BobKowalski said:.
Yaya Toure? Mercenary. Falcao? Gaalactico. Says it all really.
They enjoy exerting control over their audience, who doesn't? united, in particular, provide the most manifest way of achieving that. Add into the mix a pinch of Stockholm Syndrome and a soupçon of an inveterate fear of change and you have the free and fearless individuals that make up the northern sporting press pack.BobKowalski said:On a day when the media do seem to have been gripped with a collective frenzy over ManU's mighty demolition of that most obliging opponent QPR, Daniel Taylor is at least pointing out that its too early to judge and summarised the capture of Falcao as "visting a hospital for open heart surgery and coming out with a boob job" which pretty much nails it as to the cosmetic nature of ManU's transfer business to date.
But the collective relief/mania/hysteria (delete as applicable) that has gripped the nation's scribes at the return of ManU to "title winning form (c) Messrs. Ogden, Herbert & Co" struck me as something more than just agenda or whatever you wish to call it. Perhaps its some sort of involuntary pavlovian response. Can they actually cope with the established order being so much out of kilter? We saw it with Liverpool last season. A yearning that the sporting universe rights itself and we go back to the old order of ManU, Arsenal & Liverpool vying for the top spots. Chelsea are still regarded with some suspicion but the established order has room for one outsider. But two is one too many and more than two well fuck it lets change the rules and lo and behold we have FFP and its curtailment of outside investment. Unless you want to spend money on academies and youth so that your investment can be filleted by the big boys some years down the line in which case carry on spending - after all we all love a Southampton don't we chaps?
So can our journo's cope with a new world order? Can we they comprehend a world where the once mighty teams are not quite so mighty? I'm not sure they can and I will cite the case of Fernando Torres. There was a time when the pundits would hail him as the best striker in Europe and to be fair he was very good. Yet that period of being very good vanished about 3 years ago. But despite this, and despite the bleeding fucking obvious staring them in the face, they hailed the return of Torres every time he actually scored a goal. For 3 odd years according to collective wisdom he was 'turning a corner' and on the verge of being 'back to his best'. Yet it was a mirage. But like good faithful pavlovian dogs the sporting opinion makers clung to the belief that it just needed a change in system/manager/more love/less love/different hairstyle to get him back to his best. For 3 long years we endured 'Torres is Back!' chatter. It seemed almost as if the truth, namely that Torres was broken beyond repair, was too much for our media to accept and thus they clung to the past and the fantasy that Torres is a world class striker.
The same is true of ManU. Beat QPR? ' ManU are Back!'. The media cannot help themselves. Its a reflex response. The media, despite the protestations, like the established order. They liked Taggart kicking their arses and they wet themselves at the prospect of Van Gaal doing the same. They need ManU back. They cannot comprehend a football world that does not have at its apex the ManU, Liverpool, Arsenal trinity and they view football through the distortions of this prism.
Yaya Toure? Mercenary. Falcao? Gaalactico. Says it all really.
FantasyIreland said:BobKowalski said:.
Yaya Toure? Mercenary. Falcao? Gaalactico. Says it all really.
It does,where did you pinch it from?
I've seen you post that word before. It makes me imagine you sat there like Tony Montana; "you ffucking cock-a-roach" ;)gordondaviesmoustache said:They enjoy exerting control over their audience, who doesn't? united, in particular, provide the most manifest way of achieving that. Add into the mix a pinch of Stockholm Syndrome and a soupçon of an inveterate fear of change and you have the free and fearless individuals that make up the northern sporting press pack.BobKowalski said:On a day when the media do seem to have been gripped with a collective frenzy over ManU's mighty demolition of that most obliging opponent QPR, Daniel Taylor is at least pointing out that its too early to judge and summarised the capture of Falcao as "visting a hospital for open heart surgery and coming out with a boob job" which pretty much nails it as to the cosmetic nature of ManU's transfer business to date.
