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 bollocks.

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.

All I know is the commentators on ESPN hate our guts.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

Edited October 6, 201213 yr by bluedave

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.

Edited October 6, 201213 yr by KrazyTea

All I know is the commentators on ESPN hate our guts.

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.

In other news, football fan thinks media is "biased against his side"

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

All I know is the commentators on ESPN hate our guts.

They probley got a kicking at the Bridge in years gone by.

They probley got a kicking at the Bridge in years gone by.

Craig Burley looks like someones took offence to his face

Craig Burley looks like someones took offence to his face

Yeah, God.

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.

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.

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.

::clap2:: Good post fella.

Alan

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.

We are perhaps fortunate that that is probably very true.

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.

I don't think that is entirely true. Lampard yes, and to be honest there is actually very little negative press regarding Lampard (relatively speaking) so I don't think he fits into the same category as Cole and JT. However COle and JT haven't really helped themselves over the course of their career. They have been involved in enough seif induced controversy to make them easy targets for the media and, to some extent, only have themselves to blame for becoming dogs to be beaten.

Thet they are England internationals (or were in the case of JT), playing for a successful high profile club, obviously makes the media more inclined to magnify any story about them however very few of the stories about them are totally devoid of some truth.

Terry has the Heathrow incident, the bouncer incident (yes I know he was cleared in the end), parking in a disabled spot, the reporter in the training ground incident, the affair, and now the Rio issue.

Cole the whole leaving Arsenal arguments (not just the alleged money demands but also the tapping up row), alleged affairs on multiple occasions, multiple speeding offences, gobbing off at a copper, the air rifle incident and now the Twitter row.

More than enough in those two lists for any high profile footballer to become an easy target for the media and most of them entirely avoidable.

I know we like to think that the media have it in for us way more than any other club but I would wager that if you go on to the forums of most other big clubs then there will be plenty of fans of those clubs who feel the same way. Just asmkost fans think they get the worst of it with regard to big decisions by refs.

I would agree that Rio got off very lightly regarding the drug incidnt however Rooney was hauled through the media regarding his 'granny issue' however the big difference is the number of incidents.

You're quite right, Frank Lampard granted hasn't had anywhere near the amount of negative press as the other two, and the only real reason I had for lumping all three players together was that I was doing so in response to a previous post. I should have explained myself a little better, in Frank's case the negativity is not so much from the press as opposition fans. There was a time when England fans would regularly boo Frank Lampard.. And then there was (and still is) the whole "Fat Frank" thing which I never fully understood, but appears to have originated with the unreasoning bitterness of West Ham fans following his departure from Upton Park, and may have also been connected to the old Lampard/Gerrard arguments, who's better, can they play together and so on.

Looking again at John Terry vs Rio Ferdinand, taking into account the two incidents that have cost John Terry the England captaincy. The first, an alleged affair with the ex-girlfriend of an ex-team mate, frequently misreported to this day as "sleeping with his best friend's wife". The most direct comparision here is with Ryan Giggs. Despite the factual affair with his brother's wife - there were few if any calls for Ryan Giggs to be stripped of the Team GB Captaincy.

Rio Ferdinand by all accounts has been no slouch himself when it comes to sleeping around. This is of no real interest to me, neither was John Terry's supposed affair with Vanessa Peroncel,. aside from the effect that the episode had on the perfomance of John Terry and the team as a whole.

The second of these, well let's get it straight. Trial by Youtube resulting in a court case and an FA Tribunal based on an incident that nobody on the pitch was aware of at the time, that nobody heard. To my way of thinking the Rio Ferdinand "choc ice" incident was far more blatantly racist.

I'm quite convinced that resentment among Man U fans and Liverpool fans at Rio Ferdinand and Steven Gerrard respectively being "overlooked" for the England Captaincy is a major contributory factor to the way John Terry is repeatedly villified and demonised in the media. Not that he helps himself, but the man himself - according to people who actually know him - is nowhere near as black as he is painted.

Ashley Cole v Wayne Rooney. Again you could pick and choose. The airgun incident for example, was undeniably stupid. But I do believe that had the situations been reversed, had Wayne Rooney been a Chelsea player, and Ashley Cole gone to Old Trafford, that the weight of negative publicity would also been reversed.

I would also argue that in general, the biggest difference is the publicity given to the number of incidents.

I'll emphasise again that this is not down to anti-Chelsea feeling so much as pro-Man U sentiment.There are simply far more Man U (and Liverpool fans come to that) both in the media and indeed worldwide, and so it's all too easy to get the impression that they are out to get us, whereas in fact, the press being only human (although I grant you there is plenty of evidence to support the opposite) will naturally tend to favour the team they support.

Terry has the Heathrow incident, the bouncer incident (yes I know he was cleared in the end), parking in a disabled spot, the reporter in the training ground incident, the affair, and now the Rio issue.

Cole the whole leaving Arsenal arguments (not just the alleged money demands but also the tapping up row), alleged affairs on multiple occasions, multiple speeding offences, gobbing off at a copper, the air rifle incident and now the Twitter row.

More than enough in those two lists for any high profile footballer to become an easy target for the media and most of them entirely avoidable.

More money than sense these footballers. However they're not the only ones. Far worse goes on. You just don't get to hear about it. For me, there is a clear anti-Chelsea agenda in the media which means our guys are targeted whereas a blind eye is often turned towards others' indiscretions.

I know we like to think that the media have it in for us way more than any other club but I would wager that if you go on to the forums of most other big clubs then there will be plenty of fans of those clubs who feel the same way. Just asmkost fans think they get the worst of it with regard to big decisions by refs.

