Sorry to have another moan but I feel I need to get this off my chest.

I've always known Setanta/ESPN were anti-Chelsea, that was evident in a game vs Man City a couple of seasons back but last night took the piss in my view, it was absolutely appalling viewing.

It started off with the ESPN interviewer (can't remember her name) saying to David Moyes "WE wish you good luck" Now excuse me if I'm being cynical and ignorant here but I don't remember the same being said to AVB before the game and the use of the term "We" would indicate that ESPN as a whole were all behind Everton to get a result, not that I would be surprised but it smacks of bias and unprofessionalism.

4 minutes into the game (not 40 but 4) they already went off on one about us being slow, mundane etc. How expansive could they expect us to be 4 minutes into the game against a team that came for a 0-0 and put 11 men behind the ball? I'd like to reiterate a brilliant point Dorset made a few weeks ago regarding Sky Sports and lack of enthusiasm with regards to Chelsea games.

The ex-Spud Waddle really does get on my nerves though, not for the first time he shows he is inherently anti-Chelsea. After we scored the first goal, he kept on banging on about how Everton had been the better team and "dominated" when the stats only minutes before had showed Everton only had 19% possession with Saha's tame right footed effort being their only threat on goal.

You could sense the depression and angst whenever Chelsea scored yesterday, we were not given credit for any of our three goals. For all of them they initially heaped blame on Everton's defence despite the fact Mata played a brilliant through ball to Ashley for the first and Drogba and Mata put in some good and quick passing for the 3rd, it was only the 2nd goal that you could justifiably blame the defence for IMO.

It will soon get to the stage where even rival fans start to get bored of listening to the anti-Chelsea commentary, absolutely appalling.

I am 100% against clubs negotiating their own TV deals, but the only positive if that were to happen, is that at least we wouldn't be subjected to the same old anti-Chelsea commentary/views that we always face in this country.

Some good points, that never really surprise me with the media in general tbh, but tbf Everton were unlucky to go in 2 down (or very bad defending), I thought they were marginally better in the earlier parts of the first half. However once we scored you never thought we were going to lose.

Some good points, that never really surprise me with the media in general tbh, but tbf Everton were unlucky to go in 2 down (or very bad defending), I thought they were marginally better in the earlier parts of the first half. However once we scored you never thought we were going to lose.

I agree Everton were unlucky to go 2 down, but to suggest they dominated the game was what I object to as that would imply we were completely outplayed which we weren't and that the goal came against the run of play, which it didn't IMO.

If enough Chelsea fans threatened to boycott ESPN do you think it'd make a difference. If somebody does up a list of complaints than we all send them and give them till the next match to alter their opinions of us professionally we might see a change. Especially if enough of us are on board with it.

It is very hard to be objective as a fan so try this. Watch a game(not Chelsea) with your friend who is fan of one of the teams playing and listen to him going on about the ref and the commentator you might find that sometimes you are so in the game that you are completely blinded to every decision.

However W*ddle's comments were just plain dumb. At one point, after the first goal he went on how Everton is very unlucky and they should lead as they are in control of the game. Ironically just after his comments the screen showed Chelsea possession 81%, Everton 19%. I bet there is someone in ESPN-staff who didn't agree with his comments and smacked the stat there like it was a comedy bit.

I'm not sure if I'm biased in this one but Ray Wilkins is lot better commentating and sounds lot less biased. Even in the ManU game few weeks back he was very professional and didn't let his affection to us show in any way.

If enough Chelsea fans threatened to boycott ESPN do you think it'd make a difference. If somebody does up a list of complaints than we all send them and give them till the next match to alter their opinions of us professionally we might see a change. Especially if enough of us are on board with it.

Do it, i'll sign it.

