Media Thread 2017/18

Status
Not open for further replies.
Irrespective of anything else, the media are always going to hype things, so sure if City are turned over at Chelsea (and away to the champions is about as hard a fixture as there can be during a season) it'll doubtless be considered evidence of shortcomings. That's nonsense of course, City could play fairly well and still lose that game because Chelsea are a very good side. But equally it they win then it'll be considered evidence that they're the real deal. Which is equally absurd as an instant response given a 38 game season.

The media do tend to be pro United because it's clickbait, that's just how it is, but I don't doubt that if it's a win this weekend they'll be lining up to award City the trophy, if for no other reason than it'll e sure plenty of views from those who want to explain why the writer is an idiot.

The media aren't fair and aren't considered, it's knee-jerk stuff.
 
I
Henkeman said:
Irrespective of anything else, the media are always going to hype things, so sure if City are turned over at Chelsea (and away to the champions is about as hard a fixture as there can be during a season) it'll doubtless be considered evidence of shortcomings. That's nonsense of course, City could play fairly well and still lose that game because Chelsea are a very good side. But equally it they win then it'll be considered evidence that they're the real deal. Which is equally absurd as an instant response given a 38 game season.

The media do tend to be pro United because it's clickbait, that's just how it is, but I don't doubt that if it's a win this weekend they'll be lining up to award City the trophy, if for no other reason than it'll e sure plenty of views from those who want to explain why the writer is an idiot.

The media aren't fair and aren't considered, it's knee-jerk stuff.
Click to expand...
It is considered.it is not knee jerk stuff.
If it was knee jerk,the fact that City scored a goal from the k.o .,involving 52 passes,without an outfield oppenent touching the ball on their own ground,this fact would have made the headlines on the back page of every newspaper,be on the headlines of sky sports,be ramped to the rafters,for it was,imo,one of the most spectacular and finely executed exhibitions of top class football ive ever seen in all my years observing football.
Instead...rasford got the headlines for scoring against burton albions reserves in fronf of a half empty old trashford stadium.
Thats a considered move by all in the media,s owners-nowt to do with clickbait.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're right, it would be all over the papers if it had been Rashford, I don't disagree. Nor that it's frustrating, because that's true too. But the media as a body do it because it gets clicks, and loads of them. That's not to deny there are some who specifically seek out the negative, because there are those too.
 
Sterling getting loads of praise off Durham on talkshite, "if he played for utd we would be all over him"
 
mccity said:
Us doing well could prompt widescale change in the way we think about football in this country.

Right now we're seeing a lot of Jose Vs Pep talk, and critically for me the divide in punditry opinion (outside of obvious bias) seems to be old school dinosaurs vs progressive thinkers.

Most people who talk about our defence played or managed in football at their peaks prior to 2005 or so. Also known as the year football changed from an offside trap heavyset physical game to a less physical possesion orientated game.

Now whilst we're still obviously vulnerable from counter attacks, that's kinda the point. The idea with our play is that we completely restrict opponents by dominating possession and pinning them deep with pressing (another post 2005 development). So sure we're vulnerable, but we don't concede chances to expose that vulnerability.

Most pundits here are experts in the old two banks of four, kick the shit out of your opponent kind of play. Attrition is the name of the game. That's why they're so OK with the Mane incident. Because that's what they did on the regular (as they like to pretend anyway). And a lot of them did it to great success. That's why our play is alien to them. Because if what they did worked and what we're doing is different, then by default (in their eyes) it's wrong.

It's no coincidence that newer pundits don't tend to hark on about our defence quite as much. Because they tend to get it. Even though most are versed in the pre-2005 football they've been exposed enough to modern football to understand why we do what we do.

Mourinho emerged before modern possession football became a major thing. So he's largely schooled on the old school physical stuff (he's adapted well enough in fairness). So obviously it's easier for pundits to relate to him.

Fortunately journos are changing their tune a bit. They're less naive and a bit less arrogant. They know that if they stay stuck in the past they'll be left there. Too many people watch non-PL football to accept PL virtues as gospel. Especially when it's a journalist peddling the line. People tend to trust pundits more for some reason.

People need to see our football work here before they'll accept it, but people in general are wising to it. If we're successful the bandwagon jumpers will champion us a bit more, which is less than ideal but it's critical for progress. Anyone who cares about the national team will hope so anyway.

As a matter of principle, if a pundit criticises a team for zonal marking then I know he knows nothing about the modern game and I ignore them.
Click to expand...

Agree with pretty much all of that.

I think the age and era of most pundits means their always going to favour 4-4-2, 2 banks of 4, man to man marking, big physical players, keep it tight and nick one approaches. Hence Murphy, Shearer and Pardew are banging Jose's drum, good proper British football none of the fancy foreign muck.
 
pavelsrnicek said:
Agree with pretty much all of that.

I think the age and era of most pundits means their always going to favour 4-4-2, 2 banks of 4, man to man marking, big physical players, keep it tight and nick one approaches. Hence Murphy, Shearer and Pardew are banging Jose's drum, good proper British football none of the fancy foreign muck.
Click to expand...
Yeah their logic is ok, but as I sort of mentioned the change to the offside rule in 2005 effectively changed the game. It's not just a case of being a bit outdated; football before 2005 was a different game altogether. What's upsetting is this is the only country not to have noticed. It's only been 12 years!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.