Match Day Thread Tottenham Hotspur v Bournemouth

[PleaseNotPoll]

That the media have an anti-Spurs agenda

I don't think that they do.
A lot of journalists post things that they think will be popular, so they attempt to appeal to the largest fanbases.
Utd and Liverpool get the most press, as a result and anyone up against them tends to get the rough end of the stick.

The televised aspect of the media also reflects this, but for slightly different reasons.
It's full of ex-players and the previously mentioned Utd and Scouse hype machine means that a massive chunk of them played for those teams.
That's why we end up watching BT Sport games where everyone played for Liverpool and nobody played for their opponents.
That's not balanced and it influences the rest of the media in their coverage, so we get a circle of crap, basically.

Take a lot of instances of diving, cheating or violence by players.
If the match commentator doesn't mention it and it's not focused on by the pundits, then the papers skip it, too.
If it's on MOTD and it's brought to the public's attention, then the FA will definitely act on it.
That's not a level playing field.

I'm not saying that it's a conspiracy. Nobody designed it like that.
It's something that's clearly developed over time and is very noticeable to quite a lot of people.

 

[Roo]

I don't think that they do.
A lot of journalists post things that they think will be popular, so they attempt to appeal to the largest fanbases.
Utd and Liverpool get the most press, as a result and anyone up against them tends to get the rough end of the stick.

The televised aspect of the media also reflects this, but for slightly different reasons.
It's full of ex-players and the previously mentioned Utd and Scouse hype machine means that a massive chunk of them played for those teams.
That's why we end up watching BT Sport games where everyone played for Liverpool and nobody played for their opponents.
That's not balanced and it influences the rest of the media in their coverage, so we get a circle of crap, basically.

Take a lot of instances of diving, cheating or violence by players.
If the match commentator doesn't mention it and it's not focused on by the pundits, then the papers skip it, too.
If it's on MOTD and it's brought to the public's attention, then the FA will definitely act on it.
That's not a level playing field.

I'm not saying that it's a conspiracy. Nobody designed it like that.
It's something that's clearly developed over time and is very noticeable to quite a lot of people.

Agreed.
What frustrates me more is how **** the punditry/ commentary of these people is though, for supposed "experts". Jamie Carragher, Michael Owen and Alan smith to name 3. Glenn Hoddle is ****ing terrble as well.
IMO, two of the best are Gary Neville and Jermaine jenas. Although I'm sure lots of people will disagree with that!

Edit: also quite like rio Ferdinand.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Agreed.
What frustrates me more is how **** the punditry/ commentary of these people is though, for supposed "experts". Jamie Carragher, Michael Owen and Alan smith to name 3. Glenn Hoddle is ****ing terrble as well.
IMO, two of the best are Gary Neville and Jermaine jenas. Although I'm sure lots of people will disagree with that!

I can understand why Sky have stuck with Carragher, as he's essentially become Neville's sidekick.
He doesn't really offer any insight, but they have a laugh and that can be entertaining.
I'd say something similar for Merson, who talks a lot of crap, but is mainly harmless and quite funny.

I don't get Michael Owen at all, though. Utterly boring and not well liked by any fanbase, either.
Liverpool fans hate him because he joined Utd, Geordies hate him because he was crap and slagged them off. Utd fans tolerate him, at best.
Boring, predictable, tedious and unfunny. Why's he still there?

 

[Roo]

I can understand why Sky have stuck with Carragher, as he's essentially become Neville's sidekick.
He doesn't really offer any insight, but they have a laugh and that can be entertaining.
I'd say something similar for Merson, who talks a lot of crap, but is mainly harmless and quite funny.

I don't get Michael Owen at all, though. Utterly boring and not well liked by any fanbase, either.
Liverpool fans hate him because he joined Utd, Geordies hate him because he was crap and slagged them off. Utd fans tolerate him, at best.
Boring, predictable, tedious and unfunny. Why's he still there?

I MIGHT be able to put up with him if he just got a few mins air time prior to a match in the studio, but 90 mins of him is just painful. Glenn Hoddle and Andy Townsend fall into the same category for me. They are all so monotone and lifeless.

