ManU is the most famous club in the world. They've earned that position. We have a good first half the season, we'll get more coverage. Especially when we consider the "See, you don't need oil billionaires. Look at Everton" angle that will be played ad infinitum.

But on the general subject of media coverage, what did amaze (and annoy) me was all the pre-season predictions for Top 6 (and I read as many of them as I could find both sides of the Pond) where Everton was ignored. Spurs and Newcastle proposed as givens. Even the Shite mentioned. But not us. THAT was strange.

Even if we are top after the first half of the season, we still won't get as much coverage as Man U, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal or Liverpool. That's just the way it has been for a decade and more. We aren't a fashionable london club, we don't have high-profile owners.

Look at what spurs did last season - all the media were interested in were the big 4.

If you want to get better media coverage, then you need to be top 4 material for a number of years. One swallow does not a summer make. We should just do it on the pitch and not worry about it.

It's just the way it is I'm afraid. The more we fly in the face of the pundits' predictions and beat the media darlings, the more coverage and respect we will get. It's funny though how a lot of pundits, ex-pros, journos and radio presenters now tip us to perhaps upset the apple cart.

I listen to TalkSport a lot in my work van and we were the name on everybody's lips to do a 'Newcastle' – even though they only did an 'Everton'!

A top 4 finish will see our coverage increase dramatically, it's up to the lads on the pitch though.

Don't be naive, the big story was to be 'RVP scores on debut' and that's what they were setting up for.

Just as James F says, Man U are the biggest club in the world and they have just signed one of the biggest names in world football.

When we are a better proposition we will get better coverage. After we finished 4th Cahill et al were on the Sky adverts and our profile grew but to expect any special treatment from the written press because we are the home team or to call this Man U propaganda is just paranoia.

The media hype permeates throughout - TV, print and online media. When one bears in mind that News International is a major shareholder of BSkyB, then it's easy to see why the NI media follow suit.

It wasn't that long ago that Man City were luckily getting out of the 3rd tier after a last-gasp comeback in a play-off final against the mighty Gillingham. A while ago I heard from a senior commercial exec at Man City that the Chairman loves the media hype that the club gets, as it's good for Abu Dhabi exposure (Etihad are one of 8 Abu Dhabi sponsors they have). They got over 3,000 global mentions daily (and this was before they won the league), and they lapped it up - even the negative stories about player / CEO behaviour!

Lots of companies use this, and TV exposure on the overseas TV deal, as a means for calculating their pay-back on sponsorship investment. The clubs at the top really push this with their numerous commercial partners.

New players can easily get on the bandwagon (Man City, and before them Chelsea). Traditional big names like Liverpool, Tottenham, can stick up and around there as long as they generate enough exposure. Liverpool could probably stay out of the Champs League for the next 10 years, and their global stock would remain high (CL games are middle of the night for large parts of Asia). Tottenham in their recent dalliance in the CL were able to get a separate shirt sponsor for that competition.

So with all of this at the top level of the game, it will of course permeate down to the coverage at national, regional and local level. We'd have no doubt got good coverage in the northern editions of the tabloids, but I can imagine the southern editions were all about Man U/RVP. T'was ever thus, even before the Sky TV "revolution", even when we were top of the pile!

Moyes doesn't help. He treats TV interviewers with undisguised disgust. Er, except when he's invited on TV as a pundit, when he's all smiles. Personally, I think he represent the club very badly in this respect and does a disservice to us, the fans, who like to know what's going on without being glared at.

The Southern editions of Tuesday's papers (that I read) were positive about our performance, although obviously Man Utd's defeat is a bigger story than Everton's win. Why? Because they are currently a more successful club and have many fans down south. Stands to reason.

I think people go overboard on this media conspiracy business. Some of it is just paranoia. Take Lawrenson: he is actually a very fair commentator on EFC, but some people despise him because he played for the other lot. Peter Reid is a rubbish pundit even though he shone for us. Great player, lousy media man.

