The "do they mean us?" thread pt 2

[Footballwipe]

Must admit, AFTV is a fun watch when they lose. Target an opposition individual, blame the referee. Shout, scream, overreact, play up to your on-screen persona. It's a guilty pleasure. Except when it's against your team and you have a vested interest.

 

It's just not worth watching or getting wound up by. 

 

As for the broadcasters. Well, any semblance of neutrality ended when they realised clicks, clips internet talk and the size of support really was what mattered most. They go with the wind and a resurgent Arsenal under Arteta will do them good numbers and engagement, so heap the praise on them.

 

We get a good portion of praise when we were on that winning streak, in the UCL, winning the title. We do get a good narrative sometimes. Unfortunately you can't compete with a team on the up, us on the down and an ever-increasing hunger to keep big team's supporters happy.

 

I'd be interested to know what the World Feed commentary is like. Drury & Townsend on it yesterday. We mocked them on ITV years ago but they're bloody good on the World Feed. Would love to have an option to dial that in instead of BT and Sky, sometimes.

[davieG]

11 minutes ago, turtmcfly said:

I've only got to point 6 of this, but already I've got the 'you've seen us play twice, haven't you' vibes...

 

https://www.football365.com/news/arsenal-1-1-leicester-city-16-conclusions-martinez-nketiah-vardy

From that article

 

11) No arguments at all with the red card. It was an accident and nobody could argue any intent, but that isn’t the law anymore. Catching an opponent that high and with the studs instead of the boot will always result in a red card, especially in the VAR age, when a referee can see James Justin’s leg buckle like that in slow motion.

It’s a sending-off. All day, every day.

 

12) No, the Vardy-Mustafi tangle in the first half wasn’t a sending-off. That too was an accident and, yes, it also ended with dangerous contact, but it was a completely different sort of incident.

The law is admittedly vague, but the guide is in the past precedents: we know from how it has been refereed before that the Nketiah tackle was worthy of dismissal, whereas Vardy’s flailing leg is – not always, but more often than not – the kind of contact just accepted as an accident and not even deemed a booking.

Some will see a double standard there, but that would feel disingenuous; they were different and they deserved to be punished as such.

[turtmcfly]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

From that article

 

11) No arguments at all with the red card. It was an accident and nobody could argue any intent, but that isn’t the law anymore. Catching an opponent that high and with the studs instead of the boot will always result in a red card, especially in the VAR age, when a referee can see James Justin’s leg buckle like that in slow motion.

It’s a sending-off. All day, every day.

 

12) No, the Vardy-Mustafi tangle in the first half wasn’t a sending-off. That too was an accident and, yes, it also ended with dangerous contact, but it was a completely different sort of incident.

The law is admittedly vague, but the guide is in the past precedents: we know from how it has been refereed before that the Nketiah tackle was worthy of dismissal, whereas Vardy’s flailing leg is – not always, but more often than not – the kind of contact just accepted as an accident and not even deemed a booking.

Some will see a double standard there, but that would feel disingenuous; they were different and they deserved to be punished as such.

 

 

Hmmm. There's a Two Ronnies sketch in there...

 

My issue with F365 is their writers' pretence that they've seen any of the teams outside of the Clickbait 6 play more than a few times. The odd in-game occurrence, along with the team's trajectory, is extrapolated to create a faux position on a particular player's form. It's a less honest version of the 'Leicester are a counter-attacking team' form of shite punditry, which they hypocritically laugh at. A proper 'expert' might have mentioned e.g. that it was our first unforced outing with a back 3.

 

Of course, if there's a general feeling on here that Soyuncu has been poor over 'the last 6 months'(!) then I'll go for a long walk in the rain with my Gaulouises/trench coat combination

 

 

 

Edited 8 July 2020 by turtmcfly
typo wypo

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

37 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

Must admit, AFTV is a fun watch when they lose. Target an opposition individual, blame the referee. Shout, scream, overreact, play up to your on-screen persona. It's a guilty pleasure. Except when it's against your team and you have a vested interest.

 

It's just not worth watching or getting wound up by. 

 

As for the broadcasters. Well, any semblance of neutrality ended when they realised clicks, clips internet talk and the size of support really was what mattered most. They go with the wind and a resurgent Arsenal under Arteta will do them good numbers and engagement, so heap the praise on them.

