Droogba, no its not. But we`ll have to agree to disagree.

Droogba, no its not. But we`ll have to agree to disagree.

 

 

You might at least buy him a pint, Dicky!  

Droogba, no its not. But we`ll have to agree to disagree.

 

Enjoy the rest of the season 

I'm sorry if I've offended anyone, I won't do it again

I'm sorry if I've offended anyone, I won't do it again

 

 

yeah, right!

Ah you guys, you're such fun, but you forgot to insult our dear lady's quilting.

Ah you guys, you're such fun, but you forgot to insult our dear lady's quilting.

 

Is that a euphemism?

Is that a euphemism?

No, do you want it to be ;)

No, do you want it to be ;)

 

 

Not if it involves insults!

Moi has extremely satisfying quilting!

Moi has extremely satisfying quilting!

 

 

You're a daft mare, Yorkley!

I give a f**k.

 

Fair enough. Just think it's a little uncalled for but we'll have to agree to disagree. 

I don't listen to any talk radio stations, buy newspapers, or watch the news. When the half time whistle goes I change the channel and turn it back at the start of the second half, then the as soon as the final whistle goes the TV is off. The way I see it is the game is done and all the decisions that have been made cant be changed. The Sky team speak utter sh*te and always will. Souness would have been glassing people in pubs if he wasn't a footballer. He has the worlds biggest chip on his shoulder.

That is probally the best way to enjoy a win or get over a defeat, if you can not get to a live game (which I have not been able to since damaging my leg some 12 weeks ago) where there is no commentators or pundits to give there biased opinions, and just winding you up which a majority of them have done, since I can only watch on TV at moment.

I will admit to reading the Daily Mail which I know many on here think is a terrible paper, but I belive Martin Samuel is a very good sports reporter, who tells it as

it is & not how the masses would like it to be.

That is probally the best way to enjoy a win or get over a defeat, if you can not get to a live game (which I have not been able to since damaging my leg some 12 weeks ago) where there is no commentators or pundits to give there biased opinions, and just winding you up which a majority of them have done, since I can only watch on TV at moment.

I will admit to reading the Daily Mail which I know many on here think is a terrible paper, but I belive Martin Samuel is a very good sports reporter, who tells it as

it is & not how the masses would like it to be.

 

I tend to just stick with what I know is good, insightful commentary. That generally means reading Pat Nevin's views on the tactical sides of the game, listening to Neville and Carragher on Sky, occasionally some Hoddle, Souness and Le Tissier and when it comes to newspapers I generally stick to the Henry Winters and Martin Samuels of this world. 

 

Sports reporting seems to be going the route of sensationalism over substance though, simply because they recognised a while back that you get more views/clicks from saying something inflammatory or outrageous that people then share with their mates, rather than saying something insightful and I think there's evidence on here. People seem to like having an avenue to express their outrage, so some aspects of the media give them something to be outraged about. 

 

It's like when you read the Mail's comments section (which I feel awful about too ) and see people moaning about the website posting the article....well you've clicked through so it's done it's job.

 

We're not far away from a situation like the one on ESPN where there's a show called First Take dedicated to seeing which of the two morons can say the most outrageous thing. It'd get views.

I will admit to reading the Daily Mail which I know many on here think is a terrible paper, but I belive Martin Samuel is a very good sports reporter, who tells it as

it is & not how the masses would like it to be.

I read the mail (on line) as it's probably the best app and still free.

It does annoy me at times though, because sadly Martin Samuel is not their only (so called) football reporter. Just about all of the others are generally negative toward us. Except, of course, at that start of this season, when they were bulling us up as the new Invincibles, hoping we'd fail.

Read an article in the Sun today (I know it's a sh*te paper) written by Thierry Henry about how Fabregas will always be a red for him and at the end of the article is he says "Hopefully, the moment Arsenal beat Chelsea is today". Is that been objective? In his position on Sky Sports shouldn't be try to be more objective? Even if he is ex Arsenal in his job he should try to be more objective.

Read an article in the Sun today (I know it's a sh*te paper) written by Thierry Henry about how Fabregas will always be a red for him and at the end of the article is he says "Hopefully, the moment Arsenal beat Chelsea is today". Is that been objective? In his position on Sky Sports shouldn't be try to be more objective? Even if he is ex Arsenal in his job he should try to be more objective.

i think the media generally try to treat every club equally... unless it's chelsea, in which case their attitude is "ah f**k it, 95% of our readers hate chelsea as much as we do so we won't get many complaints"

Mirror readers' poll, 37% Chelsea win, 13% draw and 50% thought Arsenal would win. This and the above confirms the state of Red Tops and (some of) their readers.

MOTD Extra quite refreshing on TV right now. Positives galore towards Jose, Chelsea, Hazard, and Fabregas.

Read an article in the Sun today (I know it's a sh*te paper) written by Thierry Henry about how Fabregas will always be a red for him and at the end of the article is he says "Hopefully, the moment Arsenal beat Chelsea is today". Is that been objective? In his position on Sky Sports shouldn't be try to be more objective? Even if he is ex Arsenal in his job he should try to be more objective.

But he's writing for The Sun, not Sky. And he's writing as someone is Arsenal through and through. I wouldn't expect, or want, him to say anything else because then that would be insincere.

Read an article in the Sun today (I know it's a sh*te paper) written by Thierry Henry about how Fabregas will always be a red for him and at the end of the article is he says "Hopefully, the moment Arsenal beat Chelsea is today". Is that been objective? In his position on Sky Sports shouldn't be try to be more objective? Even if he is ex Arsenal in his job he should try to be more objective.

 

An Arsenal legend talking up Arsenal in his own personal column, that he probably doesn't even write anyway. Don't really have a huge problem with that. I'd expect/hope for the same amount of bias from Lampard or Drogba. I'll be much more annoyed if today Sky can't muster a single pundit who isn't loudly cheering on Arsenal.

I thought he was pretty good on Sky after the game

I thought he was pretty good on Sky after the game

Apart from it taking him a week to get a sentence out he said some really good things, I was glad to see him tear into Ozil. Why do Arsenal fans put up with him? He offers nothing.

I thought Carjacker, Henry and Soooooooness spoke really well, especially TH, he is immensely jealous Arsenal haven't the football nous we have, i think he has lost faith with le Professor!!!

The commentary team and pundit team on NBC (Lee Dixon, Graeme Le Saux, Arlo White) were all adamant that we should have had two or three penalties, and brought it up repeatedly, especially Dixon, who you would have expected to be the most pro-Arsenal of the lot (not that I generally have an especially great amount of respect for his opinion). They were pretty unrelenting in their praise of us as well. The 'campaign' against Chelsea doesn't seem to have crossed the Atlantic just yet...