The fact that a match has "serious relevance to the title chase" makes the result interesting, but I don't see why it makes the match itself more interesting as an alternative to any of the six others played on the day when it comes to featured matches on MOTD. Speaking for myself, that was one of the least interesting of the seven. As far as I am concerned, Liverpool v Stoke was far more interesting because Stoke's steady progress & improvement in the PL is fascinating and instructive. As I see it, what counts as "interesting" to the programmers is actually boringly predictable. The same goes for "big Premier League match"; there's an unquestioned assumption there about exactly what makes a PL match "big". Just my opinion, as people say!
robbie, i have to say i think you will be in a minority of 1 if you thought liverpool v stoke was a more interesting match than man utd v bolton! there was only about two shots in the entire match and the only highlights they showed were stoke's nonsensical wrestling, which somehow they keep getting away with! i agree stoke's progress is worth featuring, but why feature it as a main game when its a dull match?! i think you are letting your norwich bias blinker your judgement slightly - west brom v norwich was a very average match won by an over-achieving team. it really is no big deal that we were on 5th, in fact, i wouldn't have been surprised to see it on last, such was the relative importance of it to the outside world
My opinion on this particular subject is nothing to do with Norwich, Superman. I'm suggesting that there's far more to the idea of "an interesting" match than the boringly predictable meaning given it by the MOTD producers. Anyway, I'm off to listen to Man City v Wigan -- it's the only game on tonight and it might just be thought to be "important" enough for The Monday Night Club to be cut short to allow coverage of it
well then i really don't know what your gripe was. how are they ever going to please everyone? when we are on first, other teams fans will question why on earth we are on first. usually, if we are on first its because its either a) a vital match towards relegation or title chase or b) it was a great match, full of goals and incident. you may notice that the top teams are often involved in both 'a' and 'b' matches whereas we aren't. i think that is the best (and rather long winded) way to answer why certain teams are on before others more often
Don't know why you lot are moaning! Watching Ipswich on TV is a bit like sex with the Missus! You wait ages for it to happen then when it does there are very few highlights and then its over in less than 30 seconds!
And so was man u Bolton I couldn't give a flying **** how man u do. And most other fans would know they won and couldn't care less.
but it isn't is it!! its a far more important match in terms of where the premier league title ends up. our match was effectively a mid table contest. its really not that hard to see - norwich city are special to us but they are just another top flight team in reality. our match had very little baring on anything.
And don't forget Scholes goal on Saturday was probably THE big story on an otherwise fairly ordinary day's football. I certainly don't see any conspiracy at all and think we've had pretty decent coverage thus far, and to me it's quite obvious how the highlights are shown in reverse order of excitement during the games. I bet if we'd have beaten the Baggies 4-3 in a goalfest we'd have been at least second match on if not the first one
exactly right munky. i believe (i may be wrong) that we've only been on last on one occasion this season! it certainly hasn't been many, thats for sure, and we've been first up on more than one occasion. we're decent entertainment, unlike say everton or villa, whose fans often moan that they are on last but they are on last because their games are usually devoid of action
To me it is immaterial, that's all I'm saying. I have no desire to watch Man utd, unless it's losing to Barca.