 

We get a good portion of praise when we were on that winning streak, in the UCL, winning the title. We do get a good narrative sometimes. Unfortunately you can't compete with a team on the up, us on the down and an ever-increasing hunger to keep big team's supporters happy.

 

I'd be interested to know what the World Feed commentary is like. Drury & Townsend on it yesterday. We mocked them on ITV years ago but they're bloody good on the World Feed. Would love to have an option to dial that in instead of BT and Sky, sometimes.

 

Good god, Peter Drury and his amateur theatrics can get in the bloody bin - he's still better than Tyler, mind.

Tyler seems like the type to walk into a party and go "I'm not gonna do it" full of self-importance despite the fact no one has asked him to do anything - "I'm off duty, I'm not doing it!" again no is bothered, "oh alright then, you've twisted my arm - AND IT'S LIVE!" 

A bit like when Richard Madeley won that award and he thought everyone wanted him to do his Ali G impression

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, turtmcfly said:

 

 

Hmmm. There's a Two Ronnies sketch in there...

 

My issue with F365 their writers' pretense that they've seen any of the teams outside of the Clickbait 6 play more than a few times. The odd in-game occurrence, along with the team's trajectory, is extrapolated to create a faux position on a particular player's form. It's a less honest version of the 'Leicester are a counter-attacking team' form of shite punditry, which they hypocritically laugh at. A proper 'expert' might have mentioned e.g. that it was our first unforced outing with a back 3.

 

Of course, if there's a general feeling on here that Soyuncu has been poor over 'the last 6 months'(!) then I'll go for a long walk in the rain with my Gaulouises/trench coat combination

 

You're telling me you're not won over by such weighty Conclusions as "2. James Maddison didn't play"?

[Guest ttfn]

1 hour ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

 

Good god, Peter Drury and his amateur theatrics can get in the bloody bin - he's still better than Tyler, mind.

Tyler seems like the type to walk into a party and go "I'm not gonna do it" full of self-importance despite the fact no one has asked him to do anything - "I'm off duty, I'm not doing it!" again no is bothered, "oh alright then, you've twisted my arm - AND IT'S LIVE!" 

A bit like when Richard Madeley won that award and he thought everyone wanted him to do his Ali G impression

I think the high-profile commentators are reflective of society more generally.

 

Both Tyler and Clive Tyldsley have come out with some properly era-defining commentary, from “Aguerooooo” to “And Solskjaer has won it”. They have the sound bites that will be played again and again and for decades to come. They fit neatly into a world where everything can be condensed to a 5 second video.

 

Unfortunately for the 90 minute viewer we have to then suffer the tedious narrative they look to weave into the rest of the commentary. Yesterday’s commentary was particularly bad for this. 80 minutes of Arsenal being back followed by 10 minutes of “Leicester haven’t won at arsenal since 1973”. Not actually commentating on the game itself, just narrative, narrative, narrative.

 

If you compare that to Barry Davies’ understated commentary (for example) it is a sign of how things have moved on. I find it frustrating that TV commentators can’t let you experience moments of high drama for yourself but instead have to ram the narrative down your throat for the whole game.

[NZ_Foxile]

This article  and the comments. Bunch of weirdos 

 

https://untold-arsenal.com/archives/82023

[don_danbury]

6 hours ago, mozartfox said:

We really do need to accept our place.  Listening to Talk-shite from the Alps, we were  lucky to steal a point as we were totally out played until the dodgy red-card?

 

Rapidly going off Laura Woods.  And as for Arstita - what a bell-end he is.  Is he going to be called up to the FA for trying to influence the Ref at the VAR screen?

 

Come on Leicester let's gets this done.

they must need their eyes testing because even before the red card it was arsenal who were getting outplayed. they had the first half but certainly not the second. also laura woods is an arsenal fan so her views cannot count.

[davieG]

1 hour ago, ttfn said:

I think the high-profile commentators are reflective of society more generally.

 

Both Tyler and Clive Tyldsley have come out with some properly era-defining commentary, from “Aguerooooo” to “And Solskjaer has won it”. They have the sound bites that will be played again and again and for decades to come. They fit neatly into a world where everything can be condensed to a 5 second video.

