What's new

Sky/ESPN bias against Chelsea

Status
Not open for further replies.
Myles_91

Myles_91

First Team Squad
Messages
1,741
Reaction score
7
If I'm being paranoid or out of line here please tell me so but has anyone else noticed in recent years Sky/ESPN only select games they think we will lose/drop points? Granted games v Liverpool, United, Spurs, Arsenal and City will always be shown home and away but If you look at the other recent examples of games they've selected between them it's noticeably biased:

Wigan (A) - The in form PL side, Tough away game + potential banana skin. We failed to win last seasons corresponding fixture

Newcastle (H) - Lost last seasons corresponding fixture, tough side. Not previously beaten them in league since 07/08

Villa (H) A fixture we always struggle with nowadays. Lost last seasons corresponding fixture and drew the year before. Not beaten them in the league since 09/10.

West Ham (A) - Big Derby granted, but still a potential banana skin. Currently unbeaten at home in the league upon selection

Everton (A) - Lost our last 3 at Goodison, always struggle there as does any team. Not won there since 07/08. Currently won all home games upon selection

QPR (H) - Shown purely for the JT/Anton Circus and handshake bo**ocks.

So of 5 credible fixtures (not including QPR), recent history/form would not favour Chelsea in any of them, and all are at best banana skin fixtures.

If you compare and contrast that to the games Sky/ESPN select of the Manchester Clubs:

City v Swansea

City v Sunderland

Villa v United

Norwich v United

These are just a couple of examples, games which they know they will win and most probably rack up a cricket score doing so. Away games are never easy granted, but form and history would favour both Manchester Clubs there whereas it wouldn't with us.

 
There seems to be a lot of hate for Chelsea this season......................the years that we have won Prem titles we were really hate.

 
Your being extremely paranoid! They have to pick games that are not only going to interest chelsea fans but the rest of the public.

 
Bluehatter said:
Your being extremely paranoid! They have to pick games that are not only going to interest chelsea fans but the rest of the public.
Click to expand...
like city vs Swansea! we have become the most hated team in England over the last 12 months. because of jt, Cole and Ferdinand, because we won the champions league, because we have been successful while changing managers every season.

it's not paranoia it's fact. why is Ferdinand not deemed a drug cheat? if terry or Cole had missed a drug test that is the sort of label that they would have had all the careers.

one big fat dirty anti Chelsea agenda.

 
big blue said:
like city vs Swansea! we have become the most hated team in England over the last 12 months. because of jt, Cole and Ferdinand, because we won the champions league, because we have been successful while changing managers every season.

it's not paranoia it's fact. why is Ferdinand not deemed a drug cheat? if terry or Cole had missed a drug test that is the sort of label that they would have had all the careers.

one big fat dirty anti Chelsea agenda.
Click to expand...
I was commenting on the tv coverage bias not all the other bullsh*t! I'd say city v swansea was a similiar game to chelsea v villa.
 
The TV companies pick whatever games they think will get the most viewers and therefore earn them the most money, I very much doubt there is any agenda against Chelsea.

The commentators and pundits do like to have a dig whenever they can though, it doesn't really bother me, actually I often find it very satisfying that our success irks them so much!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd rather be hated. I don't need or want some two bob commentator to say nice things about my club. When we're slated and we succeed, it makes it a little bit sweeter. The only thing that does bother me at times is the treatment that specific players receive from the media, illustrated perfectly by the totally unbiased, completely fair and accurate reporting on the Terry case.

With regard to the specific criticism of ESPN/Sky selecting games where they expect us to drop points, I don't see it. I mean, I do, but I don't think it reflects any sort of anti-Chelsea bias. Who wants to watch Chelsea demolish a relegation bound team? Chelsea fans, nobody else. It stands to reason that they'll show competitive fixtures in order to generate higher ratings.

 
I agree, I don't mind playing "the bad guy". The football we play now might change people's perception of that in the future, but its that former element that we bully our way to wins that puts people off about us in my opinion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bobbywoodhogan said:
All I know is the commentators on ESPN hate our guts.
Click to expand...
McManaman I find pretty fair and evenhanded, pretty much always takes conciliatory view towards players whenever their judgement or ability is called into question.

Ian Darke, however, is a bar steward, and I detest him.

 
There's a few reasons I think.

1. Majority of pundits are older and tend to gravitate towards history-moaners Liverpool or United.

2. People don't like the fact we're owned by a famous Russian Oligarch. By an extension people don't like how Roman used to sack managers on a whim.