I watch all our games on mute, it takes something away from it but I've done it since 05/06 season. I'll only listen to Wilkins & that ex-Arsenal one at Sky coz the rest are just so f*cking cringeworthy, it's not worth it

I watch all our games on mute, it takes something away from it but I've done it since 05/06 season. I'll only listen to Wilkins & that ex-Arsenal one at Sky coz the rest are just so f*cking cringeworthy, it's not worth it

I actually think Neville is pretty good on sky, surprisingly honest.

Great points, ESPN (and Setanta when they were around) were always anti-Chelsea. It seems no matter how we play, Waddle always has something bad to say about us. Same with Joe Royale. I've also noticed it with the pundits in the studio aswell.

As for Sky, Gary Neville's been very good and impartial. Ray Wilkins has been superb aswell.

Surprised at Gary Neville as well, seems very fair in his comments and knowledgeable.

Surprised at Gary Neville as well, seems very fair in his comments and knowledgeable.

On another note I'm sure he's been paid enough to be impartial

I actually think Neville is pretty good on sky, surprisingly honest.

Any idea what he said about his old mate Giggs breaking the wall for the scousers' goal?

Regarding our game, very funny to hear Waddle keep banging on about how Everton were dictating the pace of the game. Very funny because they had 10 men behind the ball and never had the ball. The best bit for me was when he was moaning about our system, saying MIkel had to come off, how we had to switch to 4-4-2 because Everton were well-versed and comfortable against us, and we scored about 0.00007 seconds later. He didn't even have the humility to laugh at himself. Of course our goal was all about Leighton Baines switching off, nothing to do with Mata, Ashley Cole and Sturridge switching "on".

It never occurred to Waddle throughout the game that he was watching a damn good side who beat Everton without breaking sweat.

Any idea what he said about his old mate Giggs breaking the wall for the scousers' goal?

Regarding our game, very funny to hear Waddle keep banging on about how Everton were dictating the pace of the game. Very funny because they had 10 men behind the ball and never had the ball. The best bit for me was when he was moaning about our system, saying MIkel had to come off, how we had to switch to 4-4-2 because Everton were well-versed and comfortable against us, and we scored about 0.00007 seconds later. He didn't even have the humility to laugh at himself. Of course our goal was all about Leighton Baines switching off, nothing to do with Mata, Ashley Cole and Sturridge switching "on".

It never occurred to Waddle throughout the game that he was watching a damn good side who beat Everton without breaking sweat.

I can't remember tbh but I think he had abit of a dig at Giggs for that.

Yeah exactly right, I noticed he kept saying that and they had hardly had a touch of the ball. He should be embarassed. On our 3rd goal Jon Champions basically was saying how good a goal that was but Waddles didn't chip in with much at all.

Edited October 16, 201114 yr by Bobbywoodhogan

Didn't watch on ESPN but it sounds like Waddle is just stupid rather than biased. There are too many commentators who don't know what to say so feel they have to say something even if it's wrong or irrelevant. The art of the commentator isn't just telling us what we can already see but knowing when to shut up. Commentators that really annoy me are Glen Hoddle and Mark Lawrenson, Glen is decent as an analyst and Lawrenson probably knows his stuff but thinks his job is to try and crack a joke every 5 minutes.

It usually takes Chris Waddle 5-10 minutes before he starts saying that we're too 'slow and predictable'. He then repeats this until the game is over.

No idea what its like in England but for some of us in the States, we get to turn on Fox Soccer Channel and are stuck watching the match in some form of television that does not mean 21st century standards. Only in the large market major cities will one get to view the match in HD! For the rest of us (I live in Denver, CO), its this hazy, muddy picture where all the fine details resemble a Picasso painting rather than a match with some fine clarity. There were times yesterday morning where I had to question my wife about dosing my eggs with magical mushrooms because the television was literally producing trails! I felt like I was back at University for a quick moment! See ESPN rarely shows Chelsea here in the States but I sure wish they did. Then at least we'd get the match in HD at least! Having said that, I could care less what Ian Darke it Steve MacNamara have to say. They're actually not that bad here because they are unable to get too technical, otherwise most Americans would simply switch the channel... But with all that said ESPN suck in just about everything else they do and losing the CL to Fox really sucks for the lack of HD content...

