MOTD2

[Dodgin]

Felt a bit insulted, not a mention about our performance.

[Ludlow Richard]

Felt a bit insulted, not a mention about our performance.

Of course. We are a small club. So no mention of our spirited second half, no comments about how Cairney changed the game, no mention of the serious injuries to Ream and Periera, no mention of Grealish's significant dissent to the referee, no discussion of the BDR possible penalty, just a load of easy pundit waffle about Man City. No wonder people are falling out of love with football.

[Lighthouse]

Why do people watch MOTD? I watch the highlights on You Tube of matches. But listening to MOTD is just a bit embarrassing now. They never have anything of any interest to say. I don't know why they waste time on pundits. They don't look at any incidents of matches and they just parrot the same line a school kid could do.

Along with much of the News and Sports output. The BBC looks tired and old and serve no purpose beyond showing the match. Let's be honest a few kids and matchbox could be more enlightening than these pundits.

[hovewhite]

Needed Danny murphy on the sofa last night,guess that's why he wasn't there.

[SG]

I never bother with it now even when we win. Fulham tv for a fiver a month let's me watch the games the next day with the big plus of biased commentary in our favour. My wife never understands why having been at the game I need to spend another 90 minutes watching it again

[toshes mate]

Lighthouse covers the topic well and we all know from the perfect example of a recent FA Cup match involving our Club that there is an unhealthy bias streaking right through everything about our national sport including media coverage. It was probably always thus but the tolerance threshold held out for a while, until patience and respect for one's self exceeded the desire to have our intelligence insulted ever again.

There are people who do know what 'even handedness and the middle channel' means but they don't work for media outlets packed full of sardines with no minds at all. I bet there is a consensus somewhere that Mr Hooper is a fine referee with an unblemished record of one hundred percent neutrality and near perfect accuracy. I bet there is a consensus about lots of other lies and falsehoods doing the rounds too. Once upon a time it was called gossip but I guess now it is called being woke [sic]. 
   

[bencher]

Let's not forget that MOTD, like any news programme or newspaper, is directed by an editorial line. In the case of last nights MOTD2, the line that ran throughout Jonathan Pearce's commentary and the fawning over Haaland and Alvarez by the pundits, is that Fulham are just there as mannequins and cannon fodder for City to pass around and score against on their rightful way to being crowned Champions. There was no analysis of Vini's excellent goal in the post match, no consideration for whether Alvarez had deliberately exaggerated the contact to get a penalty, no analysis of BDR's penalty claim, nothing on Grealish's awful behaviour towards the ref etc etc etc.

City have now won arguably 4 unjustified points against us this season, from 2 suspicious awards of penalties, while our own penalty claim was totally ignored. Arsenal had 2 points unfairly taken from them when Brentford's late equaliser was allowed to stand despite being clearly offside, because VAR failed to check the goal correctly.

After our FA Cup defeat, the world and his dog was pinning up photos of Mitro on their dartboards, and we were all told of how grassroots footballers would learn from Mitro and copy him if they didn't hang him upside down from the Severn Bridge for 6 years. But MOTD's editors and producers have seen fit that no one other than those watching the full game will be aware that Grealish showed almighty disrespect to a referee yesterday with absolutely no consequences.

Are the FA, the BBC and the Premier League in cahoots?

[Jules]

Why do people watch MOTD? I watch the highlights on You Tube of matches. But listening to MOTD is just a bit embarrassing now. They never have anything of any interest to say. I don't know why they waste time on pundits. They don't look at any incidents of matches and they just parrot the same line a school kid could do.

Along with much of the News and Sports output. The BBC looks tired and old and serve no purpose beyond showing the match. Let's be honest a few kids and matchbox could be more enlightening than these pundits.

Agreed- I haven't watched MOTD for about 10 years! Hardly watch BBC either. They should ditch it and save us having to pay a TV licence

[legana]

The worst thing about pundits is when they don't call out diving - even the BBC radio commentary yesterday kept say Grealish had 'done well to buy a foul'. If a foul had been bought it's cheating! Really bugs me that they praise it and call it clever.

[Finnans Right Peg]

I just record it and skip all the nonsense

[SP]

It's reading nonsense like this from yesterday's BBC report that kill me:

'But the Cottagers ended up being beaten again as their season looks to be ending on a tame note.'

[filham]

I was expecting the BBC to give fill exposure to City and their players, no doubt the players are top class and that City are en route to take the title and the footballing public want to know all about them.
However the Fulham performance deserved a word or two of praise and not to mention our two players who were stretchered off and could right now be in a hospital bed is disgraceful.

[Arthur]

I like MOTD. There are 20 clubs in the P.L. They don't do a post-match feature on every club, every week.

Football highlights are for goals, saves, near-misses, incident, excitement and controversy. On such a programme as MOTD, possession of the ball without any of the aforementioned (as we had in the second half yesterday) is highly unlikely to be noteworthy.

While we appreciate our second half performance, which forced Manchester City back into their own half, no other clubs' supporters will have any interest whatsoever in watching highlights that show us passing the ball around, no matter how impressive it might seem to us.

Our match highlights showed our penalty claim, Vinicius' scramble and BDR's shot (which was nowhere near scoring). And yet some on here seemingly expect the programme to fill its limited time showing instances of Grealish not being happy with the referee. What if there were Spurs players who got the hump with the referee? And Leeds players? And Southampton players? What are MOTD supposed to do? Show them all at the expense of the genuinely interesting footballing moments?

As it was, I think we did okay out of yesterday's highlights. I would wager, for instance, there were attempts at goal in other matches that didn't make the final cut far closer to scoring than BDR's hopeful effort. When complaining about what MOTD didn't focus on in our match, it's easy to forget that we don't know what it has also had to omit from the edit of other games.

[Somerset Fulham]

Why do people watch MOTD? I watch the highlights on You Tube of matches. But listening to MOTD is just a bit embarrassing now. They never have anything of any interest to say. I don't know why they waste time on pundits. They don't look at any incidents of matches and they just parrot the same line a school kid could do.

Along with much of the News and Sports output. The BBC looks tired and old and serve no purpose beyond showing the match. Let's be honest a few kids and matchbox could be more enlightening than these pundits.

People clearly like something to whinge about, its the only reason that I can think of.

[Stoneleigh Loyalist]

I get a little tired of the critism of Match of the Day although I did object to the omission of our two probably serious injuries and Jonathan Perarce's comment that 'Fulham look deflated' as Cairney came on.
I watched the game on SKY and the commentary was so biased so they are just as bad as each other.