EEagle

Appreciate all the feedback guys, definitely a learning curve. Would have liked to see less of a grammatical critique (though it is important) and a bigger focus on the actual arguments made (EG. Judging a team independent of their league position, Neil emanating Lambert, Ruddy and co''s form), but thanks again.

[quote user="Level 14 Binslayer"]6/10 I thought the prose was generally good but, as others have pointed out, there were several glaring mistakes. Honest or otherwise these make you sound ill-informed. The final paragraph was a bit unnecessary, and dare I say it, comes across as a little arrogant. There are plenty of city fans world-wide who, while disappointed by any defeat NCFC suffer, don''t immediately call for pitchforks, torches and a gibbet on Castle Meadow. My main criticism was that the content was light. There wasn''t anything new there. I didn''t struggle to read it, and I don''t think its utter tripe, but there was no originality. As has already been mentioned, if you''d like to break into football blogging (and then push on further into the industry surrounding the sport) then you need to do something different or have an original take on something. You need to show your audience that you know what you''re on about and aren''t just repeating the standard punditesque verbal-diarrhoea. By doing this you gain the authority to speak on matters and you start to develop a virtuous circle. "Would have preferred you to agree/disagree with the points raised but thanks for the reply." - Sorry, but you posted a link to your blog. You will receive criticism which is hopefully constructive. Instead of going on the defensive, perhaps take it with good grace. I hope you keep going, and I look forward to your next blog.[/quote] Really appreciate your response and yes, once again I apologise for the amateurish mistakes. On the point of originality - prior to writing that I hadn''t come across anything that defended the team, at least, not in that length. And I think I was offering something intuitive and contrary to the norm, and in all honesty I don''t know how to be more original than that - comparing Neil to Lambert, arguing that teams should be evaluated independent of their position etc. Nevertheless, really appreciate your feedback, thanks.

In response to your 5 points... 1. I agree, an honest mistake. 2. ''Highly beneficial'' - it''s a different perspective that counters the typically cynical, dejected response that comes after a Norwich loss (''refreshing'' may have been a better word but I still see it as being beneficial). 3. In the long run yes, goal difference is important but for now it is the result that matters and building on each performance (read the post again if you''re still befuddled). 4. A contradictory statement? Firstly, there were two statements (highlighting the plural), not just a ''statement'' as you erroneously put it. Would you disagree that Ruddy ''saved'' the game (winning a 1-on-1 with Coutinho was crucial in us walking away with a point)? And would you disagree that we could have snatched all three points when Jarvis'' shot from 5 yards out was saved by Mignolet? The prior comment is articulating that Norwich looked like conceding without Ruddy (which is true, Liverpool had endless chances to score), and the second is merely saying that we could have ''snatched'' a rare victory with one chance we had. 5. Another honest mistake. Would have preferred you to agree/disagree with the points raised but thanks for the reply.

If you could spare five minutes of your time to read through a recent blog post I made it''d be much appreciated, and highly beneficial I''m sure. https://elioteagle.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/newcastle-united-6-2-norwich-city-a-response-to-the-response/