MOTD

[Didsbury Dave]

Wake up and smell the bias.

It's not just Hansen, what about the lack of any credit or praise after we beat the European champions in their own back yard ? That applies to the commentators on the night, the 'experts' in the studio and the media in general who relegated the story to the inside pages while lauding the achievements of the Rags in scraping a 1 -0 home victory against Shaktar.

Take today's Sun and the different perspective put on our victory and Liverpool's.
"Jesus is City's shining star as Pellegrini's lads almost make an ass of themselves'
"Reds go top after Uruguyan superstar shows folly of Gunners offer"
The reports then take the same line, we get slagged off for defensive frailties, Dippers get praised for a great victory and being top.

Wise up .We disrupted the order of things by breaking up the old 'big four' and the cosy relationship they had with the media. We spent a lot of money in doing it and they don't like it.

Nah mate. You wise up. I've heard it all on here for years, long before the money came in. Sky hate us, MOTD hate us, the MEN hate us, the referees hate us, the papers hate us, platini hates us, the commentators hate is, the FA hate us, FIFA, UEFA, the lot. Before the money the narrative was 'they all love the big four'. Now it's 'they're all jealous' Or 'Theyre all pandering to the rags'or the lunacy of 'we disrupted the cosy big four and they hate it'. Think about that line and what it means. And what utter fucking daft fan tripe it really is. It means nothing and is nothing but sheer delusion. Why would anyone with a career in the sport of football want a league that is the same every year? Apart from the 0.1% who work for the ones who win it, of course...

We get some shit press, and hansen's analysis was mainly crap. Bit the rampant 'they all hate us being good' paranoia is bullshit. That's not to say we don't get some rubbish coverage or rubbish decisions or rubbish luck. We do. But so do all the other clubs. Go and have a play around. Do a few googles, maybe start with 'media bias against' and then insert a club's name. All forums are the same. United think everyone hates them and loves them losing. Liverpool think everyone hates them and loves united. Everton think everyone is pro Liverpool. Chelsea think everyone's jealous of the money. Most of the other premier league clubs think the media fawn over the big 4/5/6 (delete as appropriate), most of the lower division clubs think the media ignore them or patronise them. When you get down to the conference they are all furious that some papers don't even mention them.

And so it goes, round and round, blah blah fucking blah. The endless circle of paranoia.

The vast majority of these people are in no position to make any kind of objective stance on whether their club is hard done to or not, because the only club which they pay any attention to is their own. And so the default human-nature setting is the bunker mentality one.

We'll never agree.
But there is a big flaw in your argument. You state that all clubs/fans are paranoid and believe there is an agenda against their club . From that you deduce that this must mean that there isn't an agenda against any club. That doesn't compute.

Well what an incredible and terrible quirk of fate it is that you, Len rum of bluemoon, chose the one club that there is an 'agenda' against.

 

[baildon blue]

Hansen was right about Demichelis . He was caught out of position a lot yesterday . Another reason are defence looked shite yesterday was not having a proper right back .

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Nah mate. You wise up. I've heard it all on here for years, long before the money came in. Sky hate us, MOTD hate us, the MEN hate us, the referees hate us, the papers hate us, platini hates us, the commentators hate is, the FA hate us, FIFA, UEFA, the lot. Before the money the narrative was 'they all love the big four'. Now it's 'they're all jealous' Or 'Theyre all pandering to the rags'or the lunacy of 'we disrupted the cosy big four and they hate it'. Think about that line and what it means. And what utter fucking daft fan tripe it really is. It means nothing and is nothing but sheer delusion. Why would anyone with a career in the sport of football want a league that is the same every year? Apart from the 0.1% who work for the ones who win it, of course...

We get some shit press, and hansen's analysis was mainly crap. Bit the rampant 'they all hate us being good' paranoia is bullshit. That's not to say we don't get some rubbish coverage or rubbish decisions or rubbish luck. We do. But so do all the other clubs. Go and have a play around. Do a few googles, maybe start with 'media bias against' and then insert a club's name. All forums are the same. United think everyone hates them and loves them losing. Liverpool think everyone hates them and loves united. Everton think everyone is pro Liverpool. Chelsea think everyone's jealous of the money. Most of the other premier league clubs think the media fawn over the big 4/5/6 (delete as appropriate), most of the lower division clubs think the media ignore them or patronise them. When you get down to the conference they are all furious that some papers don't even mention them.

And so it goes, round and round, blah blah fucking blah. The endless circle of paranoia.

The vast majority of these people are in no position to make any kind of objective stance on whether their club is hard done to or not, because the only club which they pay any attention to is their own. And so the default human-nature setting is the bunker mentality one.

The extent of any bias on MOTD is a matter of opinion, DD. What is a matter of fact, however, is the wide number of ex-Liverpool players acting as pundits on the BBC and Sky. Are you seriously suggesting that their views on Liverpool are balanced, even and fair?

That's a total and utter straw man, GDM. This conversation is about city and my post is about the huge persecution complex that all football fans have.

It's not a straw man at all. It's a completely connected point. You are suggesting that all fans feel persecuted and that is manifestly correct. Any visit to another club's forum will attest to that. We all see things, to some extent, through the prism of our own support. However, just because they all feel persecuted it doesn't mean that media coverage is even handed.

What I am saying, from a City point of view, is that it is demonstrably clear, a matter of fact, that the "Big 4" (especially Liverpool) are much better represented in the media than City. That, in itself, is evidence that those clubs will receive more benign coverage than others, and undermine any suggestion that all fans' paranoia is equally well founded. It is not - some have more genuine cause to believe their club is covered negatively than others irrespective of the wider tendency for all fans to feel the world is against them.

