Blue Daze mate you are boring us, all you ever seem to do is argue with people here, and you have a very bizarre way of thinking for someone who supposedly supports Chelsea, you always seem to have to take the negative side with any controversy.

I am not getting waded into this argument, but I just wanted to say that in case you somehow are not aware of it.

Blue Daze mate you are boring us, all you ever seem to do is argue with people here, and you have a very bizarre way of thinking for someone who supposedly supports Chelsea, you always seem to have to take the negative side with any controversy.

I am not getting waded into this argument, but I just wanted to say that in case you somehow are not aware of it.

 

Fair enough. I assume that's based on my not thinking there's an agenda against this club (although acknowledging that certain writers don't like our manager), saying that I thought Costa's ban was about justified and thinking Ivanovic could've got a ban. Maybe the fact that I think Willian should be contributing more?

 

Or is it based on me saying that Courtois is the second-best keeper in the world, being delighted that Hazard signed a contract extension and saying he could be our best ever player, saying I think Costa is a star, praising Oscar for his continued improvement and defensive workrate, saying Matic is one of the best midfielders in the world, saying Ivanovic is probably the best right-back in the world, loving the sh*t out of Zouma, praising the board's work in meeting FFP whilst improving the squad, sticking up for Lamps because I have a great affinity for legends of this club, acknowledging this club's forward-thinking behaviour in appointing a black DoF and female director whilst also looking to give workers at this club a living wage, giving Willian credit for stepping up in the last game, showing love to the fans for the atmosphere created at the Liverpool game, declaring my admiration for the pre-match light show which is both innovative and exciting and stating that I believe we have one of the finest academies in world football and expressing excitement about the futures of players like Solanke, Boga, Musonda, Loftus-Cheek and Christensen?

 

No offence mate but I think you're being very selective with which if my posts you're choosing to acknowledge. 

 

And with the greatest of respect you know what you can do with your 'supposedly supports Chelsea' comment don't you?

Edited February 13, 201511 yr by Blue Daze

Blue Daze mate you are boring us, all you ever seem to do is argue with people here, and you have a very bizarre way of thinking for someone who supposedly supports Chelsea, you always seem to have to take the negative side with any controversy.

I am not getting waded into this argument, but I just wanted to say that in case you somehow are not aware of it.

 

Also, to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen and his fantastic quote to well-known moron Dan Quayle 

 

Senator, I supported Gianfranco Zola. I met Gianfranco Zola. Gianfranco Zola was an idol of mine. Sir, you're no Gianfranco Zola

Sure you have said some positive things, nice one. What I have seen more of (or which sticks out the most for me recently) are extremely long winded arguments with folk, I dont know where you get the time or energy!

Each to their own.

Edited February 13, 201511 yr by Zola

Sure you have said some positive things, nice one. From what I have seen more of recently is extremely long winded arguments with folk, I dont know where you get the time or energy!

Each to their own.

 

Some positive things? I tend to find the more interesting discussions are the ones where there's an opposing view, which is why the Costa or Hazard or Ivanovic threads are quiet. I go in there and say 'Ivanovic is great' and there's only so many people who can be bothered to say 'yeah, he is'.

 

This thread is semi-interesting because there's a range of views. The simple truth of the matter is that I can have long-winded arguments, I can go a little overboard but in instances where it's got a little boring then I've actually tried to have those conversations in private because it's f**king boring for everyone.

 

Then you get Davey and dkw really trying to take shots at me either bringing up one-sided stuff from other forums or flat out lying about things I've said. That's completely off-topic yet I don't see you bemoaning their posts. Instead you say I take the negative sides with controversy and call me a 'supposed Chelsea supporter'. Not moaning, not letting it needle me simply pointing out the hypocrisy.

 

And once again, if you want to have a pop at me then PM me. This whole 'just letting you know' stuff could've easily been done in private.

Blue daze, you are a good poster. I would like to see you remain on this forum.

My advice, though I'm no one to be advicing anyone, would be to simply ignore the hate, although I understand it's hard not to respond to unfair sh*t. Would make things a lot easier.

Arghh. f**king double post.

I'm going to lose it soon!

