I dont bother with MOTD,first choice on sky is so much better.At times we looked amazing and nice to watch it on tv as you mis things at the game
Agree with Uber. It takes time to improve your reputation. With the exception of one or two games, we've hardly impressed since we rejoined the prem - and that's in our view as fans of the club. If MotD's take suggests same old, same old from us, that helps us in a way. Keeps us under the radar and gives Cesar and Nelsen and the Granero / Faurlin partnership a bit more time to bed in before opponents start to take us seriously. As for MotD's editorial policy, agree with Eamon, in taking the watered down sensationalist magazine approach it's done itself no favours at all. A pale shadow of its predecessors and certainly not to be taken seriously. If last night's effort in summarising our game failed so miserably, how credible was their take on the other games? Complete waste of space in my view. Absolutely no point waiting for the programme to chuck us a few compliments. Norwich have maintained an entertaining and effective presence throughout their time back up and are still presented as little more than a one-off side show. It's just a **** programme, MotD. Lacks credibility and shouldn't be taken as an authority on the game.
I still cant believe they didnt show our pen or the possible red card. You can bet they would have shown it and their manager would have been whining if we should have had a player sent off.
MOTD has always been biased. Impartiality in sport is impossible as they'll always cater to the majority. I'd imagine most of the viewers would have been Chelsea fans therefore they'd have catered to them, same with West Ham in the Norwich game. The same used to happen to us (and still does) when we play United and Liverpool, used to be Arsenal but not any longer. With City, Chelsea, Arsenal, United and Liverpool all playing on a Saturday (rare I know) I'd imagine a good 90% of viewers (at least) tuning in would have been fans of those clubs. If they upset fans of those clubs or fans of those clubs feel they are getting too much of a rough ride viewers will pull out. Many United fans stopped watching MOTD in the 90s due to the bias against their team from the mainly LFC pundits. City launched an official complaint to Sky after overt bias and slander against their team. Mansour is the biggest investor in Sky's expansion to the Middle East so it's not surprising. It's all political unfortunately. If you have the time Goals On Sunday is ten times Better for analysis albeit highlights are more brief
This. Totally unacceptable coverage, and I was genuinely shocked that nobody had a single thing to say our team, either good or bad. Bias is one thing, to be treated like QPR weren't even part of the story is another. Unforgivable.
Intelligent overview well explained as always DL. If ever a Chelsea fan could gain the unlikely respect of Rangers' hoards, it'd have to be someone like your good self. As I've said before, you're always welcome on here mate! (Just a shame your integrity includes loyalty, otherwise we'd have to be looking to convert you to them hoops!!)
Don't pick on the BBC. They're bad but Sky is far worse. And the rags are the worst of all of course. You could forgive the bias of the media if it was consistently about the best supported clubs but other than United they actually appear to judge things according to the size of the investment. Man ****ty have always been well supported but they didn't appear much in the media until the Arabs arrived. Newcastle and Sunderland are among the best supported but rarely get a high profile.
The BBC are the only place to give them more possession http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19528273 http://espnfc.com/uk/en/report/345801/report.html?soccernet=true&cc=5739 http://www1.skysports.com/football/live/match/261597/report They also gave them more shots on goal while the others had them as equal.
Brixton, DL - Well argued points, the thrust of which can't be denied. But I have to say, last night the "analysis" was something else, way beyond even the usual predictable big team bias. Our team literally didn’t get a single mention! Not one! That's just plain disrespectful and unprofessional. We usually get at least a lazy, offhand "I think they'll be okay". Last night though, nothing! Not a sausage. There was obviously only one team playing the game yesterday, which is odd coz I could have sworn that we had one or two players on the pitch too. Bias I can handle. But being utterly ignored is unacceptable IMHO.
Especially as they have to cater to everyone and not just fans of the big teams. The fact is the pundits know nothing of teams or players outside the top 4. An example is Joe Allen cannot pass forwards, we all knew that last season and they trot it out like its some kind of revelation.
Thank you Brix, I had hoped to convert you all to Blue, but I guess my chances are somewhat slim I've never seen Liverpool or United ripped apart on MOTD like I have with other clubs. Even Chelsea last year (namely Bosingwa and Luiz) got ripped to shreds by them, Arsenal ripped to shreds usually as well. What frustrates me is how the MOTD analysts bay for blood. QPR for instance, they'll wait till you have to go to say.. Old Trafford or Stamford Bridge/Emirates and rip you apart for defending (when in reality nobody would defend any better vs those teams under the circumstances) but as soon as you get one up on them at Loftus Road all of a sudden it's because "They had a bad day at the office" or were "unlucky". That's exactly what they did last year when Wigan beat and outplayed United in a 1-0 win but were hammered by them at Old Trafford earlier and mocked/ripped to shreds for their defending (or lack of it) As much as I thought the Hazard one was a penalty I didn't like the way MOTD implied it cost us the game or was a "turning point". The truth of the matter is anybody that went or watched the whole game via other means could see Chelsea did not do enough to win the game, others may agree/disagree but I thought a 0-0 draw was totally fair on the balance of play. Anybody that watched MOTD will think Chelsea were harshly denied a win due to refereeing decisions which simply isn't true. I understand the frustration of fans outside the "Sky 4". In the days when we (Chelsea) weren't part of that cartel it used to eat me up inside when we would beat United 5-0 only for MOTD pundits to focus on United's goalkeeping and defensive errors rather than heap any praise on our performance. Sadly, that's just the way it is though.
I'd enjoy it with better pundits. I don't see what Lawro, Hansen and to a lesser extent Shearer offer. They got rid of the only good pundit that was Lee Dixon.
There's never any differences of opinion or any arguments. RTE's analysts always get stuck into each other. Check out Dunphy, Giles and Brady etc on YouTube. Its interesting viewing at the very least.
Yeah you have a point but who?? The best pundit/ex player I have to my astonishment found the best from last season is Gary Neville I really didn't think I'd like him but thats because of previous prejudice towards him, ie Man Utd player.
Neville is the best analyst on TV, hate to say it as I always thought he was a mouthy git but he's surprised me with his knowledgeable assessments...
Nothing like a good old post-match argument to keep the boredom away! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeRzJc5Ngho
It's not just that there is no substance to any of the outlandish statements/predictions they make nor any evidence to back it up. On the opening weekend Hansen outright said Chelsea had NO chance of even contending for the title. Now I respect we are in transition but I find it disrespectful and quite contemptuous to right us off with such ease or with no foundation/reasoning. Last season pundits claimed throughout QPR would stay up. QPR then beat Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs all within a 3/4 week period (I think) and then all of a sudden they were nailed on certs to go down. Swansea are the same. Last season they bemoaned Swansea's playing style saying it had no end product, they do the same thing this season and now all of a sudden it's the best football we've ever laid eyes on. There are many things like this that annoy me. All Shearer seems to do is say what viewers can see, he doesn't really offer much analysis. Hansen and Lawro just act as if they are Falklands War Veterans and it's just so how hard to appear and offer 15 mins worth of analysis for £40k per appearance, whilst Lineker just seems to tickle all their ego's. ESPN Press Pass is brilliant, my only criticism is they do not cover teams outside United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Spurs and City as much as they should.