"That's just the way it has been for a decade and more." - At least three decades and more by my reckoning, Jeremy, as the late seventies / early eighties is when I started to read the match reports and noticed the disparity between the national press (northern bases in Manchester) and the local media.

I was too young to see much of the careers of the likes of Law, Charlton and Best but I was very much aware of them because they were still mentioned regularly. If Man Ure got to the FA Cup final you would hardly hear anything about who they were playing against, it seemed.

As Matt says "T'was ever thus, even before the Sky TV "revolution", even when we were top of the pile!". Sunday mornings spent searching for Everton's (far and away the best team in the country in the mid-eighties) match report whilst a team we beat regularly and handsomely had their latest duel with another also-ran splashed across the back page and more. This is why I don't like the club, though I suppose media obsession is not necessarily their fault.

Peter Morris -

"I thought the media were supposed to report games from an unbiased perspective".

Whoever told you that? Have you ever read a 'newspaper', or heard of Fox News or the Sky4? These are for-profit businesses. They have no interest in 'truth', or justice or fairness. If the boss says support the Tories, that's what they do and if they want a report about ManUre, that's what they'll get.

Photographers are freelance. They only get paid for the pics that are published. They will always follow the 'bookies favourites'. That's what's called a free society. Freedom for the sharks, death for the minnows.

Anyway, sod 'em. Who won, and very well too!

Does anyone know of any journalists who can actually deliver football to a high standard to their readers/listeners/viewers? So long as football is anywhere people just lap it up, so standards aren't necessary. Mark Lawrenson in print/radio/tv a shining example. Him and that bloke from Robot Wars will have me turn off any game of football.

The premiership is Man U vs the rest, in Sky's eyes.
The entertainment model is basically Utd vs...
It's unbalanced coverage which by definition is bias. Sky, like all rag media just play the numbers. Utd have the biggest following so Sky know that keeping Utd fans happy is the main priority. Utd are presented as the good guys and everyone else is presented as the villains trying to stop Utd from claiming their glorious prize that is rightfully theirs. Too right it's propaganda and for you Drew #347 to accuse someone of paranoia for picking up on this is wrong.

ESPN Sportscenter had "highlights" of the game here in the US on Monday night. Showed all the United shots on goal, introduction of Van Persie, and one Everton clip - Fellaini's goal. Good to see Everton get on Sportscenter (it's rare), but would have appreciated some balance on the game footage.

Nick #378, at Uni a lecturer mentioned in one class that "the Mirror is a paper written for people with the intelligence of a 12 year old. The Sun for people with the intelligence of a 10 year old". I'm not sure I'd agree with him, but certainly at that time the printed media were all about selling copy, because circulation figures drove advertising rates.

If you compared then a tabloid to a broadsheet, tabloids were picture-heavy, word-light, and therefore wouldn't "develop an argument". The introduction of online media has meant many journalists are more visible - you are not restricted to the rag you buy. Even the sites with pay walls often put up articles for an hour or so as freeview, journo tweets about it, other journos re-tweet it, etc.

Therefore if you read across a large section of them, you'll find some are better than others. Ex-players who are good writers are as rare as hens teeth. The pundits the Beeb use are by and large a joke, and even with the pay cuts they've had to take, they are still over-paid. "Lawro" is probably the best of a bad bunch.

As you know commentary is different from radio to TV. Most TV commentators drive me crackers - I often will have the radio commentary over a TV feed. The only problem then is you can have a lag between them (but that can be useful if you are only half-watching!)

I'd say Mottie is one of the best commentators out there. Probably as comfortable on radio as TV, and there aren't many of those around. There are still some that wind me up, the "expert summarisers". David Pleat in particular with his deliberate mis-pronunciation of certain players names. I was once sat behind the radio commentators at Goodison (only seat available when I was working there on a matchday) and I berated him about it. This was 20 years ago and he hasn't changed.

