Not the Big Five - the Beginning
They're at it already. The football pundits, I mean. With the season only a few weeks old, the familiar knee-jerk reactions to the Big Five are being repeated with tiresome regularity. I hardly need to even tell you who the Big Five are: Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal.
I've had enough - and I suspect thousands of you have, too. I'm sick to the back teeth, reading acres of articles about these clubs to the detriment of every other club. It has driven me to hit back and start this blog to provide a forum for all the real, long-suffering fans of clubs who are not part of the pampered "elite" to have their say.
The Big Five will never be mentioned again by name. If they have to be referred to, from here on in they will be known as MU, MC, L, C and A.
My beef is not with the real fans of these clubs but the journalists who sycophantically write about these "favoured" teams. The culprits are the schoolboy prats of Radio 5 who call themselves sports journalists, the sports editors of the Metro newspaper, plus most of the gang of tabloid sports desks. With stunning regularity they devote huge amounts of newsprint to the Big Five. As a former journalist, it has got me wondering why they do it.
It could be ignorance, of course. Lazy journalism is a feature of our times. Real research is at a premium. There is lot of knowledge about the best-performing teams so all the writer has to do is tap into it and churn out some piece about Mourinho's latest jibe at a rival. Yawn, yawn.
Or it could be to do with age. Sports journalists tend to be on the young side. So they grew up when these teams were doing well and creating headlines. They are supporters of these teams and to give themselves a glow they write about them - over and over again. And they haven't moved on. What's more, it's bad journalism.
Already in this 2014-15 season this myopic tendency has been all too clear to see. When Swansea beat MU on September 16th the post-match chat was almost exclusively a post-mortem about what was wrong with MU. Well, nothing in particular, guys. THEY LOST, that's all. And Swansea, a very fine side, won. Wow! What a turn-up for the books! Given last season's dire showing by MU and Swansea's competent passing game, it was hardly a surprise. Swansea beat MU because they were better. Isn't that allowed? Aren't Swansea allowed to get praise? No, apparently not. Something had to be wrong in the state of Old Trafford.
Everton v A finished in a 2-2 draw with Everton dominating for most of the game. Yet again, like so many times last season, Everton showed skill, strength and tactical nous. Were they praised? there was a mere passing mention. The focus, of course, was on A's disappointing performance. Even on Match of the Day, Gary Lineker had to force Alan Shearer to make some grudging comment about Everton's performance before putting A under the microscope.
In the C v Leicester game on September 23rd, Leicester - or should that be "plucky" Leicester? - played well and nearly snatched victory with a Nugent breakaway goal. C came back and scored two at the end. C gained the victory "they richly deserved" and they were back in the top part of the table "where they belong" - and so on.
On September 24th, Sunderland outplayed MU for most of the game. Yet, of course, all the comments were about how poorly MU had played. What about some focus on Sunderland? They continued in the same vein as they ended last season - with spirit and not a little skill. The pundits couldn't bring themselves to acknowledge this.
When Tottenham went top of the league that weekend, two Radio 5 prats sneered that "in the old days league tables were never posted until after three matches". They were inferring that, so early in the season, the tables mean nothing. True, they mean very little. But I doubt there would have been a sneer if one of the Big Five had occupied top spot. After all, it's "where they belong". They just couldn't entertain the idea that Tottenham could sneak first position from one of the favoured five. It's more than their jobs worth.
So, why DO they do it? Sports writers are deeply conservative beasts and find it hard to entertain a new paradigm. Stick with the familiar. The Big Five have a big fan base, stretching all the way to Malaysia and back. We must keep our worldwide readers and listeners happy. Talking about Stoke, Watford or Crewe Alexandra would be courting disaster.
Yet when they do mention the "other" clubs, it is often in patronising tones. Stereotypes abound: "physical Stoke", vulnerable Tottenham", "troubled Fulham", "long-ball West Ham" and so on. It's all so superficial.
So, the time has come to put a stop to this arse-licking, masquerading as journalism.
I am inviting supporters of every other club to write about 1,000 words on an aspect of their club or team and send it to me at this email address: robertnurden90@gmail.com. Then, with only a modicum of editing - and only if necessary - I will publish their article on Not the Big Five.
Together we can wrest back control of football from the unimaginative scribes polluting our airwaves and sports pages.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Robert Nurden