Edited February 13, 201511 yr by footballoholic

I always try to keep clear of these type of threads, we all view media reporting differently. As a successful club there will be jealousy, people will want to see us brought down a peg or two , I think back to Leeds in the 70s, Liverpool in the 80s and latterly United since football was invented. People like to see the team at the top fall, its a British tradition. We all hope a new team will challenge but once they get there enjoy the ride as after a few years everyone will relish their fall. Is there a media campaign against us, quite probably by some individuals. Sky for their part dont want to see a one horse race, having spent so much they require as many Super Duper Sundays as they can muster, the Mail needs clicks in this 24 hr world so say what they want and be damned, Talksh*te are another commercial station that require listeners to make money, controversy sells.

So onto the Costa incident, we will never know if it was intentional, strangely the video evidence probably exonerated him more than if the referee had seen it on the day, as only the video could show his eyes firmly on the ball but in accepting the referees interpretation of it he was banned. The same match though had another incident one that was not too dissimilar to the Ivanovic one the other night, when one player clearly put his head into another the result was both shown the yellow card, have you seen one media column asking why a certain Liverpool captain wasnt shown a red that night? I haven't.

 

I always try to keep clear of these type of threads, we all view media reporting differently. As a successful club there will be jealousy, people will want to see us brought down a peg or two , I think back to Leeds in the 70s, Liverpool in the 80s and latterly United since football was invented. People like to see the team at the top fall, its a British tradition. We all hope a new team will challenge but once they get there enjoy the ride as after a few years everyone will relish their fall. Is there a media campaign against us, quite probably by some individuals. Sky for their part dont want to see a one horse race, having spent so much they require as many Super Duper Sundays as they can muster, the Mail needs clicks in this 24 hr world so say what they want and be damned, Talksh*te are another commercial station that require listeners to make money, controversy sells.

So onto the Costa incident, we will never know if it was intentional, strangely the video evidence probably exonerated him more than if the referee had seen it on the day, as only the video could show his eyes firmly on the ball but in accepting the referees interpretation of it he was banned. The same match though had another incident one that was not too dissimilar to the Ivanovic one the other night, when one player clearly put his head into another the result was both shown the yellow card, have you seen one media column asking why a certain Liverpool captain wasnt shown a red that night? I haven't.

 

 

 

 

There's the video mate. 40 seconds in.

 

I've watched it about 5 times and I can't tell whose head goes into the other's. That might just be me taking the negative side of the controversy but to me that's a 50-50 square up isn't it?

 

It's like this tweet by Zabaleta after the City game 

 

 

Well that's because it wasn't half as bad in real time

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adiez2huIZ0

 

 

Also the media made very little of Costa's hands being around his throat from what I recall.

Edited February 13, 201511 yr by Blue Daze

Sure you have said some positive things, nice one. What I have seen more of (or which sticks out the most for me recently) are extremely long winded arguments with folk, I dont know where you get the time or energy!

Each to their own.

 

I like it personally, I love a nice long debate about football. It's good to have different opinions, I think people are mostly annoyed with Blue Daze because he doesn't tend to be bias like a majority, people might think I'm complimenting him a lot there but from my perspective that appears to be the case. But Blue Daze will keep arguing his point and back it up then sometimes it can get a little heated, not sure what went on with him and Davey Baby but it seemed to start with the whole media agenda discussion and it hasn't really stopped from there.

 

Nothing much in it, it's a forum, things like that happen, I don't think anything drastic needs to be done on both sides really.

Blue daze, you are a good poster. I would like to see you remain on this forum.

My advice, though I'm no one to be advicing anyone, would be to simply ignore the hate, although I understand it's hard not to respond to unfair sh*t. Would make things a lot easier.

When first on here I made a few mistakes, some weren't understanding, not realising I was getting familiar with the site mechanics and, for me, a new form of communicating; I just blocked a couple of folk.

Who said that!!!??

