Earlier this week, BBC Radio Scotland's Sportsound programme delivered a segment where the art of football punditry was discussed.
Apart from journalists, those who have played and coached football at a professional level usually fulfil this role and Sportsound had two such personalities on the show for this - Michael Stewart and Billy Brown.
Both have been associated with Hearts and Hibs during their respective careers.
They even worked with each other for a spell when Brown was Stewart's assistant manager at Hearts when the latter played for the Tynecastle club.
And both of them don't appear to like each other much.
So describing this encounter was a bit lively would be an understatement to say the least.
It made for interesting, and entertaining, listening but also served an uncomfortable reminder of how the standard of the majority of football punditry is below par.
Stewart is sadly a rare exception in that he does perform his pundit's role to a high standard.
One might even be tempted to say that he's making the best use of his talent in his new line of work than he did as a player where the occasional bout of 'hot-headedness' would lead to a daft mistake on the pitch.
Brown was a distinguished assistant coach to Jim Jefferies where they both did well with Hearts (their first spell in charge between 1995-2000).
But as a pundit? He only served to confirm the other night why his approach to the role (sadly shared by many others) needs to be consigned to history.
The school of punditry according to Brown involves: Not wanting to say anything too controversial; cosying up to old pals; knowing a cushy number when he has one; offering very little in terms of analysis and constructive criticism and filling dead air with empty waffle.
Whereas Stewart belongs to the the school of: Telling it how it is; If that upsets an old team-mate of someone currently involved in the game then hard lines; offering indepth analysis and constructive criticism and not wasting the TV license payer's time and money by seeing his role as being 'easy money'.
The sort of punditry that Irish channel RTE's Eamon Dunphy practices.
The sort used by the late Jimmy Hill.
Brian Clough was one to indulge in it as well when appearing as a panellist on a football show.
Whether or not you agree with Stewart's views (or even the likes of Dunphy, Hill and Clough), at least such people have something to say.
Unlike the tired old hackneyed clichés churned out by Brown and his ilk.
Brown's main beef with Stewart was the latter's criticism of the Hearts team in season 2013/14 when the former was Gary Locke's assistant manager.
Everyone recognises the hard job that they had with Hearts going into administration, being docked 15 points for doing so and being left with mostly youngsters to work with.
It would be fair to say that the vast majority of Jambos acknowledged that a miracle would have been required to avoid relegation.
However, that was not to say that standards should not have been allowed to slip.
Come the turn of 2014 (and with relegation inevitable) Stewart, while making allowances for the circumstances that Locke and Brown had to work under, made the observation that mistakes being made on the pitch back in August were still being made in January.
Even if Hearts had been comfortably sitting in mid-table, this would have been an astute observation to make in that bad habits on the pitch were not being coached out of the young players.
It was a legitimate question to pose and, to be fair to Stewart, one that was being asked amongst fans in the Tynecastle stands themselves.
Brown spat the dummy out at the time and the rattles and teddy bears were still being hurled from the pram on Sportsound earlier this week.
His main argument being that Stewart had no right to pass comment having not been a professional coach like he was.
Well Billy, Michael Stewart may not have been a professional musician but I'm sure he'd know what types of music are to his taste and which types are not - just like you perhaps?
An erroneous argument and when Brown employed the ad hominem approach, you knew that Stewart's train of thought had reached its destination - not only on time but with minutes to spare.
Brown's meanwhile, was still trying to generate enough steam to move an inch.
The Sportsound panel discussed the segment afterwards and while Gordon Waddell and Graham Spiers both offered interesting analysis of what we had all heard, Tam McManus, who used to play alongside Stewart at Hibs, showed us why Brown's school of punditry offers very little.
Namely, Stewart wasn't a popular player at Hibs because he spoke using "big words".
Uninformed gibberish already has a home at Radio Clyde's Super Scoreboard show (if you've heard Derek Johnstone prattle on, you'll know what I'm referring to).
So maybe the BBC could gift their broadcasting rivals a few free transfers?
Given the choice between bland, unintelligent 'analysis' (sic) offered by the likes of Brown, McManus etc or the informative, no-holds-barred punditry articulated by the erudite Stewart, I know which school of thought stands more of a chance of grabbing the listener's attention.
More of the same please Michael.