Bit far fetched. Spurs only scored two late goals but were outplayed the same way we outplayed the rags and led 6-1 only to concede two soft ones in the end to make the scoreline more acceptable for that lot.
However I definitely do agree Liverpool gets a different coverage in the media. So are we. Despite it being the complete opposite.
Klopps’ goodbye will get a lot more attention than the one who wins the league that day. If it’s a last day title decider that is. Even more-so if WE win it.
Well, you may or may not be convinced by the specific example I've cited. (My general point I stand by, and you seem to agree with it). Fair enough.
I'm not in a strong position, because I didn't see the match. What I can say is that on the beeb itself's feed, it clearly said that the crowd got very nervous, and that Tottenham were definitely looking the more threatening team. I can only go by the judgement of the commentator. Certainly, Tottenham
were being thrashed for much of the match, apparently. Incidentally, I was at the 6-3 match, and believe me, no-one around me got nervous. Irritated, yes, at the sloppiness of it.
I made this point only the other day: you will regularly find in the media a disjunction between what a commentator says, and what a maybe rather lazy sub-editor chooses as a sound-bite, or read-bite, title for the piece that rounds up the match. I emphatically do not believe that all journalists and commentators are in league to big up Liverpool and do the dirt on City. I just think it happens at a higher level. And that it's partly the result of unthinking laziness.
Anyway, it's a detail in the grand scheme of things, but it's one that ends up getting on my tits by virtue of repetition. It's sort of like lazy journo clichés like “the magic of European nights under the Anfield lights”, etc., that become true to the general public because they're repeated so often.