I like it personally, I love a nice long debate about football. It's good to have different opinions, I think people are mostly annoyed with Blue Daze because he doesn't tend to be bias like a majority, people might think I'm complimenting him a lot there but from my perspective that appears to be the case. But Blue Daze will keep arguing his point and back it up then sometimes it can get a little heated, not sure what went on with him and Davey Baby but it seemed to start with the whole media agenda discussion and it hasn't really stopped from there.

 

Nothing much in it, it's a forum, things like that happen, I don't think anything drastic needs to be done on both sides really.

It's just not on that lads supporting Chelsea should bicker so. There are more important things. Most on here can offer differing views without it being too personal.

Come on guys, please draw a line and be civil to each other.

Let's be fair.

The title is actually

NEIL ASHTON: Yobbish and boorish, Chelsea's bench are like the Dog & Duck at chucking out time. Mourinho and his coaching team's behaviour will taint any title triumph that comes their way

It's Neil Ashton's views.

There are two other big stories on that page.

Manchester United are miserable! Paul Scholes 'struggling to watch' Louis van Gaal's joyless Reds

Four years on from his greatest United goal, Rooney is being turned into a poor man's Carrick by Van Gaal... so, how long will he stand being stuck in defensive midfield?

There's also a Jeff Powell article with the headline

The Premier League is not a sporting competition - it's a £10m-a-game circus, morally bankrupt until it meets the living wage for workers

And it contains within it this small nugget

Chelsea take a great deal of flak these days – not least their manager Jose Mourinho – but in this issue they are setting an example which should embarrass their 19 Premier League rivals.

Chelsea alone have contracted to meet, at least, the basic demand of the Living Wage Foundation.

Yet a while back certain people were happy to take a similar line out of a Charlie Sale article to show that the Mail was biased against us. You can't have it both ways. The simple fact is that newsrooms are made up of human beings, each with a different set of views. That produce enough content that you'll be able to find enough evidence to fit whichever agenda you want them to.

Sweetie, when I copy and pasted the headline I did so from start to finish, I did not leave anything out. Whether they edited it later to add his name first is irrelvent, when I copied it - that's how it was. Just saying, if I'm going to be corrected and accused of seeking an agenda, I can't leave out what wasn't there.

I agree with Footballoholic, for what it's worth. 

You wouldnt eat a sh*t sandwich if it was offered for free, why give the Mail any attention

Whilst you make a good point, not the nicest of ways of putting it..! But they still do decent news articles but my home page is set on the sport so I always see what the main headline is when I click on it.

Sadly I'm the same Gem.

I know it's a gutter rag but I still read the Sport section online every other day.

It was hard last season as it was Liverpool fest.

This thread is very interesting, trouble is the posts are so bloody long, BD you make some very intelligent and intellectual musings btw,

Getting to the crux of the matter, the picture on the back of the mail or the sun, can't quite remember, doesn't show Brana in a good light, the kid is nearly popping from going purple, so I am interested as to why the FA didn't ban him on a premeditated choke, but banned Costa on the assumption he meant to cause an injury??

He was purple because he was in a fury and trying to get to a player.

Ivan didn't have him in a sleeper hold for goodness sake :D

Sadly I'm the same Gem.

I know it's a gutter rag but I still read the Sport section online every other day.

It was hard last season as it was Liverpool fest.

Very true, bloody fantastic when they cocked it up though right?

This is all a bit exhausting. Someone rattles off a couple of hundred words of conjecture- someone else disagrees and fires back with amother 300 word volley- threats to take it outside- there's too many people disappearing up there own backsides for my liking. I thought all this forum malarky was supposed to be fun?

With a freedom of speech and opinion, that should be respected!!!

This is all a bit exhausting. Someone rattles off a couple of hundred words of conjecture- someone else disagrees and fires back with amother 300 word volley- threats to take it outside- there's too many people disappearing up there own backsides for my liking. I thought all this forum malarky was supposed to be fun?

That's the very point i was trying to make buddy !

Do people really read the news for objective, neutral reporting? Even if you put aside the normal reporting of news stories, most of the stuff people complain about will be editorial or opinion pieces written by featured writers. If you read an article by Joel Stein in Time then that's the opinion of Joel Stein primarily isn't it? So when people talk about the Mail article by Neil Ashton, that's surely his views but you'll also find articles by other journalists.

