The term pundit is defined as: “A person who offers to mass media their opinion or commentary on a particular subject area, on which they are knowledgeable (or can at least appear to be knowledgeable), or considered a scholar in said area. The term has been increasingly applied to popular media personalities,” as per Wikipedia.
Keep this definition in mind, all will become clear as we move on.
Settling down early Saturday morning in anticipation for Newcastle United’s televised Premier League fixture away to Manchester United. Newcastle’s trip was the first of two broadcasts covered by BT Sport over a seven day period. I often watch the entirety of the transmission to listen to interviews and discussions.
Fletch and Sav opened BT’s broadcast. Presenter Darren Fletcher alongside ex-professional footballer Robbie Savage discuss the upcoming fixture with the help of guest panelists and household names. As a Newcastle fan, the transmission in my mind was horrific. To say the broadcast was biased doesn’t do the term justice. Robbie Savage, still slightly upset for Derby’s failure to reach last season’s Championship play-offs questioned why Steve McClaren was granted such a role with Newcastle. Such agenda’s should be kept off screen. As co-presenter of the broadcast, Savage should remain impartial, keeping his views as a fan out of the equation. Savage has no business to question the decisions of Newcastle’s board. I question BT’s decision to hire such a man whose career amassed to very little other than ridiculous haircuts and red cards, as a fan my views are disregarded.
Resident guests Paul Scholes, Andy Cole and resident commentator Michael Owen presented their thoughts, angering me further. Referring to Manchester United as “United” a particular pain. Considering there was two United’s playing that day why is Manchester United defined in that way? Referring to Manchester United in such a tone shows a lack of knowledge in the history of both clubs. Newcastle United formed 1892, were United as two clubs ‘united’ and formed one. Manchester United were given their name 20 years later, not via the formation of two clubs but because they chose to rebrand in such a way. Whilst to many this may sound petty, I completely disagree. I am proud of my club and it’s heritage. As a Premier league club, we deserve more respect than these pundits are affording us.
Moving through the broadcast, I guess many fans felt my anger. Andy Cole referring to Manchester United as “we” completely erasing his time spent on Tyneside and Paul Scholes projecting he saw nothing other than a comprehensive Manchester United win – you’d have thought this was a presentation for MUTV and not an impartial sports channel.
As a paying viewer should we have to tolerate and listen to such a one-sided production? Why have BT catered for only one supporter set? Are Newcastle United not worthy of impartiality? No team has a divine right to win a fixture. Once those players enter the field one must earn the right to a victory. Newcastle performed brilliantly to return to Tyneside with a point. Defensively Newcastle were excellent. Manchester United, after spending nearly £250million pounds failed to find a way to break Newcastle’s resilience. Had debutant Florian Thauvin been a couple of inches bigger Newcastle would have left with all three points.
Happy after what I’d seen from Newcastle I sat and listened to the analysis of the game. Unsurprisingly the pundits saw the game in a different light. Manchester United were portrayed as poor as opposed to Newcastle performing brilliantly. Newcastle were afforded very little praise. Scholes being his unhappy self was adamant ‘United should be beating these sort of teams’. Newcastle United are not even afforded our name by Scholes, a man who fails to realise Manchester United are not the force they once were nor do they carry a fear factor. Scholes failed to accept Newcastle’s new recruit Chancel Mbemba kept Memphis Depay quiet for long periods, forcing him deeper to find space. Such analysis has to be found from other productions where the narrative is of a fixture involving two teams.
Fast forward seven days, Newcastle are once again the Saturday afternoon televised fixture, this time a home fixture against Arsenal. Will this fixture provide a more balanced analysis? Sadly I think you’ll already know the answer to this.
Greeting fans this week, Ian Wright, ex-Arsenal and Palace striker who has used his blog within The S*n newspaper to goad fans by applauding Palace’s recruitment of Alan Pardew. Wright is an advocate of Pardew and speaks freely which is his right. Condemning Newcastle for the decision, however, is nonsensical. Wright clearly hasn’t researched the subject comprehensively. I don’t wish to comment upon Pardew’s time here, I’m merely giving a background to the past history, which may offer an insight into Wright’s behavior before and after the game.