It usually takes Chris Waddle 5-10 minutes before he starts saying that we're too 'slow and predictable'. He then repeats this until the game is over.

so true.

The truth is Chris Waddle was only hired for one match and they just taped him slagging us off and stick it on evert Chelsea game

I guess I was fortunate over here, I had Gary Taphouse and some ex player that wasn't very anti Chels at all.

he starts saying that we're too 'slow and predictable'. He then repeats this until the game is over.

Obviously through an interpreter too, as I can't understand anything the N. Muppet says.

It usually takes Chris Waddle 5-10 minutes before he starts saying that we're too 'slow and predictable'. He then repeats this until the game is over.

Slow and predictable is the new "ageing squad".

Waddle also described Ramires as "just not a very good footballer".

Couldn't agree more with comments on this topic.

If I'm honest,I've never really taken much notice of the comments made on the t.v.,yet, there was for sure, an anti Chelsea feel about the commentry on espn the other night.

Question is why??,why so anti- Chelsea?, did twaddle & co not get the fawning from those around them that as 'legends' they felt they deserved?.

Waddle quitened down after we scored a well worked third goal,maybe realising that after all, his comments were in fact, bollocks?.

Why is it that these old 'pros' think in retirement, that they were better than they actually were?.

I saw twaddle & burley play live and they weren't half as good as they remeber themselves to be,and certainly not fit to lace the boots of Lampard,Drogba,Mata & co!.

Come back Jimmy 'the chin' Hill,all is forgiven,(well,maybe not).

No idea what its like in England but for some of us in the States, we get to turn on Fox Soccer Channel and are stuck watching the match in some form of television that does not mean 21st century standards. Only in the large market major cities will one get to view the match in HD! For the rest of us (I live in Denver, CO), its this hazy, muddy picture where all the fine details resemble a Picasso painting rather than a match with some fine clarity. There were times yesterday morning where I had to question my wife about dosing my eggs with magical mushrooms because the television was literally producing trails! I felt like I was back at University for a quick moment! See ESPN rarely shows Chelsea here in the States but I sure wish they did. Then at least we'd get the match in HD at least! Having said that, I could care less what Ian Darke it Steve MacNamara have to say. They're actually not that bad here because they are unable to get too technical, otherwise most Americans would simply switch the channel... But with all that said ESPN suck in just about everything else they do and losing the CL to Fox really sucks for the lack of HD content...

I think the ESPN they get in the UK is different from the American ESPN. I'm assuming that the Everton game was on ESPN over there, while it was on FSC over here. Something to do with Setanta going bankrupt and ESPN buying their rights. Darke and McNamara only do the 6:30am game in the US I think, and I actually enjoy their commentary (usually). For an ex-scouser, McNamara is a pretty solid announcer in my opinion, I thought they did a great job at the World Cup.

I think the ESPN they get in the UK is different from the American ESPN. I'm assuming that the Everton game was on ESPN over there, while it was on FSC over here. Something to do with Setanta going bankrupt and ESPN buying their rights. Darke and McNamara only do the 6:30am game in the US I think, and I actually enjoy their commentary (usually). For an ex-scouser, McNamara is a pretty solid announcer in my opinion, I thought they did a great job at the World Cup.

Ace, you are correct on all accounts. When I was traveling a lot for my last project, I was watching the European version of ESPN quite a bit.

And I actually agree with you on the announcers, Darke and McNamara aren't too bad. McNamara will go on his spouts at times but he's not completely horrible.

Yeah it is different. ESPN get the early game out here. You can tell McManaman (not McNamara) still has a soft spot for Liverpool, but he doesn't come across too biased he just gets excited talking about Gerrard and Fowler if ever their names come up.

The Fox Soccer Channel has some pretty poor pundits, and Burley is one of them.