TV commentators generally get on my wick! Mottie, for me, has too much of a tendency to go wandering off at a tangent while things are actually taking place on the pitch that he could legitimately comment on; too many others these days use ridiculous hyperbole - everything is 'brilliant', 'fantastic' or 'lovely' when it plainly is no more than average. One who has toned his style down a lot and is much improved for it is Jonathan Pearce.

Constantly have to (mentally) correct them anyway, as despite it being their job to watch the game and notice things their first observations often seem to be wrong.

Newspapers have always had some sterling reporters but if they aren't covering your team then the next level of reporting seems a much poorer second.

I honestly think that the media kept the Man U profile high during their mediocre periods and so have helped them maximise their profits and minimise their losses.

Kev, I disagree with you about Moyes representation of the club in interviews. Most managers handle them exactly as Moyes does. Fergie, Wenger, Mancini, those guys always look disgusted.

I've read quite a lot of your comments on these pages over the past few years and you appear to have your finger on the pulse when it comes to football matters in SE Asia / Middle East. Everton could do with your expertise and knowledge - you should drop Bobby Elstone an e-mail.

That was to Matt Traynor

Peter, #410, thanks for the confidence. However, I'm currently back in UK for a while so not really useful right now. I do know a lot of people out there, and which clubs are active, and I don't think Everton are to be honest. But the approaches taken by the clubs is really varied, some do it very well, some not so well. As with anything it's who you have representing you. There's commercial agents pretending they're football agents, and vice versa!

Matt, sorry but I can't stand John Motson one bit. All he says is 'oh, oh,oh.'
The best combo was always Tyler and Gray, the well spoken English gentleman and the growling Glaswegian.
That muppet Sam Matterface and annoying Brummie pleb Stan Collymore try replicating Andy Gray on TalkSport but sound like right twats. I quite like Clive Tyldesely off ITV, seems quite impartial and very knowledgeable, and Andy Townsend is ok as his Tonto.

Steven Sturm -

thank you for supporting my view of things with a bit of hard evidence. In the media (as in all life perhaps) there is no such thing as 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'.

James, I cant stand Andy Townsend! For me Stuart Hall is tops, Actually find Gary Neville quite good too. Did I really say that?

Let me guess about half of those were Japanese and another guess they weren't there to photograph Hibbert.

Worst commentator, bar none, has to be Alan Green.

Whenever I hear his voice I switch channels.

Agree Peter (539), can't bear him.

With regards to the OP, I wouldn't have it any other way. The joy of being Everton is that you're not the media darlings with all the hangers on and nonsense that comes with it. We're the second most famous team in a city who's best days were in the 19th century, yet we're the greatest club in the world.

I like that only we realise that.

I actually like Gary Neville's punditry (it's a word)/commentary. He genuinely seems knowledgable about the game unlike some others. I find ITVs whole setup just dreadful. Especially Carragher during the Euros. The BBC on the whole is tolerable, but only because it's great to see Hansen have to talk about the RS losing all the time...

Paul Mackie, the best thing that sky did for their football coverage was get rid of the old boys brigade Keys and Gray and bring Neville in. Considered, analysed, insightful, talks a great deal of sense.

As for those two on Talk Sport now its ust a continuation of this Old Boys and their cronies network.

This is not a recent phenomenon. It goes back at least to the mid-sixties. At that time the Daily Mirror was by far the circulation leader in the popular press (there was no Sun in those days) and there were two editions, one for the south printed in London and one for the north printed in Manchester (there was also the Daily Record, a Scottish version) I believe the southern edition was very favourable towards Spurs at the time.

Obviously, the Manchester version was the one we got and they had a chief football journo called Frank McGhee (now long dead) As far as Frank was concerned there was only club worth talking and writing about and that was Manchester United. I remember him reporting on an Everton league game shortly before the 1966 semi-final at Burnden Park against Man Utd. The report of our game was mainly about what United would have to do when playing us the following week if they expected to beat us (in fact they were the favourites) It read like a report from someone sent by ManU to provide a rundown on Everton.

