National Newspaper reporting

[CanaryNut 0]

Much was said last week regarding a newspaper report of the City performance at Chelsea.

By contrast, today''s report in the ''Daily Telegraph'' gives a balanced and realistic account of the game against Spurs, as it has on all games this season.

The writer, David Miller, says that ''after two killer touches in the space of 4 minutes'' Norwich ''did not deserve to suffer'' in an ''enthralling game''. He praises both Worthy and Jol for their approach to the game and says he was watching, in his opinion ''two of the three most improved teams in the Premiership since the start of the season'' (the other being Everton). Hucks and Leon are described as ''relentlessly mobile''. He cites Norwich''s acheivement ''with the minimum raw material'', and emphasises that we are now down to the ''bare bones'' with yesterdays injuries, and ''teenage standbye''s'' will travel to Middlesboro for tomorrow''s game.

All in all a good report and it shows that at least one national paper knows what it is talking about! 

  

 

[Tilt 12]

Yeah - All reports were favourable

[no1canary 0]

thats good to hear. well we all know the standard of the daily star was crap anyway. that report just made it even worse.

[silver fox 0]

Simple enough to understand, read a quality newspaper and you will get quality reports by people who know something about football, read the daily star and you get reports from someone better qualified to report on blow football matches.

[Karl Pilkington 0]

I also thought the report in the Daily Mirror was very accurate (not a paper I would normally read, but give me a break, I''m at my parents for Christmas). The basic summary said that City were by far the better team and were very unlucky not to be well ahead at the break. If they had just taken there chances they would have won. Which is exactly what I thought.