Options

Why on Earth was Man U v Fulham a live game

chaz richchaz rich Posts: 1,812
Forum Member
✭✭✭
I'm sorry but this was the 4th round of the FA Cup, why did ESPN pick Premiership leaders Man U against a very average Fulham side who are abysmal away from home, surely in the early stages its all about the romance & possible giant killing, this result was as predictable as an MP not answering a question .
Even allowing for the fact there were five goals I am sure the excitement level was zilch.
Added to the fact ESPN have a live game next weekend & its between MAN UTD & FULHAM :eek:
I am lost for words :(
«13

Comments

  • Options
    Cantona07Cantona07 Posts: 56,910
    Forum Member
    This is all a bit "Monday Morning Quarterback".

    If there was a potential Giant Killing game chosen and the "giants" won 5-0 people would say "why choose that game, the result was obvious"
  • Options
    DandemDandem Posts: 13,365
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Cantona07 wrote: »
    This is all a bit "Monday Morning Quarterback".

    If there was a potential Giant Killing game chosen and the "giants" won 5-0 people would say "why choose that game, the result was obvious"

    Precisely. It's easy to reflect now and say, "Ah, Arsenal vs. Brighton would have been good live. 3-2, how exciting".

    But if Arsenal had tonked them, people would be saying exactly what you said.

    The fact is, Man United have a massive fanbase, and will rake in a lot of money.

    I think the real question was why Stoke vs. City was shown live. Had boredom written all over it.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,575
    Forum Member
    While of course the match might have turned out much more interesting, it was an extremely unimaginative choice.

    Surely lower league teams at home to good Premier League teans are much more of general interest and the essence of the cup than the Premier League leaders at home to a lower half Premier League team ?
  • Options
    TheSlothTheSloth Posts: 18,878
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    A "giant" away at a lower league side is always a better bet for atmosphere etc and far more likely to yield a shock or a close shave.

    Bolton vs Everton and Brighton vs Arsenal would have been better choices for FA Cup purists.

    However, like it or not, ESPN also want viewing figures and picking a United game at least gives them that. ITV do it quite often when picking their prime CL game - often picking a United home game banker over a tricky away game for Arsenal, Chelsea etc.

    A Sinclair C5 is better on the road than Fulham and the match choice was simply to get lots of viewers on a Saturday evening - it's as simple as that. Money talks, not romance. They'll leave the more romantic ties for less lucrative slots for the advertisers.
  • Options
    Jamesp84Jamesp84 Posts: 31,229
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dandem wrote: »
    Precisely. It's easy to reflect now and say, "Ah, Arsenal vs. Brighton would have been good live. 3-2, how exciting".

    But if Arsenal had tonked them, people would be saying exactly what you said.

    The fact is, Man United have a massive fanbase, and will rake in a lot of money.

    I think the real question was why Stoke vs. City was shown live. Had boredom written all over it.

    I can see why Stoke v city was picked, repeat of the final a couple of years ago, city don't have a good record at the Britannia, but it was a complete non-event today. Judging by the attendance, clearly the Stoke fans thought it would be too!
  • Options
    Mr TeacakeMr Teacake Posts: 6,593
    Forum Member
    Man City are a boring team to watch anyway
  • Options
    Big Boy BarryBig Boy Barry Posts: 35,391
    Forum Member
    Most football is boring to watch. Occasionally there's a good game, but most are either processions, or plodding, high ball bores.
  • Options
    TheSlothTheSloth Posts: 18,878
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Dandem wrote: »
    Precisely. It's easy to reflect now and say, "Ah, Arsenal vs. Brighton would have been good live. 3-2, how exciting".

    But if Arsenal had tonked them, people would be saying exactly what you said.

    The fact is, Man United have a massive fanbase, and will rake in a lot of money.

    I think the real question was why Stoke vs. City was shown live. Had boredom written all over it.

    That's a tad unfair on Stoke (albeit understandable) - at least that game was competitive and had an atmosphere. If it was Fulham vs United I'd have had far less of an issue with it. But choosing a United home game against Fulham was a cynical move to fill sofas.
  • Options
    TheSlothTheSloth Posts: 18,878
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Most football is boring to watch. Occasionally there's a good game, but most are either processions, or plodding, high ball bores.

    Why are you in the Football forum all the time then? ;)
  • Options
    Jason CJason C Posts: 31,336
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    TheSloth wrote: »
    A Sinclair C5 is better on the road than Fulham and the match choice was simply to get lots of viewers on a Saturday evening - it's as simple as that. Money talks, not romance. They'll leave the more romantic ties for less lucrative slots for the advertisers.

