Media and punditry

[richp999]

13 hours ago, VillaJ100 said:

It's always been bad but Christ the amount of bias in the post match reports is absolutely sickening. You'd think Chelsea had 5 disallowed and 30 shots on target with us scoring our only chance

MOTD2 couldn’t bring themselves to mention the only goal of the game during the post match report. Unbelievable. Talked about konsa, the red card, but didn’t show Ollie’s goal, didn’t discuss it and I don’t think once mentioned that villa had won. If they don’t talk about it , it’s like it didn’t happen. I can’t remember ever seeing a post match analysis in a game with only one goal, where the goal isn’t mentioned at all.

Edited September 25, 2023 by richp999

[The_Rev]

19 minutes ago, bobzy said:

agree that the saves Sanchez made were very good, but we hardly carved out chances for Digne and Zaniolo - they were incredibly instinctive hits.

Digne I’ll give you, but Zaniolo’s shot was from a corner routine. It was a deep cross to Kamara standing beyond the back post who cushioned a header back towards the six yard box for the shot. It was a very well worked set piece.  

[villa4europe]

33 minutes ago, bobzy said:

...and yet over in our ratings thread, Martinez has been voted as MOTM  (FWIW, I voted Konsa).

I agree that the saves Sanchez made were very good, but we hardly carved out chances for Digne and Zaniolo - they were incredibly instinctive hits.

Gut feeling if the game result was reversed, we'd consider ourselves to be a tad unlucky.  Great defensive performance, though, no complaints here.  I just understand any media report that focuses more on "Chelsea miss huge chances" rather than "Villa score from tight angle" - it's not some weird bias.

yeah I don't think its bias I just think the offsides made it misleading

chelsea missed the jackson chance (offside) 2x sterling chance (1 was offside) the chilwell chance (which I want to see again as I thought that was offside too) and then the goal disallowed for offside

they missed huge chances which VAR would have overturned anyway - you take away that angle and to be fair chelsea did miss a load of chances

[Stevo985]

11 hours ago, tinker said:

Laughable,  we had more shots, more shots on target, their keeper made more saves and we had more corners and scored more goals. They was unlucky lol, unbelievable.

To be fair they were slightly unlucky. The red card was borderline (I think it was the right decision but I've seen them not given) and they were the better team before that. That moment changed the game completely.

I text my mates about 2 minutes before the red card saying it would be an absolute robbery if we got away with anything from this game.

 

That said I haven't seen the punditry yet. Just saying that I don't think the train of thought that Chelsea were unlucky is that crazy

[sidcow]

48 minutes ago, richp999 said:

MOTD2 couldn’t bring themselves to mention the only goal of the game during the post match report. Unbelievable. Talked about konsa, the red card, but didn’t show Ollie’s goal, didn’t discuss it and I don’t think once mentioned that villa had won. If they don’t talk about it , it’s like it didn’t happen. I can’t remember ever seeing a post match analysis in a game with only one goal, where the goal isn’t mentioned at all.

Worse. Kept talking about great Martinez saves as if he'd saved our bacon ignoring that their keeper made by far the 2 best saves of the day 

Edited September 25, 2023 by sidcow

[bobzy]

1 minute ago, sidcow said:

Worse. Kept talking about great Martinez saves as if he'd saved our bacon ignoring that their keeper made by far the 2 best saves of the day 

And yet Martinez got voted MOTM on here and also given MOTM on the Aston Villa official facebook page thing.

He obviously did save our bacon.

[sidcow]

8 minutes ago, bobzy said:

And yet Martinez got voted MOTM on here and also given MOTM on the Aston Villa official facebook page thing.

He obviously did save our bacon.

But their keeper saved their bacon even more so.

Without the 2 best saves of the game we would have been 2 nil up before Martinez even made a save.

[Mark Albrighton]

I was under the impression that Match of the Day these days had a rule of thumb that they talk about the winning team first and how great they were and then it’s “Of course the same can’t be said for Chelsea, can it Ian…”

For whatever reason they didn’t do that last night, seemingly they wanted to have dessert before dinner and get stuck into what’s going wrong with the team that’s doing badly which perhaps shouldn’t be doing badly.

Not that it particularly matters, Chelsea failing to win again is more of a talking point than Villa winning again. Just noticed that they decided to break from their usual routine of “Item one, winning team - here’s why they’re good. Item two, losing team - here’s why they’re bad”.
 

[bobzy]

4 minutes ago, sidcow said:

But their keeper saved their bacon even more so.

Without the 2 best saves of the game we would have been 2 nil up before Martinez even made a save.

I don’t think they’re the 2 best saves of the game to be honest. Maybe the one from Zaniolo, but they’re both shots heading directly to the middle of the goal. IMO, they’re better efforts at goal than saves.

[bobzy]

We’re seemingly very precious about media analysis these days - I have no idea why. The game yesterday was largely Chelsea couldn’t finish, Villa defended well, here’s a red card decision to be made.

This is what was covered. 