Fletch and Sav were joined by ex-Newcastle and West Ham manager Sam Allardyce, a man still bitter over his removal as manager by Mike Ashley, his pearls of wisdom were gladly ignored. Newcastle still were not afforded the luxury of someone to praise the club in a positive light. Joey Barton joined the panelist and even as an ex-player his bitterness towards chairman Mike Ashley and his subsequent transfer to QPR bothers him greatly, creating an unnecessary undertone.
Having watched the game and saw Newcastle lose 1-0 to Arsenal, the game as a whole made grim viewing. In a fixture dominated by debatable decisions, fans were more than in their right to be aggrieved. Being reduced to ten men, due to the dismissal of Serbian striker Mitrovic the biggest talking point of them all. Having played football myself and watched football extensively, I believe the challenge to be nothing more than a booking. Referee Andre Marriner made a string of bad decisions, allowing Arsenal players to simulate whilst booking Newcastle players in the same tone. A late booking to Coloccini rounded off an embarrassing display by Marriner, installed to uphold the laws of the game. During the game, little was mentioned by any of the commentators regarding Arsenal players’ clear strategy to fall to the floor at the slightest opportunity. Savage attempted to depict Newcastle as nothing more than a brutal, thuggish outfit. Nothing could have been any further from the truth. Fouls Newcastle committed were at times clumsy but never with an agenda to injure or inflict damage to an opposition player. Savage clearly has forgotten his time as a player where two footed scythes and lunges were part and parcel of his game. If a referee fails to pick up upon clear deceit of the opposition you are on a losing battle.
After the game, Wright was very vocal about his disgust at the treatment of Andre Marriner. As the case with Savage – he too questioned the mentality of Newcastle players without looking at the whole spectrum. Wright was never going to actively admit Arsenal were play acting, but a medium would have been nice. Once again a televised fixture involving Newcastle was ruined because of a clear lack of impartiality. Wright alongside the “expert” ex-referee Howard Webb attempted to defend Marriner. Given the technology available to Webb why he only afforded the luxury of commenting upon Mitrovic’s dismissal? Why did Webb not show clear lapses of indiscipline from Arsenal players especially before half time with Sanchez’s cynical challenge on Colback? The idea of using Webb as an expert is laughable at best. Webb is the referee who in the biggest game on the world stage, a world cup final adjudged a Nigel De Jong Karate kick to be nothing more than a booking. We all at one time or another feel robbed by Webb during his days of refereeing. We all know the infamous songs involving Sir Alex Ferguson. During the game, I decided to mute the volume on my television. The game became a better spectacle. No longer did I have to endure savage essentially supporting Arsenal in an official capacity.
In the days after the game Wright used his position at The Sun to further infuriate Newcastle fans. Deeming fans as bullies. Wright buoyed by an Arsenal victory was determined to portray Newcastle in a negative light. Wright was never whiter than white and such outbursts are hypocrisy at its finest. Graham Poll interviewed by the Daily Mail in 2013 highlights a Wright challenge against Peter Schmeichel as one of the worst he’s witnessed during his time refereeing. Whilst the ball was running through to the big Dane, Wright lunged at the goalkeeper, studs up and two straight legs. The intention could have only been to injure an opponent. How can Wright condemn others for an act he committed and attempted to justify? Wright was also in hot water for spitting at a female steward as well as several other unsavory moments. Such actions make you question why BT would employ such a man.
As I bring this view to an end I would like to summarize. When I set out writing this I wanted to highlight a clear and important message. In the definition of a pundit, where does it state they must be biased? The answer is it doesn’t. BT are failing in their obligations to fans. As I have mentioned BT have clearly created impartial broadcasts catering for only one of the fixtures’ fanbase. Will this article change anything? Of course not, but I feel as a paying customer I must be entitled to here an open and transparent service. Newcastle United over recent years have made a rod for their own back, failures and actions with the club have allowed the media a free reign to laugh and mock for too long. After a summer of change and investment is it not my right as a fan to ask for facts? If Newcastle are poor within a fixture, criticism is deserved and I will support such tones. BT sport, however, are allowing ex-players to ruin fixtures. The Premier league consists of more than the top four elite, they would do well to remember that.
