Stretcharm 0 Posted April 22, 2011 Felt I needed to join to post this as I couldn''t see anything about it elsewhere.Can I just point out I am not a Daily Mail reader, I was just interested in reading the various reports about last night''s demolition of 1pswi5h.Got to Daily Mail''s report and was horrified at the ratings and the MOM award.Ipswich (4-1-4-1): Lee-Barrett 5; Edwards 5, McAuley 4, Delaney 5, O''Dea 5; Leadbitter 6; Carson 6, Norris 6, Bullard 7, Wickham 6; Scotland 6 (Drury 46min, 6). Norwich (4-3-1-2): Ruddy 6; R Martin 6, Ward 6, Whitbread 6, Tierney 6; Crofts 6, Fox 6 (Lansbury 76), Surman 6; Hoolahan 7 (Pacheco 84); Jackson 6, Holt 6 (Vokes 82). Booked: Fox, Whitbread, Tierney. Man of the match: Jimmy BullardRead more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1379398/Ipswich-1-Norwich-5-Its-blue-murder-Canaries-second-Old-Farm-rout.html#ixzz1KENwuTobSeriously, how can ONE Norwich player be given a 7 and everyone else be given 6, after we scored 5 goals away from home. Then to make matters worse, somehow, the idiot who wrote this piece gives the MOM to an 1pswi5h player just because he scored the best goal. If I had as many long shots as him in one game, one of mine would fly in eventually.However, this won''t spoil what was the best night I can remember for a long, long time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crabbycanary 2 Posted April 22, 2011 He obviously wasn''t there- or it was written by Jimmy Bullards Dad! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dean Coneys boots 1,531 Posted April 22, 2011 Or esle a reporter for the Mail is really, really hurting because they support a poor team! ; ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted April 22, 2011 Reporter is clearly a binner! Bullard did have a decent game though, I''ll give him that! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stretcharm 0 Posted April 22, 2011 Do these reports get proof read by higher authorities at newspapers? Surely somebody with half a brain could see it''s a ridiculous report! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chunky Norwich 0 Posted April 22, 2011 I blame the asylum seekers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stretcharm 0 Posted April 22, 2011 Oh dear, I''ve just realised the error in my 1pswi5h.What a tool! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Herman 11,135 Posted April 22, 2011 [quote user="Chunky Norwich"]I blame the asylum seekers[/quote][:D]I''m really surprised that the Daily M**l is capable of getting stuff completely wrong!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Joanna Grey 0 Posted April 22, 2011 On twitter; Exhausted after that! Thought 5-1 harsh on #ITFC but that #Norwich team is a clinical goal machine. Now to find the abandoned vehicle... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rivvo 265 Posted April 22, 2011 Quality bit of journalism, he completely missed out our third goal! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Doc 0 Posted April 22, 2011 This says it all:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfV3OuN57Bk(disclaimer - not for the easily offended or avid Daily Mail readers!) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birchfest 401 Posted April 22, 2011 What!? The Daily Mail producing something inaccurate and bias.... who would have thought!?!? [;)] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Joanna Grey 0 Posted April 22, 2011 You do realise that ''he'' is in fact Laura Williamson? Now, I''m not going to get all Andy Gray about the fact but... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pinks 0 Posted April 22, 2011 I see the narrative under Surman goal pic says he scord with a tap in.Thats crap for starters Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VegasCanary 0 Posted April 22, 2011 Well thats the Daily Mail at it''s finest, steaming load of bulls* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bury Yellow 2 Posted April 22, 2011 Well I''m a Daily Mail reader and don''t mind admitting it although I do read The Times so that makes me reasonably right wing in my politics. Oh I can''t stand The Guardian but that only exists thanks to BBC Staff advertising. Hope that upsets the usual leftiesAnyhow, I digress, the Mail''s sports coverage has always been poor and that woman reporter is a joke and she surely couldn''t have been there.BTW I listened to the recording of the R5 Live commentary and that was excellent and..... Mr Claridge was full of praise for the yellas Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bird Table 0 Posted April 22, 2011 Henry Winter was far more complimentary in The Torygraph..."If Norwich are to keep the second automatic ticket to ride the Premier League gravy-train, and Cardiff City and Reading will have something to say about that, or rise via the play-offs, then Lambert’s attractive side will be a delight to behold on the elite stage."http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/championship/8467817/Ipswich-Town-1-Norwich-City-5-match-report.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nobby 2 Posted April 22, 2011 The Torygraph report was indeed better, but just look at this quality bit of journalism for their championship team of the year:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/picturegalleries/8467076/The-10-best-footballers-in-the-Coca-Cola-Championship-in-pictures.html?image=7 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mason 47 1,921 Posted April 22, 2011 Even the picture directly above disproves saying ''Surman stroked the ball into an empty net''- there''s four Ipswich players between him and the goal! Also interesting to hear of RussMart drifting in from the left to score. I knew he was all-action but playing on both sides of the pitch is something else.One thing I''m noticing generally is that most non-Norwich accounts have Ipswich down as having much more possession and many more attempts on goal. Whilst this isn''t an untruth, I think it goes a bit deeper than that. As one commentary pointed out (I think it was Claridge on 5) we were quite happy to let Ipswich have the ball, and when anything started looking dangerous we closed them out which restricted them to speculative shots. Fair enough, when you have a player like Bullard there is a chance that one might get scuffed into the top corner [;)] but we did the same thing to Forest for the most part so it isn''t just a fluke. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badger 2,745 Posted April 22, 2011 If you are looking for truth and accuracy you wouldn''t go to the Daily mail for it - it is just an appallingly bad paper written solely for bigots.It is not a question of politics - The Times and Telegraph, for example, although right wing are no more inaccurate than the press as a whole. The Mail has few pretensions of being treated as a real newspaper and survives purely on a diet of prejudice that it feeds to its regulars and DVD offers that they use to bump up their circulation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zachariah Lovespoon 0 Posted April 22, 2011 i expect nothing less from the daily fail or any other of the nationals. gave up on them long ago for any sort of news if you''re not interested in gossip n scandal in peoples private lives there is no point to them Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
anothatracksuitmanager 0 Posted April 22, 2011 the same daily mail who ran thishttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1113507/The-best-players-world-Xavi--Ronaldo-crowned-king-football.htmlapparently they consider xavi not to beone of the best players in the world, enough said about their football knowledge. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hissing Sid 160 Posted April 22, 2011 I was more concerned when I saw the Mail''s back page headline in the City earlier:FERGIE WANTS WESLEYDid a double take on that one...turns out it''s about some bloke called Wesley Schneider!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