We get far more stick than any other club, that's just a fact. As a recent example, the Observer devoted the whole of the front page of their sports section to an editorial calling for us to sack Terry and Ashley Cole. Ignoring the court trial they took their lead from the report compiled by the FA's "independent" inquiry. Terry was banned for 4 games Suarez for 8. If they are going to take their lead from FA "independent" inquiries, one would have thought they would have called for Liverpool to sack Suarez. Instead, only weeks earlier, the Observer's sister paper the Guardian published an interview with Suarez in which they attempted to depict him in an altogether more sympathetic light. That's right, Suarez. He bites he scratches he dives. He calls people "negro". Seven times.

Rio Ferdinand was recently found guilty of breaching FA rules with regard to race. The object of his ire was Ashley Cole This was before the "independent" inquiry's report. That did not stop the Guardian or any other newspaper for that matter campaigning to bring Ferdinand back into the England fold, despite the fact the object of his ire and the victim of his racial slur was in the England squad himself. They never asked what Ashley Cole might think about it, they never said Ferdinand was guilty of an offence relating to race. They just said bring him back. They didn't even mention the fact he's sh*t.

If the Observer is so against racism and believes being found guilty is worthy of a sacking, why didn't thery mention Ferdinand in their editorial and why are they so keen for him to play for England? Ashley Cole faces no punishment nor any charge regarding the evidence he gave regarding Terry, yet according to them he should be sacked, and the person who was charged and punished for using a racial slur against him should be brought back into the England fold. That's right. Seriously. I'm not making this up.

In effect the Observer are asking for the FA to ban players caught racially abusing another to be banned for life. They're not asking Chelsea to sack them just so they can go and find another club to play for, are they? If they can't play for Chelsea I presume they don't want them playing for anybody else, so why don't they just ask the FA to change its rules, rather than calling for Chelsea (and nobody else) to sack their players. Only Chelsea. Not Man Utd not Liverpool. Chelsea. Unlike those Man Utd and Liverpool players I mention, John Terry is not guilty according to the law of the land, a little fact that the Observer chose not to pay too much heed to. That's right, there was sufficient doubt for a magistrate but not for the Observer. Unlike those Liverpool and Man Utd players I mention Cole hasn't even been charged for his supposed crime. That's right, he hasn't even breached a rule. Sack them and sack them now. Are you telling me our players don't come in for special treatment?

John Terry has been banned by the FA for 4 games and given a fine. That's his punishment. The Observer aren't asking for him to serve his punishment learn from his mistakes and move on. They are trying to deny him his livelihood. Other players have served time for sexual offences, for violent offences and for killing someone in a hit-and-run. Those players are all currently employed by English clubs. Where is the Observer editorial about them? Is calling someone a FBC on a football pitch worse than killing someone in a hit-and-run, worse than sexual assault? No. Is a racial slur worse than a homophobic slur? No. I'm still to see the Observer editorial about Robbie Fowler ..

Sorry loz, I usually concur with your posts, but anyone who thinks there isn't a clear anti-Chelsea agenda in the media is well wide of the mark in my opinion.

If there's an "agenda" then the agenda is one of catering to the lowest common denominator. It's simply that we are an easy target and are likely to remain so for the foreseable future, certainly for as long as we continue to be successful.

Why aren't Man U players targeted in the same fashion? Very possibly because they're part of some nebulous "establishment", for want of a better description. Liverpool and Man U, don't forget, were both founding members of the now defunct G14, subsequently G18. Arsenal joined in 2002. We were never invited.

Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool. We were already challenging the establishment prior to the Abramovich era, but when Abramovich bought the club, we smashed that cozy little cartel and did so with a vengeance. We upset the apple cart, destroyed the status quo and pushed the likes of Liverpool (ok especially Liverpool) further down the pecking order.

Remember when Uefa described Jose Mourinho and by implication, Chelsea FC, as "the enemy of football?" He was almost right. We were never the enemy of football, but we were and remain, the enemy of the artificially self-perpetuating footballing "elite" as represented by G18.

Then you have the fear factor. From the word go there was a fear that Abramovich's billions would enable us to build on what we already had and blow any possible opposition out of the water. Hence the increasingly desperate predictions that we'd be left high and dry when Abramovich got bored and walked away.

The final ingredient, not to be underestimated, is plain old fashioned jealousy. And it is this that is at the heart of much of the spite, much of the malice directed our way. It's what's behind such accusations as "plastic", "soulless", "rich man's toy", "not a proper club". "no sporting merit". "no history" - each one of which can be very easily disproved, very easily shown up as hypocritical nonsense, based on the same old fear, bitterness and jealousy.

Winning the Champions League for many non-Chelsea fans, Arsenal especially, was the final straw. But also Liverpool and Man U. So the argument went: "You're not a big club, not part of Europe's elite, until you've won the Champions League." Now that we've finally won the thing, they're attempting to diminish the achievement. It was the same in 2005. "It took you 50 years to win the league, it'll be another 50 years before you win it again. And you'll never win the double. Not a proper double." We've done that too.

And so the insults continue, full of braggadocio, born of fear and jealousy. Bitter jealous people attempting to console themselves. Man U after a trophyless season, Liverpool after yet another year away from their last title, Arsenal raving bloody mad because of their ludicrous belief that they "deserved" to be the first London club to win the Champions League, and fans of any number of other clubs playing follow my leader jumping on the bandwagon.

All of this still doesn't equate to anti-Chelsea bias. Granted it often feels that way but there is a difference, if only in origin. Bear in mind that Man City are already getting a taste of the same kind of nonsense we've endured for the past decade.

There's yet another put down that has us as "Millwall with money". And yet we don't have proper fans, so they say. The knockers want it all ways. It's pathetic, it really is, an entire mythology of Chelsea Football Club based on nothing more than fear, bitterness and envy that says a lot about human nature, none of it complimentary.