Quote Wellsy13="Wellsy13"But it only gives one side of a story, and makes people think of it as negative first. I'd be equally annoyed if he'd been leading questions from the opposing view. It's just poor journalism. Questions could have been answered just as easily from a neutral point of view.
All it does is make the person asking the questions seem stupid (as his opinion-led question is ultimately always wrong). Or it just gives the impression that the majority of the audience are negative cynicals.
.'"
Don't get me started on SKY questions. It drives me nuts after the game when they "interview" a player or two. Bill Arthur doesn't ask questions, he just makes statements which leave the players with nowhere to go.
Eg :
"They really made you work hard out there."
"You must be pleased with that performance."
"Your forward pack really laid the platform there."
"That was a tough local derby"
"You had to really dig deep in the second half."
I'd love it if Bill would just once ask open-ended questions :
"Who do you think was your best player today ?"
"What was the turning point of the game ?"
"Did the opposition do anything which surprised you ?"
That sort of thing. I'd like genuine player views, not just repeated cliches following a Bill statement. You may as well just put Bill in front of the camera and have him read his crib sheet of 15 meaningless statements.
Grrr.
"Who
only 'Future Grass' can handle the mighty Vikings 
'"
