Some things never change, especially in the game we all love, and the derivation of it known as ‘top class football’ is no exception. For instance, on the European scene take Barca, always looked upon approvingly, like a bringer of bounteous possession, only ever regarded as pleasing, never dull and repetitive. By comparison, but equally true, Real gorge on every gourmet Galactico going without recrimination, safe in the knowledge that blind eyes are forever turned (at the mention of cost) when Madrid are the statement of intent-makers. Then there’s Bayern, brooking no comparison on either front, with serious domestic opposition simply nonexistent (just ask Jurgen Klopp) and efficiency, aligned to an inflated opinion of the club’s organisational ability, providing a readymade, typically Germanic backdrop whenever their achievements are on display.

The same [never change] thing can be said of our domestic football too, although in recent years there has been a growing need for a skewing of media output in order to maintain this status quo, as evidenced by coverage of three of the [so called] top clubs in Premiership history. The Scousers will always have ‘special nights’, even if they end up playing Barnsley in the Championship, in front of one man, and his dog - it’s a media given. Likewise, the Gunners will always enthral everybody with their unique brand of passing, although debate on whether it gets them anywhere is another matter entirely - it’s a media given. And United, we are told ad nauseam, will never relinquish their hold on the ’Best Supported Club In The World’ award come 7th place in the league, or what may be even lower. The team is also, allegedly, blessed with eternal youth after drinking at the Class of 92 well [of self-congratulation] for so long, despite records showing it has long since dried up and is frequently replenished by foreign bottled water, without mention of regret or reproach - it’s a media given.

So apologies, Shed Enders, for this long preamble, but I have, at last, come to the point of issue for me and, even though it may not be one for the rest of you, here’s hoping you appreciate the passion inherent in my cause - promoting at least one new Chelsea ’given’ to replace the old, grossly unfair and irrelevant ones we have been saddled with in the past. Indeed, unflattering examples are easy to recall and as difficult to understand as the current batch, which ranges from lowly ’bus parkers’ to [at best] ’disciplined counter-attackers’. Back then (was it really a decade ago?) Jose took the Roman road to his first of two Premiership titles, storming the ramparts, but once inside only to be treated to a volley of derision from scribbling villagers anxious to find a deflating nickname or two. ‘Boringly efficient’ was the peasant cry, closely followed by chants of ’ruthless’ and ’disciplined’ and, as if that was not enough damnation by faint praise, ’enemy of football’ soon found its way into the tabloids and on to many a newscast.

Moreover, from the fans viewpoint, what we’ve witnessed in the intervening years has been no real mellowing of perception of our club. In Carlo’s double-winning days we were about as far removed from any sort of ’Entertainers’ epithet as Stoke City were then, and are now. Little wonder our subsequent Champions League triumph received even shorter shrift and nothing by way of glorification in the media, unless you appreciate the ‘desperate defenders’ tag stitched into almost every newspaper article, like a badge of dishonour. In short, the media in this country simply does not want to know, or write, or talk about Chelsea success in any shape or form. Club preferences for these news bearers are set in stone, and where we are concerned that preference it is to highlight the bad and disparage the good whenever possible - and when it isn’t, make it so.

This team already deserves better treatment than its getting, but the fallout from Sunday’s game is a classic of its kind because, at international break time, when plenty of space could have been put to one side to analyse the respective states of play of both teams in some depth, nothing has been written, nor spoken praising our high standard of play or, stranger still, Arsene Wenger’s particularly poor standard of behaviour. But is it really THAT strange for the British press to act in this fashion - sitting on its hands instead of typing with balance and neutrality aforethought? Presented with undoubted proof that this Chelsea slate needs wiping clean and words of admiration scrawled all over it describing the current complete package, these messengers have singularly failed in their duty, delivering instead snippets of controversy more suited to gossip magazines. We’ve all heard of the comfort blanket, but it’s the controversy blanket that’s being used extensively here, by hacks to dampen down any fires of enthusiasm for Jose’s latest creation.

In short, an immediate reversion to controversy becomes the ’given’ of choice for Chelsea when we’re this good and threatening to display upgrade tendencies for the rest of the season. Editorial teams en bloc seemingly said - why eulogise about Chelsea’s team performances when we can major on doubts cast on the medical staff over a head injury? I ask you, the nerve of these people to even venture down the road of criticism after lambasting Jose’s [justifiable] highlighting of deficiencies at Reading, when Petr was hunted down. Where was the forensic press inquiry into such matters back then? Noticeable by its absence for sure, whereas at the weekend it served a useful purpose, keeping a controversy pot boiling after it had been [in all probability] deliberately stirred by Wenger exceeding his own boiling point. Of course, he will survive this further humiliation, aided and abetted by an enforced silence for him and a drowning out of our performance, as controversy surrounds us yet again.

Nobody can predict our Premiership and Champions League fate with any degree of accuracy, but, when judgement is made in print and on screen, any success is set to be shrouded more in controversy than magical mystery. Whilst some things never change, be it invincible or not, picturesquely passable or not, historical or not, whatever the soubriquet, let it at least be honest in its assessment and universally used, with ’The Controversials’ finally consigned to the cutting room floor.

