Then youre missing the point spectacularly.
The issue isn't the criticism itself,as i'm in agreement that aspects of our campaign were deserving of such,its the bias of said analysis and the way in which its delivered.
Without doubt, BT treat us differently to other English teams by way of their broadcasting of our games or,simply,when discussing the club in general - there is an obvious agenda, a reluctance to portray us positively......from their choice of match pundit to their scheduling and coverage - its frequently with bias and contempt and a total lack of respect - its unjustified,inexcusable and utterly pathetic.
And what you have just posted is a spectacularly different point to your opening salvo, so hopefully we don't have to go down that route.
BT are a media outlet and as such the prominence of their punditry adds considerable weight to their football coverage. Look at Sky and the huge promotional push they made when they'd secured the universally popular Thierry Henry as a pundit. Not only was he popular, but he'd played in WC finals, won the CL, PL, domestic cups and played his football at the highest levels in France, Italy, England, Spain and the US.
Whether we like it or not, that playing experience counts for a lot when a player is giving a personal account of how players must be feeling when scoring a last minute equaliser in a CL knockout round to force extra time. The retired players with that kind of experience would have probably played for one of the teams in what was the traditional top 4 of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool or ManUre and there is no getting away from that.
I love the fellas, but could The Goat or Paul Lake legitimately do the same based on their playing experiences? I recall John Terry having a similar issue with criticism from Robbie Savage and saying, "I'll take it from Rio, Keano or Scholesy but not from someone like Robbie Savage" and to a degree he has a point because you'll never truly know what a man has gone through until you've walked a mile in his shoes.
The BBC & ITV have been at it for years with International football whereby their football feeds are exactly the same, so it's the style of delivery, the commentators used, and the pundits who make the difference between watching one channel over the other. Most people given the choice of listening to Scholes, Rio, Owen and McManaman or The Goat, Paul Lake, Steve Howie and Danny Mills would probably choose the former based purely on their previous success and experience at the highest level of football and the same can be said if I substituted our former players for other players from teams outside of the traditional top 4.
I listen to the pundits out of interest as being the open minded type I'm always interested in other people's views, but first and foremost I trust what I can see with my own two eyes and ultimately that's what counts to me. The main issue I have is when people cannot trust their eyes enough to see when the Emporor is stark bollock naked. As such I couldn't give a rats arse what the pundits say as any fair minded, intelligent individual will be able to see the truth through the smog of opinions.
The fact these pundits are being forced to comment on us speaks volumes, as I'd rather this than the punditry teams covering the Championship. We're a threat, they know it and can do fuck all about it and as time goes by and as the current crop of pundits become more distant from the modern game, I'm sure the likes of Vinny, Zabaleta, Hart and anyone else who can speak English at City will start to emerge a viable pundits to the consternation of ManUre, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea fans.
