|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Nov 15, 2008 20:28:23 GMT
Gleggy was actually saying a couple of times towards the end of the commentary that Stoke got their tactics wrong and had showed too much respect! A man as intelligent as you, Alan, should have answered that the second question could not be answered as it was too ambiguous! Anyway there isn't any negativity allowed in the Premiershit it's the law!
|
|
|
Post by anarchicalan on Nov 15, 2008 20:34:02 GMT
PMB - good points, especially the one about my intelligence.
Expect Gleggy to go the same way as Mick Cullerton if he's any more honest with his opinions.
|
|
|
Post by growler on Nov 15, 2008 22:58:53 GMT
Who are they to judge whether you are being positive or negative? Is it negative to say that Stoke should be a little more positive at times because more of the same isn't going to get you anywhere when you are 3-0 down just into the second half. Is it negative to criticise TP for failing once again to have a "plan B?" Surely the negative ones are the drones like Slangking who can't accept that occasionally we do deserve a little criticism.
|
|
|
Post by Not_Nick_H on Nov 15, 2008 23:57:45 GMT
Alan -
not going to agree or disagree with your opinion - but I did think that the first few callers (Stokies) were Knee-jerkers. That's possibly why they may have been "filtering out" any further negative comments. I've no doubt that you would have put across a reasoned, eloquent point, but some of those before you were shooting-from-the-hip (knee?) moaners who honestly expected to beat Man U today I think.
Combined with the woeful results of Vale and Crwho, the Radio Stoke team probably wanted to avoid the show turning into Grumble and err, Grumble.
If you want bias - I think match of the day edited us out of the game to be honest. And I know - 'cos I was there.
|
|
|
Post by anarchicalan on Nov 16, 2008 0:10:46 GMT
Not Nick H ..... I felt the first few callers were reasonable. Pragmatic, but made a couple of relevant points regarding tactic, (singluar), and substitutions. I suspect they weren't aware that Griff was injured until Pulis came on to speak later.
I agree about MOTD, they edited out Ronaldo's kick on Faye which everyone but the referee appeared to see. I wasn't there, but both Acres and Gleggy made immediate comment on it, so I was hopeful they'd show it. It seems that unless it's totally blatant and can't be swept under the corporate carpet, then the top 4 get the airbrush treatment. Delap's challenge on Sagna was repeated ad infinitum, as was his challenge on walcott with not a single mention of the fact that Walcott dived.
|
|
|
Post by swampySCFC on Nov 16, 2008 2:05:21 GMT
What did you want to be negative about anyway? Sure we got stuffed, but we were playing the champions of Europe away in the Premier League and we're still fourteenth in the table! And we need to learn not grumble. Together like.
|
|
|
Post by anarchicalan on Nov 16, 2008 10:01:09 GMT
swampy, not sure what you mean by that.
Do you mean "we need to learn, not grumble" or "we need to learn not TO grumble"?
Either way, it doesn't give your opinion about the censorship, which I'd value.
|
|
|
Post by staying up for Jo on Nov 16, 2008 10:38:11 GMT
Alan,
Don't agree there is anything to be negative about yesterday. We just are not good enough.
However I agree 100% with your point in this thread about Radio Stoke Censorship.
|
|
|
Post by Cupid Stunt on Nov 16, 2008 10:46:18 GMT
I don't agree they're only letting positive people on because it's all about opinion BUT we need to take a reality check. When we got promoted, we said we'd take 17th place, we're now 14th, if we finished in 14th at the end of the season surely we'd be over the moon? In the premier league, when you've just been promoted you lose more than you win. We lost to Man Ure and people want to complain, I don't get it
|
|
|
Post by anarchicalan on Nov 16, 2008 22:29:56 GMT
Trevero - fair enough. Dom - you might have said you'd settle for 17th, my ambition is higher than that, but I take your point. However, being 14th at the moment doesn't guarantee that we'll be 14th next week or at the season's end.
