Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
The saint

When saturday comes article on norwich

Recommended Posts

Yes, agree-ill informed and researched nonsense.

Claims Holt was a Lambert signing FFS.

Would be nice to think the "half decent" football magazine could find even some half decent writers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutley terrible report! Josh Clarke is utterly clueless!

1. Morison is 27 years old not 29.

2. Elliott Bennett is not ''Elliot''.

3. Holt was a Gunn signing.

4. ''last summer fans were complaining that Norwich didn’t have a squad capable of sustaining a Championship play-off push'' ... false!

5. ''The discontent is rooted in a transfer policy of buying “young and hungry” players'' ... discontent??? Rubbish!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Cantiaci Canary"]

Absolutley terrible report! Josh Clarke is utterly clueless!

1. Morison is 27 years old not 29.

2. Elliott Bennett is not ''Elliot''.

3. Holt was a Gunn signing.

4. ''last summer fans were complaining that Norwich didn’t have a squad capable of sustaining a Championship play-off push'' ... false!

5. ''The discontent is rooted in a transfer policy of buying “young and hungry” players'' ... discontent??? Rubbish!

[/quote]You read that much?[:D] I closed the window as soon as I read Lambert had signed Holt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What a load of rubbish... its one thing for it to be opinionated crap, but this is inaccurate and miss-representative of the majority of the the city fans. Frankly if I was in charge of that website I would want it taken off as its amature!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before everyone starts criticising what is the best football magazine out there, bear in mind the writer is a Norwich fan.

The vast majority of WSC articles are written by external contributors - it''s not the view of the editorial team. Sadly in this case the writer has taken it upon himself to represent the Norwich fanbase in this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite surprising that the writer is a Norwich fan given how utterly useless and inaccurate that ''article'' is.Unless, of course, he fancied gaining some attention over and above quality journalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="s10_yellow"]Before everyone starts criticising what is the best football magazine out there, bear in mind the writer is a Norwich fan. [/quote]I used to be a WSC subscriber but found the magazine increasingly elitist, out of touch and (presumably in an attempt to steer away from the "common ground" of mags like 442) boring and tedious but usually accurate.  I was surprised therefore to read an article which is inaccurate and apparently baseless in terms of truth.  Who really thought we were going for a play off campaign this season?  Who''s complaining at our signing strategy?  Where''s the dissent amongst the fan base?  It''s all garbage, frankly, and the author should be ashamed to call himself a City fan.  I''d be less surprised if you''d said he was a binner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree Mister Chops, WSC has gone so far up itself in recent years, it should have a slot on Radio 3. Takes itself far too seriously now, where-as its original ''brief'' was to be a football magazine that didn''t...

With 4-4-2 now more and more like a monthly version of Match Weekly, there aren''t so many good football magazines out there at the moment.

World Soccer anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Football magazine are increasingly pointless, there are some great websites, blogs and podcasts out there.Maybe it''d be nice for people to recommend some sites for general football coverage?

I really enjoy The Guardian Football Weekly podcast (though it doesn''t record during the close season). Great discussion twice a week mostly about Premier and European football but with the odd bit of lower league and wider world coverage. Hosted by James Richardson (the guy from Football Italia) and the panel with him is made up of (mainly) well informed journalists, including the occasional Norwich fan.

I also recommend:

zonalmarking.net for in depth tactical discussion. swissramble.blogspot.com for football business articles.

The Guardian''s website''s football coverage in general (particularly the daily rumour mill)

Anything written by Jonathan Wilson

and theseventytwo.com for Championship coverage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mahogany"]Football magazine are increasingly pointless, there are some great websites, blogs and podcasts out there.Maybe it''d be nice for people to recommend some sites for general football coverage?

 

 I really enjoy The Guardian Football Weekly podcast (though it doesn''t record during the close season). Great discussion twice a week mostly about Premier and European football but with the odd bit of lower league and wider world coverage. Hosted by James Richardson (the guy from Football Italia) and the panel with him is made up of (mainly) well informed journalists, including the occasional Norwich fan.

 

 I also recommend: zonalmarking.net for in depth tactical discussion. swissramble.blogspot.com for football business articles. The Guardian''s website''s football coverage in general (particularly the daily rumour mill) Anything written by Jonathan Wilson and theseventytwo.com for Championship coverage[/quote]

 

I''d second that, although the focus is very much on the Premier League and the three or four major continental leagues. In one pod last season James Richardson raised the question of the QPR third-party ownership case and there was a rather embarrassing silence, because none of the panellists knew anything about what was actually a serious issue.

 

Richardson''s rather arch style is not entirely to my taste, and the less heard from Barry Glendenning the better. Against that, Sid Lowe, their man in Spain, is brilliant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe it''s this Josh Clark

http://www.ex-canaries.co.uk/players/clarke.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Graham Humphrey"]Quite surprising that the writer is a Norwich fan given how utterly useless and inaccurate that ''article'' is.

Unless, of course, he fancied gaining some attention over and above quality journalism.
[/quote]

 

Did Wiz write it? [^o)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

s10_yellow wrote

Before everyone starts criticising what is the best football magazine out there, bear in mind the writer is a Norwich fan.

More like written by an ex Norwich City academy kiddie who was forced to give up the game early, obviously not a fan anymore

The article is full of mistakes and doesn''t represent us fans so make your feelings known at editorial@wsc.co.uk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Despite the silly mistakes regarding Morison''s age and Lambert buying Holt has he really said anything that hasn''t been said a million times on this message board?There have been some fairly major threads on here from fans saying we need players with Premier League experience, and there were certainly plenty of people on here who also said they didn''t feel Norwich could make the play-offs last year - didn''t most people say we would finish around 10th at the beginning of the season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It had me worried for a moment to think that we had paid nearly 3m for a unproven 29 year-old ... Pheeeeeew  [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
having read that article i doubt Josh Clarke could even find Norwich on a map.. its littered with errors that even someone with a passing interest in the club wouldn''t have made...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="cityangel"]

s10_yellow wrote

Before everyone starts criticising what is the best football magazine out there, bear in mind the writer is a Norwich fan.

More like written by an ex Norwich City academy kiddie who was forced to give up the game early, obviously not a fan anymore

The article is full of mistakes and doesn''t represent us fans so make your feelings known at editorial@wsc.co.uk

[/quote]That''s a bit sad isn''t it? Yes the article is crap, but everybody has an off day. Before rushing off to potentially lose this kid his writing gig, why not check out his other stuff and see if it is all rubbish? I bet I can find something in your 10000 posts that I completely disagree with, it doesn''t mean that I wouldn''t be interested in hearing your opinion again.It''s a footy blog, doesn''t cost you any money to read. There are hundreds more, you simply read another. Unless this magazine lands on your doorstep every month, with a paid subscription, then you can''t really be considered a customer... rather just another number. I can tell you that online writers are judged on their traffic stats. This may be his most read article yet, the editors aren''t going to give a monkeys if his page brings in 5000 hits today, seeing as that is where the money is with online stuff. I thought the article was pants, but I''d rather offer constructive criticism to the writer than snitch to his bosses like a little school kid telling the teacher. If somebody has a problem with you at work, would you rather they said it to your face or went and slagged you off to your boss? I''m sure he will see this thread, and learn from his mistake, there is no need to be a moaning minny complaining about an article on a blog that you probably wouldn''t even had read if it wasn''t shared on here. It''s a bit like getting a free tube of smarties and complaining because you didn''t get any red ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Larry David, certainly completed his wish of getting into sports journalism. Just a shame he is shit at it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="cityangel"]

s10_yellow wrote

Before everyone starts criticising what is the best football magazine out there, bear in mind the writer is a Norwich fan.

More like written by an ex Norwich City academy kiddie who was forced to give up the game early, obviously not a fan anymore

The article is full of mistakes and doesn''t represent us fans so make your feelings known at editorial@wsc.co.uk

[/quote]

That''s a bit sad isn''t it? Yes the article is crap, but everybody has an off day.

Before rushing off to potentially lose this kid his writing gig, why not check out his other stuff and see if it is all rubbish? I bet I can find something in your 10000 posts that I completely disagree with, it doesn''t mean that I wouldn''t be interested in hearing your opinion again.

It''s a footy blog, doesn''t cost you any money to read. There are hundreds more, you simply read another. Unless this magazine lands on your doorstep every month, with a paid subscription, then you can''t really be considered a customer... rather just another number. I can tell you that online writers are judged on their traffic stats. This may be his most read article yet, the editors aren''t going to give a monkeys if his page brings in 5000 hits today, seeing as that is where the money is with online stuff.

I thought the article was pants, but I''d rather offer constructive criticism to the writer than snitch to his bosses like a little school kid telling the teacher. If somebody has a problem with you at work, would you rather they said it to your face or went and slagged you off to your boss?

I''m sure he will see this thread, and learn from his mistake, there is no need to be a moaning minny complaining about an article on a blog that you probably wouldn''t even had read if it wasn''t shared on here. It''s a bit like getting a free tube of smarties and complaining because you didn''t get any red ones.
[/quote]

---

 

With respect, LeJuge, that is not really the point. It is his bosses who should have told him the article was poor. Not just mistaken-ridden, but boring and uninformative. WSC, as it says, is supposed to be half-decent. That piece should have been spiked and the writer told to go away and produce something worth reading. That is how he will learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="cityangel"]

s10_yellow wrote

Before everyone starts criticising what is the best football magazine out there, bear in mind the writer is a Norwich fan.

More like written by an ex Norwich City academy kiddie who was forced to give up the game early, obviously not a fan anymore

The article is full of mistakes and doesn''t represent us fans so make your feelings known at editorial@wsc.co.uk

[/quote]That''s a bit sad isn''t it? Yes the article is crap, but everybody has an off day. Before rushing off to potentially lose this kid his writing gig, why not check out his other stuff and see if it is all rubbish? I bet I can find something in your 10000 posts that I completely disagree with, it doesn''t mean that I wouldn''t be interested in hearing your opinion again.It''s a footy blog, doesn''t cost you any money to read. There are hundreds more, you simply read another. Unless this magazine lands on your doorstep every month, with a paid subscription, then you can''t really be considered a customer... rather just another number. I can tell you that online writers are judged on their traffic stats. This may be his most read article yet, the editors aren''t going to give a monkeys if his page brings in 5000 hits today, seeing as that is where the money is with online stuff. I thought the article was pants, but I''d rather offer constructive criticism to the writer than snitch to his bosses like a little school kid telling the teacher. If somebody has a problem with you at work, would you rather they said it to your face or went and slagged you off to your boss? I''m sure he will see this thread, and learn from his mistake, there is no need to be a moaning minny complaining about an article on a blog that you probably wouldn''t even had read if it wasn''t shared on here. It''s a bit like getting a free tube of smarties and complaining because you didn''t get any red ones. [/quote]

---

 

With respect, LeJuge, that is not really the point. It is his bosses who should have told him the article was poor. Not just mistaken-ridden, but boring and uninformative. WSC, as it says, is supposed to be half-decent. That piece should have been spiked and the writer told to go away and produce something worth reading. That is how he will learn.

[/quote]The only actual mistakes that he has made is to state that Lambert signed Grant Holt and that Steve Morison is 29 rather than 27. The rest is highly subjective, and perhaps a little controversial, but a complaint against that would be an ignorant belief that everybody shares our views. We know damn well that there will be people moaning about those things, we hear it on Canary call every week. As for the trivial mistakes, I see worse errors in the Evening News or dare I say it the Pink Un almost every week. In the Sun they have a habit of posting a picture of Wes Hoolohan and annotating it as ''Chris Martin'' every week. Steve Morison, by the way, was born on the 29th of the month. That is where that error has come from. As for Grant Holt, that was a bigger mistake, but we all know that Lambert tried to sign Holt and the confusion could have arisen from their. Even this morning when typing ''Norwich'' into Google News I noticed mistakes in articles. This article from today: http://www.adifferentleague.co.uk/p6_1_8588_paul-lambert-continuing-to-impress-at-norwich-city.html states that James Vaughan is 24, he is not he is 23. WSC writers are all freelancers by the way, they get paid peanuts, there are over 627 writers listed and Josh Clark isn''t one of them. Which suggests there are even more than that. There are 8 editors and 92 league clubs, so in order to spot every club specific error, they would need each editor to know absolutely every detail about 11 or 12 clubs. A quick search for ''Norwich'' on that site shows that they NEVER write about us, so a pile of rubbish is better than being completely ignored - as we were until promotion.I just can''t condone a witch hunt for something so damn trivial. We are sitting on the website of a company who reported that Lambert wanted to manage in Germany, remember? If we can forgive that without anybody getting the chop, then we can forgive somebody getting an age wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="cityangel"]

s10_yellow wrote

Before everyone starts criticising what is the best football magazine out there, bear in mind the writer is a Norwich fan.

More like written by an ex Norwich City academy kiddie who was forced to give up the game early, obviously not a fan anymore

The article is full of mistakes and doesn''t represent us fans so make your feelings known at editorial@wsc.co.uk

[/quote]

That''s a bit sad isn''t it? Yes the article is crap, but everybody has an off day.

Before rushing off to potentially lose this kid his writing gig, why not check out his other stuff and see if it is all rubbish? I bet I can find something in your 10000 posts that I completely disagree with, it doesn''t mean that I wouldn''t be interested in hearing your opinion again.