[luckyeddie]

1 hour ago, bobzy said:

 

 

...and yet over in our ratings thread, Martinez has been voted as MOTM  (FWIW, I voted Konsa).

I agree that the saves Sanchez made were very good, but we hardly carved out chances for Digne and Zaniolo - they were incredibly instinctive hits.

Gut feeling if the game result was reversed, we'd consider ourselves to be a tad unlucky.  Great defensive performance, though, no complaints here.  I just understand any media report that focuses more on "Chelsea miss huge chances" rather than "Villa score from tight angle" - it's not some weird bias.

Both those chances were directly from corners. I can imagine the Chelsea forum has Sanchez as their MOTM.

[bobzy]

Just now, luckyeddie said:

Both those chances were directly from corners. I can imagine the Chelsea forum has Sanchez as their MOTM.

They probably do because he actually did something positive whereas the rest of their team didn’t. 

[VillaJ100]

1 hour ago, richp999 said:

MOTD2 couldn’t bring themselves to mention the only goal of the game during the post match report. Unbelievable. Talked about konsa, the red card, but didn’t show Ollie’s goal, didn’t discuss it and I don’t think once mentioned that villa had won. If they don’t talk about it , it’s like it didn’t happen. I can’t remember ever seeing a post match analysis in a game with only one goal, where the goal isn’t mentioned at all.

Yeah I saw that. The whole discussion was how Chelsea never took a chance and how Chelsea didn't win vs. What we did to win. Didn't even mention Digne's shot which would have been goal of the season 

[luckyeddie]

Just now, bobzy said:

They probably do because he actually did something positive whereas the rest of their team didn’t. 

He did exactly what Dibu did, save shots.

This is the media bias we all see, the result is dictated by what Chelsea did. Chelsea GK makes saves, Chelsea CF didn't score, it's all about Chelsea.

When in fact there are 2 GK making saves and 2 sets of players missing chances. Don't fall for the media mind games of believing that we won because of Chelsea and not because of us. It's Putin level propaganda

[bobzy]

8 minutes ago, luckyeddie said:

He did exactly what Dibu did, save shots.

This is the media bias we all see, the result is dictated by what Chelsea did. Chelsea GK makes saves, Chelsea CF didn't score, it's all about Chelsea.

When in fact there are 2 GK making saves and 2 sets of players missing chances. Don't fall for the media mind games of believing that we won because of Chelsea and not because of us. It's Putin level propaganda

OK.

I watched the game, I think Chelsea should have won based on their chances.  It's not media mind games.  There's no agenda.

[villa4europe]

9 minutes ago, bobzy said:

OK.

I watched the game, I think Chelsea should have won based on their chances.  It's not media mind games.  There's no agenda.

whilst agreeing that there is no agenda or bias...which chances? chilwell should have scored, that's it for me personally, the sterling chance the angle was never there for him to shoot

I have chelsea down as one big miss by their left back

and like I said I think the offside was tight

that's compared to our goal and 2 great saves from their keeper 

edit - we also had the save from ramsey which was routine but he oversold and the bigger chance for us which was the diaby scuffed volley, he had acres of space

Edited September 25, 2023 by villa4europe

[luckyeddie]

5 minutes ago, bobzy said:

OK.

I watched the game, I think Chelsea should have won based on their chances.  It's not media mind games.  There's no agenda.

My comment was not just about yesterday's game, but in general there is a massive media bias towards certain clubs.

[Mark Albrighton]

14 minutes ago, bobzy said:

We’re seemingly very precious about media analysis these days - I have no idea why. The game yesterday was largely Chelsea couldn’t finish, Villa defended well, here’s a red card decision to be made.

This is what was covered. 

They probably should mention the sole goal of the game though, right? 

However important the red card was, however important Martinez’s saves were…the one goal in a 1-0 win probably is a fairly decisive moment in the game I think.

Hasn’t got to be significant, just nice finish from Watkins at right angle, he’ll be pleased to get off the mark in the league. Fifteen seconds. 

[tinker]

34 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I don’t think they’re the 2 best saves of the game to be honest. Maybe the one from Zaniolo, but they’re both shots heading directly to the middle of the goal. IMO, they’re better efforts at goal than saves.

The save from Dignes was easily the best in the that game and a few others as well,  it was lightening reactions. 

[bobzy]

9 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

whilst agreeing that there is no agenda or bias...which chances? chilwell should have scored, that's it for me personally, the sterling chance the angle was never there for him to shoot

I have chelsea down as one big miss by their left back

and like I said I think the offside was tight

that's compared to our goal and 2 great saves from their keeper 

edit - we also had the save from ramsey which was routine but he oversold and the bigger chance for us which was the diaby scuffed volley, he had acres of space

Sterling's chance when he was given offside (but I don't think he was?) as well as Sterling from the tight angle (should do better, needs to lift it at least).  Disasi should do way better, Chilwell and Enzo.  Jackson too, although I think he was offside (can't remember, MOTD showed it... but I'm pretty sure he was flagged?).

Not saying that they definitely should score any of those chances persay, but they were all huge chances.