relative media coverage

[Ara]

It isn't just sky and BT that have the biased towards the so called big teams, look at the England team, If a guy called John Smith scored 15 goals for say hull he wouldn't be in the England team but if he played for Man U and scored 5 goals he'd start every game. Example Tom Cleverly and Danny Welbeck, both terrible players both of the league type players yet both in the England squad. Tom Clevely played a whole season for Wigan and didn't get in the England squad, played in the charity shield and started England's very next game.

Finally the thing that pisses me off about the media most is this "overachieving" tag we have? Sorry where do the media expect us to finish? Who is ment to be above us? We have had this tag for what 8 years now, o and any decent player we have is joining Man U

 

[SteKelly]

Same with man utd, this current Man U team is awful yet there better odd then us to finish 4 even though we are 3 points ahead of them. Yes they won the league last season but was only because Van Persie carried them plus the fear factor from away team + refs. Where they are is where they belong. Look at the difference from refs, last season a utd player hits the deck ref give a foul as it "must be", this year the ref looks at it and goes nope no foul and no Fergy to tell me otherwise and I get to ref here again.

thats because no-one is backing us to win mate. Nothing to do with media

 

[roydo]

Although to be fair to chelsea they are winning a lot these days and they are prob catching up.

In terms of trophies won, there cant be too many clubs that have won more than us? Liverpool and United? Not even sure about Arsenal.

Not for 20 years though mate. Thats the thing. Was watching an Eberton History DVD that Mrs R got me. There was probably as much footage of our top 4 season than there was of the 80s league titles. Purely cos there is loads more to choose from.

 

[artetas_biggest_fan]

Man U, Liv and Arsenal are almost protected clubs (ie.doesnt matter how they are doing they will always get huge media coverage). Its primarily due to their stature and fanbase at home and abroad. The new wealth of Chel and Man C has put them up there. Spurs (especially being from London) come next. Spurs lose two of three matches the speculation of a managerial change begins.

Everton, Newcastle, Villa would be in the next batch of teams. During the Keegan days Newcastle used to have a bigger profile. If a player shows any promise at these sides they are invariably linked with the higher profile clubs. There also isn't anywhere near as much managerial scrutiny either.

 

[mrb85]

The issue with the media is of course far wider than the sparsity of references to ourselves. There are numerous real football stories out there, but Sky just ignore them. Take for instance Leicester City's fantastic record this season. Has there been coverage of any depth into their results and performances this season? They are now 13 pts ahead of the 3rd placed team and virtually promoted already with a third of the season still to go. Some media time is however given to one Championship side -- the London darlings from Shepherds Bush, QPR. Why?

 

[Chang Elephant]

I've had to tell people that Everton have ever won the league. I'm not always sure they believe me to be honest....

I had the same problem when I was living in Tajikistan also. They knew nothing about English Football apart from some knowledge of the hooliganism at Heysel. Don't let their lack of knowledge bother you lad.

 

[efcfanwirral]

I had the same problem when I was living in Tajikistan also. They knew nothing about English Football apart from some knowledge of the hooliganism at Heysel. Don't let their lack of knowledge bother you lad.

Ha honestly. I'll give them the whole more leagues than city, spurs and Chelsea combined and get laughed at. The examples I'm referring to were united and Newcastle fans, one fan base very much spoilt by the last 20 years and another who are just mental.

 

[sw blue]

It isn't just sky and BT that have the biased towards the so called big teams, look at the England team, If a guy called John Smith scored 15 goals for say hull he wouldn't be in the England team but if he played for Man U and scored 5 goals he'd start every game. Example Tom Cleverly and Danny Welbeck, both terrible players both of the league type players yet both in the England squad. Tom Clevely played a whole season for Wigan and didn't get in the England squad, played in the charity shield and started England's very next game.

Finally the thing that pisses me off about the media most is this "overachieving" tag we have? Sorry where do the media expect us to finish? Who is ment to be above us? We have had this tag for what 8 years now, o and any decent player we have is joining Man U

I quite like Welbeck, dynamic strong and has pace. Only good when played centrally though.