It''s a footy blog, doesn''t cost you any money to read. There are hundreds more, you simply read another. Unless this magazine lands on your doorstep every month, with a paid subscription, then you can''t really be considered a customer... rather just another number. I can tell you that online writers are judged on their traffic stats. This may be his most read article yet, the editors aren''t going to give a monkeys if his page brings in 5000 hits today, seeing as that is where the money is with online stuff.

I thought the article was pants, but I''d rather offer constructive criticism to the writer than snitch to his bosses like a little school kid telling the teacher. If somebody has a problem with you at work, would you rather they said it to your face or went and slagged you off to your boss?

I''m sure he will see this thread, and learn from his mistake, there is no need to be a moaning minny complaining about an article on a blog that you probably wouldn''t even had read if it wasn''t shared on here. It''s a bit like getting a free tube of smarties and complaining because you didn''t get any red ones.
[/quote]

---

 

With respect, LeJuge, that is not really the point. It is his bosses who should have told him the article was poor. Not just mistaken-ridden, but boring and uninformative. WSC, as it says, is supposed to be half-decent. That piece should have been spiked and the writer told to go away and produce something worth reading. That is how he will learn.

[/quote]

The only actual mistakes that he has made is to state that Lambert signed Grant Holt and that Steve Morison is 29 rather than 27. The rest is highly subjective, and perhaps a little controversial, but a complaint against that would be an ignorant belief that everybody shares our views. We know damn well that there will be people moaning about those things, we hear it on Canary call every week.

As for the trivial mistakes, I see worse errors in the Evening News or dare I say it the Pink Un almost every week. In the Sun they have a habit of posting a picture of Wes Hoolohan and annotating it as ''Chris Martin'' every week. Steve Morison, by the way, was born on the 29th of the month. That is where that error has come from. As for Grant Holt, that was a bigger mistake, but we all know that Lambert tried to sign Holt and the confusion could have arisen from their.

Even this morning when typing ''Norwich'' into Google News I noticed mistakes in articles. This article from today: http://www.adifferentleague.co.uk/p6_1_8588_paul-lambert-continuing-to-impress-at-norwich-city.html states that James Vaughan is 24, he is not he is 23.

WSC writers are all freelancers by the way, they get paid peanuts, there are over 627 writers listed and Josh Clark isn''t one of them. Which suggests there are even more than that. There are 8 editors and 92 league clubs, so in order to spot every club specific error, they would need each editor to know absolutely every detail about 11 or 12 clubs. A quick search for ''Norwich'' on that site shows that they NEVER write about us, so a pile of rubbish is better than being completely ignored - as we were until promotion.

I just can''t condone a witch hunt for something so damn trivial. We are sitting on the website of a company who reported that Lambert wanted to manage in Germany, remember? If we can forgive that without anybody getting the chop, then we can forgive somebody getting an age wrong.

[/quote]

 

---

LeJuge, I was trying to make the point that it wasn''t the mistakes that bothered me. It was much more that it was a piece that should have been thrown back at the writer. It is supposed to be about our transfer policy and how that has been affected by our finances. What the writer calls our "budgetary constraints". And yet there is not one single fact relating to our finances, to out supposed budgetary constraints, in the whole piece. Not one. Nothing about what our debt position is, or our debt repayment plan, or Foulger''s contributions. Or anything. No factual context at all. Just unsubstantiated asssertions. That is why it is such a poor piece of work. And should have been recognised as such by WSC.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="cityangel"]

s10_yellow wrote

Before everyone starts criticising what is the best football magazine out there, bear in mind the writer is a Norwich fan.

More like written by an ex Norwich City academy kiddie who was forced to give up the game early, obviously not a fan anymore

The article is full of mistakes and doesn''t represent us fans so make your feelings known at editorial@wsc.co.uk

[/quote]That''s a bit sad isn''t it? Yes the article is crap, but everybody has an off day. Before rushing off to potentially lose this kid his writing gig, why not check out his other stuff and see if it is all rubbish? I bet I can find something in your 10000 posts that I completely disagree with, it doesn''t mean that I wouldn''t be interested in hearing your opinion again.It''s a footy blog, doesn''t cost you any money to read. There are hundreds more, you simply read another. Unless this magazine lands on your doorstep every month, with a paid subscription, then you can''t really be considered a customer... rather just another number. I can tell you that online writers are judged on their traffic stats. This may be his most read article yet, the editors aren''t going to give a monkeys if his page brings in 5000 hits today, seeing as that is where the money is with online stuff. I thought the article was pants, but I''d rather offer constructive criticism to the writer than snitch to his bosses like a little school kid telling the teacher. If somebody has a problem with you at work, would you rather they said it to your face or went and slagged you off to your boss? I''m sure he will see this thread, and learn from his mistake, there is no need to be a moaning minny complaining about an article on a blog that you probably wouldn''t even had read if it wasn''t shared on here. It''s a bit like getting a free tube of smarties and complaining because you didn''t get any red ones. [/quote]

---

 

With respect, LeJuge, that is not really the point. It is his bosses who should have told him the article was poor. Not just mistaken-ridden, but boring and uninformative. WSC, as it says, is supposed to be half-decent. That piece should have been spiked and the writer told to go away and produce something worth reading. That is how he will learn.