Interesting post. Agree with some, disagree with some. I think our Champions League success (notably the Semi Final and Final) was mainly heralded as a triumph of stout defence and determination, which I think is a pretty accurate description.

 

I agree that our attacking football often goes uncredited - we scored more goals than Arsenal last year but they get the credit for playing attacking football, mainly because games against Liverpool we did park the bus (and won) while they went out to win and lost 5-1 I think it was. I'm not sure why that is praiseworthy for them.

Edited October 10, 201411 yr by RichardCFC

Well written piece there, and at some stage have felt all of what you have said. Although we have to accept some of the criticism leveled at us.

 

Jose has invited the media's bad feeling onto himself so as to deflect it from the team. This reflects on the club, it really does, and so any chance to drive the nail in they will take it. Whether it's our medical staff, our spending, our tactics, our loan system, our success (or lack of) or our transfer policy, we will rarely be given credit. It's not all down to Jose but he is the pantomime villain in their eyes , things as the latest not shaking hands at the end of the game are exaggerated somewhat (although I don't agree with him, what's wrong with waiting til the end ?) but it's Jose Mourinho Chelsea manager, not plain old Jose Mourinho.

 

In fairness to him on the Arsene Wenger thing he has made no effort to amplify the confrontation, something I'm sure wouldn't have been afforded to him or us as a club if the hands were on the other chest so to speak.

 

We have never been the darlings of the media, never will be. You can write a list as long as your arm of the supposed journo's who put their names to pieces of personal opinion they claim as fact, which tend to be littered with such bias it makes you wonder how their employers can stand over and print such tripe.

 

My solution to it ? Don't read it, don't buy it, don't bite. If at the end of this season we achieve something big, I will run amok laughing the loudest, longest.

 

It could be a hell of a lot worse, we could be any of the others with their holes getting licked achieving f**k all.

 

KTBFFH.

Are all of your posts about the media's perception of Chelsea Dorset? I've read a few and they all seem to have that theme.

 

Are all of your posts about the media's perception of Chelsea Dorset? I've read a few and they all seem to have that theme.

Not all, George, but I confess that in recent years many have been about how others see us rather than how we see ourselves, which makes up, almost by definition, 99% of the [football] content on sites such as The Shed End. In my defence, a starting point like this generally expands to include other club matters, the youth set-up, the Academy and player advancement into the first team being an example. Even in this last piece I was tempted to include [where mention is made of United’s ’eternal youth’] the fact that Roman’s expansion of this sector of the club has also been virtually ignored by those that criticised the policy we adopted at the outset (referred to as ’buying the title) yet now, when FFP is adhered to and we look forward to reaping the benefits of almost a decade of youth development, nothing is known about it outside of our own environment. If anything, the inferior exploits of failing youth systems at United, City and Liverpool have received more favourable coverage than our own, despite our winning of FA Youth Cups and Under 20 and 21 trophies. A few days ago the Daily Telegraph predicted the England team for Quatar in 2022 and there wasn’t a single Chelsea player in it. No Blackman, no Chalobah, no Bamford, no Brown, no Solanki, no Baker, no candlestick maker, it was stuffed full of Arsenal, Liverpool and Everton players, with a couple of United rejects thrown in for good measure.

As many have said, the simple solution if you don’t like all this misrepresentation, whether it be in the form of unfair criticism, prejudice or blatant disregard, is not to read newspapers, and I suppose the next step would be not to listen to the commentators and then, finally, give up on the game entirely. But that’s an easy way out, and, if you feel strongly enough about matters and can state a case, a place like the Shed End is invaluable and should be used as a platform for more expansive debate. It isn’t going to happen in this instance, but I had hoped that a wider discussion might have centred on the ’what’s in a name’ aspect of it. Do we mind if Chelsea success is not recognised or reported on as favourably as other clubs during a season or at the end of it? I know I do and it annoys me intensely when I tell the neutrals and John Does of this world that I’m a Chelsea supporter and they reply with lines like ’Oh that’s the club buying all the players, isn’t it?’ or ’Aren’t they run by that Russian oligarch?’ or [if they only have the faintest of ideas about football] ’Don’t they park the bus?’ or ’Couldn’t stand Mourinho’s negative tactics myself’. All thought processes prompted by media misinformation and a damning indictment of the type of coverage Chelsea get in this country [and abroad] since the club has become successful.

Edited October 12, 201411 yr by Dorset

I agree...they do appear to have somewhat of an agenda. I was just asking as I had noted a recurrent theme.

What is worse than the media is the way divs lap it up, believe every word and then regurgitate it down the pub. I recently had a West Ham fan tell me that Chelsea were "atrociously supported" before Abramovich. I kindly pointed out that Chelsea's average attendance the season before he arrived was 39,770...which is higher than West Ham have ever achieved in their entire history.