 

[littleDinosaurLuke]

I don't think that they do.
A lot of journalists post things that they think will be popular, so they attempt to appeal to the largest fanbases.
Utd and Liverpool get the most press, as a result and anyone up against them tends to get the rough end of the stick.

The televised aspect of the media also reflects this, but for slightly different reasons.
It's full of ex-players and the previously mentioned Utd and Scouse hype machine means that a massive chunk of them played for those teams.
That's why we end up watching BT Sport games where everyone played for Liverpool and nobody played for their opponents.
That's not balanced and it influences the rest of the media in their coverage, so we get a circle of crap, basically.

Take a lot of instances of diving, cheating or violence by players.
If the match commentator doesn't mention it and it's not focused on by the pundits, then the papers skip it, too.
If it's on MOTD and it's brought to the public's attention, then the FA will definitely act on it.
That's not a level playing field.

I'm not saying that it's a conspiracy. Nobody designed it like that.
It's something that's clearly developed over time and is very noticeable to quite a lot of people.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but there has been plenty of praise for Spurs this season from the pundits. That was point of my comment about what Neville and Carragher said on MNF. Many within the game have given Spurs recognition too. On more than one occasion, Mourinho has said Spurs are the best team.
The amount of coverage is a different issue. Sky, in particular, is more concerned with pandering to its audience than providing balanced coverage. The clubs with the largest fan bases are always likely to attract more attention because it's perceived that issues involving these clubs will be of more interest to a majority of viewers. In truth, that probably isn't actually the case. Most keen TV viewers, who are prepared to shell out for Sky, BT etc are interested in all aspects the game - who's challenging for title or top 4, who's going up or down, all the talking points about decisions, transfers, sackings, any controversy etc etc. And football is often about opinions - so listening to ex-players as pundits is compelling even if you disagree with every word they say.

 

[redwhiteandermblue]

I don't think that they do.
A lot of journalists post things that they think will be popular, so they attempt to appeal to the largest fanbases.
Utd and Liverpool get the most press, as a result and anyone up against them tends to get the rough end of the stick.

The televised aspect of the media also reflects this, but for slightly different reasons.
It's full of ex-players and the previously mentioned Utd and Scouse hype machine means that a massive chunk of them played for those teams.
That's why we end up watching BT Sport games where everyone played for Liverpool and nobody played for their opponents.
That's not balanced and it influences the rest of the media in their coverage, so we get a circle of crap, basically.

Take a lot of instances of diving, cheating or violence by players.
If the match commentator doesn't mention it and it's not focused on by the pundits, then the papers skip it, too.
If it's on MOTD and it's brought to the public's attention, then the FA will definitely act on it.
That's not a level playing field.

I'm not saying that it's a conspiracy. Nobody designed it like that.
It's something that's clearly developed over time and is very noticeable to quite a lot of people.

We're the sixth team when there's a Sky Five. We're the likeliest to take things away from the clubs Sky and others have more or less arbitrarily decided are the big ones. So there's been a tendency for us to get the short end of the stick. It does seem to be changing, though. As a fan, I can feel Spurs getting lumped into the top teams group by the media. They seem to be on a year (+) delay, though, as if there were some pundit commandment: "Thou shalt not know **** all about what's happening in football at the moment."

 

[Tilly'sowner]

...but there has been plenty of praise for Spurs this season from the pundits.

I can see where others are coming from. Last season, there was hardly any discussions amongst the pundits about Spurs. It was all about Leicester. Fair enough I hear you say. And again this season, it's only in the last month or so that pundits are now singing Spurs' praises. It has taken the pundits a while to see that Spurs merit some discussion with regards to chase the leader(s) throughout the season.

It has been some 30+ years since the pundits have been excited by Spurs, with the exception when Spurs were hovering in the relegation zone!

 

[remembercolinlee]

I agree with a lot of what you say, but there has been plenty of praise for Spurs this season from the pundits. That was point of my comment about what Neville and Carragher said on MNF. Many within the game have given Spurs recognition too. On more than one occasion, Mourinho has said Spurs are the best team.
The amount of coverage is a different issue. Sky, in particular, is more concerned with pandering to its audience than providing balanced coverage. The clubs with the largest fan bases are always likely to attract more attention because it's perceived that issues involving these clubs will be of more interest to a majority of viewers. In truth, that probably isn't actually the case. Most keen TV viewers, who are prepared to shell out for Sky, BT etc are interested in all aspects the game - who's challenging for title or top 4, who's going up or down, all the talking points about decisions, transfers, sackings, any controversy etc etc. And football is often about opinions - so listening to ex-players as pundits is compelling even if you disagree with every word they say.