The fact that you don't "get it" is fine. You're completely at liberty to say so and disagree with me. radio Stoke denied me the opportunity to disagree with you.
That's why I started this thread. You would have had a voice, I was denied it. The very few people allowed on with negative comments were cut off after 10 seconds.
That's censorship, and it stinks!
|
|
|
Post by DodgyDino on Nov 16, 2008 22:46:11 GMT
I think radio stations should only take calls from people that have been to matches when they want comments about the match in question Theres hell of a lot of people who watch the game on the net so you dont really have to be there to have a valid opinion of a game As for voicing an opinon either way its a free society and thats how it should be.
|
|
|
Post by anarchicalan on Nov 16, 2008 23:11:25 GMT
Precisely Dino!
|
|
|
Post by victoriaboothenboy on Nov 16, 2008 23:16:51 GMT
Anyone know why Cullerton was exiled to Crewe-who did he upset?I understand he had a lot of respect for PC, thought TP was doing an OK job. so presumably he slagged off Scholes??
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2008 23:21:15 GMT
I think radio stations should only take calls from people that have been to matches when they want comments about the match in question Theres hell of a lot of people who watch the game on the net so you dont really have to be there to have a valid opinion of a game As for voicing an opinon either way its a free society and thats how it should be. If you watch it on the net or telly or wherever though, at least, in some form, you've SEEN the game. I don't understand (and this is one of the reasons why Fromafar did my head in last season with his anti-Cresswell bandwagon), is how people can voice an opinion on something they haven't seen. Listening to the commentary doesn't give you nearly the same outlook or feel for a game that actually being able to see it does.
|
|
|
Post by slangking on Nov 16, 2008 23:21:34 GMT
Anyone know why Cullerton was exiled to Crewe-who did he upset?I understand he had a lot of respect for PC, thought TP was doing an OK job. so presumably he slagged off Scholes?? I must say being able to understand what people say does make a big difference, Crwho? are welcome to him. He had no affiliation with Stoke whatsoever and seemed to think every team we played were 'there for the taking', just so he could whinge on if we didn't beat them.
|
|
|
Post by growler on Nov 17, 2008 10:40:29 GMT
I always liked Mick. The BBC is a public body and there sports broadcasters should call it as they see it - and we (slangking) should be big enough to take it.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 17, 2008 11:16:31 GMT
I wanted him to replay his commentary and count the number of times that he, Nige and Glaggy used the phrase - "and Stoke have lost it again". that has been our main weakness
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Nov 17, 2008 12:14:57 GMT
The plot thickens ... yesterday i posted on the "censorship idea". I thought it was amusing that this thread had references to posts made by Slangking and 23 but no posts that i could see. I jokingly asked where their posts were and who has mysteriously removed them. I read again today and even my post has been removed aswell lol. There is a conspiracy growing here to rival the JFK assassination me thinks
|
|
|
Post by anarchicalan on Nov 18, 2008 1:44:22 GMT
Trumpton - I asked admin to reinstate their posts, but I was told they'd been removed for abusive content.
As much as I feel this is an ironic move regarding this thread, I respect their decision. Sorry your post disappeared as well though.
|
|
|
Post by mumf14 on Nov 18, 2008 1:59:33 GMT
There must be a reason for this censorship....perhaps Coatsey has a word in certain ears...
No moaning buggers allowed.
|
|
|
Post by anarchicalan on Nov 18, 2008 11:07:21 GMT
mumf - It's more than just coincidence I think.
I'm going to try to get onto P & G again at some point, but I can't see my being allowed to speak if I'm openly honest about having a negative comment to make.
However, perhaps if they read this website - and I'd say that was a safe bet - then they'll alter their attitude and realise that everyone is entitled to a voice, especially their EMPLOYERS; that is, everyone who pays a BBC licence fee.
I won't hold my breath.
|
|