Stan Collymore: A Complete Waste Of Our Time, But Who's Really To Blame?

I've been getting the train to work for the last few weeks. I enjoy reading a newspaper or two to distract me from the annoying air conditioning unit that accompanies me on my journey.

As always, I head straight to the back pages to catch up on the latest news and "expert" pundit opinions on the beautiful game. I happened across the views of ex-footballer, Stan Collymore, and his very own weekly column entitled: "Stan the Man".

My initial reaction to his view that "Fernando Torres is top class, but Liverpool must get him some help" was the usual shaking of the head in distaste. With good reason I might add because this is an article that also claims "Liverpool are becoming a two-man show, with Steven Gerrard and Torres".

So Fernando does have support and help then Stan?

I immediately knew that I would be writing an article in response to the stupidity of this "expert" pundit. I knew it wouldn't be too taxing to write because this season Liverpool have four players in the top 20 Premier League goalscorers list, whilst Chelsea have two, Arsenal have two, and United have one.

Why do Liverpool need help for Torres if the team has scored 22 goals so far, with the Spanish striker bagging just eight of them? I certainly know for a fact that the apparently invisible Dirk Kuyt contributed to more match winning points than Steven Gerrard did last season. But how can that be if Liverpool are a "two-man team"?

However, whilst researching for my hatchet job of "Stan the Man"; something I read got me thinking (makes a change, I hear you say)

Scrolling down to the comment section of the fantastically well-researched article, I actually started feeling a bit sorry for "Stan the Man". Nothing but abuse and ridicule from supporters ripping apart his arguments with the ease of someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

I started to wonder what I would feel like if that was my article and people where "extracting the urine" out of me. I pictured "Stan the Mans" face getting more and more disappointed with each comment he read, as he sat empty and huddled over his laptop in a darkened room.

I felt like I would be kicking "The Man" whilst he was down if I wrote my article. I then realised my angle should not be the views of a money-hungry third-rate hack, desperately trying to fulfill his contract by churning out recycled garbage.

Instead, I believed my question should be: Why do Editors allow very low quality work to be printed in a national newspaper? Low quality work from someone they are probably paying over the top wages, simply for the ex-footballer/turned "expert" pundit tag.

If I was an Editor, I would much rather pay a decent wage to any number of highly reputable fan journalists that patrol the internet. Their opinions tend to contain information that's actually been researched and not designed simply to get the web traffic numbers up.

I don't need the newspaper I read to be filled with ex-footballers and their opinions, it's not a requirement I strive for. There is a belief that simply because they played they game; they automatically qualify as experts with opinions we all apparently must hear.

I would much rather the editors steer clear of "experts" like "Stan the Man", and instead concentrate their efforts on providing decent unknown internet writers with the newspaper column inches they undoubtedly deserve.

I truly believe we really don't need (or want) the opinion of Stan Collymore. But i'm now a firm believer we certainly don't deserve the "expert" opinions of the pundits that newspaper editors seem to think we do.