|
|
Post by disguiselee on Feb 10, 2008 12:50:31 GMT 1
Since when have we been naming names in the match reports to put blame on certain players for mistakes made. Will we be saying that a certain forward made a pigs ear of things by missing a sitter from 2 yards out or that another gave the ball away in an area where the opposition had a clear run on goal. I think not and I don't think it was nenecessary to do so for yesterdays game, and publish it in the paper as well, I would hate to think it was done for some ulterior motive at this sensitive time.
|
|
rev
League Two
Posts: 151
|
Post by rev on Feb 10, 2008 15:46:45 GMT 1
dont know what the team was but i suppose that your ossett trio may have been cuptied so youll have missed their class and been left with your money spiders with large contracts paypackets and egos
|
|
|
|
Post by otleybard on Feb 10, 2008 20:42:10 GMT 1
Sorry, but I've got to jump in on John C's behalf on this one.
The Non-League Paper, the foremost publication of its kind, uses correspondents from each club to report on what takes place in the club's home games. In Guiseley's case, the report is also published on the website. Regular readers rely on the match reports to find out details of games they haven't seen. With the correspondents generally being fans or even officials of the club concerned, there can sometimes be a degree of bias that the discerning reader will take into account.
However, using such bias to airbrush out entire incidents would be a degree of spin that even Alistair Campbell would hesitate to use. Everybody in the ground yesterday saw what happened for Eastwood's second goal, and to describe it any other way would be dishonest and unfair to all concerned.
As the person responsible for the long and over-wordy rants that occasionally appear on the main site in the guise of away match reports I have to declare an interest, but I always try to include facts (as I see them through my Guiseley-coloured spectacles, obviously). As I'm writing for fellow supporters who haven't been at the match, I'll add my own opinions, which Rachel will wisely edit out if she uses the piece as a basis for the WAO report.
Nothing is more enjoyable than reporting James's blinding twenty-yarder, Danny's goal-saving tackle or Dicko's breathtaking catch. But to fail to mention the skied sitters, misplaced passes and defensive howlers would devalue the whole report and would do no real favours to those involved.
And as for accusing John of an ulterior motive...
I really think an apology is called for.
|
|
|
|
Post by adambrid on Feb 10, 2008 21:53:40 GMT 1
Lol
AB
|
|
|
|
Post by bigj on Feb 11, 2008 9:55:11 GMT 1
Thanks OB. No hidden agenda I can assure you but if individual howlers lead to us conceeding unnecessary goals then I think its only right that those facts are included in the match report; as would be any misses from two yards out. Come to think of it ,not too sure how you could describe the second and fourth goals any other way.
|
|
|
|
Post by adambrid on Feb 11, 2008 19:29:42 GMT 1
Yeh but it says john swift scored it was bettsy not swift!!
AB
|
|
|
|
Post by worldlywise on Feb 12, 2008 15:37:57 GMT 1
Since when have we been naming names in the match reports to put blame on certain players for mistakes made. Will we be saying that a certain forward made a pigs ear of things by missing a sitter from 2 yards out or that another gave the ball away in an area where the opposition had a clear run on goal. I think not and I don't think it was nenecessary to do so for yesterdays game, and publish it in the paper as well, I would hate to think it was done for some ulterior motive at this sensitive time. I think you've now had an answer to this and it doesn't or won't detract from the fact that the decision to replace Dicko is the right one. An opportunity was there on saturday to stake his claim for his shirt back. sounds like he missed it.....along with a couple of crosses, shots...... |
|
|
|
Post by adambrid on Feb 12, 2008 20:50:57 GMT 1
lol
AB
|
|
