Anorak

Anorak | Media bias: Arsenal robbed, Stoke imperious and three penalties

Media bias: Arsenal robbed, Stoke imperious and three penalties

by | 20th, August 2017

Media Bias: a look at bad reporting in Stoke City’s 1-0 win over Arsenal in the Premier League. Stoke scored a perfectly good goal, a swift strike on the counter attack that ws waved on by Arsenal’s lacklustre and horribly overrated Mesut Ozil. But should Arsenal have had a penalty or three? What say the reporters?

The Arsenal website has the figures: “Seventy-seven per cent possession, six shots on target, one big penalty shout and one disallowed goal – but ultimately no points from Saturday’s Premier League clash with Stoke City.”

Seems fair. Arsenal manger Arsene Wenger offers his appraisal of the match. He says Lacazette’s “goal” was “one hundred per cent” a good goal. “I’ve just watched it and it’s not offside at all. Even his foot was not offside. We have to swallow that and we should have scored despite that.”

Managers have their own views. But the Arsenal website has more on the Lacazette goal:

Alexandre Lacazette did have the ball in the net with 20 minutes to go, only to be flagged offside when replays suggested he was level.

Over on the Stoke City website, no word on how the Potters were overran in possession. Indeed, they were the team that always looked more likely to score.

Hughes’ men started the second half in scintillating fashion when Berahino did well to find Jese inside the box and the attacker finished brilliantly past Cech to give City the lead they thoroughly deserved.

The Stoke win was emphatic:

City remained comfortable for the remainder of the match, with the Gunners hardly threatening.

Stoke City readers might wonder why if the Potters were such easy winners the team’s goalkeeper, Jack Butland, was Man of the Match, which he was.

What about the penalty Arsenal thought they should have been awarded in the first half?

No word on the Stoke City website, but as one write on the Stoke Sentinnel website Wenger a moaner and the “boy who cried wolf”, another notes “the referee’s failure to spot Mame Diouf’s first-half challenge for what should have been an obvious penalty“.

On BBC’s Match of the Day, pundit Jemaine Jenas says Arsenal should have had – get this – three penalties.

Such are the facts.

 



Posted: 20th, August 2017 | In: Arsenal, News, Sports Comment | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink