The "do they mean us?" thread pt 2

[foxinsocks]

25 minutes ago, nwl fox said:

I get what you're saying Geoff, but the issue isn't them not talking about us, it's the fact that when they do the conversation invariably goes in one direction. It should be possible for them to talk about us without it having to be a conversation about which clubs should be buying who. I know it's not always the case but you've got to admit there's a lot of pundits out there that will only talk about us in that context. 

Agree.  Lazy commentators are obsessed with james Madison... and Brendans tractical nouse

[ARTY_FOX]

I dont mind being ignored. More fool them. Sundays coverage of our game by sky however was nothing short of disgraceful 

Edited 5 January 2021 by ARTY_FOX

[AjcW]

20 hours ago, davieG said:

The thing with Forest is that Nottingham for whatever reason is considered bigger and more interesting (Robin Hood) by the media and the Government.

 

So they naturally or unnaturally attract more interest, government funding and preferential consideration. The Football Club therefore picks up some of that interest/bias.

 

 

To be fair Davie, it's bigger and until the recent Broadmarsh debacle, was considerably better from a well planned out city point of view. Even with that it looks like the council is coming up with some good ideas to rectify the issue.

All the sports stadia are in one place, and all incredibly easy to get to, including one of the most impressive cricket grounds in the country, so it was always going to be looked at favorably for gov sporting grants. 

 

Even the two Uni's, despite being strikingly similar to the Leicester ones, are streets ahead in terms of the way they are perceived.

 

Oh and our manager has just moved there  

[davieG]

4 minutes ago, AjcW said:

To be fair Davie, it's bigger and until the recent Broadmarsh debacle, was considerably better from a well planned out city point of view. Even with that it looks like the council is coming up with some good ideas to rectify the issue.

All the sports stadia are in one place, and all incredibly easy to get to, including one of the most impressive cricket grounds in the country, so it was always going to be looked at favorably for gov sporting grants. 

 

Even the two Uni's, despite being strikingly similar to the Leicester ones, are streets ahead in terms of the way they are perceived.

 

Oh and our manager has just moved there  

Well that was my point and that's why the media will look more positively towards Forest.

 

As for bigger I think that depends on what you're measuring.

 

For their ideas they may have progressed them better but as i said that is because they seemed to have had the lions share of government money for the East Midlands to put them into practice.

Their Cricket Ground improvements as a test match venue were funded by The MCC which has sadly neglected most Non-Test Match Clubs/grounds.

it's like most things the more they're talked up the more attention and money they receive the better they look.

 

This is all my perception anyway.

[Finnegan]

7 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

When the media don't talk us up: "Why are they ignoring our players and manager!!!"

 

When the media talk us up: "They're trying to sell our players and get the manager a move!!!"

 

I'm sorry Geoff but this is a dumb, ironically typically talksport clickbait, thing to post.

 

The two things aren't mutually exclusive and you're well aware of that.

 

I hate all this mewling shit that makes up about 90% of this thread, "oh so and so was mean about us", "such and such never talks about us" - it IS nonsense. Fair.

 

But you can be frustrated by a lack of quality coverage and still be legitimately irritated by no-mark pundits and 'big six' sycophant journalists coming out with the same stuff all the time where by they can only praise any footballer or talk about any footballer by framing it in the context of them moving to one of the so-called bigger clubs. It's not just Leicester players either is it? Why can't we praise Danny Ings without having to caveat in comments about either: 1. how he used to play for Liverpool, 2. how he's "one of the best strikers outside that big six", or 3. how he's now probably good enough to play for one of those big six again. 

It's perfectly valid to be frustrated about reading or listening to comments about how Madders, Ndidi, Soyuncu, Fofana, Ricardo, Tielemans. and whoever else needs to move to one of the big clubs for their own sakes or to take their career up to the next level or because they're good enough to win things. What's wrong with just doing an objective piece on why X footballer is impressing at the moment and then just leaving it there? 

