I don’t know how much of what follows is a reaction to the irritating tabloid tone of the article in question (Souness or Bryan Robson would do a better job as England manager than (Oh! the wit) “Sven-Borin’ Eriksson”? %Of course they would%), but here goes:
Yes, it was obvious before the season started that Chelsea would win the Premiership. And I can see that this would be a disappointment for neutrals, who are presumably after exciting, attacking play and a close title race.
On the other hand, the majority of fans that I know are not neutral, and most of them are far more concerned about their own team’s success than about the state of the Premiership in general. People complain about wages or Chelsea or Rooney, sure, but given a choice between a decent cup run for their own side or a close title race between teams they don’t support, I’m sure that virtually all fans would choose the former.
So I’d argue that Chelsea’s dominance would only really have a significant impact on supporters of Arsenal, Man Utd and maybe Liverpool - the only teams who might otherwise have started the season feeling they could win the league. But I presume that most Liverpool fans were happy with last season, and, speaking as an Arsenal supporter, I haven’t stopped caring. I may be enjoying it less than the last few years, perhaps. But this is my main criticism of the article: the writer, as a neutral, cares predominantly about how enjoyable the season will be. Most fans, for better or worse, know that being a football supporter has only a very tangential relationship with enjoyment. I’m not saying that I think Abramovitch is a good thing (although I might argue in favour of Mourinho), but simply that none of this makes a lot of difference to my relationship with my team or the game as a whole.
(Oh, and, as an aside, I really don’t think Chelsea are as boring as people as saying. Maybe this is a result of growing up with George Graham’s Arsenal, but I’d far rather watch them than, say, Bolton or Everton or Houllier’s Liverpool). |