But the collective relief/mania/hysteria (delete as applicable) that has gripped the nation's scribes at the return of ManU to "title winning form (c) Messrs. Ogden, Herbert & Co" struck me as something more than just agenda or whatever you wish to call it. Perhaps its some sort of involuntary pavlovian response. Can they actually cope with the established order being so much out of kilter? We saw it with Liverpool last season. A yearning that the sporting universe rights itself and we go back to the old order of ManU, Arsenal & Liverpool vying for the top spots. Chelsea are still regarded with some suspicion but the established order has room for one outsider. But two is one too many and more than two well fuck it lets change the rules and lo and behold we have FFP and its curtailment of outside investment. Unless you want to spend money on academies and youth so that your investment can be filleted by the big boys some years down the line in which case carry on spending - after all we all love a Southampton don't we chaps?
So can our journo's cope with a new world order? Can we they comprehend a world where the once mighty teams are not quite so mighty? I'm not sure they can and I will cite the case of Fernando Torres. There was a time when the pundits would hail him as the best striker in Europe and to be fair he was very good. Yet that period of being very good vanished about 3 years ago. But despite this, and despite the bleeding fucking obvious staring them in the face, they hailed the return of Torres every time he actually scored a goal. For 3 odd years according to collective wisdom he was 'turning a corner' and on the verge of being 'back to his best'. Yet it was a mirage. But like good faithful pavlovian dogs the sporting opinion makers clung to the belief that it just needed a change in system/manager/more love/less love/different hairstyle to get him back to his best. For 3 long years we endured 'Torres is Back!' chatter. It seemed almost as if the truth, namely that Torres was broken beyond repair, was too much for our media to accept and thus they clung to the past and the fantasy that Torres is a world class striker.
The same is true of ManU. Beat QPR? ' ManU are Back!'. The media cannot help themselves. Its a reflex response. The media, despite the protestations, like the established order. They liked Taggart kicking their arses and they wet themselves at the prospect of Van Gaal doing the same. They need ManU back. They cannot comprehend a football world that does not have at its apex the ManU, Liverpool, Arsenal trinity and they view football through the distortions of this prism.
Yaya Toure? Mercenary. Falcao? Gaalactico. Says it all really.
Cockroaches.
"Reds-under-the-bed brigade" :DDidsbury Dave said:CityFan94 said:It's almost impossible to deny there's a clear agenda with Man United.
The media are absolutely desperate for them to get back to the top.
The only analysis I read on Man United this weekend was Daniel TAylor in The Guardian commenting on how Ferguson is a hypocrite because United have always bought success, much more so than anyone else, and their current scattergun spending is just more of the same.
But I wouldn't expect the reds-under-the-bed brigade to mention this because they are far too busy scanning the media for positive Man United articles, which of course must ultimately be written just to piss off City.
The Future's Blue said:I find it quite incredulous that some will still argue the point that there is no bias or agenda and prefer to denigrate Blues in favour of the media hype.
Funny old world.
Blue Mooner said:The Future's Blue said:I find it quite incredulous that some will still argue the point that there is no bias or agenda and prefer to denigrate Blues in favour of the media hype.
Funny old world.
They have spent so long being exposed to this incessant and constant rag sycophancy across all facets of the media that they appear to have developed 'Stockholm syndrome' where despite the 'norm' for any city fan to at the very least dislike their nearest football rivals they have instead developed an irrational admiration for them, to the extent that they feel the need to spend a huge amount of time defending any attacks on their foes.
This goes to the extent of ignoring the oceans of evidence that highlights such incessant bias against their own club, which by rights they should identify with, instead they clutch at the 'odd straw' that might somehow confirm their irrational take on the subject that the footballing world treats all clubs with an even hand.
It is summed up perfectly by this description as being a psychological phenomenon in which people have positive feelings towards their enemy, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with them identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego protects itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they cease to be perceived as a threat.