 

I mean we KNOW why, I've said it a thousand times on here in countless moans about football media and I've come to begrudgingly accept it - it's to market your radio station / blog / website / TV channel / newspaper / magazine to the widest consumer base possible, which is predominantly fans of those clubs and to pander to them. Sure. But we don't have to actually like it.

[Spudulike]

9 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

I'm sorry Geoff but this is a dumb, ironically typically talksport clickbait, thing to post.

 

The two things aren't mutually exclusive and you're well aware of that.

 

I hate all this mewling shit that makes up about 90% of this thread, "oh so and so was mean about us", "such and such never talks about us" - it IS nonsense. Fair.

 

But you can be frustrated by a lack of quality coverage and still be legitimately irritated by no-mark pundits and 'big six' sycophant journalists coming out with the same stuff all the time where by they can only praise any footballer or talk about any footballer by framing it in the context of them moving to one of the so-called bigger clubs. It's not just Leicester players either is it? Why can't we praise Danny Ings without having to caveat in comments about either: 1. how he used to play for Liverpool, 2. how he's "one of the best strikers outside that big six", or 3. how he's now probably good enough to play for one of those big six again. 

It's perfectly valid to be frustrated about reading or listening to comments about how Madders, Ndidi, Soyuncu, Fofana, Ricardo, Tielemans. and whoever else needs to move to one of the big clubs for their own sakes or to take their career up to the next level or because they're good enough to win things. What's wrong with just doing an objective piece on why X footballer is impressing at the moment and then just leaving it there? 

 

I mean we KNOW why, I've said it a thousand times on here in countless moans about football media and I've come to begrudgingly accept it - it's to market your radio station / blog / website / TV channel / newspaper / magazine to the widest consumer base possible, which is predominantly fans of those clubs and to pander to them. Sure. But we don't have to actually like it.

That's exactly it and the penny is dropping for most now. However, do these 'experts' do this deliberately, are they trained to do it by their paymasters, or have they become so preoccupied they are blinkered into not seeing beyond these 6 clubs? 

 

It would help if employers recruited ex-players from clubs other than the 6. But they don't want that. 

[HighPeakFox]

I mentioned to a group of old school friends that it is a shame that Danny Ings isn't younger and available - and the comment came back 'but he's too good for Southampton'.

 

I asked what that actually means - I've not had an answer yet.

[Dahnsouff]

26 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

That's exactly it and the penny is dropping for most now. However, do these 'experts' do this deliberately, are they trained to do it by their paymasters, or have they become so preoccupied they are blinkered into not seeing beyond these 6 clubs? 

 

It would help if employers recruited ex-players from clubs other than the 6. But they don't want that. 

Its irrelevant.

The traditonal big 6 make the most money due to having the most fans, both locally and internationally.

This means that broadcaster will always seek to have a favourable portrayal of those clubs.

This naturally means employing those either with historic connections to those clubs, or at least some otherwise preference toward them.

This is a pure money thing, any need we, as fans from a club outside the perceived natural order, have, is on us.

It is in only loosely a meritocracy, the scales tilted by historical superiority, greater marketing/scoial media reach - all things that relate to money being kept  where it always has.

 

On the plus side - our wins, major or minor are far sweeter than the big 6 fans could ever hope to taste.

[BKLFox]

1 hour ago, ARTY_FOX said:

I dont mind being ignored. More fool them. Sundays coverage of our game by sky however was nothing short of disgraceful 

thats it in a nutshell, if you broadcast a game be it Burnley v Palace or West Brom v Brighton then do your research on those clubs & their players & have a show discussing these clubs.
Its the constant talking about 1 of their favoured clubs for the majority of the airtime either side of KO then annouce "after the break we are live to Turf Moor for......."
The Sunday games are the worst for this lets say its Man U v Liverpool @4pm they will discuss this game on the previous 2 games discussion points "airtime" then go over it all again during the actual MU v Liv segment (edit) & what's really annoying they will continue to call it mouth-watering & we all know these games are pretty shite in the main as both teams to scared to lose so don't tend to play their normal game.
I don't have a problem with pundits saying Man C should be looking at this or that player because Man C if they want a certain player they will be looking themselves not because Micah bleeding Richards tells them too.