 

Unfortunately for the 90 minute viewer we have to then suffer the tedious narrative they look to weave into the rest of the commentary. Yesterday’s commentary was particularly bad for this. 80 minutes of Arsenal being back followed by 10 minutes of “Leicester haven’t won at arsenal since 1973”. Not actually commentating on the game itself, just narrative, narrative, narrative.

 

If you compare that to Barry Davies’ understated commentary (for example) it is a sign of how things have moved on. I find it frustrating that TV commentators can’t let you experience moments of high drama for yourself but instead have to ram the narrative down your throat for the whole game.

Is this because the likes of Barry Davies probably started out doing Radio commentaries he also covered a lot of other sports that only the 'true' fan was interested in. Football has become a sport that a lot of people use vicariously rather than appreciating the skills, stamina and tactics in play.

[Suzie the Fox]

17 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

My nephew plays that stuff ... and he also watches other people playing it. Maybe it's a young person thing.

I watch it on Twitch, especially for the games i play. 

 

Certainly not just a young persons thing  

[Nalis]

4 hours ago, ttfn said:

I think the high-profile commentators are reflective of society more generally.

 

Both Tyler and Clive Tyldsley have come out with some properly era-defining commentary, from “Aguerooooo” to “And Solskjaer has won it”. They have the sound bites that will be played again and again and for decades to come. They fit neatly into a world where everything can be condensed to a 5 second video.

 

Unfortunately for the 90 minute viewer we have to then suffer the tedious narrative they look to weave into the rest of the commentary. Yesterday’s commentary was particularly bad for this. 80 minutes of Arsenal being back followed by 10 minutes of “Leicester haven’t won at arsenal since 1973”. Not actually commentating on the game itself, just narrative, narrative, narrative.

 

If you compare that to Barry Davies’ understated commentary (for example) it is a sign of how things have moved on. I find it frustrating that TV commentators can’t let you experience moments of high drama for yourself but instead have to ram the narrative down your throat for the whole game.

Reminds me a random case of feeling like the crowd was subtlety being told what to do when I was watching world championship snooker live.

 

Won't bore you with player details, etc in case you arent into snooker but at this particular match a few years back one players was leading something like 11-0 in a first to 13 match against a young up and coming player. Like most people, you can watch with earpiece on that feeds into the bbc commentary.

 

Anyway, John Virgo is commentating while this young lad is a couple of pots away from his first frame and Virgo absolutely ruins the whole thing when he says, on numberous occassions something along the lines of 'no doubt the crowd will give him a massive reception here' knowing rightly that most spectators in the crowd can hear him through their earpiece.

 

Smug cvnt probably thought he orchestrated the applause when the crowd would have applauded anyway ffs.

[urban.spaceman]

21 hours ago, NZ_Foxile said:

This article  and the comments. Bunch of weirdos 

 

https://untold-arsenal.com/archives/82023

Amazing article. We've rattled them because we're now a better club than they are and they ****ing know it.

[gerrytaggart]

21 hours ago, NZ_Foxile said:

This article  and the comments. Bunch of weirdos 

 

https://untold-arsenal.com/archives/82023

Is there a more entertaining fan base than Arsenal's??? 

[Jimmy]

https://www.tnp.sg/sports/football/give-leicester-city-more-respect-neil-humphreys

[Spudulike]

11 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

https://www.tnp.sg/sports/football/give-leicester-city-more-respect-neil-humphreys

'Rodgers hasn't yet satisfactorily replaced Maguire'. 

 

[davieG]

13 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

https://www.tnp.sg/sports/football/give-leicester-city-more-respect-neil-humphreys

....and only they can explain why if/when Leeds get promoted they'll be considered before us as well.

 

They should stop using the phrase top/big six and just call them the Media Darlings.

[KingsX]

Just now, davieG said:

They should stop using the phrase top/big six and just call them the Media Darlings.

 

   the Big Money Six would work for me.

[OntarioFox]

I've stopped caring about the "big six" tag. It's a media myth used to feed a narrative to armchair fans that any team needs to be feared in this league.

