First of all, congratulations to Wigan Athletic for their victory over Arsenal on Monday night. They played with the sort of determination and enthusiasm that supporters of some of their relegation rivals (namely Blackburn and Wolves) can only dream of. More importantly, they have put together a run of form that should ensure their safety for yet another season. Why, though, are we surprised by this?
Whilst watching the game on Sky Sports 1, I couldn't help but be annoyed by some of the patronising comments made by the coverage team, in particular the usually likeable Niall Quinn. He spoke of the game as if it were a cup tie, and his co-commentator (whose name evaded me) remarked consistently that it was a game that Wigan supporters 'would never forget'. Whilst this is probably true, these remarks seemed to bear no acknowledgment of the fact that Wigan had enjoyed similarily impressive victories over Liverpool and Manchester United recently. Was there victory over Arsenal any more astounding than those triumphs? Probably not.
I am not criticising the commentary on Monday night specifically, more so the English media as a whole. They cannot help but continually patronise clubs like Wigan, despite the fact that this is there seventh consecutive season in the top flight. I wonder if Sunderland, for example, would have been treated in a similar vein had they secured three points at the Emirates Stadium on Monday night? The answer is of course no, because Sunderland are a much more fashionable club than Wigan, probably because of the considerable cost of their current squad, the size of their stadium and other such paraphernalia. And that is what is wrong with the current coverage of English football...this continued undermining of clubs who operate on a shoe-string budget, or who don't (or rather, can't) regularly fill their stadium.
This is, admittedly, a delicate matter, but one that struck me as needing adressing after the fallout from Monday's result. I guarantee that when you tune in to Gillette Soccer Saturday or Match of the Day (both fine shows I might add) on Saturday, then the talk will be of how Wigan have 'defied the odds' over the past few weeks, and how remarkable a job Roberto Martinez has done there. All true. But just a matter of weeks ago, the same shows will have been speculating about the future of Martinez when Wigan were mired at the foot of the table. This is not a slight on those involved with either show, or any such programme, but it does demonstrate an innate sloppiness within the coverage of the beautiful game. The same argument can be applied to tabloid newspapers...though I would argue that they are more guilty of zealous over-reaction than (most) television shows.
As my profile will tell you, I am an aspiring sports journalist, and what I am trying to say by means of this post is that there are things that can be changed about the way football is covered. For example, my interpretation of Monday's night game is simply as follows...Wigan beat Arsenal because they were the better side. Martinez tactically out-manouevred his counterpart, Arsene Wenger, who subsequently reacted badly to his side's defeat. The result, in itself, is not that much of a shock, considering that Arsenal lost recently to QPR, a side currently undergoing their first season back in the top flight (was that result treated to such fervour???). These are basic, accurate points that I think are worth more than nonsensical talk such as 'Oh, didn't Wigan play well?' or 'Since when were Wigan this good?', just some of the ridiculous comments I read on Twitter after the game.
I must point out that there are some fantastic football pundits and writers currently working in the game, some of which who are involved in the programmes I previously namechecked. But they are good at what they do because they avoid the cliched 'David v Goliath' plot outline that we are so used to (and bored of). When talking of Norwich or Swansea this season, they have discussed how they have adjusted so well to the top flight, not how much of a shock it is that they have. If Newcastle is the assigned topic, they will point to statistics that show just how savvy they have been in the transfer market, not merely point out that Papiss Demba Cisse is a good finisher (most genuine followers of the game will have known this before he arrived). When discussing the struggles of Blackburn and Wolves, they will note that their failures are not purely down to the fact that they controversially changed manager, but more to do with the shortcomings of their squad. These are the finer points to the game's talking points, and ones which should be observed more dilligently than they are.
So, for the record, Wigan have always tried to play good football under their current manager (and they have often succeeded) and their 2-1 victory is no more a shock than other such side's victories over Arsenal were. Please, let's acknowledge, not patronize.
No comments:
Post a Comment