McGhee was the worst offender but they also had another footy journo whose name I can't remember now but it was part of his job to manage a footy letters page once a week and he 'encouraged' me to write the one and only letter I have ever written to a newspaper about a sporting issue. This was after he stated in his column that Alan Ball had made a mistake in signing for Everton as he would never achieve his full potential with us! According to him he should have signed for Leeds or you know who.

My letter was very angry but, albeit much edited, he did print it with the comment....'such vitriol from an Evertonian' and left it at that!

It's always been the same. And that's how I like it these days!

Chip on shoulder stuff this the media go where the success and general interest is, when we were top dogs you couldn't open a paper without finding a story about us.

Till we start challenging and winning stuff that's the name of the game, and rightly so.

For me, Phil Thompson is by far the worst.

Absolute *@#t!!

Dave

On my first away trip to London in `66, I remember the older heads laughing when I couldn't understand why the back pages were not full of Everton but Spurs, Arsenal etc

And I remember the story of the London dailys' headlines "Spurs Sign Scott From Rangers" - only they hadn't and didn't, thanks to Harry "hush-hush" Catterick

“The Times” is for those that think football is only for poor people

“The Telegraph” is for those that think football is only the Sky 4

“The Guardian” is for those Lahndahn clubs who SHOULD be champions

“The Mirror” is for those Manchester clubs who SHOULD be champions

“The Sun” don’t care who is in the League, as long as they have big tits!

'Worst commentator, bar none, has to be Alan Green.' Thanks Peter.

Talk about opinion masquerading as fact - always attempting to belittle us, as any RS fan with his intelligence deficit would. Colin Murray, for example, is a Red, but good enough to handle that and be objective too. Green denies any affiliation but bias pours out of every pore.

Has he been on the radio this season? Might be ill. Nothing minor perhaps?

James Flynn,

I didn't see the word "Debt" included in comment 320.

James Benson 326, Just listen to Talk Sport, QPR get more chat than us. Ha Ha I think it's not about getting angry, It's about getting large amounts of dynamite.......

I did say, "fashionable london clubs". QPR will be thus.

London is fashionable. Any clubs from there will always attract good investment and high-profile owners. I think many people also fail to understand that "the south" (which is all within supporting range of london clubs) has a bigger populus than the rest of england. So there is a logical, and geographical, reason why london clubs end up in the media so much.

Dave Roberts - not disagree with your main thrust. However, the Sun did exist. It emerged from the ashes of the Daily Herald and was (initially) a tabloid in broadsheet form and ;iberal/left.

As for McGhee, he was one of battalion of pissed-up hacks who could drink Greaves, Moore et al under the table. There's a fantastic pic in a Foul annual of a hacks XI literally holding up McGhee above the caption

'Who did they play? What was the score? How many has Frank McGhee had?'

To be honest, it was more fun in those days, too.

James Benson 326, Just listen to Talk Sport, QPR get more chat than us. Ha Ha I think it's not about getting angry, It's about getting large amounts of dynamite.......

There is a lot of stereotyping that goes on in the media due to lazy journalism. The press as a whole are happy to portray us as plucky overachievers, struggling along in a charming old skool stadium with a fanboy chairman....

Lawrenson is rubbish, too much opinion presented as fact, no justification for his arguments. And smart arsed comments when summarising rather than any insight.

Gary Neville is superb. Insightful, detailed challenging and nearly always right.

Motson is a caricature of his style 10 years ago. Misses important details, fills in with shite stats, ,covers up his errors with od verbal tics - that dumb@ "ha!!"

Pleat gives excellent tactical analysis and is probably my favorite summariser.

I'm always amazed why BBC TV do not use the resources of BBC 5 Live for MOTD, football focus and live commentary. Expertise such as Pat Murphy, Jimmy Arnfield and some of the randomness of Stuart Hall.