My biggest gripe with the media is their constant compulsion with
A) calling us a selling club if the price is right...cos this ignores the fact that we have only sold players that we wanted to keep when they either refused to sign a new contract or refused to play for us. Berbatov, Carrick, Bale, Modric and Keane were sold cos they demanded a move not cos the price was right.
and
B) Cos they continuously insist that our players are leaving. So far this season we have been treated to stories of;
Walker, Rose, Dier, Lloris and Kane to United
Walker, Rose, Dele to City
Dele to PSG
Dele and Kane to Real Madrid
Dele to Bayern Munich
Dele, Rose, Alderweireld to Barca

It's bollocks but almost Every week one of these stories comes along.

Now compare that to stories of United/Liverpool/Arsenal/City/Chelsea losing half their team...when this is mentioned the media simply trot out argument A) even though that is proven bollocks.

 

[The RDBD]

rcl : you forgot ...

C) Pochettino is open to leaving Spurs now (because has been seen chatting
to Fergie / <insert name here> ) .

 

[Citizen Kane]

My biggest gripe with the media is their constant compulsion with
A) calling us a selling club if the price is right...cos this ignores the fact that we have only sold players that we wanted to keep when they either refused to sign a new contract or refused to play for us. Berbatov, Carrick, Bale, Modric and Keane were sold cos they demanded a move not cos the price was right.
and
B) Cos they continuously insist that our players are leaving. So far this season we have been treated to stories of;
Walker, Rose, Dier, Lloris and Kane to United
Walker, Rose, Dele to City
Dele to PSG
Dele and Kane to Real Madrid
Dele to Bayern Munich
Dele, Rose, Alderweireld to Barca

It's bollocks but almost Every week one of these stories comes along.

Now compare that to stories of United/Liverpool/Arsenal/City/Chelsea losing half their team...when this is mentioned the media simply trot out argument A) even though that is proven bollocks.

This used to annoy me, but now I see it as more of a compliment of the highest order. The fact of the matter is that when you look at our main rivals, how many of their regular starters are good enough to be coveted by the 5 biggest teams in world football?

Arsenal - Sanchez and Bellerin and that is about it. Ozil is simply a big name who flatters to deceive.
City - Most of their best players have only recently signed for them or are approaching the end of stellar careers. Beyond Sane, and De Bruyne, you have Silva and Aguero - both of whom have no more than 2-3 years left at the very top.
United - literally no-one in their squad stands out as being the quality of player a Real or Bayern would lose sleep over. Maybe De Gea.
Chelsea - Kante just signed for them, Costa is an old mercenary which leaves Eden ****face - and that's about it.
Liverpool - Mane and Coutinho and there's ya lot.

Compare that to:

Spurs - Kane, Alli, Rose, Walker, Wanyama, Alderweireld - all of whom, I think we can safely say, are the best at what they do in the entire premier league. It is no surprise to hear (true or not) that the likes of Barca and PSG would very much like to use our club as a luck dip - they have a greater than 50% chance of improving on what they already have.

So like I say, annoying as it is these endless tabloid columns are a backhanded compliment. Long gone are the days when our best players were being linked with Blackburn and Newcastle. No-one outside the top 5 biggest clubs in the world stands a chance of signing anyone from our starting line up, and the hacks know it.

There is no surer sign of progress imho.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

I agree with a lot of what you say, but there has been plenty of praise for Spurs this season from the pundits. That was point of my comment about what Neville and Carragher said on MNF. Many within the game have given Spurs recognition too. On more than one occasion, Mourinho has said Spurs are the best team.
The amount of coverage is a different issue. Sky, in particular, is more concerned with pandering to its audience than providing balanced coverage. The clubs with the largest fan bases are always likely to attract more attention because it's perceived that issues involving these clubs will be of more interest to a majority of viewers. In truth, that probably isn't actually the case. Most keen TV viewers, who are prepared to shell out for Sky, BT etc are interested in all aspects the game - who's challenging for title or top 4, who's going up or down, all the talking points about decisions, transfers, sackings, any controversy etc etc. And football is often about opinions - so listening to ex-players as pundits is compelling even if you disagree with every word they say.

