A letter featured in the Press Gazette took my interest this week. The author was questioning whether ex-footballers should be given jobs as pundits/journalists at the expense of young and talented scribes. It seems a growing trend that newspapers have a number of current and/or former professionals taking up column inches in newspapers. There is even a course at Staffordshire Univeristy that is aimed specifically at ex-pros.

Take The Times, for example. They have kept Jonny Wilkinson and Michael Owen occupied while they are injured, while Shane Warne always has plenty to say on the Ashes. The recent clash between Chelsea and Arsenal had Jamie Redknapp and Paul Merson running the rule over proceedings. But are they any good? Are they contributing any more than, say, a Martin Samuel or Christopher Martin-Jenkins?

There is a case for the use of trained journalists solely for sporting occasions. Most of these ex-pros, particularly footballers, are not the sharpest of souls - and often they find it hard to convey their wisdom. TakeMerson, who a few weeks ago said that Arsenal's Alexandre Song looked like 'a fish up a tree' in a match against Fulham. We know what you meant, Paul.

Footballers are also prone to over-use of cliches. 'All credit to the lad', 'they worked 110%', 'they got the rub of the green' and so forth get trotted out too many times. They obviously have not read Harold Evans' Essential English recently.

Bias is also a problem. The normally sound (and Scottish) Alan Hansen was adamant during the World Cup that England had a chance of winning the tournament. Sorry, Alan, but even the tribesmen of the Amazon rain forest, as yet untouched by civilisation, knew that this was impossible. Don't get me started on Gavin Peacock or Alan Shearer.

I must point out, however, that these sportsmen and women do have a use in the world of sports journalism. Current pros give unprecedented insight into their various sports. I have watched with interest/amusement Matthew Hoggard's video diary of the Ashes, which is something a journalist would never get close to.

It is often the players that maybe did not reach superstar status, for example Hansen or Mark Lawrenson, that make the best pundits due to the fact there is less ego getting in the way. I often wonder in heated discussions with other young journalists about the best way to take a penalty kick or England's  best batting line-up - but what do we actually know? The best I ever did at cricket was surviving one ball for my school team. The less said about my footballing prowess, the better.

Perhaps most important of all, the public are interested in what these people have to say. When the late George Best did some work for Soccer Saturday commenting on a match, everyone would listen.

So at the risk of sitting on the fence, we need to find a balance. Journalists must still have priority over sports people, especially in the printed press where people look for in-depth analysis. You cannot imagine Shane Warne and the like ever being as prophetic as Simon Barnes, most ex-pros never will. However, without the insight of those who have been at the top, have been in at the crease, over the winning putt, in the front-row or putting the ball on the spot, we will never have the complete picture.

What do you think about ex-players becoming pundits and journalists? Are you interested in what they have to say? Send us your thoughts or add your comments to this article.