Edited 5 January 2021 by BKLFox

[Webbo]

Unless you count Man Us youth team, Savage never played for a big club and he's earning a good living from punditry. He was a personality during his playing days though. 

 

The point of having ex footballers as pundits is to give us the benefit of their experience. A player that has never won anything can't explain the pressures at the top, can't tell us the difference between a top manager and an average one. People are likelier to take notice of a top player than a nobody. 

[Babylon]

41 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

I mentioned to a group of old school friends that it is a shame that Danny Ings isn't younger and available - and the comment came back 'but he's too good for Southampton'.

 

I asked what that actually means - I've not had an answer yet.

Well he's not signed his new contract yet. Come the end of this season he's got one year left, will be 29 and looking for what's probably his last big contract. 

 

If I were in charge, I'd be all over his agent. 

[Koke]

8 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Unless you count Man Us youth team, Savage never played for a big club and he's earning a good living from punditry. He was a personality during his playing days though. 

 

The point of having ex footballers as pundits is to give us the benefit of their experience. A player that has never won anything can't explain the pressures at the top, can't tell us the difference between a top manager and an average one. People are likelier to take notice of a top player than a nobody. 

 

I agree with all that but perhaps its a good idea to have balance. People like Scholes and Owen don't add anything to punditry. Im sure there are ex players from the lower leagues who are very articulate and have a excellent knowledge of the game, tactically and culturally. And they could use the money since they didn't earn millions upon millions during their playing days like Scholes and Owen did. 

 

Funnily enough, Danny Higginbotham was a very average Premier League player but I find him to be the best and most insightful pundit today  

 

Edited 5 January 2021 by Koke

[mazarron fox]

I’m probably going to get some pelters but I find Shearer very good and brutally honest . 

[BKLFox]

3 hours ago, Webbo said:

Unless you count Man Us youth team, Savage never played for a big club and he's earning a good living from punditry. He was a personality during his playing days though. 

 

The point of having ex footballers as pundits is to give us the benefit of their experience. A player that has never won anything can't explain the pressures at the top, can't tell us the difference between a top manager and an average one. People are likelier to take notice of a top player than a nobody. 

Makes bums on seats sense especially if they are a well liked big name but the issue they have is flipped they can't relate to a manger or player struggling within a relegation battle or having to manage on limited funding which could potentially be 2/3rds of the League so again we just get the 1/3 talked about.

 

3 hours ago, Koke said:

 

I agree with all that but perhaps its a good idea to have balance. People like Scholes and Owen don't add anything to punditry. Im sure there are ex players from the lower leagues who are very articulate and have a old knowledge of the game, tactically and culturally. And they could use the money since they didn't earn millions upon millions during their playing days like Scholes and Owen did. 

 

Funnily enough, Danny Higginbotham was a very average Premier League player but I find him to be the best and most insightful pundit today  

Agree the Scholes v Savage debacle the other day was painful to listen too. On you low end player as pundit angle i've said on here before the best pundit around was Liam Rosenior but was only brought out for the championship games probably due to him not being high profile enough but that lad knew about the managers, the players & history of every club he commentated/pundittteeed on & his tactical insights would put most of the fashionable pundits to shame, he could also string a sentence without cliches.

He's given up being ignored & now a 1st team coach at Derby

Edited 5 January 2021 by BKLFox

[Koke]

9 minutes ago, mazarron fox said:

I’m probably going to get some pelters but I find Shearer very good and brutally honest . 

 

Shearer has definitely improved from few years ago. I like him these days. 

[foxile5]

18 minutes ago, Koke said:

 

Shearer has definitely improved from few years ago. I like him these days. 

Underneath it all is a deeply unpleasant man. And not just related to the Lennon incident. There are multiple occasions where he's been foul to players. 

 

Also, and let's not forget this, he threatened to not lead his country in the event of being punished. What type of man uses the captaincy of his country at a major tournament as a bargaining chip.

 

No man at all. 

