The Match of the Day 2 presenter believes the criticism pundits like Shearer receive on social media has become incessant, unfair and does them and those who work behind the scenes a disservice

A warm afternoon in south Manchester and Mark Chapman is in relaxed mood. In a few hours he will be back on BBC Radio 5 Live, presenting a show on England’s latest Test collapse, but for now he is sat in the kitchen of his family home with a mug of coffee in hand, ready to embark on a conversation that has been two months in the making.

It was in late June that I contacted Chapman to ask for help with something I was writing at the time. Chapman being Chapman, he did his best to be of assistance and, during our conversation, made a comment in regards to being in Russia on World Cup-hosting duties for the BBC that grabbed the attention. “The level of scrutiny is exhausting. I’ve never known anything like it.” We agreed to discuss this in more detail when he returned home and so, with coffees poured, that is what occurred on a quiet, late summer’s day.

Revealed: why Match of the Day is biased against [insert your club’s name here] | Marina Hyde Read more

“As soon as you go on air you’re opening yourself up to scrutiny, and especially if you work for the BBC,” says Chapman. “That’s fine – people have a right to a say because they pay for it. But the talk around our World Cup coverage was incessant, and that’s because of social media.”

Tweets and Facebook posts passing judgment on football pundits is nothing new but the noise reaches a frenzy during a World Cup and, as Chapman adds, is hardly helped by journalists and commentators comparing those from the BBC with those from ITV. “It’s bizarre,” he remarks, which leads to an amusingly awkward moment as I remind Chapman that I wrote an article during the recent tournament comparing the BBC’s pundits with ITV’s.

Once the laughter around the kitchen table has died down I make clear that I generally admire all pundits and find most of the criticism directed towards them to be unfair. Chapman agrees and it is at this point the host of Match of the Day 2 shows a level of warmth towards his colleagues that is as endearing as it is genuine.

“I’m not looking at this from the point of view of what people say about me; when it’s about me, I couldn’t care less,” he says. “What’s happened is I’ve become incredibly protective of the people I work with.

“The assumption that a pundit is ‘lazy’ or ‘hasn’t done their research’ not only does them a disservice but presumes the production staff haven’t put the effort in to make sure that person knows what they are doing. Behind every broadcast there is a hard-working team who go above and beyond.”

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Two decades on from joining the BBC, Mark Chapman has become the voice of Sports Report and developed a reputation for being one of the finest, most versatile broadcasters in the country. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/Guardian

To illustrate his point Chapman shows me the binder of notes given to every member of the BBC’s World Cup team prior to them travelling to Russia. Known as “the Bible” it contains a detailed rundown on all 32 competing nations and is impressively comprehensive.

“It was put together by seven people and probably took them a year to complete,” says Chapman. “And they will have watched every team on multiple occasions.

“Four years ago [fellow BBC presenter] Dan Walker tweeted a picture of the Bible for the World Cup in Brazil and someone replied: ‘What a waste of money, why can’t you all do your own research?’ We can’t win.”

Chapman’s defence is a strong one but I put to him that some pundits are undeniably worse than others, with one in particular, whose name I scribble on a piece of paper and hand across the table, the worst of the lot.

He looks at the name, pauses and concedes that not all pundits are great at their job but insists there are none who leave him thinking “you are dreadful”. He also believes it has got to the stage where those who talk about football get more criticism than those who play it. As he puts it: “Some people think they talk too much; some people think they don’t talk enough. Some people think they’re too serious; some people think they joke around. Some people think they’re biased; some people think they don’t back their former clubs enough.”

What, then, does Chapman feel are the principal duties of a pundit? “To inform, entertain and give an opinion,” he replies. “They don’t always have to do highbrow analysis or be controversial – there’s a balance to be found.

“Over the course of a season on Match of the Day 2, let’s say, I would be disappointed and surprised if a team isn’t praised and criticised, and that includes Manchester City last season. That’s proof of the balance pundits provide.”

The Fiver: sign up and get our daily football email.

Arguably no one offers balance better than Alan Shearer who, more than a decade on from his first punditry appearance for the BBC, has developed into an assured voice on both Match of the Days as well as the broadcaster’s live coverage. Yet even he finds himself a regular target for criticism, with “bland” the most frequent insult thrown at the former England captain.

“Alan probably did sit on the fence when he started but that was because he thought he would be going into management, so he didn’t want to go on telly and slag off people he may have ended up working with,” Chapman says. “Anybody criticising Alan is really judging him on his first few years of punditry. To suggest he isn’t nailing it now is ridiculous.”

Alan Shearer tells Match of the Day 2 presenter Mark Chapman that Tottenham’s players do not “deserve more money” because they “haven’t won anything” following comments by Spurs defender Danny Rose in August 2017. Photograph: BBC Sport

“Like most pundits Alan takes the criticism in his stride, but it can be hard. I remember he did some analysis on Arsenal for Match of the Day 2 last season and the way the desk is built there is a shelf where you can put your phone. As I went to the next game, he picked his phone up from there and said: ‘I’ll just see how much abuse my wife and daughter are getting’ because they’d got loads after he’d done something on Arsenal the week before. Is that where we are with pundits? It’s very weird.”

Next summer it will be 20 years since Chapman joined Radio 1 as a sports presenter, moving to 5 Live in 2010 where the 44-year-old father of three has established himself as one of the finest broadcasters in the country, bringing a relaxed manner and pitch-perfect questioning to a range of sports, including rugby league and golf.

“Sitting behind a microphone feels like the most natural thing in the world to me,” says Chapman, who is currently also studying for a master’s in sporting directorships, “and for me there is no greater buzz than doing Saturday afternoons on 5 Live. You know when you say ‘It’s five o’clock, you’re listening to 5 Live and this is Sports Report’ you’ve got two million-plus people, all coming back from the football or whatever, listening. I still get goosebumps.

“I feel a great sense of responsibility for every show I do. Sports Report is 70 years old so, Christ, there are some names that have gone before me and I don’t want to be the guy who kills it off. I want to make sure whoever follows has something to work with.”

A sense of professional responsibility, and pride, pours out of Chapman, and no more so than when the conversation returns to pundits. “As a presenter, and I’m sure Kelly [Cates], Dave Jones, Pougers [Mark Pougatch] … would say the same, our job is to get the best out of the pundits. They drive the show and I genuinely think most of them do a great job. And if people think they don’t that’s down to everyone who works on that show, the presenter especially. I’m supposed to be the one who knows what he’s doing and they’re in my environment.

“I remember playing in [former defender] Terry Skiverton’s testimonial game at Yeovil a few years back and I was in central defence alongside Michael Duberry. Honest to God, Duberry talked me through the entire game, it was unbelievable. I look at myself as the Michael Duberry of broadcasting.”