[/quote]The only actual mistakes that he has made is to state that Lambert signed Grant Holt and that Steve Morison is 29 rather than 27. The rest is highly subjective, and perhaps a little controversial, but a complaint against that would be an ignorant belief that everybody shares our views. We know damn well that there will be people moaning about those things, we hear it on Canary call every week. As for the trivial mistakes, I see worse errors in the Evening News or dare I say it the Pink Un almost every week. In the Sun they have a habit of posting a picture of Wes Hoolohan and annotating it as ''Chris Martin'' every week. Steve Morison, by the way, was born on the 29th of the month. That is where that error has come from. As for Grant Holt, that was a bigger mistake, but we all know that Lambert tried to sign Holt and the confusion could have arisen from their. Even this morning when typing ''Norwich'' into Google News I noticed mistakes in articles. This article from today: http://www.adifferentleague.co.uk/p6_1_8588_paul-lambert-continuing-to-impress-at-norwich-city.html states that James Vaughan is 24, he is not he is 23. WSC writers are all freelancers by the way, they get paid peanuts, there are over 627 writers listed and Josh Clark isn''t one of them. Which suggests there are even more than that. There are 8 editors and 92 league clubs, so in order to spot every club specific error, they would need each editor to know absolutely every detail about 11 or 12 clubs. A quick search for ''Norwich'' on that site shows that they NEVER write about us, so a pile of rubbish is better than being completely ignored - as we were until promotion.I just can''t condone a witch hunt for something so damn trivial. We are sitting on the website of a company who reported that Lambert wanted to manage in Germany, remember? If we can forgive that without anybody getting the chop, then we can forgive somebody getting an age wrong. [/quote]

 

---

LeJuge, I was trying to make the point that it wasn''t the mistakes that bothered me. It was much more that it was a piece that should have been thrown back at the writer. It is supposed to be about our transfer policy and how that has been affected by our finances. What the writer calls our "budgetary constraints". And yet there is not one single fact relating to our finances, to out supposed budgetary constraints, in the whole piece. Not one. Nothing about what our debt position is, or our debt repayment plan, or Foulger''s contributions. Or anything. No factual context at all. Just unsubstantiated asssertions. That is why it is such a poor piece of work. And should have been recognised as such by WSC.

[/quote]So are you going to email the editors? I am just telling you why I am not going to email the editors, everybody else is at liberty to do so without the need to justify it on here and without the need to tell people that they have! Just not my cup of tea. I''d have to email Archant twice a week if I were to complain about every mistake or piece of sensationalism.... got better things to do :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As you mention elsewhere LeJuge there were a couple of errors around age and Holts signing.  Otherwise most of what is written is purely - as you say - subjective and not without grounds.  Are we in the same position as Wolves regarding signings - simple answer is no, theyve had a couple of years in the Prem now and therefore will have more money in the bank.  Its a bit like a kid being given a tenner a week pocket money - the first week they get it they can only afford a couple of small toys and some sweets.  Save a bit each week and by week 3 you''ve got a reasonable amount to spend on bigger toys and so on.  People expecting a ''Marquee'' signing and to see us competing with Wolves, Sunderland and even Wigan need a bit of a reality check

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="LeJuge"]

So are you going to email the editors? I am just telling you why I am not going to email the editors, everybody else is at liberty to do so without the need to justify it on here and without the need to tell people that they have! Just not my cup of tea. I''d have to email Archant twice a week if I were to complain about every mistake or piece of sensationalism.... got better things to do :)
[/quote]

 

---

 

No. Of course not. Because WSC is not a publication I read. I only looked at this piece because someone posted the link. If WSC was a publication I cared about, and valued, like - say - the Swiss Ramble - I might email the editor. But not over a piece of writing that gives me no reason to think I should be spending time reading a publication I currently don''t.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When Saturday Comes

we''ll probably be waiting until the evening to watch the game

...... or hanging about until Sunday lunchtime, if not Sunday afternoon

so When Saturday Comes

it maystill be another couple of days (and more) before we get to watch the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×