I would like to see more of Stan Collymore and James Richardson.

Guy

I thought the Herald morphed into the Sun a bit later than that....but I stand corrected. Anyway, it wasn't the Sun we know and despise today was it!

Jeremy,

London is fashionable.

Is that fashionable as in David Hemmings. The film "Blow out"

London is only fash, because the media tell us that London is fash. Funny enough the London Media have never convinced me that London clubs are better than any North west football clubs. Havin said that, everyone who here's the radio this season GET the false sensationalise shite that the media are going to give you. It's that voice thats breaking down. Got much more to say but I cant be arsed. Clue,

It's how much you hear the word "absoloutley" It goes on and on and...........

J J

No Jon,

London is fashionable because it is the capital of this country and is one of the worlds top cities.

If it wasn't, it wouldn't attract millions of foreign tourists, as it does each year. Nor would it be one of the top 4 largest financial centres in the world. There is no conspiracy. To think that it isn't, or that the north-west competes on an equal footing, is a bit, well, sad really.

Just don't get me started on Jimmy Fucking Beglin.

How that twat still gets paid for spouting biased drivel is beyond me.

Agree with all of the above. The majority of UK TV coverage is dreadful. You only have to compare it with American sports coverage (NFL, baseball, baskeball ... Hmmm, not sure about soccer ...) which is insightful and consistently demonstrates a technical knowledge of the game that quite frankly, is light years ahead of the nobs commentating on UK footy programmes. Actually, it's embarrassingly more Advanced. Be interested to know what the USA bluenoses think.

A couple of points:

When Murdoch took over the Sun, it was around 1969 I think, the reports on midweek games ended at half-time because it was only printed in London.

I have heard the comments about US sports coverage before and seen some in the States. It is easy to be seduced into thinking that it is more technically informed but baseball is far more limited in variety and skills than cricket, pitching not-withstanding, and in tactics.

US football is much more static than ours and less technical than rugby union at its best I’d argue. And as for basketball, it is a massively skilful game but I have yet to see/hear any serious attempt to explain how particular tactical approaches to defence work and how offensive tactics can counter. They do produce loads of statistics though but as we saw on Monday they don’t tell the whole story.

When the idea of the Premier League was first mooted five clubs were first sounded out. Everton was one. Worth looking at the Telegraph article on this, yesterday I think, related to BT’s plan to link up with ITV for live games next season.

In the Sunday Telegraph, immediately after the Cup Final victory over MUFC, Henry Winter, still a “respected” writer on football matters, wrote that five clubs would now be so far ahead of everyone else that they would dominate English football in a way that the Glasgow Two did in Scotland. The five were EFC, LFC, MUFC, THFC and NUFC. That was the summer that Wenger was appointed. It was about the time when the TV money was escalating. It was before the time that the European Cup became the cash-rich Champions League.

Things change and money is a massive factor but managers make a difference. What will happen when Wenger goes? What will happen when Ferguson chucks it? How long will the Bedouins put up with Mancini and will the next guy guarantee success? Does anyone really think that AVB has got a hope in hell of turning round THFC after Harry saw the writing on the wall and bailed. How long will it take Rodgers and will the fans/yanks be prepared to be patient?

Denis (806) - With rare exception, the TV coverage here stinks. Cookie-cutter "analysts" who declare what's happening in the game as if we're not all sitting and watching the same damn thing. And the NFL is far and away the worst. Everything is "fantastic" or "brilliant" "great play", "That comes with great coaching and preparation". Oh, man! Have to say having Ian Darke and McManahan doing the EPL and US National Team commentating on ESPN is enjoyable. They're good.

But if you want the template for awful, watch the big fights on HBO. Jim Lampley is head and shoulders above any commentator in any sport for ruining the experience. He NEVER shuts up. Never. On boxing, the easiest sport for viewers to watch on TV. On top of that, he has 2 guys commentating with him. So, yes, there are more commentators than individuals participating in the sporting event.