Media bias against City

They are fair points but I think we know the ones who have written team of the week are unlikely to have viewed every minute of football from the weekend.

Can you say with any conviction Delph was the best central midfielder this weekend???. Its a great win for them and so its expected they would be represented. Im pleased we have three players in the team against a seriously out of form Palace side.

We could argue over who should be in the team but the article hardly shows any evidence of bias. If it did Pablo you would be calling me pige or a rag by now:-)

 

I'm one of the few who doubts you're sad enough to be pidge :-)
Tbf all the team of the weeks are done with a slight bias, they don't bother me. I just thought what's better to get me set for a Monday than a bit of gentle sparring with our frank.

 

I failed to mention it because it's irrelevant. It's not anti-City bias I'm referring to. It's pro-Utd bias. I watched Stoke/Arsenal and both Butland and Cech I thought deserved it more than DeGea (I watched Pool/Utd too), but that's arguable at least. I'm not sure what Smalling did better than any other CB in the five matches I watched on the weekend, but whatever. But I also watched Chelsea/Everton, and Costa clearly had a better match than Rooney did. Clearly. He scored a sitter like Rooney did, but he also had an assist and played havoc with their back four all match. He wasn't ineffective, and he wasn't marked out of the match for long portions.

Rooney's in the team because of who he plays for. Period. Even most of the Utd fans who commented on the article thought he didn't deserve it.

 

That is fair enough. As long as its gentle. Incidentally do you reckon Newcastle fans are screaming bias as Shelvey did not make team of the week but Delph did??? Newcastle near the bottom of the league, his debut and beating an inform West Ham side. Pretty strong case for inclusion??

 

Nah, whoever was chosen next to Delph should have made way. :-)

 

Shelvey maybe should have made it too. That's the 5th match I saw (it's nice to be in the US where we can see every match, in full, live or on replay). I had a discussion with ESPNFC's lone Toon fanatic about this. Neither of us saw Ward-Prouse except for the highlights, so we weren't prepared to argue he should have been the one left off. Must have been a bad weekend for right backs though, because I wasn't sure Zabs should have made it, though he did fine.

 

Again those are fair arguments. What swung it for Rooney, in my opinion, was the significance of the game, scoring the winning goal. You can quite rightly argue he was not the best player but I similarly could not say with conviction Delph was the best midfielder. So I agree he probably never deserved it, but I could say that about a few choices. So to me it does not show bias.

Whenever its a United player and there is doubt it shows bias but pretty much every week players get in I would not agree with, includng City players, does that also show bias or poor judgement by the pundit or just a differewnce of opinion to your own??

 

Cheers Foggy, I think you answered my question. Similarly I only saw the highlights myself. Ward Prowse looked decent and scored a great free kick. In my opinion the pundit probably saw the goal and stuck him in the team.

 

Not sure it's based on scoring. On the games I saw enough of I would say Kane, maybe Vardy. Mirallas looked like he made a nuisance of himself on the highlights but I suppose you'd be hard pressed to say he played as a striker. Walters was as good as Rooney. All subjective of course.

 

Kane's a good call, and Costa apparently was pretty good.
Ta.
I agree with others that it was the match significance that swayed it.