 

[Khalekan]

It gets tiresome having to point this out.

We are low key in the media these days because of lack of success in the modern era.

Sky don't make these teams "elite".....they do it themselves in one way or another and force themselves into the spotlight.

To wit Chelsea were very small fry in Sky's year zero and weren't featured the way they are now.

And Manchester City were in what I call the Third Division fifteen years ago and were relegation battlers up until about six or seven years ago.....and were barely mentioned on Sky.

And even if the RS haven't been Champions in over twenty years, they are never too far outside the CL places and were regular CL contestants for five or six seasons before Citeh emerged......plus they have regularly picked up silverware along the way.

This alone has always kept them in the spotlight, irrespective of friends in the media.

Too many people on here seem to wallow in victim status.

A couple years of success would see us up there in lights with the rest of them.

Conversely, Blackburn and Newcastle were big players in the early PL days and they were lauded accordingly before being relegated to bit part status as their fortunes faded.

Sky are like Freddie Mercury....they have no time for losers.

And we have no one to blame for our current status but the men who presided over EFC's fall from grace just as the Sky gravy train was leaving the station.

If Roberto gets us winning things and competing in the CL we will be innundadted with publicity.

Bring it on, Bob.

 

[deipnosophist]

History lesson boys.

Why are Man U and the Shoite the biggest clubs?

MOTD began in 1964....the manure and shoite shared the first 4 championships in the MOTD era. People saw them winning and hey presto their huge armchair "me too" nationwide and Irish fanbases.

Simple as that. Right time to be winning.

If MOTD had started half a dozen years earlier millions in Ireland and Norway and Surrey woud now be following Wolves and Spurs.

honestly believe you have nailed it in this post

 

[deipnosophist]

They've been what I'd call an 'elite' team in England since their last league title two and a half decades ago, but that's not the same as being a top team...and certainly not the same as being 'the biggest'.

It's just nostalgia driven media nonsense to think and talk about Liverpool in such grand terms. The majority of people working in the football media in England grew up with Liverpool being a top team and that's what explains the hangover in still seeking to portray them as a big team. To be fair, they won a few minor domestic cups and a European trophy along the way of their barren 24 year period to keep the myth ticking over, but it's utter nonsense to bracket them with the big boys who view most of those trophies as a poor season's haul. Even now they are reliant on opponents who've already played about 12 games more than them this season to give them the opportunity of standing on their coat tails in the PL title race. It's now or never for Liverpool in that respect: win the title this year or forget it for another half decade at least until they can get an oligarch in to pay John Henry a billion quid for his shares and spend massively on squad building. Liverpool have proven conclusively that they cant do it when spending a couple of hundred £m. They are no Arsenal. They need City-type saturation investment.

bang on mate

 

[deipnosophist]

I had the same problem when I was living in Tajikistan also. They knew nothing about English Football apart from some knowledge of the hooliganism at Heysel. Don't let their lack of knowledge bother you lad.

...so they were familiar with Liverpool

 

[Eric Djemba-Djemba]

...so they were familiar with Liverpool

Familiar with Chelsea surely mate?

 

[deipnosophist]

Familiar with Chelsea surely mate?

The Heysel Stadium disaster occurred on 29 May 1985 when escaping fans were pressed against a wall in the Heysel Stadium in Brussels, Belgium, before the start of the 1985 European Cup Final between Juventus of Italy and Liverpool of England. Thirty-nine Juventus fans died[1] and 600 were injured

 

[DerekIsLiving]

I still don't understand why Tottenham deserve the attention they so often receive. Apart from a couple fourth place finishes in the past few years, they haven't done much in decades.

Now, I live in the United States, so I can't speak on how they are portrayed in England, but here they are often spoken of as title contenders at least in the beginning if the season. Adding to that, the media bias is poor here as well. Although NBC airs every premier league match, they only show MUFC, LFC, CFC, AFC, MCFC, and THFC matches on their main channel and then tuck away the other matches in their extra channels, which many people do not receive. In the end, the media is not concerned about unbiased coverage, it's concerned about viewers.