Neville's been utterly pro-Pochettino since he went along to watch him work.
He makes the players graft as a requirement, which was Neville's best trait as a player and I'm sure he sees some Ferguson in him.
Clearing out any negative figures in the dressing room and picking a lot of English players also ticked his boxes.

Carragher's normally there as a foil for what Neville's saying, though.
They don't always do a TalkSport and have two people disagree about everything, but they know it's more interesting when they clash.
Having a whole section singing the praises of Spurs when we're not even playing is a bit jarring.

I completely agree about coverage and pandering, but it's resulted in us often being the villain of the piece or massively uneven stories.
I can't agree about ex-players always being compelling, though. They need more than that for me, I'm afraid.
If you're not insightful, interesting, eloquent or funny, then you shouldn't be a pundit.
You're not adding anything of value, merely distracting from the spectacle.

 

[littleDinosaurLuke]

^ Yes, I agree not all pundits are worth listening too. Some are. Neville, especially.

 

[Citizen Kane]

I look to a pundit to add insight and analysis beyond what is painfully obvious to the average semi-knowledgable football fan sat at home watching from the sofa. Neville is one of the very few whose tactical breakdown of plays makes me sit up and take notice. His analysis of Jan and Davies' synchronised movement from the B'mouth game was something I had never consciously noticed in all honesty. Now that he has pointed it out, I will be watching out for it in games to come - paying close attention to our opposite flank to see if their movement is as well-drilled, despite Walker often relying on sheer pace to rescue him if caught out of position, and the younger Dier lacking the positional awareness of the more experienced Vertonghen.

Beyond Neville, I sometimes like the stuff Jenas and Nevin come out with. As for the likes of Shearer, Owen, Thomson, Savage and Murphy; I honestly think I could sit there and do a better job.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

As for the likes of Shearer, Owen, Thomson, Savage and Murphy; I honestly think I could sit there and do a better job.

Beglin's the worst, for me. He often talks about things that simply haven't happened.
You're watching one thing and he's telling you something else went on.
Awful, obviously biased and utterly dull. Just get in someone from the crowd, instead.

 

[O.Spurcat]

For me, the best are Graeme Souness, Gary Neville, Rio Ferdinand, Jermaine Jenas and I do like the guy who covers the Championship, David Prutton.

 

[Spurf]

I don't watch television as such but sometimes see snippets of the pundits on You Tube. I more often listen to Ian Wright on 606 and enjoy his contributions but I always rated him as a player despite his club affiliations. Hoddle is truly awful which is in line with what I thought of him as a manager. From such a great player it's surprising. Neville I haven;t seen much of but he sounds like the kind of pundit who is worth listening too. Most of the punditry is so obvious as to be a waste of time, I've had more interesting discussions and heard more original thoughts in the pub. The lack of imagination is disappointing. What about Henry is he any good?

 

[Spur of the Moment]

I've had more interesting discussions and heard more original thoughts in the pub.

And on this Forum, surely!!!

(And i did call u Shirley).....

 

[Spurf]

And on this Forum, surely!!!

(And i did call u Shirley).....

Yes I took it for granted, this forum often produces greater insight and originality. We have a fantastic collection of posters that grows slowly as Spurs fans (and others) discover this board and realise it's a place for good debate without personal abuse with Spurs fans from all over the world.

 

[Inda]

I don't see where all the love for Jenas comes from. The man bores me stupid. He starts talking and his words are just a buzzing noise. He might be saying something intelligent and original but I wouldn't know. I wouldn't believe him if he told me grass was green.

 

[Spur of the Moment]

I don't see where all the love for Jenas comes from. The man bores me stupid. He starts talking and his words are just a buzzing noise. He might be saying something intelligent and original but I wouldn't know. I wouldn't believe him if he told me grass was green.

Know what you mean, but he does analyse quite well and has been a positive contrast to the general narrative (Selling club, can't compete with the BIG clubs etc...)