 

My point throughout this discussion is that the idea of an orchestrated campaign against us would be patently absurd and simply unworkable. You always have prevailing narratives and we don't help ourselves with that. Jose is box office whether he's happy or moody and if you get a reaction from someone when he's moody that people want to read about, then of course you're going to poke him to get that same reaction.

 

Is it lazy? Yes, but it's also entertaining. We can't moan about narratives that we create and this thread is a prime example of that. This thread came a few weeks after Jose said this.

 

He's not an idiot. He wanted people talking about this and he's got it. He drew attention to our decisions and since then some have gone our way (the Ivanovic decision, the Cahill dive) and some haven't. I think it's absurd to expect to have it both ways though. The media has no responsibility to treat all stories the same, give all clubs the same prominence or demand their featured writers have objective, neutral viewpoints. It's an entertainment business. 

 

You do have a point. As much as I bleat on about objective reporting (too much Aaron Sorkin methinks), in reality there is no such thing as a genuinely objective standpoint; everyone is biased one way or another, to different extents, whether they know it or not, and as much as they might try not to be. I suppose to some extent I don't even mind a somewhat biased writer, as long as he or she possesses genuine insight, can relate their bias using humour, and don't simply paint their opinion as fact, without being capable of recognising the limitations of their own perception, a limitation possessed by every single human being in the history of the world.

 

Call me a rhetorical snob, but I just don't like to see paint-by-numbers articles, even if they are praising us, and it very much galls me that the quality writers are now drowned out by a sea of trivial nonsense, designed purely to generate clicks, sales, and hence money. (Huxley wasn't wrong...) For me the entertainment comes from the game itself (and to a lesser extent the banter/celery-throwing with teams I don't like); in my opinion we really don't need a constructed wrestling-style backstory to every game.

 

I suppose I should have phrased it differently - it isn't necessarily calculated, neutral reporting I'm looking for, but quality reporting, and the more that the press caters to the lowest common denominator. Qualitative insight is impossible to measure and impossible to force, but you know it when you see it, and the more we ignore it in favour of nonsense, the rarer it is going to become.

 

This is why I enjoy the tactics writers so much, they for the most part ignore all the sensationalised mess and its limited effect on what happens on the pitch, and concentrate on the actual science of the game. You're never going to learn anything about the nature of football by listening to the endless sea of condemnations and rebuttals which come from the less gifted writers, and those who pretend there is some moral element to top-level football beyond trying with every modicum of effort in a team's psyche and every trick up a player/manager's sleeve to defeat the opposition.

 

The tactics writers (the good ones at least - it's very easy to throw some stats at the wall and pretend that they alone constitute an argument) simply analyse how successful a team was at winning, and describe exactly what it is they did to manage it, but it does require qualitative understanding to manage it, which is why I am so scornful of arguments which are entirely based on whoscored.com. That, for me, is quality football writing - a genuine distillation of 90 minutes of football to acquire the key facts and events of the game, and an appreciation of the footballing narrative, which is wordless.

 

Anyway, I feel like I'm veering away from the point here - my fundamental argument was that I don't believe there is a genuine co-ordinated effort to throw us off our game (which we seem to agree on). If there is a numerical disrepancy between positive articles and negative articles about Chelsea (which there may well be) it is only because it makes them money.

 

I think you are right that José knows exactly what he is doing in terms of creating a narrative, but I'm not sure he particularly cares what it is, I think he just enjoys the cloud cover he gets to actually do his job while the press are squabbling about a complete non-issue that he has created himself. It's why it is so enjoyable when he talks about what he actually did to win the game (e.g. "I played so-and-so because he possesses such-and-such a quality") rather than surreptitiously encouraging a false story which does nothing to help us understand the game. I suppose there's an irony in that if there is a genuine campaign to use the media to a certain team's advantage or disadvantage, it is José himself.

 

Then again, if we are still top at the end of the season, I'm sure I won't be complaining...

That's the very point i was trying to make buddy !

I don't think you should limit it to BD though Zola. Davey Baby has also written just as long posts (which I don't have a problem with, personally) and also been rude (right hand comment).