City fans fall into that category imo.

 

[mac]

Hansen was not so much biased as stupid. His argument that City, and particularly Demichelis, were weak in the centre of defence doesn't stack up. In fact we looked solid in the middle but it was on the flanks where Fulham posed a threat, and created both their goals. Our fullbacks are vulnerable defensively. I thought Demichelis actually had a decent match and so did the five City fans I went to the match with. Then again what do we know compared to the genius who is Alan Hansen. The weak match analysis on Match of the Day has turned the programme into a laughing stock. It's not biased...just sub-standard.

We play the high line so we will always be vulnerable, Gael slipped for the first goal, in fact he slipped on a couple of occasions ,the other goal was a fluke,as another poster pointed out the rags and the pool won by2 clear goals and yet conceded 1 at home yet we get the shit for conceding 2 at fulham who are playing 100% better under that rag coach.(who I do regard as an excellent coach)there is a bias no matter what people say otherwise.

 

[somethingelse]

I found Hansens analysis on the defensive decision making v Fulham fairly solid , ive heard Hansen talk complete tripe but the amount of leads city squander proves his point, most think City are easily the best team in the league, city should win the league, so that's why the pundits are scathing when basic errors are made, like he said at home City can score 6 if they score 5 its different away from home
the brilliant milner goal was one of the goals of the season ,but its all about 3 points every game and winning trophies

 

[bluemooster]

Hansen was pointing out to Liverpool on how to beat City! By going on about Demichelis being the weak link in defence - Disgusting extremely biased punditry, he should be sacked

 

[r.soleofsalford]

united an liverpool played at home against teams in the bottom 6 of the league. unlike them we were away from home. unlike their games analysis which showed there goals ours didnt.

 

[mac]

I found Hansens analysis on the defensive decision making v Fulham fairly solid , ive heard Hansen talk complete tripe but the amount of leads city squander proves his point, most think City are easily the best team in the league, city should win the league, so that's why the pundits are scathing when basic errors are made, like he said at home City can score 6 if they score 5 its different away from home
the brilliant milner goal was one of the goals of the season ,but its all about 3 points every game and winning trophies

The way the media portray us is that we have a shite defence, yet on the grand scheme of things we have only conceded on average approx 3 more goals than the rest away from home.

 

[gingerprince]

i only watched the rerun this morning, not last nights and then had to go out

& had expected from my own perspective of the rerun, to see a very long motd

thread expressing outrage at hansen & the bbc & boy i havn't been disappointed.


They do have limited time for their analysis and i can understand hansens and bbc

problem, as of course its just not possible thesedays to re-show all our goals again

in the analysis afterwards, as it can be a bit boring, as we score so many .....................



however, if hansen wants to show how he sees our defensive issues, fine no problem,

but they could have shown x2 examples in the limited time available & still have made

the same valid point, as they must have surely wanted [in the limited time] to show &

discuss the qualities of yayas free kick and/or negredos cross for a top quality goal etc.

however they chose not to, instead they chose to show a whole montage of defensive

"issues" leaving no further time to show any positive clips for further analysis..................


i am quite sure the people who have editorial control of the program could have done it

differently but they chose not to, for a reason, maybe they just made a mistake this week,

maybe they dont think they made a mistake....


naturally, in this limited highlights show, they did find the time to reshow a cross from uniteds

winger, which unlike negredos, didnt result in a great finish & a goal, that sealed an away victory,

to take a team to 2nd, winning 4:2. that is an away victory in the premiership, that these same

pundits have been given lengthy editorial time to state how poor we have been & yet when we

win cannot find the time to reshow at least two of the four goals scored, at least, as they were in

anyones view particularly fine examples of this game, but they chose not to.


if we were to beat a team next week 6:0 with six equally stunning goals, the editorial team at MOTD

could [on yesterdays editorial decisions] say well we cannot show them all six, as its limited highlights

so we will just say city won again at home, scoring six goals again and gary can follow that with............

"our last match tonight, featured two teams who find themselves in 10th and 11th in the table ................".

GP

 

[sir baconface]

The extent of any bias on MOTD is a matter of opinion, DD. What is a matter of fact, however, is the wide number of ex-Liverpool players acting as pundits on the BBC and Sky. Are you seriously suggesting that their views on Liverpool are balanced, even and fair?

That's a total and utter straw man, GDM. This conversation is about city and my post is about the huge persecution complex that all football fans have.

It's not a straw man at all. It's a completely connected point. You are suggesting that all fans feel persecuted and that is manifestly correct. Any visit to another club's forum will attest to that. We all see things, to some extent, through the prism of our own support. However, just because they all feel persecuted it doesn't mean that media coverage is even handed.

What I am saying, from a City point of view, is that it is demonstrably clear, a matter of fact, that the "Big 4" (especially Liverpool) are much better represented in the media than City. That, in itself, is evidence that those clubs will receive more benign coverage than others, and undermine any suggestion that all fans' paranoia is equally well founded. It is not - some have more genuine cause to believe their club is covered negatively than others irrespective of the wider tendency for all fans to feel the world is against them.

City fans fall into that category imo.

Excellent points, GDM.

Like you I don't believe there is a grand agenda against us - or any other club for that matter.

However I challenge anyone to say we get as good a ride as Liverpool (specifically on MOTD) or (on a pretty universal basis) our media darling neighbours.

Would you disagree, DD?