Jordy Embarrassment in Perspective - Defending Alex Neil & Norwich's Result on Tyneside

[EEagle 0]

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/

[morty 0]

[quote user="EEagle"]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/[/quote]Sorry to be picky, but it''s "Geordie".

[......and Smith must score. 1,336]

Hi Eliot Eagle.Welcome to the message board.Gave your blog a read as asked. Pretty sensible response to the hysteria that generally follows any City reverse and would agree that the result on Sunday wasn''t a true reflection of the balance of play. I would say though that you''ve fallen into the trap of looking at things too simplistically. Football is full of "ifs ", " buts " and " maybes " and they tend to balance themselves out over time. For what it''s worth I think Norwich will still be a Premier League club this time next year.Would pick up on a few things :1. Must agree with Morty. An '''' aspiring writer and commentator '''' really should know it''s " Geordie " not " Jordy ".2. What is " highly beneficial " about us reading the blog ? Our comments about the piece ?3. Goals conceded DO matter. This result certainly will at the end of the season if we''re third from bottom and have a goal difference of three worse than the team above us.4. Contradictory statement over the Liverpool result. Saying " Norwich could''ve snatched a win at Anfield " then going on to say Ruddy " saved " the game doesn''t stack up.5. Oh, and there''s 38 games this season not 36....There''s hundreds of footie blogs swirling round on the internet and this needs a bit of fine tuning if it''s to rise nearer the top of the pile I''m afraid.

[EEagle 0]

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.

[TCCANARY 263]

 

1 & 5 are not ''honest mistakes'', they''re called not doing you''re research, if you continue posting lazy stuff like this and then claim the reader is ''befuddled'' when they disagree with your points no-one will read it. 

 

 

[morty 0]

I assume you were aiming for "thought provoking" with your "searching" questions, but the whole thing came across as a bit weak to me. No better than stuff you could read on any thread here.I know its not easy, but you have to find an angle that no one else is taking, and that really only stems from knowledge and good tactical analysis.Theres a fair few who blog on here, the standard is very high.

[Bannana Boy 30]

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.

[EEagle 0]

[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.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="EEagle"]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.[/quote]Just a general comment here mate. I find it odd to ask for people to

read and give feedback to a blog, but then get defensive

and dismissive when some pretty good constructive feedback is given.You learn a lot more using your ears, when compared to your mouth.

[Guest]

I think people will get the gist of your blog post. However, much of it doesn''t make sense. You confuse an argument with a statement on a few occasions.We get your general point because we fill in the gaps and guess what you were trying to say: Norwich didn''t play too badly and the scoreline wasn''t a fair reflection of Norwich''s overall possession or shooting stats. If you want my advice, next time try to be less pompous, pick a specific theme and stick to it, and imagine you are debating with a real person.  By the way, Russell Martin has scored three Premier League goals so far, not two (vs. Sunderland, Stoke & Liverpool).

[Lessingham Canary 99]

In my opinion Smith must score, got it right.

And I would add one other point, don''t provoke the "we love" Hughton camp, your feedback could take even more of a hammering !

Cue...................................

[morty 0]

Lol, this should serve as a warning to potential future bloggers.Its a tough, tough crowd here!

[......and Smith must score. 1,336]

Hi Eliot Eagle.Glad to see there''s been some more feedback

regarding your blog. I hope you have taken the comments constructively

for as others have mentioned it''s pointless asking for comments and then

being defensive when they aren''t to your liking. Again, as

someone also mentioned, as a new poster seeking a response it''s a good

idea to engage in a little introductory '' chit-chat '' when replying rather than just casually dismissing a poster as '''' befuddled ''''. Those that know me might well agree with your assessment but for those that don''t it''s a risky move if you want to get people on your side.Listening and responding appropriately to counter arguments even when you think they are wrong is not something you learn overnight. I suspect you''re fairly young so most on here will cut you a bit of slack but do take note of what people are saying with good grace and things will improve.Good luck.

[EEagle 0]

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.

[Hairy Canary 668]

When you ask for comments on a piece of work you get what you get - I''m afraid you don''t get to choose what the respondents feel are good or bad aspects. The fact that several on here have decided to pick you up on grammatical critique and factual errors is not something to be swept aside. You may not feel its important but your prospective audience obviously does. Whether you like it or not they are the areas you need to concentrate on.

For me I wasn''t bored which to be fair I often am with these things and overall quite enjoyed it. Big step from that to insightful and gripping but not a bad start at all.

Good luck with it.