[ARTY_FOX]

37 minutes ago, mazarron fox said:

I’m probably going to get some pelters but I find Shearer very good and brutally honest . 

He's a hell of alot better than when he first started out thats for sure. 

[Flappit]

2 hours ago, BKLFox said:

Makes bums on seats sense especially if they are a well liked big name but the issue they have is flipped they can't relate to a manger or player struggling within a relegation battle or having to manage on limited funding which could potentially be 2/3rds of the League so again we just get the 1/3 talked about.

 

Agree the Scholes v Savage debacle the other day was painful to listen too. On you low end player as pundit angle i've said on here before the best pundit around was Liam Rosenior but was only brought out for the championship games probably due to him not being high profile enough but that lad knew about the managers, the players & history of every club he commentated/pundittteeed on & his tactical insights would put most of the fashionable pundits to shame, he could also string a sentence without clichy's.

He's given up being ignored & now a 1st team coach at Derby

French football Gaël Clichy or did you mean clichés?

[FOXSE]

4 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

Personally find it massively encouraging for several reasons:

• Our scouting is largely sensational
• We are actually hindering clubs like the Arsenal you mention, as we are impacting their finances (Who despite sometimes seeming bottomless, are not)
• We show to future potential players that we are a pathway, we will improve you, and we will not block your career - you can move to us safely

 

If that's the way you feel about it, fine.

 

If he said  'Leicester are doing sensationally well, look at the progress maddison has made after joining Leicester they know how to develop players. They are clearly a club on the up and could win trophies.  If maddison keeps this progress up, he will surely play for England at the euros and eventually play for one of the European giants of the game'

 

It would achieve what you said with trying to make Leicester a nothing club and signalling to our players they should immediately leave. 

[Spudulike]

 

[Yes]

On 04/01/2021 at 11:14, Cardiff_Fox said:

The harsh reality is that it’s all about the clicks and hence the big six get the coverage. Then throw in the next set of Leeds, West Ham, Newcastle and Everton. 
 

It’s all about the biggest story - the only way we become that is to keep winning and nab trophies. 

Leeds aside this season do any of them actually get more interest than us?

[Dahnsouff]

12 minutes ago, FOXSE said:

If that's the way you feel about it, fine.

 

If he said  'Leicester are doing sensationally well, look at the progress maddison has made after joining Leicester they know how to develop players. They are clearly a club on the up and could win trophies.  If maddison keeps this progress up, he will surely play for England at the euros and eventually play for one of the European giants of the game'

 

It would achieve what you said withOUT trying to make Leicester a nothing club and signalling to our players they should immediately leave. 

Fair enough, we call it as we see it (I assume you meant to add the bold text I added ? )

[mozartfox]

3 hours ago, Koke said:

 

Shearer has definitely improved from few years ago. I like him these days. 

True - but let's face it he would struggle trying big-up either of Newcastle or Blackburn.  His former Clubs explain why he has improved and why he does not make MOTD an off-shoot of MUTV or LTV like Mork Neville and Mindy Carragher do at every frigging available opportunity on Sky.

[coolhandfox]

Let's be honest a pundit will say Liverpool, Man City, Chelsea, United or Arsenal can win the league because since it formed in 92, only us and Blackburn have won it other then those teams in the last 28 seasons.

 

Same with the top 4 champions League positions outside of the so called Big 6 only us and Everton have achieved it.

 

With regards to linking our best players to bigger clubs, it's hardly a surprise when we have sold, Kante 2016, Drinkwater 2017, Mahrez 2018, Maguire 2019, Chilwell 2020.

 

We are a selling club, very similar to how Spurs were viewed when they sold Berbatov, Carrick, Modric, Bale, Walker.

 

Only way to change that is to finish in the top 4 more and stop selling our players to rivals.

 

Same with Spurs, until they win something they will be now as bottlers.

 

Simple really.

 

You don't get given respect you have to earn it.

[FOXSE]

41 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Fair enough, we call it as we see it (I assume you meant to add the bold text I added ? )

Yes indeed, thanks for the edit!