I really couldn’t care less who they have on as an expert but I just find her delivery very confusing.
I think that sounds like a you problem.
U probably dont like listening to woman.
I've written a more detailed response below but I think you are being treated/downvoted a little unfairly. I think she's clearly very knowledgeable. She's clearly drunk too much of the FIFA/UEFA/IFAB Kool Aid and does use buzzwords (but I can live with that). But, more than anything, I just sort of agree that there is something hard to follow about her sentence structure/diction/syntax which all just seems a bit muddled. Perhaps most others aren't struggling but I, like you, find her difficult to follow (despite her bringing some obvious positives to the coverage).
You have described it well. I’m being downvoted for a number of reasons and triggered a few people who think I’m being sexist which is not really the point here.
This is what US sports coverage sounds like, they love their jargon and monotone buzzword dropping.
Meh. I prefer hearing her to the cocky likes of Mike Dean
She's fantastic and explains things clearly and rationally according to the existing rules. One of the best I've ever seen at this in the media. She also handles the childishness of the pundits perfectly well. If you're not getting it I think the problem is you.
I don't think they're being childish. They are frustrated. They have played the game at a high level so can give their view as an ex player. They are speaking from a passionate perspective whereas Christina is talking in a very technical passive way. I think she clearly knows her stuff but I don't see the point of her in this context.
I think Unkel has been excellent over the past few years. Explains everything quickly and simply. I know we often disagree with the decisions, but I think it's great that we now get to understand the rationale behind every significant decision.
The first time she came on, I thought to myself, how many certain types of insecure men are going to be triggered by this? I reckon nobody complains if it is a dude but a woman (oh no!) with an American accent... The Power of Christ Compels You!
Is there any woman that is allowed to talk about football without issue?
https://youtu.be/Tv0ueEI4OBQ?si=iIlMwOrFL_YJMraT
This is brilliant! Where's the bloke?
Jacqui Oatley is the best soccer commentator on US TV by far.
It’s honesty more that she’s got that accent
There is always something. How many times have you complained about a man's accent in football?
When has an American male in football not gotten hate?
I've never witnessed it tbh but I'm more of a lover than a hater.
For some reason a lot of English people really dislike yank accents, this absolutely isn’t exclusive to women.
Is that why American movies and tv shows are so successful in England?
American media is successful everywhere lmao, that doesn’t mean everybody likes the accent.
The US has as many accents as England. This is such a dumb conversation.
you are a clown. male pundits get flak for their accents all the time
That's kind of you to say. I disagree though.
Hello? No response?
Sorry for the delay.
Does Gabby Logan or Laura Woods hosting the programme and therefore asking the expert men questions about football count? I agree with many of the top comments here, Christina has done a great job of explaining things clearly, regardless of what people, including the pundits, think the rules ought to be. Which makes me think, wouldn't VAR work so much better if we could hear the VAR officials ourselves and they explained decisions this, rather than broadcasters needing to get somebody else in.
Honestly I don’t care that she’s a woman. Her explanations seem so laborious.
You do care. You can admit it. Zero percent chance you complain about this if it is a guy doing it. Your title is 'VAR woman'. Obviously her being a woman makes it a problem for you.
Not really Paul, I didn’t know how else to describe her when submitting the post. I really don’t have a problem with her being a woman, just so you know.
Here come all the Joey Barton's thinking they know better 🙄
Not at all. I don’t care who they put on…… she just explains things in a very over complicated way (to me!).
Yeah, sounds like it is something to do with you and your understanding. Sorry it is too complicated for you.
She's a bit of a mixed bag for me but generally good. 1. She's clearly intelligent, knowledgeable and methodical. 2. She's not particularly erudite. Her explanations are sometimes a little rushed, garbled and just generally not expressed in a particularly elegantly way. I think this may just be nerves. Hopefully she will relax as we see more of her. 3. I do think (like most refs) she doesn't truly understand the game / has a tendency to overthink things. This imo was highlighted by her debate around the Ronaldo penalty shout with Keane, where I thought her analysis was entirely wrong and showed a lack instinctive feel for the game. 4. She's a bit of a IFAB/FIFA/UEFA stooge and, like Peter Walton, seems to always want to back the officials. Her starting point seems to be that the decision is correct and then she uses her (impressive) knowledge to work backwards to justify that position. This is perhaps an issue with her remit but she'd be more impressive if she had a little bit more licence to be opinionated. On top of the facts (which are great), I'd actually like to hear her opinions about how she thinks the game should be officiated. The penalty last night is probably a good example of this. I think her explanation was correct but it would be good to get her actual opinion about that particular law and eg what she would do with the handball law if she was in charge at IFAB. 5. She's a good antidote grumpy old geezers with limited understanding of the rules / their own agendas. I like Ange Postecoglou and he has been consistent in criticising the use of VAR but she countered him with a good point about how VAR (if used well) should lead to more consistency on things like handballs than just letting the onfeild refs decision stand every time. I think that's a fair point given that lots of people (including myself) have called for greater consistency for years. Ange's opinion isn't necessarily wrong but Christina is right that VAR (at least in principle) should improve consistency and, in fact, I think they have been consistent with handballs at this Euros. I'd give her a 7.5/10. Decent start. It's good to have someone intelligent and analytical on the broadcast.
I think she's great. There it is.
I’ll be dead and buried before listening to an American women tell me about the rules of football. It’s insulting frankly
Casual sexism lol
It's just boring. We just had two high level ex professionals and a prem manager hardly getting a word in whilst the var expert got far too much air Time. All she basically said was that the ref wax following the rules. Move on and discuss the .match, the players etc
Mute every time she’s on, she just talks nonsense.
I think I’m going to have to. I literally cannot understand what she’s saying….. she’s useless.
Basically you've described a football referee
Well an American explaining football to Europeans is quite something.
It’s ridiculous. People falling over themselves to praise how “clear” she is, she adds absolutely no value and frequently talks bullshit. I was glad when Roy Keane challenged her bullshit.