    All the more reason to hope that the BBC win back the rights when the contract is next up for grabs.
  • Options
    Cantona07Cantona07 Posts: 56,910
    Forum Member
    Cant really speak for ESPN as they are subscription based and have some PL games, but i would imagine any terrestrial channel with FA cup rights would want to show as many "big" teams as they could as they dont get THAT much live football to show in the first place.
  • Options
    jlp95bwfcjlp95bwfc Posts: 18,414
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Mr Teacake wrote: »
    Man City are a boring team to watch anyway

    Yes, I was falling asleep watching them score 2 goals in stoppage time to win the PL title in May :rolleyes:. Maybe you should go back to not watching football (if indeed you ever stopped).
  • Options
    biggeralbiggeral Posts: 3,350
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    From what I saw, Man U vs Fulham was a good game, far better than Stoke vs Man City.

    Brighton vs Arsenal looked to be a good game beforehand, but nobody would have chosen Norwich vs Luton or QPR vs MK Dons as a live game.

    Both channels will be fighting to show Huddersfield vs Leicester unless there is a draw tomorrow, which I doubt.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,482
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Didn't realise football games were public services and needed to be scrutinised as such.
  • Options
    JokanovicJokanovic Posts: 12,188
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    biggeral wrote: »
    From what I saw, Man U vs Fulham was a good game, far better than Stoke vs Man City.

    Brighton vs Arsenal looked to be a good game beforehand, but nobody would have chosen Norwich vs Luton or QPR vs MK Dons as a live game.

    Both channels will be fighting to show Huddersfield vs Leicester unless there is a draw tomorrow, which I doubt.

    Good game ? It was all over after one minute.
    I suspect ITV will pass if that's the only draw.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,575
    Forum Member
    Most football is boring to watch. Occasionally there's a good game, but most are either processions, or plodding, high ball bores.

    Err, you mean boring to you. I rather think most of us here ( certainly myself ) have a more general love of the game.
  • Options
    TinyMikeyTinyMikey Posts: 90
    Forum Member
    Because they're a big club and the the club most people have heard of, may aswell just stick them on TV regardless of opposition because everyone wants to watch United.

    Reading v Sheff Utd? QPR v The Franchise? Brighton v Arsenal? Norwich v Luton? All more interesting games on paper, and games I'd be far more compelled to watch than a match between two sides who already play each other twice a year and is unlikely to produce a shock.
  • Options
    Mr TeacakeMr Teacake Posts: 6,593
    Forum Member
    jlp95bwfc wrote: »
    Yes, I was falling asleep watching them score 2 goals in stoppage time to win the PL title in May :rolleyes:. Maybe you should go back to not watching football (if indeed you ever stopped).


    I don't find anything exciting about blank chequebooks, mercenary players and managers.
  • Options
    Mr TeacakeMr Teacake Posts: 6,593
    Forum Member
    dmuk wrote: »
    Didn't realise football games were public services and needed to be scrutinised as such.

    If you're a ESPN subscriber then it's fair game to criticise their match choices
  • Options
    Cantona07Cantona07 Posts: 56,910
    Forum Member
    Mr Teacake wrote: »
    If you're a ESPN subscriber then it's fair game to criticise their match choices

    How do you work that out?
  • Options
    Mr TeacakeMr Teacake Posts: 6,593
    Forum Member
    Cantona07 wrote: »
    How do you work that out?

    Er...may be it's because they're paying for the service ;)
  • Options
    Cantona07Cantona07 Posts: 56,910
    Forum Member
    Mr Teacake wrote: »
    Er...may be it's because they're paying for the service ;)

    Yeah, that's how it works :rolleyes:
  • Options
    Mr TeacakeMr Teacake Posts: 6,593
    Forum Member
    Cantona07 wrote: »
    Yeah, that's how it works :rolleyes:

    So a neutral ESPN sub can't criticise them choosing Utd against a smaller PL club at home over, for instance, Arsenal away to a decent championship side?

    And Utd-Fulham is on again next weekend.

    WOW! So much YAWN factor with that choice of game. I heard the commentator mentioned Utd players not even celebrating scoring :yawn:
  • Options
    UriahUriah Posts: 1,411
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    chaz rich wrote: »
    I'm sorry but this was the 4th round of the FA Cup, why did ESPN pick Premiership leaders Man U against a very average Fulham side who are abysmal away from home, surely in the early stages its all about the romance & possible giant killing, this result was as predictable as an MP not answering a question .
    Even allowing for the fact there were five goals I am sure the excitement level was zilch.
    Added to the fact ESPN have a live game next weekend & its between MAN UTD & FULHAM :eek:
    I am lost for words :(

    Sounds like a story stolen straight from BTYahoo but true.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,482
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Mr Teacake wrote: »
    So a neutral ESPN sub can't criticise them choosing Utd against a smaller PL club at home over, for instance, Arsenal away to a decent championship side?

    And Utd-Fulham is on again next weekend.

    WOW! So much YAWN factor with that choice of game. I heard the commentator mentioned Utd players not even celebrating scoring :yawn:

    Vote with your wallet then, no one is forcing you to use the service.
Sign In or Register to comment.