3. We have a tendancy to have controversial players (Cole/Terry and even Lampard once upon a time)

4. Some parts of the media see us as playing "Anti-Football" like we had to against Barca/Bayern.

5. Hating on Chelsea because of some players is the current "In-Thing" amongst audiences, and the media always panders to the "In-Thing"

Last but certainly not least,

6. We tend to win a lot of trophies and people love seeing winners fail, makes them feel better about themselves.

Why don't the media hate on United as much? I think it's because they have more English players in their team, simple as that. City were getting some flak last season when the likes of Tevez and Balotelli (The latter of which I respect a lot) were rebelling, the fact that they were foreign players made them easier targets too.

 
Lyncath said:
3. We have a tendancy to have controversial players (Cole/Terry and even Lampard once upon a time)
Click to expand...
Totally diagree.

Our players are no better or worse behaved than any other clubs - I don't see or hear of Cech, Mata, Ivanovic, Luiz, Ramires, Cahill, Oscar or Torres being problematic away from the pitch.

Even then the hate that the likes of Terry and Cole are subjected to is media constructed.

 
TheWestwayWonder said:
McManaman I find pretty fair and evenhanded, pretty much always takes conciliatory view towards players whenever their judgement or ability is called into question.

Ian Darke, however, is a bar steward, and I detest him.
Click to expand...
I find McManaman to be anything but fair and evenhanded. He seems incredibly biased and often makes ridiculous statements that show he has a rudimentary understanding of the game despite having played it for so long. Ian Darke, on the other hand, is just spineless and will go along with anything McManaman says. If McManaman says a player dove, Darke will be be his sock puppet and echo every comment he makes. Then he'll wait 10 minutes and rehash the same incident, hoping to elicit approval from the scouse c**t. It's like they're both in high school and Ian Darke, who has no friends, is trying to get Steve the jock to notice him and validate his meagre existence.

 
There's no point worrying about bias. All we can do is answer jealous critics by winning. Something we are more than capable of doing.

 
Lyncath said:
There's a few reasons I think.

1. Majority of pundits are older and tend to gravitate towards history-moaners Liverpool or United.

2. People don't like the fact we're owned by a famous Russian Oligarch. By an extension people don't like how Roman used to sack managers on a whim.

3. We have a tendancy to have controversial players (Cole/Terry and even Lampard once upon a time)

4. Some parts of the media see us as playing "Anti-Football" like we had to against Barca/Bayern.

5. Hating on Chelsea because of some players is the current "In-Thing" amongst audiences, and the media always panders to the "In-Thing"

Last but certainly not least,

6. We tend to win a lot of trophies and people love seeing winners fail, makes them feel better about themselves.

Why don't the media hate on United as much? I think it's because they have more English players in their team, simple as that. City were getting some flak last season when the likes of Tevez and Balotelli (The latter of which I respect a lot) were rebelling, the fact that they were foreign players made them easier targets too.
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with the number of English players. Over the last few seasons we've had John Terry, Frank Lampard, Ashley Cole, all of whom have been targeted by the England boo boys and the media in general. Compare the way they've been treated with that given to Rio Ferdinand, Wayne Rooney and Ryan Giggs (ok he's Welsh but still British). I would venture to say that (God forbid) had Rooney et al played for us, JT etc for Man U, the situation regarding media and England boo boys would also have been reversed. Rooney would have been cast at the villain, JT the hero.

Aside from the unholy trinity, we now have Ryan Bertrand and Gary Cahill. In the past we also had Joe Cole and that other left back.

If "Cole/Terry and even Lampard" have been controversial it is because the media have repeatedly gone out of their way to cast them as the villains of the piece.

If people are of the opinion that Chelsea managers are sacked "on a whim" then this is a reflection of their own ingorance. I could go through the list of recent managers, but what's the point? I'm sure it's all been said before. The fact is we haven't had managerial stability since the early '70s. Abramovich is an easy target because he doesn't talk to the press. This leaves them free to speculate, and speculate they do, almost exclusively with the same old tired negative spin.

Historically Man U and Liverpool are bigger teams they have or had a larger world wide support. Truth be told the same could be said for Arsenal. And that fact alone explains a lot of the apparent media bias. Speak to an honest Liverpool fan, cut through the crap and you will find that the root of their bitterness is simply that they're not the force they once were. The Ferguson era has given us a whole generation of Man U fans who believe that Man U have a divine right to win everything there is to win, and Arsenal fans are simply more bitter than ever before because we and not they, were the first London team to win the Champions League, conveniently forgetting that but for Rainieri's brainstorm in Monaco, a ghost goal up at Anfield, the width ot a post in Moscow, we could well have three or even four Champions League trophies to our name.

What makes it so much harder for those fans is that there is no sign of our success coming to an end. Since the day Abramovich bought the club, people have been looking forward to the day he'd get bored and walk away leaving us in the lurch. Well it hasn't happened yet and there's no sign of Abramovich walking away in the foreseeable future. And even if he did, I can all but guarantee that he'd have very little trouble in finding a buyer for the club.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top