The fact that they have to keep moving the goalposts to accomodate the North London clubs, both of which are on a clear decline, speaks volumes about how little it actually means. Until Man City muscled in, it was the "Big Four" for a good decade - Man Utd, Arsenal, post-Abramovich Chelsea and Liverpool. And Liverpool were by no means consistent top four finishers until Klopp took charge. They were clinging to that tag by the skin of their teeth with their cup wins - hell, they spent four consecutive years in the 2010s barely qualifying for Europa, and finished 8th in 2011-12.

I accept there are big clubs in this league, but at present the only teams that warrant a "big X" tag are Liverpool and Man City, because they're the only genuine juggernauts mirroring their global reach with anything on the pitch to suggest they're "untouchable". Man Utd are picking up again and, if Solskjær continues this resurgance, they're likely going to be back in the club next year. Same with Chelsea, but they're still rebuilding. A potential new "big four", but with Arsenal replaced by Man City.

I'd say through gritted teeth that Tottenham got their place in the pretend "club" on merit these past few years - consistent top four finishes and a UCL final - but the media are keeping them there based purely on that European run, which even a lot of Spurs fans confess papered over some massive cracks which were beginning to show in their team (a bit like us in 2016-17 I guess?) They have nothing going for them right now besides a shiny new stadium with a cheese room.

But for now, it's a "big two" if anything. The fact that ourselves, Wolves, Sheffield United and even Burnley have gone toe to toe with this elite club and come out on top in recent seasons shows how little there is to fear from them.

The only reason I pay any attention to it is because of the raised likelihood of Vardy scoring against them. He's one goal away from clocking double figures against the "mighty" Arsenal now.
 

 

Edited 9 July 2020 by OntarioFox

[CosbehFox]

I find the sad part of the Big Six narrative is how the media’s tone towards Leicester, Wolves and Sheffield United has got more twisted as the season nears its conclusion. 
 

A league should welcome competition. Not look to underplay it. 
 

Alas the big six get the clicks and the audience. Hence the natural bias occurs 

[Corky]

A league of any substance would welcome variety, unpredictability, intrigue. For some reason the media think we want the status quo. 

 

Yes, Man United and Liverpool will always grab the headlines in the main but Sheffield United or Burnley possibly winning the title, as we did, would bring in a whole new audience.

[CosbehFox]

8 minutes ago, Corky said:

A league of any substance would welcome variety, unpredictability, intrigue. For some reason the media think we want the status quo. 

 

Yes, Man United and Liverpool will always grab the headlines in the main but Sheffield United or Burnley possibly winning the title, as we did, would bring in a whole new audience.

Always find the notion that the bigger clubs believe their dominance will gain a large international audience bewildering.
 

Literally the two biggest leagues in the world with masses audiences - NFL and NBA - have a salary cap! 
 

The 2016 title made football go beyond the back pages. As along as the bigger clubs succeed, the PL stays on the back pages 

Edited 9 July 2020 by Cardiff_Fox

[Koke]

Unfortunately its the nature of the game. I follow the NBA and the basketball media would rather spend gazillion hours talking about the New York Knicks who have been useless for god knows how long rather than better teams with more promising players like Dallas or Portland. 

 

You'd think they would welcome competition, but no.

[silebyboy]

16 minutes ago, Koke said:

Unfortunately its the nature of the game. I follow the NBA and the basketball media would rather spend gazillion hours talking about the New York Knicks who have been useless for god knows how long rather than better teams with more promising players like Dallas or Portland. 

 

You'd think they would welcome competition, but no.

I follow the NBA, and that’s not true at all. 

[Koke]

1 minute ago, silebyboy said:

I follow the NBA, and that’s not true at all. 

 

It kinda is. If the Knicks were located in Memphis nobody would talk about them. Their play off record in the last 2 decades doesn't warrant it. But because they're a big market team they get a ton of media attention. More than Milwaukee, Portland and even the reigning champions Toronto.

[Aus Fox]

Maximum points with 4 games to go. A win this weekend puts us on 62, meaning any dropped points for Wolves or Sheff United Abe we are guaranteed top 5. Spurs play Arsenal and Sheff Utd Play Chelsea so there will be dropped points for teams around us.

Wolves Everton and Man Utd Southampton could be interesting this weekend.
 

Chelsea       72

Leicester     71

Man Utd      70

Wolves        64

Sheff Utd     63

Spurs           61

Arsenal        62

Burnley        61